Discussion:
Words with two very varied meanings
Add Reply
chandelle
2021-03-09 03:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.

Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.

Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-09 04:21:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and
seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.

Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins ending
up with the same spelling and pronunciation.

Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.

Another for your list: sanction.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
chandelle
2021-03-09 04:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
Peter Moylan
2021-03-09 04:49:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
That second meaning is not part of my dialect, but I've heard of it
before on this newsgroup.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ken Blake
2021-03-09 15:34:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed
to mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the
word, as far as I'm concerned.
--
Ken
Stefan Ram
2021-03-09 16:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by chandelle
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in
making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed
to mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the
word, as far as I'm concerned.
According to one dictionary, there is an informal meaning of
"too soon", but it seems to be rare. This usually is preceded
by a modifier ("a bit", "too"). In recent TV shows, I find
three or four occurences of "bit previous" or "too previous",
all of which are starting with "bit".

|You might be a bit previous toasting the chef. (1999)
|Youse uh mite too previous for dat (1937)
|Don't get too previous, brother. (1928)
|[It was], in the slang of the Street, a little "too previous". (1902)
|It was a little previous to make this last announcement. (1869)
|This a bit previous, isn't it? (Lie to Me: Season 2, Episode 17)
Snidely
2021-03-09 21:47:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a
choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed to
mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the word, as
far as I'm concerned.
I'm familar with it. Translate "too previous" as "too early" or "too
quick".

I suspect the usage has declined in recent years.

/dps
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Ken Blake
2021-03-09 23:09:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a
choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed to
mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the word, as
far as I'm concerned.
I'm familar with it. Translate "too previous" as "too early" or "too
quick".
I suspect the usage has declined in recent years.
Declined? Perhaps, but I've never heard it before.

Now that I've heard (or read) it, I'd like to forget it as quickly as
possible.
--
Ken
Joy Beeson
2021-03-11 03:36:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Declined? Perhaps, but I've never heard it before.
Now that I've heard (or read) it, I'd like to forget it as quickly as
possible.
When I've heard "previous" used to mean "jumping the gun", it has
always been humorous: deliberately-grotesque usage, thus both
emphasizing the scolding aspect (I'm so angry that I can't talk
straight) and asking not to be taken *too* seriously (Aw, shucks, man,
I'm just a rube from the hills).
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
Quinn C
2021-03-12 14:21:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by Ken Blake
Declined? Perhaps, but I've never heard it before.
Now that I've heard (or read) it, I'd like to forget it as quickly as
possible.
When I've heard "previous" used to mean "jumping the gun", it has
always been humorous: deliberately-grotesque usage, thus both
emphasizing the scolding aspect (I'm so angry that I can't talk
straight) and asking not to be taken *too* seriously (Aw, shucks, man,
I'm just a rube from the hills).
In any case, the *meaning* is pretty close to the usual "previous":
early, earlier, too early.
--
Do not they speak false English ... that doth not speak thou to one,
and what ever he be, Father, Mother, King, or Judge, is he not a
Novice, and Unmannerly, and an Ideot, and a Fool, that speaks Your
to one, which is not to be spoken to a singular, but to many?
-- George Fox (1660)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-10 16:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a
choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed to
mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the word, as
far as I'm concerned.
I'm familar with it. Translate "too previous" as "too early" or "too
quick".
I suspect the usage has declined in recent years.
/dps
The BrE noun "previous" was mentioned in this ng in 2013.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/yvNkHeChCaE/m/Z_a8E-6jcNgJ

"He has form" - "He has previous".
***@gmail.com

We Middle Class English kids found "The Sweeney" *very* cool and
phrases such as "He has form" meaning "He has a bit of previous" are
very much part of our colloquial language. I wonder if you Aussies
and Americans use them?

OED:
previous, adj., adv., and n.

n.
2. British slang. Without article. A criminal record; previous
convictions.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Lewis
2021-03-09 23:56:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed
to mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the
word, as far as I'm concerned.
Oxford Dictionary of English:
2 informal overly hasty in acting or in drawing a conclusion: I admit I
may have been a bit previous.
--
"Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to
those of us who do." - Isaac Asimov
Ken Blake
2021-03-10 16:00:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed
to mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the
word, as far as I'm concerned.
2 informal overly hasty in acting or in drawing a conclusion: I admit I
may have been a bit previous.
OK, if you want to count informal usage as English usage. I almost
always don't. In this case, I've never seen or heard "previous" used
that way.
--
Ken
Lewis
2021-03-10 16:47:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by chandelle
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Interesting, that. Thanks!
Post by Peter Moylan
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
'He returned the previous day' and 'Don't be too previous in making a choice'. Rather varied, what?
Varied? I don't know, since I have no idea what "previous" is supposed
to mean in that second sentence. That's not an English usage of the
word, as far as I'm concerned.
2 informal overly hasty in acting or in drawing a conclusion: I admit I
may have been a bit previous.
OK, if you want to count informal usage as English usage.
Of course it is English usage.
Post by Ken Blake
I almost always don't.
That is an exceedingly narrow view of English that has no relationship to
the actual language and its use. Most English speakers use informal
forms on a daily basis.
--
The thing standing in the way of your dreams is that the person
having them is *you* https://xkcd.com/1027/
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-09 04:40:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and
seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins ending
up with the same spelling and pronunciation.
Saw, lie, mother (the meaning "slimy stuff produced in making vinegar" is unrelated
to the common meaning)

Does it have to be only two? "Fit" has three meanings. In the sense of "part of
a long poem", it's often spelled "fitt".

Do they have to have the same meaning, or are words such as "lead", "wind",
and "wound" allowed?
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Another for your list: sanction.
And Chandelle might like to look up "contronym".
--
Jerry Friedman
Stefan Ram
2021-03-09 04:49:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Another for your list: sanction.
And Chandelle might like to look up "contronym".
Or "autoantonym".
Peter Moylan
2021-03-09 04:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Saw, lie, mother (the meaning "slimy stuff produced in making vinegar" is unrelated
to the common meaning)
Librarian: I don't think /Advice for young mothers/ is suitable for you.
Young boy: Why? I collect moths.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ken Blake
2021-03-09 15:38:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and
seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins ending
up with the same spelling and pronunciation.
Saw, lie, mother (the meaning "slimy stuff produced in making vinegar" is unrelated
to the common meaning)
Does it have to be only two? "Fit" has three meanings. In the sense of "part of
a long poem", it's often spelled "fitt".
Do they have to have the same meaning, or are words such as "lead", "wind",
and "wound" allowed?
"Wound" reminds me of a guitar teacher I used to have. He was from the
Philippines. He spoke English very well, with no discernable accent, but
I remember his once talking about the "wound" strings on a guitar,
pronouncing it wooned.
--
Ken
musika
2021-03-09 16:23:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 09/03/2021 15:38, Ken Blake wro
Post by Ken Blake
"Wound" reminds me of a guitar teacher I used to have. He was from
the Philippines. He spoke English very well, with no discernable
accent,
You mean he had an American accent? Everybody has an accent.
Post by Ken Blake
but > I remember his once talking about the "wound" strings on a
guitar, pronouncing it wooned.
--
Ray
UK
Ken Blake
2021-03-09 16:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
On 09/03/2021 15:38, Ken Blake wro
Post by Ken Blake
"Wound" reminds me of a guitar teacher I used to have. He was from
the Philippines. He spoke English very well, with no discernable
accent,
You mean he had an American accent?
Yes.
Post by musika
Everybody has an accent.
Yes.

You can change that sentence to "He spoke English very well, with no
discernable accent that was different from mine."
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
but > I remember his once talking about the "wound" strings on a
guitar, pronouncing it wooned.
--
Ken
Snidely
2021-03-09 21:52:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and
seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins ending
up with the same spelling and pronunciation.
Saw, lie, mother (the meaning "slimy stuff produced in making vinegar" is
unrelated to the common meaning)
Does it have to be only two? "Fit" has three meanings. In the sense of
"part of a long poem", it's often spelled "fitt".
Do they have to have the same meaning, or are words such as "lead", "wind",
and "wound" allowed?
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Another for your list: sanction.
And Chandelle might like to look up "contronym".
You are being quite clever.

I was going to suggest we table the matter, but the difference in
meaning there is pondial, as Left Pondians use it for postponing and
the gentlefolk on the Atlantic's dexter side use it for bringing up.
If I've gotten the right end of the clue stick.

/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
Graham
2021-03-10 02:23:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Saw, lie, mother (the meaning "slimy stuff produced in making vinegar" is unrelated
to the common meaning)
A piece of the "mother" can be used to start another vinegar-making
culture. So in that sense, mother, in the common meaning, can be
considered apposite.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-10 04:07:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Graham
Post by Jerry Friedman
Saw, lie, mother (the meaning "slimy stuff produced in making vinegar" is unrelated
to the common meaning)
A piece of the "mother" can be used to start another vinegar-making
culture. So in that sense, mother, in the common meaning, can be
considered apposite.
Thanks, I didn't know that.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2021-03-09 14:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other,
and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be
said to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun)
is to husband the house's resources.
Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins
ending up with the same spelling and pronunciation.
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
Another for your list: sanction.
Denier.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-09 15:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other,
and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be
said to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun)
is to husband the house's resources.
Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins
ending up with the same spelling and pronunciation.
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
Another for your list: sanction.
Denier.
Unionized.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-03-10 01:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have
two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other,
and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be
said to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun)
is to husband the house's resources.
Cashier is a good example of two words having different origins
ending up with the same spelling and pronunciation.
Previous? I can't think of a second meaning.
Another for your list: sanction.
Denier.
Stocking.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Joy Beeson
2021-03-11 03:50:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 10 Mar 2021 12:07:08 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Stocking.
The subject of a long Li'l Abner arc. Abner, in his hill dialect,
called his socks "stocks". Eavesdroppers thought he was talking about
Wall Street type stocks. A year or so of hilarity ensued.

I'm re-stocking my emergency supplies, now that I'm allowed in grocery
stores. I hope that Aldi still stocks the canned water that I want.

I believe that stocks are also a fragrant flower.

None of those was the primary hit on Wikepedia.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
Lewis
2021-03-09 23:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and
seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Husband (noun) and husband (verb) have the same origin, so could be said
to be closely related in meaning. The duty of a husband (noun) is to
husband the house's resources.
There is a class of words that have opposite meanings. Cleave and cleave
(to split apart or join together) is a famous one, but there are dozens,
perhaps hundreds.

Most common words have different meanings. Play is famous for having
many, as is run, so a list of words with different meanings would be
almost as long as the list of words.

Search for "Janus words" or Contronyms.
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but Madonna's stock is sinking."
soup
2021-03-09 07:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.

'SET'
Rich Ulrich
2021-03-09 18:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by soup
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.
'SET'
Here's a set - tire, wheel, auto, gas, trunk.
Firm. Plant. Dug.
--
Rich Ulrich
soup
2021-03-10 14:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by soup
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.
'SET'
Here's a set - tire, wheel, auto, gas, trunk.
Firm. Plant. Dug.
(Looks like two to me)


Here are some others:-

A collection of games in Tennis.

What a jelly(Jello) is once it has cured.

Someone placing an object 'just so'.

;OP
Tony Cooper
2021-03-10 14:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by soup
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by soup
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.
'SET'
Here's a set - tire, wheel, auto, gas, trunk.
Firm. Plant. Dug.
(Looks like two to me)
Here are some others:-
A collection of games in Tennis.
What a jelly(Jello) is once it has cured.
Someone placing an object 'just so'.
Add: a social level
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Ken Blake
2021-03-10 16:02:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by soup
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by soup
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.
'SET'
Here's a set - tire, wheel, auto, gas, trunk.
Firm. Plant. Dug.
(Looks like two to me)
Here are some others:-
A collection of games in Tennis.
What a jelly(Jello) is once it has cured.
Someone placing an object 'just so'.
Add: a social level
Fixed in one's ways.
--
Ken
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-10 19:36:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by soup
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by soup
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other,
and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.
'SET'
Here's a set - tire, wheel, auto, gas, trunk.
Firm. Plant. Dug.
(Looks like two to me)
Here are some others:-
A collection of games in Tennis.
What a jelly(Jello) is once it has cured.
Someone placing an object 'just so'.
Add:  a social level
Fixed in one's ways.
Stage scenery.

Undergrad accommodation.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Tony Cooper
2021-03-10 19:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Ken Blake
Post by soup
Post by Rich Ulrich
Post by soup
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that
have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other,
and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Many rather than two so not really fulfilling your requirements but I
thought I'd post it anyway.
'SET'
Here's a set - tire, wheel, auto, gas, trunk.
Firm. Plant. Dug.
(Looks like two to me)
Here are some others:-
A collection of games in Tennis.
What a jelly(Jello) is once it has cured.
Someone placing an object 'just so'.
Add:  a social level
Fixed in one's ways.
Stage scenery.
Undergrad accommodation.
Badger's home phonetically.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
phil
2021-03-09 07:58:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
You could start with 'list'.
Snidely
2021-03-09 21:55:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by phil
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two
meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your
inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
You could start with 'list'.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm on an even keel, and playing the
odds with a full deck.

/dps
--
Trust, but verify.
occam
2021-03-09 08:31:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Can I recommend a joke book on puns, as a starting point? Granted, puns
rely on sounds and not spelling, but the source is there

'Clubbing' is what you do with friends, or to seals.
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-09 16:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings,
neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
bow
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-09 20:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
ball, bat, batter, battery, batting, bowl, bill, buff, bull, check, copper (is slang
allowed?), cue, date, ell, fine, fell, flag, gill, hawk, lean, mean, nag, page, quail,
rose, slug, stall, stable, tilt, wake, yen

I admit I'm getting help. I look at the tabs I have open, and one says "mail". I hear
a flicker calling outside.
--
Jerry Friedman
Arindam Banerjee
2021-03-09 21:14:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek your inputs as well.
Nonce
Post by chandelle
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Eric Walker
2021-03-10 02:24:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have
two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek
your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Sanction.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
chandelle
2021-03-10 02:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have
two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek
your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Sanction.
Thanks everyone for the excellent responses.

What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very different if perfectly valid one.

I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
Tony Cooper
2021-03-10 03:18:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
Post by Eric Walker
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have
two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek
your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Sanction.
Thanks everyone for the excellent responses.
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
That seems to indicate that you are looking for words with two
meanings, but limiting your search to words that you are already
familiar with. It doesn't make much sense, then, to ask others to
submit words because what they suggest might not be familiar to you.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-10 04:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
Post by Eric Walker
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have
two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek
your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Sanction.
Thanks everyone for the excellent responses.
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
--
Jerry Friedman
chandelle
2021-03-10 04:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-10 23:41:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
--
Jerry Friedman
chandelle
2021-03-11 00:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Sure; sounds good :)
musika
2021-03-11 00:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent
wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking
back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in
mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very
different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either
husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
--
Ray
UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-11 14:15:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent
wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking
back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in
mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very
different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either
husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
--
Jerry Friedman
musika
2021-03-11 15:15:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
I once used the adjective when I meant meritorious.
--
Ray
UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-12 14:15:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
I once used the adjective when I meant meritorious.
:-)

Any consequences?
--
Jerry Friedman
musika
2021-03-12 14:49:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
I once used the adjective when I meant meritorious.
:-)
Any consequences?
Luckily, not. I think that the person to whom I was talking didn't know
the word.
--
Ray
UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-12 15:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
I once used the adjective when I meant meritorious.
:-)
Any consequences?
Luckily, not. I think that the person to whom I was talking didn't know
the word.
A narrow escape!
--
Jerry Friedman
musika
2021-03-12 15:20:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
On Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at 5:50:33 PM UTC-7, musika
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less
common (that I know of), such as "perch" (landing for a
bird, fish, unit of measure) or "lay" (cause to lie down,
not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
I once used the adjective when I meant meritorious.
:-)
Any consequences?
Luckily, not. I think that the person to whom I was talking didn't
know the word.
A narrow escape!
Loosed too soon?
--
Ray
UK
soup
2021-03-12 08:13:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my intent
wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words - and looking
back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed what I had in
mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst having another very
different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either
husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a much
less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To go back to my
first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common (that I
know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit of measure) or
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-12 10:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by soup
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my
intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words -
and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed
what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst
having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across
either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as
an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a
much less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To
go back to my first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common
(that I know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit
of measure) or "lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the
clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
soup
2021-03-12 13:52:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my
intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words -
and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed
what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst
having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across
either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as
an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a
much less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To
go back to my first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common
(that I know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit
of measure) or "lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the
clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health

Peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
Quinn C
2021-03-12 14:21:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by soup
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by chandelle
What was quickly obvious was that I was in error in that my
intent wasn't properly conveyed. I was looking for such words -
and looking back, the three examples I gave unconsciously showed
what I had in mind - that had a widely accepted meaning whilst
having another very different if perfectly valid one.
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across
either husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as
an adjective.
So what you're looking for are words with a common meaning and a
much less common and very different but perfectly valid one. To
go back to my first suggestions, "mother" but not "lie"?
Yes; exactly!
How about words with two well-known meanings and one less common
(that I know of), such as "perch" (landing for a bird, fish, unit
of measure) or "lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the
clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health
Peace.
Fine. But apart from that ...
--
The notion that there might be a "truth" of sex, as Foucault
ironically terms it, is produced precisely through the regulatory
practices that generate coherent identities through the matrix of
coherent gender norms. -- Judith Butler
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-12 15:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health
Peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
Of course. I was thinking inside the box. (Well, graveyard)

Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
charles
2021-03-12 15:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health
Peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
Of course. I was thinking inside the box. (Well, graveyard)
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
and ground elder (as a salad crop)
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
phil
2021-03-12 16:30:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health
Peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
Of course. I was thinking inside the box. (Well, graveyard)
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
and ground elder (as a salad crop)
and sweet chestnuts
but apart from that...
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-12 17:12:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health
Peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
Of course. I was thinking inside the box. (Well, graveyard)
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
and ground elder (as a salad crop)
and stinging nettles
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Paul Wolff
2021-03-12 21:20:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Kept arch[a]eologists in a job?
and...
Sanitation
Medicine
Education
Wine
Public order
Irrigation
Roads
Fresh water system
Public health
Peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ
Of course. I was thinking inside the box. (Well, graveyard)
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
and ground elder (as a salad crop)
You took that right out of my mouth.

I go for bread and circuses, myself. Can't go wrong with bread and
circuses. And for the Hippodrome (damned fine theatre, don't you know) -
if only it weren't a Greek circus. Though it seems the Romans had an
Aphrodisiac Hippodrome in Asia (Minor), which is an interesting thought.
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2021-03-13 01:51:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
The British can't complain about the rabbits. They went and spread them
even further.

A thousand paces is closer to a kilometre. In that respect they were
ahead of their time.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-13 02:04:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
The British can't complain about the rabbits. They went and spread them
even further.
A thousand paces is closer to a kilometre. In that respect they were
ahead of their time.
I've read that a mile is a thousand double paces--left, right.
--
Jerry Friedman
Rich Ulrich
2021-03-13 06:28:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 12 Mar 2021 18:04:31 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
The British can't complain about the rabbits. They went and spread them
even further.
A thousand paces is closer to a kilometre. In that respect they were
ahead of their time.
I've read that a mile is a thousand double paces--left, right.
Yes. I remember that we discussed that a few years ago. There
was also discussion of how long a step was, for whom.

I was particularly interested in whether the "10 paces" (each)
for a duel amounted to 50 feet or 100 feet, but I think I got no
satisfaction of a firm answer. By 1800, which was close to the
end of duels, a cited "pace" may have been a single step, not two.

Before pistols, it was probably two steps, IIRC.
And I think it iwas unclear how recently the change began.
That's as much as I remember.
--
Rich Ulrich
Mark Brader
2021-03-13 07:49:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I've read that a [Roman] mile is a thousand double paces--left, right.
Yes. I remember that we discussed that a few years ago...
I was particularly interested in whether the "10 paces" (each)
for a duel amounted to 50 feet or 100 feet, but I think I got no
satisfaction of a firm answer. By 1800, which was close to the
end of duels, a cited "pace" may have been a single step, not two.
I suspect so.

As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with sides
(baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore 90*sqrt(2)
feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.

I was interested to learn recently -- from Richard Hershberger's
"Strike Four: The Evolution of Baseball" -- that in the earliest
known codified rules of the game, in 1845, the length of the
baselines was *not specified*, but the *diagonal* of the square
was set at "42 paces".

The modern square with 90-foot sides was established only when
the rules were rewritten in 1857. If this was intended as
a clarification with no change in the size of the diamond, it
means that the "pace" used in the earlier rules was a little over
36 inches. And before that rewrite, one club actually had a rule
book that made the diagonals "42 paces or yards".

The nearest thing to a general consensus today on the size of a
"pace", Hershberger writes, is 30 inches, representing a single step.
He suggests that the original idea was that a "pace" would be
about that size, making the baselines around 75 feet, which still
was longer than in some other versions of the variously named game
before the rules were standardized.

But in those days the diamond was not already laid out for the players
on the ground; they had to set out the bases before starting the game,
pacing off the 42 paces each time. And so they got experience with
using different size diamonds according to who was pacing the
distance. And, Hershberger conjectures, they simply came to prefer
a larger size. And this got standardized on, producing "42 paces or
yards" for the diagonal and then 90 feet for the baseline.
--
Mark Brader "I'm not Richard, either.
Toronto Oh, wait: I am! Lucky me!"
***@vex.net --Richard R. Hershberger

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-13 20:02:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with sides
(baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore 90*sqrt(2)
feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".

Do they use artificial diamonds these days?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Quinn C
2021-03-13 21:03:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with sides
(baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore 90*sqrt(2)
feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".
German has an ingenious way of just using "ja" for this. These little
attitude particles are a challenge for second language learners.
Post by Sam Plusnet
Do they use artificial diamonds these days?
A square diamond can never be real, anyhow.
--
The bee must not pass judgment on the hive. (Voxish proverb)
-- Robert C. Wilson, Vortex (novel), p.125
Peter Moylan
2021-03-13 22:45:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with
sides (baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore
90*sqrt(2) feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".
German has an ingenious way of just using "ja" for this. These
little attitude particles are a challenge for second language
learners.
Same meaning as Spanish "ya"? That would be a strange cross-language
coincidence.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-13 22:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with sides
(baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore 90*sqrt(2)
feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".
German has an ingenious way of just using "ja" for this. These little
attitude particles are a challenge for second language learners.
...

AmE "Yeah, right"? You can just say "Right" with the right tone of voice,
right after the dubious sentence, but I don't think it works if you write it.

And yes, Mark, everyone knows your "everyone knows" was facetious.
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2021-03-14 01:26:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with sides
(baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore 90*sqrt(2)
feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".
German has an ingenious way of just using "ja" for this. These little
attitude particles are a challenge for second language learners.
...
AmE "Yeah, right"? You can just say "Right" with the right tone of voice,
right after the dubious sentence, but I don't think it works if you write it.
Not exactly.

"Das ist so, ja?" would be similar to "That is so, right?", i.e.
(formally) asking for confirmation, but presupposing it.

What I meant is "Das ist ja so: ..." - here, "ja" means "as we both/all
know (I assume)". Often used to avoid the appearance of stating the
obvious or of mansplaining: I know that you know this already, just
mentioning it for background context, wait for the more interesting
stuff to come.
Post by Jerry Friedman
And yes, Mark, everyone knows your "everyone knows" was facetious.
I would be surprised if any regular wouldn't recognize that.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-14 10:07:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021 01:26:58 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with
sides (baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore
90*sqrt(2) feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".
German has an ingenious way of just using "ja" for this. These
little attitude particles are a challenge for second language
learners.
...
AmE "Yeah, right"? You can just say "Right" with the right tone of
voice, right after the dubious sentence, but I don't think it works
if you write it.
Not exactly.
"Das ist so, ja?" would be similar to "That is so, right?", i.e.
(formally) asking for confirmation, but presupposing it.
What I meant is "Das ist ja so: ..." - here, "ja" means "as we
both/all know (I assume)". Often used to avoid the appearance of
stating the obvious or of mansplaining: I know that you know this
already, just mentioning it for background context, wait for the more
interesting stuff to come.
Post by Jerry Friedman
And yes, Mark, everyone knows your "everyone knows" was facetious.
I would be surprised if any regular wouldn't recognize that.
Everyone around here knows that. </Facetiousnous>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-14 14:21:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mark Brader
As everyone knows, a modern baseball diamond is a square with sides
(baselines) 90 feet long. The diagonals are therefore 90*sqrt(2)
feet, or 127 feet and about 3.35 inches.
Splendid use of the word "everyone".
German has an ingenious way of just using "ja" for this. These little
attitude particles are a challenge for second language learners.
...
AmE "Yeah, right"? You can just say "Right" with the right tone of voice,
right after the dubious sentence, but I don't think it works if you write it.
And the "two negatives don't make a positive" joke doesn't work any more.
And yes, Mark, everyone knows your "everyone knows" was facetious.
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-13 19:59:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
The British can't complain about the rabbits. They went and spread them
even further.
A thousand paces is closer to a kilometre. In that respect they were
ahead of their time.
Did they employ Procrustes to standardise a pace?

If the Romans organised their soldiers by the usual
"Tallest on the right, shortest on the left" method,
it could make a big difference if they lead off from the left or the
right hand end of the file.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-03-13 22:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Spread Paul's Christianity.
Imposed a daft numeral system.
Spread use of coinage.
Introduced rabbits.(GB)
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
The British can't complain about the rabbits. They went and spread them
even further.
A thousand paces is closer to a kilometre. In that respect they were
ahead of their time.
Did they employ Procrustes to standardise a pace?
If the Romans organised their soldiers by the usual
"Tallest on the right, shortest on the left" method,
it could make a big difference if they lead off from the left or the
right hand end of the file.
But that would cause them to build curved roads.

Coincidence: I was watching "The Life of Brian" on TV last night. I've
seen it before, of course, but it's always worth another look.

It gave me nightmares, though (on unrelated subjects). Normally I don't
watch TV in the evening, except for the news in the early evening.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Anders D. Nygaard
2021-03-14 11:33:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?

/Anders, Denmark
Lewis
2021-03-14 14:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Distance from right foot to right foot is a pace, AFAIK.

I don't know if you think of that as one step or two.
--
He [Carrot] could lead armies, Angua thought. He really could. Some
people have inspired whole countries to great deeds because of
the power of their vision. And so could he. Not because he dreams
about marching hordes, or world domination, or an empire of a
thousand years. Just because he thinks that everyone's really
decent underneath and would get along just fine if only they made
an effort, and he believes that strongly it burns like a flame
that is bigger than he is.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-14 15:17:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Distance from right foot to right foot is a pace, AFAIK.
In the Roman context and sometimes in others. The AHD says,

"3. The distance spanned by a step or stride, especially:
a. The modern version of the Roman pace, measuring five English feet.
Also called /geometric pace/.
b. Thirty inches at quick marching time or 36 at double time.
c. Five Roman feet or 58.1 English inches, measured from the point at
which the heel of one foot is raised to the point at which it is set down
again after an intervening step by the other foot."
Post by Lewis
I don't know if you think of that as one step or two.
For me it's two, as going from the left foot to the right foot is not half
a step.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-14 16:01:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.

The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,

Jan
Paul Wolff
2021-03-14 16:29:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
And you can't get much more digital than that.

Actually you can, because cartwheels are analogue. Our RSM in the olden
days had a magnificent pace-stick, looking all brass and mahogany. I
suppose one needs practice to keep the pivot point track rectilinear and
not zigzag. And what if you lose count? Perhaps there was an assistant
or a trainee in train. Or you could go in threes, and take a vote every
now and again: the odd one out corrects their own count.
<https://dancraft.co.uk/>
(the image I want may not show at once).
--
Paul
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-14 16:43:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
And you can't get much more digital than that.
A digital calculation, in fact.
Post by Paul Wolff
Actually you can, because cartwheels are analogue. Our RSM in the olden
days had a magnificent pace-stick, looking all brass and mahogany.
...

I didn't know about those. From the Wikipscription, they're like dividers
with preset detents.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff
2021-03-14 19:21:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Mar 2021, at 09:43:48, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
And you can't get much more digital than that.
A digital calculation, in fact.
Well caught.
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Paul Wolff
Actually you can, because cartwheels are analogue. Our RSM in the olden
days had a magnificent pace-stick, looking all brass and mahogany.
...
I didn't know about those. From the Wikipscription, they're like dividers
with preset detents.
And in the end, they yield the dividend.
--
Paul
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-14 19:00:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
I can understand someone maintaining a regular pace on open, even ground.
I doubt if it works as well in a hilly forest, up & down sand dunes,
swampy ground...
Much that is open ground today would have been heavily forested back then.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-14 19:48:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by J. J. Lodder
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
I can understand someone maintaining a regular pace on open, even ground.
I doubt if it works as well in a hilly forest, up & down sand dunes,
swampy ground...
Much that is open ground today would have been heavily forested back then.
Not the Nile Valley. (And they didn't cultivate in the swampy areas
where the papyrus grew.)
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-14 21:04:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance
walkers'. They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped
pebbles into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
I can understand someone maintaining a regular pace on open, even
ground. I doubt if it works as well in a hilly forest, up & down sand
dunes, swampy ground...
Much that is open ground today would have been heavily forested back then.
Much easier to "just" build a road.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-14 19:46:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
Evidence?
Post by J. J. Lodder
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-14 21:02:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
[MP LoB ref]
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Nearly got a standard length of a mile=1k paces (not pace)
Is that "pace" = two steps, one with each foot?
Yes, obviously. The idea was not new though.
The ancient Egyptians already had accurate trained 'distance walkers'.
They had trained to make their paces reproducible.
This allowed them, after each flooding of the Nile,
to restore boundaries of fields and so on rapidly.
Erathosteness used their data
to establish the circumference of the Earth.
The Romans evolved beyond this primitive stage.
They invented a mechanical odometer, in the form of a drawn cart
with wheels driving gears to a counting mechanism that dropped pebbles
into a container. I've seen a replica, somewhere.
Counting the pebbles was still done by hand,
XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIVI dammit!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-12 15:38:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by soup
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Jerry Friedman
"lay" (cause to lie down, not a member of the clergy, long narrative poem)?
Like the ones about early Roman prostitutes?
The ancient Romans did what they could to merit tricks.
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Provided an alphabet with way too few letters, especially for sibilants?
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-12 20:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Introduced the One-Way system?

All roads lead _to_ Rome.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-03-13 01:52:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by soup
But apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Introduced the One-Way system?
All roads lead _to_ Rome.
So that's why the traffic is so bad.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Mark Brader
2021-03-10 09:19:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by chandelle
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either
husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
I can't think of a way to use "previous" *otherwise* than as an adjective.
--
Mark Brader "It's simply a matter of style, and while there
Toronto are many wrong styles, there really isn't any
***@vex.net one right style." -- Ray Butterworth
Ken Blake
2021-03-10 15:57:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by chandelle
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either
husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
I can't think of a way to use "previous" *otherwise* than as an adjective.
Previous to my meeting him, I saw a picture of John.
--
Ken
Mark Brader
2021-03-10 20:07:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Mark Brader
Post by chandelle
I could count on one hand the occasions that I've come across either
husband or cashier being used as a verb, or previous as an adjective.
I can't think of a way to use "previous" *otherwise* than as an adjective.
Previous to my meeting him, I saw a picture of John.
Good enough. (I'd say "previously" there myself, if I used a form of
that word.)
--
Mark Brader | "There are two hard problems in software: Naming, cache
Toronto | invalidation, and off-by-one errors." --Anders Nygaard
***@vex.net | "And an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope." --Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Anders D. Nygaard
2021-03-11 20:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader | "There are two hard problems in software: Naming, cache
Toronto | invalidation, and off-by-one errors." --Anders Nygaard
Sorry, but I can't claim priority for this one, Mark.

/Anders, Denmark
Mark Brader
2021-03-11 23:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader | "There are two hard problems in software: Naming, cache
Toronto | invalidation, and off-by-one errors." --Anders Nygaard
Sorry, but I can't claim priority for this one, Mark.
Prove it, please.
--
Mark Brader | "I have on occasion manufactured technical terms that
Toronto | have made it into common use in the literature.
***@vex.net | But not many, and I'm licensed." --John Lawler
Anders D. Nygaard
2021-03-14 11:42:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader | "There are two hard problems in software: Naming, cache
Toronto | invalidation, and off-by-one errors." --Anders Nygaard
Sorry, but I can't claim priority for this one, Mark.
Prove it, please.
<URL:https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html> ascribes it to
Leon Bambrick in 2010, but I'm confident that it's (much) older than that.


/Anders, Denmark
Mark Brader
2021-03-14 20:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Mark Brader
Mark Brader | "There are two hard problems in software: Naming, cache
Toronto | invalidation, and off-by-one errors." --Anders Nygaard
Sorry, but I can't claim priority for this one, Mark.
Prove it, please.
<URL:https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html> ascribes it to
Leon Bambrick in 2010, but I'm confident that it's (much) older than that.
But his wording was "There are 2 hard problems in computer science:
cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-1 errors."
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "The cure of the typo has struck again."
***@vex.net --Peter Young

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Ken Blake
2021-03-10 15:54:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by chandelle
I'm thinking of drawing up a list - just for fun - of words that have
two meanings, neither of which remotely resembles the other, and seek
your inputs as well.
Three words that readily come to mind are: husband, previous and cashier.
Additions will be welcome and gratefully acknowledged, thanks.
Sanction.
"Fucked."
--
Ken
Loading...