Opined

[Mekon]

WE Johns wrote 98 1/2 Biggles books (he died while writing Biggles Does Some
Homework - for the pedants - he wrote his last paragraph, put his pen down,
went upstairs, sat in his favourite chair and died) and in most of them
(unfortunately I have only read 97) he used the word "opined" as in:

"I don't think that is the best course of action" Ginger opined.

I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an archaic word
that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage last century?

Mekon

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Mekon
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an archaic word
that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage last century?

It's quite common in crossword puzzles.

[Charles Riggs]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Mekon
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an archaic word
that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage last century?

It's quite common in crossword puzzles.

It was only yesterday I used it here. It is a garden-variety word seen
every week.

[Jon Miller]

Post by Mekon
WE Johns wrote 98 1/2 Biggles books (he died while writing Biggles Does Some
Homework - for the pedants - he wrote his last paragraph, put his pen down,
went upstairs, sat in his favourite chair and died) and in most of them
"I don't think that is the best course of action" Ginger opined.
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an archaic word
that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage last century?

Actuaries opine as to reserve adequacy.

Judges don't opine. They render an opinion.

I don't know why this is. Actuaries may be more conservative, and hence use
more old-fashioned language.

I believe that accountants opine as to whether financial statements are
presented according to generally accepted principles (not as to whether they
are presented fairly). However, I could be wrong about this. They might
render an opinion.

Jon Miller

[Gary Williams]

Post by Jon Miller
I believe that accountants opine as to whether financial statements are
presented according to generally accepted principles (not as to whether they
are presented fairly). However, I could be wrong about this. They might
render an opinion.

The State of Colorado's statute on public accountancy says:

... issue, author, or publish any opinion or certificate relating to
any accounting or financial statement...

and

... Attest or express an opinion, as an independent auditor, as to the
financial position, changes in financial position, or financial
results of the operation ...


Nevertheless, in conversations with members of the profession I am
quite certain I have more than once heard the verb "to opine".

Gary Williams

[Mark Brader]

Post by Mekon
"I don't think that is the best course of action" Ginger opined.
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else...

I see it often enough. It looks like an irregular back formation,
so it tends to come up only in relatively informal contexts. Maybe
Mekon needs to find some lighter reading. :-)

Here are some google counts as evidence that it isn't a particularly
rare word:

opined 377,000
opine 368,000
opines 92,500
opining 35,900

And for comparison:

opinions 14,700,000
opinion 10,500,000
opinionated 342,000
opinionatedness 1,140
opinionatedly 590

[Adrian Bailey]

Post by Mekon
WE Johns wrote 98 1/2 Biggles books (he died while writing Biggles Does Some
Homework - for the pedants - he wrote his last paragraph, put his pen down,
went upstairs, sat in his favourite chair and died) and in most of them
"I don't think that is the best course of action" Ginger opined.
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an archaic word
that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage last century?

I've seen and heard this word used - I've even used it myself. I think the
first time I heard it was at school when our German teacher gave it as the
meaning of "meinte".

Adrian

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Mekon
WE Johns wrote 98 1/2 Biggles books (he died while writing Biggles Does Some
Homework - for the pedants - he wrote his last paragraph, put his pen down,
went upstairs, sat in his favourite chair and died) and in most of them
"I don't think that is the best course of action" Ginger opined.
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an archaic word
that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage last century?

It's been used in this newsgroup 389 times. Bob Cunningham seems to
favor it.

[John Dean]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Mekon
WE Johns wrote 98 1/2 Biggles books (he died while writing Biggles
Does Some Homework - for the pedants - he wrote his last paragraph,
put his pen down, went upstairs, sat in his favourite chair and
died) and in most of them (unfortunately I have only read 97) he
"I don't think that is the best course of action" Ginger opined.
I can't remember seeing this word used by anyone else, is it an
archaic word that he tried to reintroduce or was it in common usage
last century?

It's been used in this newsgroup 389 times. Bob Cunningham seems to
favor it.

Strictly, 'opine' is the BrE version. Leftpondians more often use
'pine'. In the same way UKers pursue opinions while USers chase pinions.
You can train dogs especially (AmE specially) to do it.

[[e-mail]]

My take on 'opine' is that, in Br use at any rate, it's most commonly
used in general writing with a twinkle in the writer's eye. But it is
an ordinary word, and has been around for centuries, even though it may
look -- not only to Mark -- like a slightly humorous back-formation. It
comes from a Latin deponent _opinari_ used regularly by good writers
such as Cicero, so its pedigree is impeccable.

Mike.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by ***@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk
My take on 'opine' is that, in Br use at any rate, it's most
commonly used in general writing with a twinkle in the writer's
eye. But it is an ordinary word, and has been around for
centuries, even though it may look -- not only to Mark -- like a
slightly humorous back-formation. It comes from a Latin deponent
_opinari_ used regularly by good writers such as Cicero, so its
pedigree is impeccable.

I'd say that its humorous use is decidedly tattered -- it borders on
what Fowler called "worn-out humour".

The etymological and historical respectability of a word is unrelated
to the triteness of its use.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:38:34 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle

Post by Harvey Van Sickle

Post by ***@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk
My take on 'opine' is that, in Br use at any rate, it's most
commonly used in general writing with a twinkle in the writer's
eye. But it is an ordinary word, and has been around for
centuries, even though it may look -- not only to Mark -- like a
slightly humorous back-formation. It comes from a Latin deponent
_opinari_ used regularly by good writers such as Cicero, so its
pedigree is impeccable.

I'd say that its humorous use is decidedly tattered -- it borders on
what Fowler called "worn-out humour".
The etymological and historical respectability of a word is unrelated
to the triteness of its use.

I see no reason to consider it either humorous or trite.
For me it's simply the most concise way to say what it says.

"Opine" (two syllables) means "express the opinion" (seven
syllables). What other way do we have to say "express the
opinion" as concisely as "opine" says it?

A thesaurus associates "opine" with "comment", "remark",
"observe", and "say". Of those, only "opine" has the
explicit connotation of expressing an opinion. You can
comment, observe, remark, or say without necessarily
expressing an opinion.

If frequency of use implies triteness, then "and", "the",
"of", "for", "to", "it", "that", and "or" are certainly
trite.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:38:34 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle

Post by Harvey Van Sickle

Post by ***@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk
My take on 'opine' is that, in Br use at any rate, it's most
commonly used in general writing with a twinkle in the writer's
eye. But it is an ordinary word, and has been around for
centuries, even though it may look -- not only to Mark -- like a
slightly humorous back-formation. It comes from a Latin deponent
_opinari_ used regularly by good writers such as Cicero, so its
pedigree is impeccable.

I'd say that its humorous use is decidedly tattered -- it borders
on what Fowler called "worn-out humour".
The etymological and historical respectability of a word is
unrelated to the triteness of its use.

I see no reason to consider it either humorous or trite.
For me it's simply the most concise way to say what it says.

I think you've missed the critical qualification in "its *humorous*
use": I wasn't speaking of its straight-faced use or frequency of use,
but was responding to Mike's comment that "in Br use at any rate, it's
most commonly used in general writing with a twinkle in the writer's
eye".

It's the "twinkly" use of it -- which is how I encounter it most often
-- that I was referring to and which I find trite and worn-out.
("'Great Goggledygooks', Lord Puddleduck opined".)

There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be used or
that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous* use is tattered
and trite.

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:48:04 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
<***@ntlworld.com> said:

[...]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be used or
that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous* use is tattered
and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.

I suspect the people who think there's humor in it think
it's a back formation from "opinion", like the verb "buttle"
from "butler". It's not.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:48:04 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
[...]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be
used or that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous*
use is tattered and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.
I suspect the people who think there's humor in it think
it's a back formation from "opinion", like the verb "buttle"
from "butler".

Either that, or they think it sounds quaint and archaic -- sub-
Wodehousian or something.

It's not.

Certainly not; it's also not particularly humorous, even when used
that way.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:56:39 GMT, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:48:04 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
[...]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be used or
that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous* use is tattered
and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.

I don't think there's really a humorous use, but there is a
light-hearted use or a use intended to be a light touch. When the
speaker states his opinion but doesn't want the opinion to be taken
too seriously, he might say "I opine that...".

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:28:37 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:56:39 GMT, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:48:04 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
[...]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be used or
that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous* use is tattered
and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.

I don't think there's really a humorous use, but there is a
light-hearted use or a use intended to be a light touch. When the
speaker states his opinion but doesn't want the opinion to be taken
too seriously, he might say "I opine that...".

I disagree that that's true in general. When I say "I opine
that ... " I mean that what follows is what I opine.

Again, the people who think "opine" is said with a twinkle
are probably the people who are not well-informed enough to
know that "opine" is not a back formation from "opinion".

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:45:44 GMT, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:28:37 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:56:39 GMT, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:48:04 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
[...]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be used or
that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous* use is tattered
and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.

I don't think there's really a humorous use, but there is a
light-hearted use or a use intended to be a light touch. When the
speaker states his opinion but doesn't want the opinion to be taken
too seriously, he might say "I opine that...".

I disagree that that's true in general. When I say "I opine
that ... " I mean that what follows is what I opine.

I would also disagree that this is true in general. That's why I
wrote "he might say" and why I said "but doesn't want the opinion to
be taken too seriously". The entire statement is phrased to indicate
that the usage is conditional, optional, and used for a particular
effect.

When it's said that there is *a* use for something, you can generally
expect that the use is not the standard use. If the standard use is
being described, the phrasing would be about *the* use.

You might choose to use "opine" and still mean that what follows is
what you opine. It doesn't change what you mean, but it can be used
to indicate that your opinion on this is offered in a light-hearted
manner.

Someone entering that tedious thread on weight and mass, for example,
might offer a comment that is intended to be light. To indicate that
he is not commenting with the leaden seriousness of the other posters,
he might start out saying "I opine that....".

Post by Bob Cunningham
Again, the people who think "opine" is said with a twinkle
are probably the people who are not well-informed enough to
know that "opine" is not a back formation from "opinion".

I opine that you could have said that "people who think 'opine' can be
said with a twinkle are probably the people who are not at all
concerned that 'opine' is not a back formation from 'opinion'. and the
statement would be valid.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 08:28:37 -0400, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:56:39 GMT, Bob Cunningham

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:48:04 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle
[...]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be
used or that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous*
use is tattered and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.

I don't think there's really a humorous use, but there is a
light-hearted use or a use intended to be a light touch. When
the speaker states his opinion but doesn't want the opinion to be
taken too seriously, he might say "I opine that...".

I disagree that that's true in general. When I say "I opine
that ... " I mean that what follows is what I opine.
Again, the people who think "opine" is said with a twinkle
are probably the people who are not well-informed enough to
know that "opine" is not a back formation from "opinion".

The motives of the people who use it in a twinklesome manner are, I
suspect, less etymologically based than you're giving them credit for.
I suspect it just sounds quaint and old-fashioned -- and hence amusing
and sort of Wodehousian -- to them.

[Skitt]

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
There was no implication that that's the *only* way it can be used
or that it's inherently humorous, just that the *humorous* use is
tattered and trite.

I didn't know the humorous use existed.

I don't think there's really a humorous use, but there is a
light-hearted use or a use intended to be a light touch. When the
speaker states his opinion but doesn't want the opinion to be taken
too seriously, he might say "I opine that...".

I disagree that that's true in general. When I say "I opine
that ... " I mean that what follows is what I opine.
Again, the people who think "opine" is said with a twinkle
are probably the people who are not well-informed enough to
know that "opine" is not a back formation from "opinion".

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Bob. Is that because we both are old and
have heard a lot? Just wondering ...

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 14:24:29 -0700, "Skitt"
[...]

Post by Skitt

Post by Bob Cunningham
Again, the people who think "opine" is said with a twinkle
are probably the people who are not well-informed enough to
know that "opine" is not a back formation from "opinion".

I agree with you wholeheartedly, Bob. Is that because we both are old and
have heard a lot? Just wondering ...

More likely because we're both young at heart and possessed
of enough vigor to steer us away from meekly accepting
common misconceptions.

[Pat Durkin]

Post by Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 11:38:34 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle

Post by Harvey Van Sickle

Post by ***@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk
My take on 'opine' is that, in Br use at any rate, it's most
commonly used in general writing with a twinkle in the writer's
eye. But it is an ordinary word, and has been around for
centuries, even though it may look -- not only to Mark -- like a
slightly humorous back-formation. It comes from a Latin deponent
_opinari_ used regularly by good writers such as Cicero, so its
pedigree is impeccable.

I'd say that its humorous use is decidedly tattered -- it borders on
what Fowler called "worn-out humour".
The etymological and historical respectability of a word is unrelated
to the triteness of its use.

I see no reason to consider it either humorous or trite.
For me it's simply the most concise way to say what it says.
"Opine" (two syllables) means "express the opinion" (seven
syllables). What other way do we have to say "express the
opinion" as concisely as "opine" says it?
A thesaurus associates "opine" with "comment", "remark",
"observe", and "say". Of those, only "opine" has the
explicit connotation of expressing an opinion. You can
comment, observe, remark, or say without necessarily
expressing an opinion.
If frequency of use implies triteness, then "and", "the",
"of", "for", "to", "it", "that", and "or" are certainly
trite.

I find it uncomfortable to use the word "reckon", just as I do with "opine".
Aside from "dead reckoning", I heard both only in dialect (mainly western-
or frontier-speak), until rather late in my reading experience, when I found
some BrE writers and speakers using the term. Now, it seems to be making a
comeback in US usage, at least on TV.

I hear "opine" almost nightly, as I seem to tune in to Bill O'Reilly's
program sign-off "Name and town. Name and town. Name and town, if you wish
to--opine." (Fox's _O'Reilly Factor_). A very affected use, in my opinion.

[[e-mail]]

Can't disagree with what you say, of course. But I raised its history
in response to a specific point -- the suggestion that it might be a
back-formation.

I can't remember the last time I used it. But it is regularly formed,
and I don't think we should treat it as second-rate, as it's a
"pistol-word" -- in the sense of Evan's quote about sixguns and
lawyers: on the rare occasion when you need one, nothing else will do.
Mike.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by ***@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk
Can't disagree with what you say, of course. But I raised its
history in response to a specific point -- the suggestion that it
might be a back-formation.
I can't remember the last time I used it. But it is regularly
formed, and I don't think we should treat it as second-rate, as
it's a "pistol-word" -- in the sense of Evan's quote about sixguns
and lawyers: on the rare occasion when you need one, nothing else
will do. Mike.

Mike: something odd's happening with your posts in this thread.

My newsreader (XNews) has treated both of your posts as entirely new
threads which are not in response to any previously posted article;
you're clearly responding to someone, though. (The complete absence of
quoted material also makes it impossible to figure out who you might be
responding to.)

Any idea why this might be? (Were these perhaps meant to be private e-
mails rather than public posts?)

[Bob Cunningham]

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 12:34:30 +0100, Harvey Van Sickle

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Mike: something odd's happening with your posts in this thread.
My newsreader (XNews) has treated both of your posts as entirely new
threads which are not in response to any previously posted article;
you're clearly responding to someone, though. (The complete absence of
quoted material also makes it impossible to figure out who you might be
responding to.)
Any idea why this might be?

The question narrows down a bit if you look at the header of
his posting and see that there's no "References:" line.
Without that line postings won't thread properly unless you
have a newsreader that can be set to thread by subject line.

[...]

Mike is posting in two different modes: One mode gives him
the ID "***@yahoo.co.uk", and when he's in that
mode his postings have no "References:" line, so they won't
thread by references properly. Also his
"NNTP-Posting-Host:" line is of the form
"odah37.prod.google.com".

When he posts in the other mode, his ID is "Mike Lyle", and
his postings have "References: " lines, so they will thread
by references properly. Also his "NNTP-Posting-Host: " line
in a number of messages is the same "195.93.33.9".

According to a "Whois" site, that IP address belongs to

OrgName: RIPE Network Coordination Centre
OrgID: RIPE
Address: Singel 258
Address: 1016 AB
City: Amsterdam

Mike can probably figure out what he's doing differently to
produce the two different sets of results.

[Mike Lyle]

Bob Cunningham <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...
[...]

Post by Bob Cunningham
Mike can probably figure out what he's doing differently to
produce the two different sets of results.

Yep! Solved it by avoiding Google Groups beta. I'm sorry.

Mike.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by Mike Lyle

Post by Bob Cunningham
Mike can probably figure out what he's doing differently to
produce the two different sets of results.

Yep! Solved it by avoiding Google Groups beta. I'm sorry.

Ah: thanks for clarifying. Maybe the alpha will correct the bug....

[Mark Brader]

Post by Harvey Van Sickle

Post by Mike Lyle
Yep! Solved it by avoiding Google Groups beta. I'm sorry.

Maybe the alpha will correct the bug....

First, is this a joke? Alpha test comes *before* beta test.

Second, why are people talking about "Google Groups beta"? Is the
posting side of Google Groups still beta? The reading side hasn't
been since October.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Harvey Van Sickle

Post by Mike Lyle
Yep! Solved it by avoiding Google Groups beta. I'm sorry.

Maybe the alpha will correct the bug....

First, is this a joke? Alpha test comes *before* beta test.

Not really a joke -- more a completely clueless. (I didn't know that
there *was* an alpha, let alone if the "after beta" was alpha or
gamma...)

Post by Mark Brader
Second, why are people talking about "Google Groups beta"? Is the
posting side of Google Groups still beta? The reading side hasn't
been since October.

I just assumed they're trying out a new version.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Bob Cunningham

Post by Harvey Van Sickle
Mike: something odd's happening with your posts in this thread.
My newsreader (XNews) has treated both of your posts as entirely new
threads which are not in response to any previously posted article...

The question narrows down a bit if you look at the header of
his posting and see that there's no "References:" line.

But it does have an "In-Reply-To:" line, which is the email equivalent
of "References:", containing the Message-Id of the prior message. It
threaded correctly for me; I hadn't realized trn could handle that.