Discussion:
British v. American English
(too old to reply)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-11 16:32:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.

http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818

[the page, it says, is currently being renovated, so wait an hour]
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-11 22:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:

> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
>
> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818

Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Death is not an experience. :||
Jack Campin
2017-10-11 23:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
> British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!

How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
distinctively American usage we can trace?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Ross
2017-10-12 00:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 12:41:59 PM UTC+13, Jack Campin wrote:
> > In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
> > British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
>
> How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
> distinctively American usage we can trace?
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
> Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
> mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin

Distinctive American lexicon goes back almost to the earliest English
settlement, certainly in the form of borrowings from the indigenous
languages. I think non-borrowed vocabulary that takes on a distinctive
sense in America begins to be noticed in the late 18th century or thereabouts.
E.g. "calculate" in OED:

7. U.S. colloq. To think, opine, suppose, ‘reckon’; to intend, purpose.
1805 Z. M. Pike Sources Mississippi II. 152 We had reason to calculate,
that they had good guides.

Presumably in this early period colonialisms were negatively viewed by
home-country speakers, and indeed by many Americans. A nice quote from
OED s.v. "Americanism":

1810 in Mem. J. H. Payne (1815) 64 Several persons on the stage
give offence in the pronunciation of the pronoun possessive my—speaking
it in all cases with the full open y... This is a pure Americanism, not practised in any other place where the English language is spoken.

I assume the "offence" is saying [mai] rather than [mI].

But as to when British speakers began to worry about American _influence_
on their own dialect...maybe the new book will have something to say about
that.
Dingbat
2017-10-12 01:49:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 6:06:30 AM UTC+5:30, Ross wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 12:41:59 PM UTC+13, Jack Campin wrote:
> > > In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
> > > British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> >
> > How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
> > distinctively American usage we can trace?
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
> > Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
> > mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
>
> Distinctive American lexicon goes back almost to the earliest English
> settlement, certainly in the form of borrowings from the indigenous
> languages. I think non-borrowed vocabulary that takes on a distinctive
> sense in America begins to be noticed in the late 18th century or thereabouts.
> E.g. "calculate" in OED:
>
> 7. U.S. colloq. To think, opine, suppose, ‘reckon’; to intend, purpose.
> 1805 Z. M. Pike Sources Mississippi II. 152 We had reason to calculate,
> that they had good guides.
>
> Presumably in this early period colonialisms were negatively viewed by
> home-country speakers, and indeed by many Americans. A nice quote from
> OED s.v. "Americanism":
>
> 1810 in Mem. J. H. Payne (1815) 64 Several persons on the stage
> give offence in the pronunciation of the pronoun possessive my—speaking
> it in all cases with the full open y... This is a pure Americanism, not practised in any other place where the English language is spoken.
>
> I assume the "offence" is saying [mai] rather than [mI].

"myself" sometimes has an alternate spelling of "meself". The former is more common. The latter is positively rare, so it must be the deviant variant.

> But as to when British speakers began to worry about American _influence_
> on their own dialect...maybe the new book will have something to say about
> that.
Ross
2017-10-12 02:17:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 2:49:26 PM UTC+13, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 6:06:30 AM UTC+5:30, Ross wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 12:41:59 PM UTC+13, Jack Campin wrote:
> > > > In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
> > > > British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > >
> > > How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
> > > distinctively American usage we can trace?
> > >
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
> > > Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
> > > mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
> >
> > Distinctive American lexicon goes back almost to the earliest English
> > settlement, certainly in the form of borrowings from the indigenous
> > languages. I think non-borrowed vocabulary that takes on a distinctive
> > sense in America begins to be noticed in the late 18th century or thereabouts.
> > E.g. "calculate" in OED:
> >
> > 7. U.S. colloq. To think, opine, suppose, ‘reckon’; to intend, purpose.
> > 1805 Z. M. Pike Sources Mississippi II. 152 We had reason to calculate,
> > that they had good guides.
> >
> > Presumably in this early period colonialisms were negatively viewed by
> > home-country speakers, and indeed by many Americans. A nice quote from
> > OED s.v. "Americanism":
> >
> > 1810 in Mem. J. H. Payne (1815) 64 Several persons on the stage
> > give offence in the pronunciation of the pronoun possessive my—speaking
> > it in all cases with the full open y... This is a pure Americanism, not practised in any other place where the English language is spoken.
> >
> > I assume the "offence" is saying [mai] rather than [mI].
>
> "myself" sometimes has an alternate spelling of "meself". The former is more common. The latter is positively rare, so it must be the deviant variant.

I don't know what you mean by "deviant" here.

"Meself" represents an alternative pronunciation, not just alternate spelling.
Middle English /mi:/ develops regularly into modern English /mai/ spelled <my>.
But at least from the 1600s we find the spelling <me> which apparently
represents a weak (unstressed) form ME /mi/. The pronunciation /mI/ was given
in OED as an acceptable alternative as late as 1908. And the above quote
shows that in 1810 some people considered _not_ using it an "offence". It's
still common, but tends to be relegated to "dialect" status.
Lewis
2017-10-12 02:17:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <bogus-***@four.schnuerpel.eu> Jack Campin <***@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
>> British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!

> How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
> distinctively American usage we can trace?

I bet it's in Shakespeare!

--
Reality is a curve. That's not the problem. The problem is that there
isn't as much as there should be. According to some of the more mystical
texts in the stacks of the library of Unseen University - (...) - at
least nine-tenths of all the original reality ever created lies outside
the multiverse, and since the multiverse by definition includes
absolutely everything that is anything, this puts a bit of a strain on
things. --Moving Pictures
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 03:19:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 7:41:59 PM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:

> > In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
> > British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
>
> How far back can we go beyond that? What is the earliest
> distinctively American usage we can trace?

The first sizable study of Americanisms was done by Schele de Vere of the
University of Virginia in the 1870s.
Ross
2017-10-12 00:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:11:01 AM UTC+13, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> >
> > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
>
> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> --
> --- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net
>
> ||: Death is not an experience. :||

Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
to be coming from, either.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 03:19:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:11:01 AM UTC+13, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> > > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > >
> > > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> >
> > Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > --
> > --- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net
> >
> > ||: Death is not an experience. :||
>
> Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
> to be coming from, either.

From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
Ross
2017-10-12 05:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:19:46 PM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:11:01 AM UTC+13, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > > >
> > > > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> > >
> > > Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > > authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > > than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > > complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > > --
> > > --- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net
> > >
> > > ||: Death is not an experience. :||
> >
> > Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
> > to be coming from, either.
>
> From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
> sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.

I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
them.

Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
either sort of person?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:56:42 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:19:46 PM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:11:01 AM UTC+13, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:

> > > > > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > > > > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> > > > Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > > > authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > > > than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > > > complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > > Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
> > > to be coming from, either.
> > From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
> > sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
>
> I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
> on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
> them.
>
> Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
> scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
> either sort of person?

Because they don't like objective studies that disturb their prejudices.

See e.g. the reaction from certain persons to the simple facts about where people get the accents
they end up settling down with.
Ross
2017-10-12 19:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 12:37:35 AM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:56:42 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:19:46 PM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:11:01 AM UTC+13, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > > > > > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > > > > > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> > > > > Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > > > > authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > > > > than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > > > > complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > > > Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
> > > > to be coming from, either.
> > > From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
> > > sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
> >
> > I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
> > on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
> > them.
> >
> > Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
> > scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
> > either sort of person?
>
> Because they don't like objective studies that disturb their prejudices.

Yes, I have noticed this on both sides.

> See e.g. the reaction from certain persons to the simple facts about where people get the accents
> they end up settling down with.

I think they reacted badly to a dogmatic pronouncement from you. Further
discussion led to a much more complex picture of where accents come
from.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 20:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:09:46 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 12:37:35 AM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 1:56:42 AM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 4:19:46 PM UTC+13, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 8:27:20 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 11:11:01 AM UTC+13, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > > > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:

> > > > > > > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > > > > > > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> > > > > > Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > > > > > authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > > > > > than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > > > > > complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > > > > Being a linguist, I can't understand where the distress is suppoed
> > > > > to be coming from, either.
> > > > From the chauvinistic readers of AUE, of course. The ones who used to invade
> > > > sci.lang to bitch about Americanisms.
> > > I haven't seen much from those people in recent years. There are people
> > > on the other side who have a similar attitude, but I'd rather not name
> > > them.
> > > Anyhow, the book, from the announcement you linked to, seems to be a
> > > scholarly, objective study of the matter. Why would that distress
> > > either sort of person?
> > Because they don't like objective studies that disturb their prejudices.
>
> Yes, I have noticed this on both sides.
>
> > See e.g. the reaction from certain persons to the simple facts about where people get the accents
> > they end up settling down with.
>
> I think they reacted badly to a dogmatic pronouncement from you. Further
> discussion led to a much more complex picture of where accents come
> from.

Which differed only in level of detail.
Dingbat
2017-10-12 03:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> >
> > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
>
> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!

Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
(not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
Jack Campin
2017-10-12 09:26:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>> In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler complain that
>> British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership?

In his early work, neither. He began by writing for a series of
paperbacks sold at station bookstalls on the Indian railways,
and the language uses a lot of "hobson-jobson".

I think his first book aimed at a non-Indian audience was "The
Light that Failed" - I don't recall anything un-British about
it, but I wouldn't have been looking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 at 11:27:05 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:

> > > An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > > http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> > Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
>
> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
> (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?

?

Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing how? -- for sale in, say, London
and New York?

In the 1960s I occasionally saw a copy of Gramophone, the British magazine that filled the same
ecological niche as High Fidelity or Stereo Review. It was quite different.

A few weeks ago, I got sample copies of the Stanley Gibbons Stamp Monthly and Linn's Monthly
Stamp News. Again, very different approaches to the same content.

How would a bi-dialectal magazine work?
Jack Campin
2017-10-12 11:45:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>> a single edition for both markets?
> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?

Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
is a truly international one like tennis or golf.


> How would a bi-dialectal magazine work?

Spelling and grammar checkers could sort out most "dialect" problems.
It's less straightforward to tell when your copy mentions somebody
your readership has never heard of. I'd guess most UK news media
had to start their reportage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal by
explaining who he was (I'd never heard of him until a week ago).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 11:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 7:45:59 AM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:

[no, he did not, but falsification of attributions is quite popular these days]
> >> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
> >> a single edition for both markets?
> > Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
> > how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>
> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.

Please name a magazine that has such editions.

> > How would a bi-dialectal magazine work?
>
> Spelling and grammar checkers could sort out most "dialect" problems.
> It's less straightforward to tell when your copy mentions somebody
> your readership has never heard of. I'd guess most UK news media
> had to start their reportage of the Harvey Weinstein scandal by
> explaining who he was (I'd never heard of him until a week ago).

Please name a magazine that has such editions.
Jack Campin
2017-10-12 12:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>>>> a single edition for both markets?
>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
>>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
>> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
>> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
> Please name a magazine that has such editions.

Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
Time. Marvel and DC comics.

Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
be one.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Richard Tobin
2017-10-12 12:54:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <bogus-***@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
Jack Campin <***@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
>when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
>Time. Marvel and DC comics.

>Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.

I don't think there's a separate UK edition of Scientific American.

-- Richard
RH Draney
2017-10-12 13:35:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/12/2017 5:47 AM, Jack Campin wrote:
>>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>>>>> a single edition for both markets?
>>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
>>>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>>> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
>>> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
>>> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
>> Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>
> Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
> when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
> Time. Marvel and DC comics.
>
> Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
> I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
> at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
> be one.

Let me add: Wired...I can get both the US and UK editions at the
bricks-and-mortar bookstore, but can subscribe only to the US
version...while they cover many of the same stories, the entire layout
is different....r
Paul Wolff
2017-10-12 15:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, RH Draney <***@cox.net> posted:
>On 10/12/2017 5:47 AM, Jack Campin wrote:
>>>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>>>>>> a single edition for both markets?
>>>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
>>>>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>>>> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
>>>> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
>>>> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
>>> Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>> Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
>> when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
>> Time. Marvel and DC comics.
>> Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
>> I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
>> at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
>> be one.
>
>Let me add: Wired...I can get both the US and UK editions at the
>bricks-and-mortar bookstore, but can subscribe only to the US
>version...while they cover many of the same stories, the entire layout
>is different....r

Different wiring regulations, innit.
--
Paul
Sam Plusnet
2017-10-12 21:03:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12-Oct-17 16:03, Paul Wolff wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017, RH Draney <***@cox.net> posted:
>> On 10/12/2017 5:47 AM, Jack Campin wrote:
>>>>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>>>>>>> a single edition for both markets?
>>>>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
>>>>>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>>>>> Different adverts, for a start.  And sports celebrities one side of
>>>>> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
>>>>> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
>>>> Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>>>  Vanity Fair.  Cosmopolitan.  Scientific American.  Readers Digest,
>>> when it was still going.  New York Review of Books.  New Yorker.
>>> Time.  Marvel and DC comics.
>>>  Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
>>> I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
>>> at any local newsstand would tell you.  The Economist would probably
>>> be one.
>>
>> Let me add: Wired...I can get both the US and UK editions at the
>> bricks-and-mortar bookstore, but can subscribe only to the US
>> version...while they cover many of the same stories, the entire layout
>> is different....r
>
> Different wiring regulations, innit.

Bravo!

--
Sam Plusnet
Janet
2017-10-12 14:16:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <bogus-***@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
***@purr.demon.co.uk says...
>
> >>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
> >>>> a single edition for both markets?
> >>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
> >>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
> >> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
> >> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
> >> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
> > Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>
> Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
> when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
> Time. Marvel and DC comics.

The Economist, Time.

" 19 Puzzling Differences Between "Time" Magazine U.S. And
International Covers

There may be a reason why Americans don't know very much about
international news. The U.S. editions of Time magazine are often a
little...different from the ones that go out to the rest of the world. "

examples

https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/19insert-word-here-differences-
between-time-magazine-us-and?utm_term=.iglzdmlldq#.pgPNZqrrZD

Janet.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 15:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:16:19 AM UTC-4, Janet wrote:
> In article <bogus-***@four.schnuerpel.eu>,
> ***@purr.demon.co.uk says...
> >
> > >>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
> > >>>> a single edition for both markets?
> > >>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
> > >>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
> > >> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
> > >> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
> > >> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
> > > Please name a magazine that has such editions.
> >
> > Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
> > when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
> > Time. Marvel and DC comics.
>
> The Economist, Time.
>
> " 19 Puzzling Differences Between "Time" Magazine U.S. And
> International Covers
>
> There may be a reason why Americans don't know very much about
> international news. The U.S. editions of Time magazine are often a
> little...different from the ones that go out to the rest of the world. "
>
> examples
>
> https://www.buzzfeed.com/ellievhall/19insert-word-here-differences-
> between-time-magazine-us-and?utm_term=.iglzdmlldq#.pgPNZqrrZD

Magazines Over Here can be printed with different covers on the same issue.
Sometimes it's for mailed vs. newsstand purchases. Sometimes it's for test-
marketing. Sometimes it's to quadruple sales to collectors (that goes for
TV Guide. I wonder whether they still do it.).
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 14:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/12/17 6:47 AM, Jack Campin wrote:
>>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>>>>> a single edition for both markets?
>>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
>>>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>>> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
>>> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
>>> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
>> Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>
> Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
> when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
> Time. Marvel and DC comics.
>
> Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
> I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
> at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
> be one.

I'm pretty sure /The Economist/ doesn't Americanize anything in copies
sent to America.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-12 15:18:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 8:47:39 AM UTC-4, Jack Campin wrote:

> >>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
> >>>> a single edition for both markets?
> >>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
> >>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
> >> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
> >> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
> >> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
> > Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>
> Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
> when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
> Time. Marvel and DC comics.
>
> Those are all US-originated magazines published in UK editions.
> I wouldn't know about the converse but if you're in the US, looking
> at any local newsstand would tell you. The Economist would probably
> be one.

I have occasionally looked at The Economist and seen nothing to suggest that it
had been altered from the original edition.

Do the "UK editions" differ in anything but the advertising?
John Dunlop
2017-10-12 16:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels:

> I have occasionally looked at The Economist and seen nothing to
> suggest that it had been altered from the original edition.
>
> Do the "UK editions" differ in anything but the advertising?

According to this source at The Economist, the order of presentation is
different and the covers are sometimes different, but the content is the
same, with the exception of a few extra pages of British stories in the
UK edition:

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-different-regional-editions-of-The-Economist-Electronic-and-print

http://tinyurl.com/ybos6a3t

--
John
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 21:45:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:32:51 AM UTC-6, John Dunlop wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > I have occasionally looked at The Economist and seen nothing to
> > suggest that it had been altered from the original edition.
> >
> > Do the "UK editions" differ in anything but the advertising?
>
> According to this source at The Economist, the order of presentation is
> different and the covers are sometimes different, but the content is the
> same, with the exception of a few extra pages of British stories in the
> UK edition:
>
> https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-different-regional-editions-of-The-Economist-Electronic-and-print
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ybos6a3t

Okay, I reckon (as the /Economist/ writers say) I was wrong.

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-12 16:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:47:23 +0100, Jack Campin <***@purr.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published
>>>>> a single edition for both markets?
>>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions -- differing
>>>> how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>>> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side of
>>> the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the sport
>>> is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
>> Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>
>Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
>when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
>Time. Marvel and DC comics.

Some magazines may have different content in US and UK (and other)
editions.
I've just looked at the September 2000 UK printed edition of Scientific
American and compared it with the online edition. The contents lists are
identical except for the page numbers. Adverts are not present in the
online version, but their absence is deducible from the pages not
included. The contents list puts the "End Point" cartoon [1] on page 92
in the UK print edition and on page 112 in the online (US) version.

[1] Two men are walking away from a building marked "Think Tank". One
says to the other "Perhaps, Hatten, you'd be happier at a guess tank."

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
GordonD
2017-10-12 17:11:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2017 13:47, Jack Campin wrote:
>>>>> Which was the first popular (not scholarly) journal that
>>>>> published a single edition for both markets?
>>>> Are there magazines that have two different editions --
>>>> differing how? -- for sale in, say, London and New York?
>>> Different adverts, for a start. And sports celebrities one side
>>> of the pond are almost always nobodies on the other, unless the
>>> sport is a truly international one like tennis or golf.
>> Please name a magazine that has such editions.
>
> Vanity Fair. Cosmopolitan. Scientific American. Readers Digest,
> when it was still going. New York Review of Books. New Yorker.
> Time. Marvel and DC comics.


DC Comics doesn't publish British editions. There are comics published
by Titan Books in the UK which reprint the stories but they're
effectively completely different otherwise.

--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 14:58:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/11/17 9:27 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>>
>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
>>>
>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
>>
>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
>> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
>> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
>> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
>
> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
> (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?

The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.

https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25

--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-10-12 16:46:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:58:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 10/11/17 9:27 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
>>>>
>>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
>>>
>>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
>>> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
>>> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
>>> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
>>
>> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
>> (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
>
>The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
>manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
>considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
>writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
>
>https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25

"remorseless and scientific efficiency". So much like your own dear
President.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-12 21:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 10:46:16 AM UTC-6, PeterWD wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 08:58:47 -0600, Jerry Friedman
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 10/11/17 9:27 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> >> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> >>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> >>>
> >>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> >>> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> >>> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> >>> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> >>
> >> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
> >> (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
> >
> >The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
> >manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
> >considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
> >writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
> >
> >https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
>
> "remorseless and scientific efficiency". So much like your own dear
> President.

One out of three.

--
Jerry Friedman
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-12 18:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jerry Friedman <***@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 10/11/17 9:27 PM, Dingbat wrote:
>> On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph
>> C. Fineman wrote:
>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some
>>>> distress.
>>>>
>>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
>>>
>>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However,
>>> the authors might well have extended their comparison farther into
>>> the past than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler &
>>> Fowler complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by
>>> Kipling!
>>
>> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was
>> the first popular (not scholarly) journal that published a single
>> edition for both markets?
>
> The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
> manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
> considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
> writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25

In any case, Kipling is probably not a good starting-point for such an
inquiry, in that he was exceptionally aware of American English, and he
lived -- and wrote -- in Vermont for several years. In _Captains
Courageous_ he does his best to reproduce the various dialects of the
Americans & others on the boat. And in "How the Whale Got His Throat",
the whale's announcement before disgorging his passenger (in Britain!)
is that of the conductor on Kipling's train from Brattleboro to Boston.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Sharpen your mind to serve society, and your knife to serve :||
||: a pig. :||
Ken Blake
2017-10-12 19:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:30:39 -0400, ***@verizon.net (Joseph C.
Fineman) wrote:

>In any case, Kipling is probably not a good starting-point for such an
>inquiry, in that he was exceptionally aware of American English, and he
>lived -- and wrote -- in Vermont for several years. In _Captains
>Courageous_ he does his best to reproduce the various dialects of the
>Americans & others on the boat. And in "How the Whale Got His Throat",
>the whale's announcement before disgorging his passenger (in Britain!)
>is that of the conductor on Kipling's train from Brattleboro to Boston.



I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:

Do you like Kipling?

Drum roll...
Percival P. Cassidy
2017-10-13 01:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/12/2017 03:01 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

>> In any case, Kipling is probably not a good starting-point for such an
>> inquiry, in that he was exceptionally aware of American English, and he
>> lived -- and wrote -- in Vermont for several years. In _Captains
>> Courageous_ he does his best to reproduce the various dialects of the
>> Americans & others on the boat. And in "How the Whale Got His Throat",
>> the whale's announcement before disgorging his passenger (in Britain!)
>> is that of the conductor on Kipling's train from Brattleboro to Boston.
>
>
>
> I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:
>
> Do you like Kipling?
>
> Drum roll...

I've never once kipled in my whole life.

Perce
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-13 21:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Percival P. Cassidy" <***@NotMyISP.net> writes:

> On 10/12/2017 03:01 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

>> I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:
>>
>> Do you like Kipling?
>>
>> Drum roll...
>
> I've never once kipled in my whole life.

IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Where fools congregate, the wise keep their distance. :||
Percival P. Cassidy
2017-10-14 00:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/13/2017 05:32 PM, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:

>>> I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:
>>>
>>> Do you like Kipling?
>>>
>>> Drum roll...
>>
>> I've never once kipled in my whole life.
>
> IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.

I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.

Perce
Mark Brader
2017-10-14 01:09:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Ken Blake:
>>>> I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:
>>>> Do you like Kipling?
>>>> Drum roll...

Perce Cassidy:
>>> I've never once kipled in my whole life.

Joe Fineman:
>> IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.

Perce Cassidy:
> I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.

Well, the *definitive* version is Donald McGill's:

http://bound4escape.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/9-16-2013-10-32-47-am.png

where the addition of "you naughty boy" fixes the correct tone.
McGill created over 12,000 postcards from 1904 until he died in
1962, and I haven't been able to find a date for this one.

According to:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/category/donald-mcgill/

the basic joke of an unsophisticated person mistaking "Kipling"
for a verb goes back to 1907. They don't mention any publication
in "Punch", but they do mention a *different* joke also based on
misinterpreting "Kipling", which appeared in "Puck" (not "Punch")
in 1892:

http://quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Puck-Kipling-041.jpg

And in 1891 there was a poem by James Kenneth Stephen that played
on two authors' names:

When the Rudyards cease from Kipling
And the Haggards ride no more.

--
Mark Brader | "Define 'irritating'."
Toronto | "Well, no, you look it up, Mr. Encyclopedia."
***@vex.net | "Well, I think you mean 'Mr. Dictionary'."
--Paul Gross, DUE SOUTH
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Dingbat
2017-10-14 10:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, October 14, 2017 at 6:39:54 AM UTC+5:30, Mark Brader wrote:
> Ken Blake:
> >>>> I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:
> >>>> Do you like Kipling?
> >>>> Drum roll...
>
> Perce Cassidy:
> >>> I've never once kipled in my whole life.
>
> Joe Fineman:
> >> IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.
>
> Perce Cassidy:
> > I knew it was old, but I didn't know it was that old.
>
> Well, the *definitive* version is Donald McGill's:
>
> http://bound4escape.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/9-16-2013-10-32-47-am.png
>
> where the addition of "you naughty boy" fixes the correct tone.
> McGill created over 12,000 postcards from 1904 until he died in
> 1962, and I haven't been able to find a date for this one.
>
> According to:
>
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/category/donald-mcgill/
>
> the basic joke of an unsophisticated person mistaking "Kipling"
> for a verb goes back to 1907. They don't mention any publication
> in "Punch", but they do mention a *different* joke also based on
> misinterpreting "Kipling", which appeared in "Puck" (not "Punch")
> in 1892:
>
> http://quoteinvestigator.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Puck-Kipling-041.jpg
>
> And in 1891 there was a poem by James Kenneth Stephen that played
> on two authors' names:
>
> When the Rudyards cease from Kipling
> And the Haggards ride no more.
>

Punning on "hagride" reminds me of a pun on "bedridden".

A reporter interviewing a centenarian asked, "Have you ever been bedridden?"
The centenarian replied, "Well, yes, but don't put that in your paper."

P.S. I don't remember whether the reader was encouraged to believe that this interview really happened.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 03:27:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 5:32:12 PM UTC-4, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> "Percival P. Cassidy" <***@NotMyISP.net> writes:
> > On 10/12/2017 03:01 PM, Ken Blake wrote:

> >> I can't resist any longer. Here's your opportunity:
> >> Do you like Kipling?
> >> Drum roll...
> > I've never once kipled in my whole life.
>
> IIRC, that started out in _Punch_ about a century ago.

My first classical music article in the Chicago student newspaper's arts supplement
was my interview with Elly Ameling ....

(She was utterly charming, and at her recital she was at the height of her
powers. I regretted not also speaking with Dalton Baldwin, her accompanist.)
Ross
2017-10-14 02:06:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 3:58:52 AM UTC+13, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 10/11/17 9:27 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> >> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> >>>
> >>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> >>
> >> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> >> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> >> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> >> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> >
> > Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
> > (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
>
> The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
> manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
> considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
> writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE", I finally found
my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
from Kipling, and italicize three words therein for deploration:

honey-coloured
shrimp-pink
waddled

"...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
novelist:"

???So what is it about these words?

"The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."

I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
criticism.

Oh, "honey-coloured" even gets a footnote:

"Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."

So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.

Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-14 03:38:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 10:06:42 PM UTC-4, Ross wrote:
> On Friday, October 13, 2017 at 3:58:52 AM UTC+13, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On 10/11/17 9:27 PM, Dingbat wrote:
> > > On Thursday, October 12, 2017 at 3:41:01 AM UTC+5:30, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> > >> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:

> > >>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.
> > >>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> > >> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
> > >> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
> > >> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> > >> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> > > Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
> > > (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?
> > The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
> > manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
> > considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
> > writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.
> > https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
>
> Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE", I finally found
> my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
> from Kipling, and italicize three words therein for deploration:
>
> honey-coloured
> shrimp-pink
> waddled
>
> "...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
> likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
> novelist:"
>
> ???So what is it about these words?
>
> "The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
> selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
>
> I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
> criticism.
>
> Oh, "honey-coloured" even gets a footnote:
>
> "Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
> a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
> noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
> is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
>
> So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
>
> Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
> some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.

Does Anton look at other people's threads? But no, he's mired in the century
before the Fowlers.
CDB
2017-10-14 06:22:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/13/2017 10:06 PM, Ross wrote:
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> Dingbat wrote:
>>> Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:

>>>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some distress.

>>>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818

>>>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress. However, the
>>>> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the past
>>>> than the 1930s. In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
>>>> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!

>>> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was the first popular
>>> (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both markets?

>> The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
>> manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
>> considered American. I don't think they were suggesting that he was
>> writing that way to aim at the American market. He just liked R&SE.

>> https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25

> Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE"

Did it become clear? A local reference.

> I finally found
> my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
> from Kipling, and italicize three words therein for deploration:

> honey-coloured
> shrimp-pink
> waddled

> "...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
> likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
> novelist:"

> ???So what is it about these words?

> "The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
> selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."

> I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
> criticism.

> Oh, "honey-coloured" even gets a footnote:

> "Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
> a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
> noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
> is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."

> So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.

> Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
> some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.

In the old days we said "white as snow, pink as a shrimp". None of your
R&SE.
Jerry Friedman
2017-10-14 18:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/14/17 12:22 AM, CDB wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 10:06 PM, Ross wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> Dingbat wrote:
>>>> Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
>
>>>>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some
>>>>>> distress.
>
>>>>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
>
>>>>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress.  However, the
>>>>> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the
>>>>> past
>>>>> than the 1930s.  In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
>>>>> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
>
>>>> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was
>>>> the first popular
>>>>    (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both
>>>> markets?
>
>>> The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
>>> manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
>>> considered American.  I don't think they were suggesting that he was
>>> writing that way to aim at the American market.  He just liked R&SE.
>
>>> https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
>
>> Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE"
>
> Did it become clear?  A local reference.
>
>> I finally found
>> my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
>> from Kipling, and italicize three words therein for deploration:
>
>> honey-coloured
>> shrimp-pink
>> waddled
>
>> "...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
>> likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
>> novelist:"
>
>> ???So what is it about these words?
>
>> "The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
>> selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
>
>> I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
>> criticism.
>
>> Oh, "honey-coloured" even gets a footnote:
>
>> "Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
>> a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
>> noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
>> is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
>
>> So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that
>> results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
>
>> Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
>> some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
>
> In the old days we said "white as snow, pink as a shrimp".  None of your
> R&SE.

And though you Commonwealthers (or Imperial subjects) might have
occasionally allowed yourselves a "honey-coloured", you didn't write
every such phrase as briefly as possible like an industrial engineer
remorselessly minimizing therbligs.

Such things don't startle us now. But I still don't get
"exhaustiveness". And I'm probably missing some nuances.

--
Jerry Friedman
Ross
2017-10-14 23:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, October 15, 2017 at 7:50:59 AM UTC+13, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 10/14/17 12:22 AM, CDB wrote:
> > On 10/13/2017 10:06 PM, Ross wrote:
> >> Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >>> Dingbat wrote:
> >>>> Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <***@verizon.net> writes:
> >
> >>>>>> An announcement on LINGUIST List just now -- that might cause some
> >>>>>> distress.
> >
> >>>>>> http://linguistlist.org/pubs/books/get-book.cfm?BookID=120818
> >
> >>>>> Not being a linguist, I do not appreciate the distress.  However, the
> >>>>> authors might well have extended their comparison farther into the
> >>>>> past
> >>>>> than the 1930s.  In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
> >>>>> complain that British English is being "americanized" -- by Kipling!
> >
> >>>> Was Kipling aiming for a British AND American readership? Which was
> >>>> the first popular
> >>>>    (not scholarly) journal that published a single edition for both
> >>>> markets?
> >
> >>> The Fowlers were referring to Kipling's style, which they said
> >>> manifested "a sort of remorseless and scientific efficiency" that they
> >>> considered American.  I don't think they were suggesting that he was
> >>> writing that way to aim at the American market.  He just liked R&SE.
> >
> >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=7ExZAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA25
> >
> >> Wondering exactly what they might mean by "R&SE"
> >
> > Did it become clear?  A local reference.
> >
> >> I finally found
> >> my copy of TKE. Curiouser and curiouser! They give two brief quotations
> >> from Kipling, and italicize three words therein for deploration:
> >
> >> honey-coloured
> >> shrimp-pink
> >> waddled
> >
> >> "...in pre-Kipling days none of the words we italicize would have been
> >> likely; now they may be matched on nearly every page of an 'up-to-date'
> >> novelist:"
> >
> >> ???So what is it about these words?
> >
> >> "The words are, as we said, extremely efficient; but the impulse that
> >> selects them is in harmony with American, not with English, methods..."
> >
> >> I feel the same sense of embafflement that I get from a lot of literary
> >> criticism.
> >
> >> Oh, "honey-coloured" even gets a footnote:
> >
> >> "Not that this word calls for censure in itself; but when packed into
> >> a sentence with snow-white, green, and shrimp-pink, it contributes
> >> noticeably to that effect of brief and startling exhaustiveness, which
> >> is one variety of what we have stigmatized as efficiency."
> >
> >> So what's the problem? Too many colour words? And they think that
> >> results from R&SE, that typically American trait? Feh.
> >
> >> Maybe somebody more in tune with Fowlerian values can explain this in
> >> some way that doesn't make it sound stupid.
> >
> > In the old days we said "white as snow, pink as a shrimp".  None of your
> > R&SE.
>
> And though you Commonwealthers (or Imperial subjects) might have
> occasionally allowed yourselves a "honey-coloured", you didn't write
> every such phrase as briefly as possible like an industrial engineer
> remorselessly minimizing therbligs.
>
> Such things don't startle us now. But I still don't get
> "exhaustiveness". And I'm probably missing some nuances.
>
> --
> Jerry Friedman

Thanks, Jerry. So nuances. Style. Meh.

After they've finished with Kipling, they do go on to list some actual
lexical items that they can brand as Americanisms and deplore, and hope
their English readers never use.
occam
2017-10-17 20:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:

> ||: Death is not an experience. :||

Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
Peter Moylan
2017-10-18 02:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/10/17 07:33, occam wrote:
> On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>
>> ||: Death is not an experience. :||
>
> Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.

It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2017-10-18 13:43:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/17/2017 7:01 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 18/10/17 07:33, occam wrote:
>> On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>>
>>> ||:  Death is not an experience.  :||
>>
>> Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
>
> It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.

I have a theory that when you die, you retain all your memories of your
previous life right up until the moment you first draw breath in the
next life...which means that if you're destined to be reincarnated as a
giraffe, you have just enough time as you emerge from the birth canal
and see the ground six feet away rushing at you to think "Oh my god, I'm
a giraffe!" before everything goes blank....r
Mack A. Damia
2017-10-18 14:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 18 Oct 2017 06:43:22 -0700, RH Draney <***@cox.net>
wrote:

>On 10/17/2017 7:01 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 18/10/17 07:33, occam wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>>>
>>>> ||:  Death is not an experience.  :||
>>>
>>> Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
>>
>> It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.
>
>I have a theory that when you die, you retain all your memories of your
>previous life right up until the moment you first draw breath in the
>next life...which means that if you're destined to be reincarnated as a
>giraffe, you have just enough time as you emerge from the birth canal
>and see the ground six feet away rushing at you to think "Oh my god, I'm
>a giraffe!" before everything goes blank....r

Giraffe twins: "And here they come, neck and neck."
Sam Plusnet
2017-10-19 19:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18-Oct-17 14:43, RH Draney wrote:
> On 10/17/2017 7:01 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 18/10/17 07:33, occam wrote:
>>> On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>>>
>>>> ||:  Death is not an experience.  :||
>>>
>>> Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a
>>> Buddhist.
>>
>> It's not memorable, though. Unless you are a Buddhist.
>
> I have a theory that when you die, you retain all your memories of your
> previous life right up until the moment you first draw breath in the
> next life...which means that if you're destined to be reincarnated as a
> giraffe, you have just enough time as you emerge from the birth canal
> and see the ground six feet away rushing at you to think "Oh my god, I'm
> a giraffe!" before everything goes blank....r
>
So that's what happened to the whale and the bowl of petunias in Douglas
Adams' HHGTTG.

--
Sam Plusnet
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-10-18 21:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
occam <***@127.0.0.1> writes:

> On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
>
>> ||: Death is not an experience. :||
>
> Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.

I thought I had taken it from _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_, by
Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a skeptic like me. However, it turns out I
had misremembered it:

6.4311 Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: "We need to talk" means "You need to listen". :||
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-19 03:06:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at 5:57:09 PM UTC-4, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> occam <***@127.0.0.1> writes:
>
> > On 12/10/2017 00:11, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> >
> >> ||: Death is not an experience. :||
> >
> > Let's disagree. It is the ultimate experience. Unless you are a Buddhist.
>
> I thought I had taken it from _Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus_, by
> Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a skeptic like me. However, it turns out I
> had misremembered it:

Maybe you learned it in a different translation, or in the original.

> 6.4311 Death is not an event of life. Death is not lived through.
occam
2017-10-19 10:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 18/10/2017 23:57, Joseph C. Fineman wrote:
> ||: "We need to talk" means "You need to listen". :||

OK, here we agree.
I bet this is not of Wittgenstein's.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 10:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Joseph C. Fineman:

>I thought I had taken it from _Tractatus Logico-
>Philosophicus_, by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was a
>skeptic like me.

ObAUE: I perceive the last clause as saying that
Wittgenstein was same species of skeptic that you
are. I think it is not what you meant, and suggest:
"who was a skeptic, as I am." Excuse me in advance.

Is skeptisicm not orthogonal to ateism?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 10:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I wrote:

>I perceive the last clause as saying that Wittgen-
>stein was same species of skeptic that you are.

*the* same.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 09:16:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Joseph C. Fineman:

>However, the authors might well have extended their
>comparison farther into the past than the 1930s.
>In _The King's English_ (1906), Fowler & Fowler
>complain that British English is being "american-
>ized" -- by Kipling!

Little wonder, for the American Nation was born long
before that.

Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) condemns
many fallacies introduced in AmE:

Build for Make. "Build a fire." "Build a canal."
Even "build a tunnel" is not unknown, and proba-
bly if the wood-chuck is skilled in the American
tongue he speaks of building a hole.

Got Married for Married. If this is correct we
should say, also, "got dead" for died; one ex-
pression is as good as the other.

Have Got for Have. "I have got a good horse" directs
attention rather to the act of getting than to
the state of having, and represents the capture
as recently completed.

That reminded me of Jack London's short story "To
Build a Fire":

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2429/2429-h/2429-h.htm#page47

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-19 11:42:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 5:16:12 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:

> Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) condemns
> many fallacies introduced in AmE:

One has to wonder what you think "fallacy" means.

> Have Got for Have. "I have got a good horse" directs
> attention rather to the act of getting than to
> the state of having, and represents the capture
> as recently completed.

So there he prefers the American to the British usage.

This booklet of Bierce had no influence in its day and is utterly forgotten now.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-19 21:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:

> > Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) con-
> > demns many fallacies introduced in AmE:
> > [...]
>
> One has to wonder what you think "fallacy" means.

Fallacy -- error, false conception, wrong belief,
&c.

> This booklet of Bierce had no influence in its
> day ->

How can that be important? The popularity of any
work of man is unconnected with its true value.

The great Soviet writer Chingiz Aitmatov considered
the dwindling of his audience a natural result of
his progress from popular entertainment fiction (Red
Scarf, The Camel's Eye) to deeply philosophical work
(The White Stemboat, Longer than a Cent'ry lasts a
Day, Spotted Dog that Runs along the Shore). For
the same reason he took it for granted that writing
was increasingly harder for him because of the re-
finement of his work.

> -> and is utterly forgotten now.

Not utterly, for you and I remember him. And,
again, it what conclusion am I supposed to make of
it?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-19 21:53:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 19, 2017 at 5:15:59 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:
>
> > > Ambrose Bierce in "Write in Right" (1909) con-
> > > demns many fallacies introduced in AmE:
> > > [...]
> >
> > One has to wonder what you think "fallacy" means.
>
> Fallacy -- error, false conception, wrong belief,
> &c.

No, that's not what "fallacy" means.

> > This booklet of Bierce had no influence in its
> > day ->
>
> How can that be important? The popularity of any
> work of man is unconnected with its true value.
>
> The great Soviet writer Chingiz Aitmatov considered
> the dwindling of his audience a natural result of
> his progress from popular entertainment fiction (Red
> Scarf, The Camel's Eye) to deeply philosophical work
> (The White Stemboat, Longer than a Cent'ry lasts a
> Day, Spotted Dog that Runs along the Shore). For
> the same reason he took it for granted that writing
> was increasingly harder for him because of the re-
> finement of his work.
>
> > -> and is utterly forgotten now.
>
> Not utterly, for you and I remember him. And,
> again, it what conclusion am I supposed to make of
> it?

I know _him_. I do not know (let alone remember) this booklet you love so much.
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of his Civil War writings
-- the first half reportage, the second half fiction. All the short stories are
variations on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally as a
*Twilight Zone* episode.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-25 20:13:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.

> A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
> book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
> reportage, the second half fiction. All the short
> stories are variations on "Occurrence at Owl Creek
> Bridge," which I met originally as a *Twilight
> Zone* episode.

How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
"Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the
usage of "shall" and "will" while re-reading:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-26 15:47:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:34:08 AM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.

> > A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
> > book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
> > reportage, the second half fiction. All the short
> > stories are variations on "Occurrence at Owl Creek
> > Bridge," which I met originally as a *Twilight
> > Zone* episode.
>
> How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
> "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the
> usage of "shall" and "will" while re-reading:
>
> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm

I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and I'm CERTAINLY
not going to waste time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-26 20:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:

> > Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
> >
> > > A while ago I came across a reprint of a lit-
> > > tle book of his Civil War writings -- the
> > > first half reportage, the second half fiction.
> > > All the short stories are variations on "Oc-
> > > currence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met
> > > originally as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
> >
> > How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a varia-
> > tion on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay
> > heed to the usage of "shall" and "will" while
> > re-reading:
> >
> > http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
>
> I do not know whether that story is included in
> the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
> time by looking at, let alone reading, it.

You would have saved even more time (and breath) if
you had abstained from expressing your unfounded
opinion.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-27 03:14:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 4:00:20 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels to Anton Shepelev:
> > > Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.

> > > > A while ago I came across a reprint of a lit-
> > > > tle book of his Civil War writings -- the
> > > > first half reportage, the second half fiction.
> > > > All the short stories are variations on "Oc-
> > > > currence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met
> > > > originally as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
> > > How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a varia-
> > > tion on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay
> > > heed to the usage of "shall" and "will" while
> > > re-reading:
> > > http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
> > I do not know whether that story is included in
> > the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
> > time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
>
> You would have saved even more time (and breath) if
> you had abstained from expressing your unfounded
> opinion.

What opinion is that?

Are you claiming I didn't read the book I read?
Anton Shepelev
2017-10-27 19:31:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter T. Daniels:
A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
reportage, the second half fiction. All the
short stories are variations on "Occurrence at
Owl Creek Bridge,"

Anton Shepelev:
How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation
on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"?

Peter T. Daniels:
I do not know whether that story is included in
the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
time by looking at, let alone reading, it.

Anton Shepelev:
You would have saved even more time (and breath)
if you had abstained from expressing your un-
founded opinion.

Peter T. Daniels:
What opinion is that?

The one about the similarity of Bierce's Civil War
stories in that book. Will you define that similar-
ty for me? For it you won't, of what worth is your
opinion to me and to other readers?

> Are you claiming I didn't read the book I read?

No, although I suspect it of the "Shall and Will"
chapter in "King's English."

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-27 21:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, October 27, 2017 at 3:31:16 PM UTC-4, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
> A while ago I came across a reprint of a little
> book of his Civil War writings -- the first half
> reportage, the second half fiction. All the
> short stories are variations on "Occurrence at
> Owl Creek Bridge,"
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation
> on "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"?
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> I do not know whether that story is included in
> the book, and I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste
> time by looking at, let alone reading, it.
>
> Anton Shepelev:
> You would have saved even more time (and breath)
> if you had abstained from expressing your un-
> founded opinion.
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
> What opinion is that?
>
> The one about the similarity of Bierce's Civil War
> stories in that book. Will you define that similar-
> ty for me? For it you won't, of what worth is your
> opinion to me and to other readers?

Soldier is in dangerous situation. Soldier imagines close call and narrow
escape. Soldier dies -- it was a vision after the fatal bullet struck. Or
trapdoor opened. Or whatever.

> > Are you claiming I didn't read the book I read?
>
> No, although I suspect it of the "Shall and Will"
> chapter in "King's English."

I've never read that one through. I use MEU from time to time, because HWF was
usually quite judicious in his recommendations. But he did make a few boners.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-28 14:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 9:54:08 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 10/26/2017 11:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
>
> >>> A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of his
> >>> Civil War writings -- the first half reportage, the second half
> >>> fiction. All the short stories are variations on "Occurrence at
> >>> Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally as a *Twilight
> >>> Zone* episode.
>
> >> How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on "Occurrence
> >> at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the usage of "shall" and "will"
> >> while re-reading:
>
> >> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
>
> Thank you. I hadn't read it, and the portrayal of conditions and
> attitudes at that time and place was very interesting.
>
> > I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and I'm
> > CERTAINLY not going to waste time by looking at, let alone reading,
> > it.
>
> It is.

How do you know what book I have? If you can inform me as to its present
whereabouts in my house, I might look at it.
CDB
2017-10-31 10:56:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/28/2017 10:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 9:54:08 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
>> On 10/26/2017 11:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> Anton Shepelev wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.
>>
>>>>> A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of
>>>>> his Civil War writings -- the first half reportage, the
>>>>> second half fiction. All the short stories are variations on
>>>>> "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally
>>>>> as a *Twilight Zone* episode.

>>>> How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
>>>> "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the usage of
>>>> "shall" and "will" while re-reading:

>>>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm

>> Thank you. I hadn't read it, and the portrayal of conditions and
>> attitudes at that time and place was very interesting.

>>> I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and
>>> I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste time by looking at, let alone
>>> reading, it.

>> It is.

> How do you know what book I have? If you can inform me as to its
> present whereabouts in my house, I might look at it.

It's in the text you get to if you follow the link.
Peter T. Daniels
2017-10-31 13:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday, October 31, 2017 at 6:56:16 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 10/28/2017 10:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 9:54:08 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> >> On 10/26/2017 11:47 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> Anton Shepelev wrote:
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels about Ambrose Bierce.

> >>>>> A while ago I came across a reprint of a little book of
> >>>>> his Civil War writings -- the first half reportage, the
> >>>>> second half fiction. All the short stories are variations on
> >>>>> "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," which I met originally
> >>>>> as a *Twilight Zone* episode.
> >>>> How is "Parker Addreson, Philosopher" a variation on
> >>>> "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge"? Pay heed to the usage of
> >>>> "shall" and "will" while re-reading:
> >>>> http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13334/13334-h/13334-h.htm
> >> Thank you. I hadn't read it, and the portrayal of conditions and
> >> attitudes at that time and place was very interesting.
> >>> I do not know whether that story is included in the book, and
> >>> I'm CERTAINLY not going to waste time by looking at, let alone
> >>> reading, it.
> >> It is.
> > How do you know what book I have? If you can inform me as to its
> > present whereabouts in my house, I might look at it.
>
> It's in the text you get to if you follow the link.

Nor does the link know what book I own.

It is not, in fact, any volume at all of the Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce.
Loading...