Discussion:
He was killed by a gun.
(too old to reply)
tonbei
2020-01-09 22:11:23 UTC
Permalink
He was killed by a gun.

Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.

Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?

What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
David Kleinecke
2020-01-09 22:24:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
AUE is not responsible for stupid textbooks.
Horace LaBadie
2020-01-09 22:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
AUE is not responsible for stupid textbooks.
Especially ones that are apparently edited by the NRA.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-10 10:39:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
AUE is not responsible for stupid textbooks.
Especially ones that are apparently edited by the NRA.
Eh, tonbei may not be aware of the NRA slogan:
"guns don't kill people"

Jan
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-10 12:05:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone
touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He
died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say
in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
: (Wrong).
AUE is not responsible for stupid textbooks.
Especially ones that are apparently edited by the NRA.
"guns don't kill people"
how does that finish?
"demented loons with easy access to weaponry do".
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2020-01-10 13:20:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
"guns don't kill people"
Or its standard next line.

"People with guns kill people"
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
l***@yahoo.com
2020-01-09 23:48:57 UTC
Permalink
“Here lie the bones of John Bunn;
He was killed by a gun.
His name was not Bunn, but Wood;
But Wood would not rhyme with gun,
And Bunn would."

(From Appleby, England.)
Peter Moylan
2020-01-10 00:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Normally you would say
He was killed with a gun
He was killed by the person who had the gun
but that doesn't apply in the situation you describe. There, "by a gun"
is correct.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org

Guns don't kill people.
Gun-owners kill people.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-10 10:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a
gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of
it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Normally you would say
He was killed with a gun
He was killed by the person who had the gun
but that doesn't apply in the situation you describe. There, "by a gun"
is correct.
Correct but a bit forced, don't you think?

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-10 20:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a
gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because
of it.
Then,  could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
  : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Normally you would say
      He was killed with a gun
      He was killed by the person who had the gun
but that doesn't apply in the situation you describe. There, "by a gun"
is correct.
If you were discussing "Cause of Death" there might be some chance that
this form of words could crop up, since it doesn't make any assumptions
like "Person X shot him/her".
It doesn't seem any more clumsy than saying "X died from gunshot wounds."
--
Sam Plusnet
John Varela
2020-01-10 21:32:36 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:53:19 UTC, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Normally you would say
He was killed with a gun
He was killed by the person who had the gun
but that doesn't apply in the situation you describe. There, "by a gun"
is correct.
The "touched on the table" idea is forced, but fatal accidents
involving a dropped gun or a supposedly unloaded gun do occur. An
acquaintance was not killed but was seriously wounded by a gun that
fell when he tried to remove it from a high shelf.
--
John Varela
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-11 10:45:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:32:36 GMT, "John Varela"
Post by John Varela
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:53:19 UTC, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched
a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died
because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say
in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
: (Wrong).
Normally you would say
He was killed with a gun
He was killed by the person who had the gun
but that doesn't apply in the situation you describe. There, "by a
gun" is correct.
The "touched on the table" idea is forced, but fatal accidents
involving a dropped gun or a supposedly unloaded gun do occur. An
acquaintance was not killed but was seriously wounded by a gun that
fell when he tried to remove it from a high shelf.
Guns don't kill people, poor safety precautions do.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-11 10:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 21:32:36 GMT, "John Varela"
Post by John Varela
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 00:53:19 UTC, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched
a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died
because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say
in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
: (Wrong).
Normally you would say
He was killed with a gun
He was killed by the person who had the gun
but that doesn't apply in the situation you describe. There, "by a
gun" is correct.
The "touched on the table" idea is forced, but fatal accidents
involving a dropped gun or a supposedly unloaded gun do occur. An
acquaintance was not killed but was seriously wounded by a gun that
fell when he tried to remove it from a high shelf.
Guns don't kill people, poor safety precautions do.
I've been a bit taken aback at the number of films we've seen recently
in which characters (in both France and the UK) keep their guns lying
around or tucked away in drawers without any locks etc.

On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2020-01-11 11:19:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Guns don't kill people, poor safety precautions do.
I've been a bit taken aback at the number of films we've seen recently
in which characters (in both France and the UK) keep their guns lying
around or tucked away in drawers without any locks etc.
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
--
Guns don't kill people. Gun owners kill people.
charles
2020-01-11 11:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Guns don't kill people, poor safety precautions do.
I've been a bit taken aback at the number of films we've seen recently
in which characters (in both France and the UK) keep their guns lying
around or tucked away in drawers without any locks etc.
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
people do that in real life, too.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-11 13:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Guns don't kill people, poor safety precautions do.
I've been a bit taken aback at the number of films we've seen recently
in which characters (in both France and the UK) keep their guns lying
around or tucked away in drawers without any locks etc.
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
people do that in real life, too.
According to my older daughters the second husband of my first wife did that.
--
athel
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-11 18:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.

bill
Horace LaBadie
2020-01-11 22:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.
Many of them are in a real car, on a real road,
but probably not in real traffic,
Jan
In most cases where they are in a car on a road, the car is being towed.

Bullitt being an exception. Steve insisted on driving in the majority of
of the chase shots.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-12 10:25:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.
Many of them are in a real car, on a real road,
but probably not in real traffic,
Jan
In most cases where they are in a car on a road, the car is being towed.
That is highly unlikely, for in many Eurpean series
shots from outside, showing the vehicle in the landscape
alternate with shots from inside.
This is very cumbersome to arrange with a tow truck on and off.
The already mentioned Vera Stanhope for example
is occasionaly seen driving her Landrover
in the nearly empty countryside.
.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Bullitt being an exception. Steve insisted on driving in the majority of
of the chase shots.
A Dutch special effects firm has created another solution:
A F1 capable flatbed truck that can do over 250 km/h.
The actor can sit at ease behind the wheel making motions,
while the trained stunt driver in front of him
is doing the actual racing or chasing,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-12 17:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.
Many of them are in a real car, on a real road,
but probably not in real traffic,
Jan
In most cases where they are in a car on a road, the car is being towed.
That is highly unlikely, for in many Eurpean series
shots from outside, showing the vehicle in the landscape
alternate with shots from inside.
This is very cumbersome to arrange with a tow truck on and off.
Don't you know about rear-screen projection? (CGI is probably beyond the
budget of a weekly TV show, though the DVDs of *Spartacus* went into great
detail on how they created arenas-ful of spectators.)
Post by J. J. Lodder
The already mentioned Vera Stanhope for example
is occasionaly seen driving her Landrover
in the nearly empty countryside.
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do give the
impression of having been actually filmed on city streets and rural roads.

Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
David Kleinecke
2020-01-12 17:38:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.
Many of them are in a real car, on a real road,
but probably not in real traffic,
Jan
In most cases where they are in a car on a road, the car is being towed.
That is highly unlikely, for in many Eurpean series
shots from outside, showing the vehicle in the landscape
alternate with shots from inside.
This is very cumbersome to arrange with a tow truck on and off.
Don't you know about rear-screen projection? (CGI is probably beyond the
budget of a weekly TV show, though the DVDs of *Spartacus* went into great
detail on how they created arenas-ful of spectators.)
Post by J. J. Lodder
The already mentioned Vera Stanhope for example
is occasionaly seen driving her Landrover
in the nearly empty countryside.
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do give the
impression of having been actually filmed on city streets and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.

I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-12 18:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.
Many of them are in a real car, on a real road,
but probably not in real traffic,
Jan
In most cases where they are in a car on a road, the car is being towed.
That is highly unlikely, for in many Eurpean series
shots from outside, showing the vehicle in the landscape
alternate with shots from inside.
This is very cumbersome to arrange with a tow truck on and off.
Don't you know about rear-screen projection? (CGI is probably beyond the
budget of a weekly TV show, though the DVDs of *Spartacus* went into great
detail on how they created arenas-ful of spectators.)
Post by J. J. Lodder
The already mentioned Vera Stanhope for example
is occasionaly seen driving her Landrover
in the nearly empty countryside.
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do give the
impression of having been actually filmed on city streets and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
Strange, as a basic Google search returns several results:

https://cutt.ly/RrlCFrW


And an example website with various golf cart models and prices:

https://www.gilchristgolfcars.com/cars-for-sale/
Tony Cooper
2020-01-12 19:04:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 09:38:40 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
Post by David Kleinecke
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
If there are golf courses where people can use their own carts, there
are places to buy carts. I lived (until recently) on a golf course
and have owned two golf carts. One electric which I sold and then
bought a gasoline-powered one. I kept them in my garage.

There are several sub-divisions in this area where golf carts are
allowed on the streets if they are equipped with head/taillights. No
golf course nearby, but the residents use them for local
transportation.

There is an area north of here - The Villages - where there are about
125,00 residents and more than 50,000 golf carts owned by the
residents.

I took this shot at a polo match in The Villages. Those are golf
carts lined up along the side of the field...transportation and
seating for the resident spectators.

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Polo-Camacho-Cup/i-3MRstng/A

They are not your common golf carts, either. Some are very
personalized.

https://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Polo-Camacho-Cup/i-qSCQ4r6/A
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-12 21:47:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.

One occasionally hears of an old coot who drives his riding lawn mower
to town. Those would presumably be more widely available.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-12 22:15:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts.
Perhaps in New Jersey, but there is a huge market for them in the
sunbelt states. The very ritzy private golf courses require the
player to rent a cart, but in a golf course community it's very common
for a resident to own their own golf cart, keep it at home, and drive
to the course. And, as pointed out in another post, non-golfing use
is an expanding market.

https://golfcartresource.com/top-10-golf-cart-cities-united-states-2016/

I owned my own golf cart, but the club charged me a fee to use it on
the course as a means off offsetting the revenue loss to them. It was
still more economical that renting. Also more convenient because I
didn't have to schlep my bag over to the clubhouse. It was always on
the cart.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-13 14:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts.
Perhaps in New Jersey, but there is a huge market for them in the
sunbelt states. The very ritzy private golf courses require the
player to rent a cart, but in a golf course community it's very common
for a resident to own their own golf cart, keep it at home, and drive
to the course.
Maybe they figure, the more members that get killed on the roads, the
more they can rake in on initiation fees for new members as slots open up.
Post by Tony Cooper
And, as pointed out in another post, non-golfing use
is an expanding market.
https://golfcartresource.com/top-10-golf-cart-cities-united-states-2016/
I owned my own golf cart, but the club charged me a fee to use it on
the course as a means off offsetting the revenue loss to them. It was
still more economical that renting. Also more convenient because I
didn't have to schlep my bag over to the clubhouse. It was always on
the cart.
The relevant question is whether all these rich layabouts buy their
golf carts from a local golf cart dealer, or through the club where
they are to use them. Do golf clubs tolerate substandard-looking carts
on their property? the Yugos of the trade?
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-13 16:34:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 14:13:28 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
<***@verizon.net> wrote:

[]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Maybe they figure, the more members that get killed on the roads, the
more they can rake in on initiation fees for new members as slots open up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Powell_(rugby)#Golf_buggy_incident

(felt a bit peckish after a hard evening's celebrating and tried for the
24hr service station)




I'll stop next post, honest.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-13 20:41:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:13:28 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts.
Perhaps in New Jersey, but there is a huge market for them in the
sunbelt states. The very ritzy private golf courses require the
player to rent a cart, but in a golf course community it's very common
for a resident to own their own golf cart, keep it at home, and drive
to the course.
Maybe they figure, the more members that get killed on the roads, the
more they can rake in on initiation fees for new members as slots open up.
Post by Tony Cooper
And, as pointed out in another post, non-golfing use
is an expanding market.
https://golfcartresource.com/top-10-golf-cart-cities-united-states-2016/
I owned my own golf cart, but the club charged me a fee to use it on
the course as a means off offsetting the revenue loss to them. It was
still more economical that renting. Also more convenient because I
didn't have to schlep my bag over to the clubhouse. It was always on
the cart.
The relevant question is whether all these rich layabouts buy their
golf carts from a local golf cart dealer, or through the club where
they are to use them. Do golf clubs tolerate substandard-looking carts
on their property? the Yugos of the trade?
What in the world are you on about now? The two major brands of
motorized golf carts are Yamaha and E-Z-Go (owned by Textron).
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of golf cart dealers in the US.
An individual wanting to buy one would buy from a golf cart dealer
just as that person would buy a car from a car dealer.

The clubs are using the same brands as the individuals are using. The
clubs buy them from same dealers. Most golf courses use electric
carts because there is no need to have gasoline tanks on the premises.
Gasoline carts are more popular with individuals. While my Yamaha
needed gas every other week or so, a club fleet has to be topped-off
daily. I've never heard of anyone buying a cart from the club and
can't imagine why they would.

There's a thriving market for body modifications. Standard carts are
purchased from a dealer and then sent to a specialty shop where a
custom body is made.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-13 20:47:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 06:13:28 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
The relevant question is whether all these rich layabouts buy their
golf carts from a local golf cart dealer, or through the club where
they are to use them. Do golf clubs tolerate substandard-looking carts
on their property? the Yugos of the trade?
What in the world are you on about now? The two major brands of
motorized golf carts are Yamaha and E-Z-Go (owned by Textron).
irrelevant
Post by Tony Cooper
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of golf cart dealers in the US.
An individual wanting to buy one would buy from a golf cart dealer
just as that person would buy a car from a car dealer.
Try reading the thread, instead of dropping in to see what you think
you can start a fight about. Hint: the posting by DK is relevant.

You cleverly evaded answering the question of how you acquired your own
personal one.

Did you steal it?
Horace LaBadie
2020-01-12 22:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.
One occasionally hears of an old coot who drives his riding lawn mower
to town. Those would presumably be more widely available.
The Best Golf Cart Communities in the US.
<https://www.golfcartgarage.com/blog/the-best-golf-cart-communities-in-th
e-us/>

"You may have noticed that over the years, more and more golf cart
communities and golf cart retirement communities are popping up all over
the country. From the most modest stock designed models to some super
fancy and flashy carts customized right on down to the smallest nuts and
bolts, golf carts are an incredibly popular mode of transportation in so
many communities around the country.

If you ask any golf cart owner or golf cart enthusiast, you will likely
here them tell you that, golf carts are not only about the ease of
maintenance and convenience, but also that they are just plain fun to
own and drive around."
Rich Ulrich
2020-01-12 22:59:47 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.
If you are playing golf every day at your country club,
it may be cheaper to own your cart than to pay the daily
rental. The club will rent you garage space and recharging,
for a /relatively/ small fee, compared to the basic membership
fee (hundreds per month).

Having your own cart also guarantees that you won't
be met with an apology, "Sorry, all the carts are in use."

That's mainly from very old memory, from my college days
when I life-guarded at a country club, 50-odd years ago. I
figure it will still be true. - It might be that some club pros want
you to buy your cart from them, if you don't already have
one.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
One occasionally hears of an old coot who drives his riding lawn mower
to town. Those would presumably be more widely available.
--
Rich Ulrich
Tony Cooper
2020-01-12 23:48:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:59:47 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.
If you are playing golf every day at your country club,
it may be cheaper to own your cart than to pay the daily
rental. The club will rent you garage space and recharging,
for a /relatively/ small fee, compared to the basic membership
fee (hundreds per month).
Having your own cart also guarantees that you won't
be met with an apology, "Sorry, all the carts are in use."
Rules vary by the club, but some courses will not allow walkers with
or without a pull-cart. The rationale is that golfers on electric or
gasoline carts play faster than walkers. Walkers hold up the faster
players behind them.

In the 1950s I caddied at a country club in Indianapolis that did not
allow carts of any kind. On weekends and before 4PM on weekdays all
golfers had to have a caddy (but two members could share one caddy)
and after 4PM weekdays a golfer could walk and carry his own bag.

That's "his". Women were not allowed to play golf on the course.
If at the club, they were there to lunch, swim, or play tennis.

Jews were allowed as guests, but none were members. Blacks were
allowed to caddy.

Once a year they had "Caddy Day" when the caddies were allowed to play
golf and swim in the club pool. I suspect they drained the pool and
refilled it after Caddy Day.
Post by Tony Cooper
That's mainly from very old memory, from my college days
when I life-guarded at a country club, 50-odd years ago. I
figure it will still be true. - It might be that some club pros want
you to buy your cart from them, if you don't already have
one.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
charles
2020-01-13 10:07:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 17:59:47 -0500, Rich Ulrich
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.
If you are playing golf every day at your country club,
it may be cheaper to own your cart than to pay the daily
rental. The club will rent you garage space and recharging,
for a /relatively/ small fee, compared to the basic membership
fee (hundreds per month).
Having your own cart also guarantees that you won't
be met with an apology, "Sorry, all the carts are in use."
Rules vary by the club, but some courses will not allow walkers with
or without a pull-cart. The rationale is that golfers on electric or
gasoline carts play faster than walkers. Walkers hold up the faster
players behind them.
In the 1950s I caddied at a country club in Indianapolis that did not
allow carts of any kind. On weekends and before 4PM on weekdays all
golfers had to have a caddy (but two members could share one caddy)
and after 4PM weekdays a golfer could walk and carry his own bag.
That's "his". Women were not allowed to play golf on the course.
If at the club, they were there to lunch, swim, or play tennis.
Jews were allowed as guests, but none were members. Blacks were
allowed to caddy.
Once a year they had "Caddy Day" when the caddies were allowed to play
golf and swim in the club pool. I suspect they drained the pool and
refilled it after Caddy Day.
I thought you were going to say 'they filled it with aligators'.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-13 14:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 13:47:40 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.
If you are playing golf every day at your country club,
it may be cheaper to own your cart than to pay the daily
rental. The club will rent you garage space and recharging,
for a /relatively/ small fee, compared to the basic membership
fee (hundreds per month).
Having your own cart also guarantees that you won't
be met with an apology, "Sorry, all the carts are in use."
That's mainly from very old memory, from my college days
when I life-guarded at a country club, 50-odd years ago. I
figure it will still be true. - It might be that some club pros want
you to buy your cart from them, if you don't already have
one.
This last being the point I was making.
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-13 10:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Hawaii-Five-O has a car chase in nearly every episode, and they do
give the impression of having been actually filmed on city streets
and rural roads.
Though this week it was a golf cart chase.
Seizing the chance: I attempted to find the cost of a golf cart online.
There are two different things called "golf carts" and the kind one
rides in gets much less attention.
I still don't know where one is supposed to go to buy the kind of golf
cart ridden in. There are no stores, apparently, explicitly selling them
in Northern California. But somebody must be.
There can't be much of a market for individual sales of golf carts. The
customers would be golf courses (clubs) that order a whole fleet at a
time. Only someone with an immense estate with acres of lawn would have
a use for a golf cart of their own, and they could perhaps simply buy one
through their club.
One occasionally hears of an old coot who drives his riding lawn mower
to town. Those would presumably be more widely available.
In these parts old coots drive what is called a 'scootmobiel'.
health insurance gets you one if you are no longer able to walk,
or you can buy one before you are entitled to one.
Google will tell you what they look like.

In the news recently, because a well known actor from Sesam Straat
was killed in a trafic accident riding one,

Jan
Horace LaBadie
2020-01-12 19:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Peter Moylan
I still get annoyed by the way people in films drive with their heads
turned sideways to talk to the passengers.
Me too. When it happens on television, I sometimes shout at the
actors to keep an eye on the road. It gives me some comfort
that I know they're in a studio, not a real car in traffic.
Many of them are in a real car, on a real road,
but probably not in real traffic,
Jan
In most cases where they are in a car on a road, the car is being towed.
That is highly unlikely, for in many Eurpean series
shots from outside, showing the vehicle in the landscape
alternate with shots from inside.
This is very cumbersome to arrange with a tow truck on and off.
The already mentioned Vera Stanhope for example
is occasionaly seen driving her Landrover
in the nearly empty countryside.
The actors ride in what is known in movie jargon as a "Picture Car." The
picture car is usually either towed by what is called an "Insert Car,"
which is most often a modified truck loaded with cameras and
photographers, or is actually on a low trailer that is called a "Process
Trailer."
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Horace LaBadie
Bullitt being an exception. Steve insisted on driving in the majority of
of the chase shots.
A F1 capable flatbed truck that can do over 250 km/h.
The actor can sit at ease behind the wheel making motions,
while the trained stunt driver in front of him
is doing the actual racing or chasing,
Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-11 19:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I've been a bit taken aback at the number of films we've seen recently
in which characters (in both France and the UK) keep their guns lying
around or tucked away in drawers without any locks etc.
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
For many, many years, there has been either a law or an Industry Code
that anyone shown getting into a car must be seen to buckle their seat
belt. They don't seem to have noticed the looking-at-the-passenger thing,
though.
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-11 19:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
--
Sam Plusnet
b***@aol.com
2020-01-11 20:42:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
It is, they couldn't care less.

In Paris, they don't even bother with red lights and often drive on
the oncoming traffic lane. Once, as I was stuck in traffic, a police
van whooshed by on the wrong lane with its siren blaring, and before
I could try to pull over smashed in the whole left side of my car
and went on its mad course. Settling the matter was a real ordeal as
of course no accident report had been established.
Post by Sam Plusnet
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
--
Sam Plusnet
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-11 20:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.

I don't know that the police not signalling encourages other drivers
to follow suit. I have two good reasons for signalling every turn
and lane change: 1. the police can hand me an expensive ticket for
not signalling, whether or not they signal themselves; 2. signalling
is hugely important for alerting other drivers to my intentions,
and it prevents accidents, injuries and fatalities.

bill
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-12 08:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I don't know that the police not signalling encourages other drivers
to follow suit. I have two good reasons for signalling every turn
and lane change: 1. the police can hand me an expensive ticket for
not signalling, whether or not they signal themselves; 2. signalling
is hugely important for alerting other drivers to my intentions,
and it prevents accidents, injuries and fatalities.
bill
--
athel
Peter Young
2020-01-12 09:13:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Katy Jennison
2020-01-12 11:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
+1. (I'd understand 'signalling', of course, and probably think nothing
of it.)
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2020-01-13 15:26:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:54:59 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
+1. (I'd understand 'signalling', of course, and probably think nothing
of it.)
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators

Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated, protrude
from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its intention to
turn in the direction indicated by the pointing signal. Trafficators
are often located at the door pillar.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
HVS
2020-01-13 16:02:25 UTC
Permalink
On 13 Jan 2020, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote

-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.

In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
Katy Jennison
2020-01-13 17:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
--
Katy Jennison
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-13 17:33:55 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:03:34 GMT, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
Of course [but that'd be in the 1950's], Kid's Today [TM] wouldn't even
have time to spot "WTF you're doing?" before zooming full speed into the
back of you.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
charles
2020-01-13 18:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
I was discussing these hand signals on a recent walk, and was told that
they're no longer on the Highway Code.
The ones to other road users are not, but those to persons controlling
traffic are there, as are signals given by authorised persons such as
police, DVSA officers, traffic officers and schools crossing patrols.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-13 19:09:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
They're still included in the state driver handbooks, which means there
could be a question about them on the multiple-choice test you have to
pass before you get your road test. I don't think my road-test inspector
had me do any. Though he did tell me to take the next left turn, and when
I moved into the leftmost lane to prepare to do so, he got all huffy
because apparently it was a two-way street even though there was no
center line on the pavement; I pointed that out and apparently it
didn't count against me (not that you get a road test result other
than pass-fail).
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-13 19:51:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
     Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
     protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
     intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
     signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those?  If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
They're still covered in the Highway Code.

The ability to do hand signal used to be part of the driving test.
--
Sam Plusnet
charles
2020-01-13 20:17:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
They're still covered in the Highway Code.
Not in the current edition
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
RH Draney
2020-01-13 20:09:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those?  If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
"That ditzy broad's drying her nails!"...r
Katy Jennison
2020-01-13 21:51:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by HVS
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those?  If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver
of the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
"That ditzy broad's drying her nails!"...r
In the Sellar & Yeatman book 'And Now All This', a
not-particularly-successful sequel to '1066 And All That', there's a
similar series of illustrations and interpretations of hand signals,
such as "I think it's stopped raining" and including a hand pointing out
of the window captioned "That's where our cook's mother lives!"

It was published in 1932; I read it perhaps twenty years later, by which
time the average middle-class reading pubic no longer employed a cook,
and I was struck by how old-fashioned (and "pre-war") that sounded.
(And as you can see, it's stuck in my mind ever since.)

Now perhaps I'll look and see if I can find the illustrations online.
--
Katy Jennison
Rich Ulrich
2020-01-13 22:20:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:03:34 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
-snip-
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated,
protrude from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its
intention to turn in the direction indicated by the pointing
signal. Trafficators are often located at the door pillar.
IIRC, many of them wound up indicating very little -- the semaphore
signals tended to get snapped off, leaving a stubby little piece of
indicator that no one could see.
In those days, it helped to know your hand signals....
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
It might be "decades" if I could remember the period since
I saw a motorist give an arm-signal for a left or right turn.
I also remember, from a manual, arm-extended-and-down
means that "I'm slowing". Maybe I saw that used in the 1960s.

But I'm pretty sure that I have seen a bicycilist use an arm
signal at some time within the last year. I was asking myself,
Why is that guy not in the marked-out bicycle lane? and
then he started signaling for the turn.

- I guess, even if the motorists seeing it do not know the
exact meaning, they will figure out that /something/ is
about to happen and give the rider extra room.
--
Rich Ulrich
Joy Beeson
2020-01-14 03:20:18 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 17:03:34 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Yes, whatever happened to those? If I stuck out my hand and signalled
that I was going to turn left (in the UK, this is), would the driver of
the car behind me have the faintest idea what I was doing?
If I signaled a right turn (US) driver's-manual style while riding my
bike, drivers waved back. So I signaled with my right arm, a mirror
image of the left-turn signal, and that worked. A few decades later,
the right-arm right-turn signal was legalized.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at comcast dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-13 17:09:27 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:26:37 GMT, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:54:59 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On Saturday, January 11, 2020 at 12:20:48 PM UTC-8, Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night
did
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to
be
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from
seatbelt
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for
taxi
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating;
so lots
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition;
that's
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
+1. (I'd understand 'signalling', of course, and probably think nothing
of it.)
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated, protrude
from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its intention to
turn in the direction indicated by the pointing signal.
Trafficators
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
are often located at the door pillar.
Well, quite. </pre-1960s Beetle>

Caveat: careful if using a FWSE; Nazi propaganda might crop up.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tony Cooper
2020-01-13 20:05:59 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:26:37 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:54:59 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
+1. (I'd understand 'signalling', of course, and probably think nothing
of it.)
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated, protrude
from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its intention to
turn in the direction indicated by the pointing signal. Trafficators
are often located at the door pillar.
My 1948 Austin A40 had those. First time I had experience with
"pop-ups".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
charles
2020-01-13 20:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:26:37 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:54:59 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi
drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
+1. (I'd understand 'signalling', of course, and probably think nothing
of it.)
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated, protrude
from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its intention to
turn in the direction indicated by the pointing signal. Trafficators
are often located at the door pillar.
My 1948 Austin A40 had those. First time I had experience with
"pop-ups".
In about 1955, I went round the Jaguar factory in Coventry. Their cars had
the ultra winkers. Reason "trafficators jamb at speed".
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
b***@shaw.ca
2020-01-13 21:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
In about 1955, I went round the Jaguar factory in Coventry. Their cars had
the ultra winkers. Reason "trafficators jamb at speed".
Jam, Shirley?

bill
charles
2020-01-13 21:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by charles
In about 1955, I went round the Jaguar factory in Coventry. Their cars
had the ultra winkers. Reason "trafficators jamb at speed".
Jam, Shirley?
bill
true - my tryping gets worse each day.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-14 07:22:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 13 Jan 2020 15:26:37 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sun, 12 Jan 2020 11:54:59 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi
drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
+1. (I'd understand 'signalling', of course, and probably think nothing
of it.)
This threadlet has triggered memories of "trafficators".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafficators
Trafficators are semaphore signals which, when operated, protrude
from the bodywork of a motor vehicle to indicate its intention to
turn in the direction indicated by the pointing signal. Trafficators
are often located at the door pillar.
My 1948 Austin A40 had those. First time I had experience with
"pop-ups".
In about 1955, I went round the Jaguar factory in Coventry. Their cars had
the ultra winkers. Reason "trafficators jamb at speed".
Around that time, or a bit earlier, semaphore signals (including hand
signals, of course) were the only ones I was familiar with, but a
teacher at my school (probably born in the 19th century) complained
that the new-fangled flashing ones were dangerous because one might not
notice them.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-12 17:03:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
Nor was it in England in my recollection: "indicator", yes;
"indicating", no. I had difficulty understanding what Kerr-Mudd,John
meant -- I thought ut might be a thinko.
It's certainly the term I use for using the indicators.
Around here, "indicator" is most likely to be used for the numbers that
flash to indicate which floor an elevator is at (both outside by the
door, and in the cab).
Ross
2020-01-12 08:37:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
On the other hand Vera Stanhope in the episode we saw last night did
attach her seatbelt before driving off. If the television is to be
believed French police don't bother with that.
I had a vague feeling that (UK) police might be exempt from seatbelt
laws, but the only occupational exemption I could find was for taxi drivers.
Around here they seem to have exempted themselves from indicating; so lots
of others are encouraged to also not bother. (no end preposition; that's
good, right?)
I'm assuming that "indicating" is British English for signalling
a turn or lane change. It's not used that way in Canada.
It's the normal term in NZ.
Post by b***@shaw.ca
I don't know that the police not signalling encourages other drivers
to follow suit. I have two good reasons for signalling every turn
and lane change: 1. the police can hand me an expensive ticket for
not signalling, whether or not they signal themselves; 2. signalling
is hugely important for alerting other drivers to my intentions,
and it prevents accidents, injuries and fatalities.
bill
Peter Young
2020-01-10 08:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Katy Jennison
2020-01-10 09:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me. In practice, wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"? In this case, "accidentally shot".
--
Katy Jennison
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-10 10:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.
Yes, but this is tonbei, the poor man's navi.
Post by Katy Jennison
In practice, wouldn't one be more likely to say "He was shot"? In
this case, "accidentally shot".
--
athel
RH Draney
2020-01-10 11:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then,  could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
  : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.  In practice, wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"?  In this case, "accidentally
shot".
If that were in fact the case...if someone goes to the trouble of
telling me someone was killed "with a gun", I find myself wondering if
they didn't force it down his throat and suffocate him with it....r
J. J. Lodder
2020-01-10 11:23:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me. In practice, wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"? In this case, "accidentally shot".
'He shot himself by accident' to go back to the original sentence.
Inanimate objects shouldn't be animated,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 18:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
'He shot himself by accident' to go back to the original sentence.
Inanimate objects shouldn't be animated,
So much for the *Toy Story* movie franchise.
HVS
2020-01-10 12:04:12 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
-snip -
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me. In practice,
wouldn't
Post by Katy Jennison
one be more likely to say "He was shot"? In this case,
"accidentally shot".

I agree - as long as you add "dead" to the statements, of course.

Cheers, Harvey
Katy Jennison
2020-01-10 15:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
-snip -
   : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
(Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.  In practice,
wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"?  In this case,
"accidentally shot".
I agree - as long as you add "dead" to the statements, of course.
"Your thoughts and prayers are requested for the family of NN, who has
sadly passed away following a firearms accident."
--
Katy Jennison
HVS
2020-01-10 16:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
-snip -
   : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
(Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.  In practice,
wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"?  In this case,
"accidentally shot".
I agree - as long as you add "dead" to the statements, of course.
"Your thoughts and prayers are requested for the family of NN, who
has sadly passed away following a firearms accident."
Ah, yes. For some years after my parents died (in 1982; car crash),
euphemisms for "dead/dying" did somewhat annoy me.

It never occurred to me to say anything other than "they died", but
ISTR getting the occasional odd look when I said it that way.

I guess some people would prefer something like "I lost my parents"
(I didn't "lose" them -- I can show you where they were buried), or
that they'd "passed away" (which sounded too gentle,as they died from
traumatic physical injuries when some clown coming the other way in a
snowstorm in northern Ontario decided to overtake a line of traffic).

But that was a lot of years ago, and it doesn't bother me any
more....
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng (30 yrs) and BrEng (36 yrs),
indiscriminately mixed
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 18:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Ah, yes. For some years after my parents died (in 1982; car crash),
euphemisms for "dead/dying" did somewhat annoy me.
It never occurred to me to say anything other than "they died", but
ISTR getting the occasional odd look when I said it that way.
I guess some people would prefer something like "I lost my parents"
(I didn't "lose" them -- I can show you where they were buried), or
that they'd "passed away" (which sounded too gentle,as they died from
traumatic physical injuries when some clown coming the other way in a
snowstorm in northern Ontario decided to overtake a line of traffic).
But that was a lot of years ago, and it doesn't bother me any
more....
I have told my family that when my time comes they are not to say anything
other than "died", or I'll come and haunt them. I don't do euphemisms.
Death is death and even more shall be so.
Maybe they'd be happy to have you back, however incorporeally.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2020-01-10 21:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
-snip -
   : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
(Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.  In practice,
wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"?  In this case,
"accidentally shot".
I agree - as long as you add "dead" to the statements, of course.
"Your thoughts and prayers are requested for the family of NN, who
has sadly passed away following a firearms accident."
Ah, yes. For some years after my parents died (in 1982; car crash),
euphemisms for "dead/dying" did somewhat annoy me.
It never occurred to me to say anything other than "they died", but
ISTR getting the occasional odd look when I said it that way.
I guess some people would prefer something like "I lost my parents"
(I didn't "lose" them -- I can show you where they were buried), or
that they'd "passed away" (which sounded too gentle,as they died from
traumatic physical injuries when some clown coming the other way in a
snowstorm in northern Ontario decided to overtake a line of traffic).
But that was a lot of years ago, and it doesn't bother me any
more....
I have told my family that when my time comes they are not to say
anything other than "died", or I'll come and haunt them. I don't do
euphemisms. Death is death and even more shall be so.
Peter.
Pushing up the daisies? </1975 Monty Python>

But now for some lego

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-11 08:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
-snip -
   : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
(Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.  In practice,
wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"?  In this case,
"accidentally shot".
I agree - as long as you add "dead" to the statements, of course.
"Your thoughts and prayers are requested for the family of NN, who
has sadly passed away following a firearms accident."
Ah, yes. For some years after my parents died (in 1982; car crash),
euphemisms for "dead/dying" did somewhat annoy me.
It never occurred to me to say anything other than "they died", but
ISTR getting the occasional odd look when I said it that way.
I guess some people would prefer something like "I lost my parents"
(I didn't "lose" them -- I can show you where they were buried), or
that they'd "passed away" (which sounded too gentle,as they died from
traumatic physical injuries when some clown coming the other way in a
snowstorm in northern Ontario decided to overtake a line of traffic).
But that was a lot of years ago, and it doesn't bother me any
more....
I have told my family that when my time comes they are not to say anything
other than "died", or I'll come and haunt them. I don't do euphemisms.
Death is death and even more shall be so.
I agree with all that you, Harvey and Katy have said about this.

This sort of euphemism has been around for a long time, at least since
Jessica ridiculed it in The Loved One, in which we read that a
particular suicide victim had passed away with a rope (etc.).
--
athel
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-11 08:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by HVS
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
-snip -
   : He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun.
(Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me.  In practice,
wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"?  In this case,
"accidentally shot".
I agree - as long as you add "dead" to the statements, of course.
"Your thoughts and prayers are requested for the family of NN, who
has sadly passed away following a firearms accident."
Ah, yes. For some years after my parents died (in 1982; car crash),
euphemisms for "dead/dying" did somewhat annoy me.
It never occurred to me to say anything other than "they died", but
ISTR getting the occasional odd look when I said it that way.
I guess some people would prefer something like "I lost my parents"
(I didn't "lose" them -- I can show you where they were buried), or
that they'd "passed away" (which sounded too gentle,as they died from
traumatic physical injuries when some clown coming the other way in a
snowstorm in northern Ontario decided to overtake a line of traffic).
But that was a lot of years ago, and it doesn't bother me any
more....
I have told my family that when my time comes they are not to say anything
other than "died", or I'll come and haunt them. I don't do euphemisms.
Death is death and even more shall be so.
I agree with all that you, Harvey and Katy have said about this.
This sort of euphemism has been around for a long time, at least since Jessica
Mitford (I wasn't on first-name terms with her, though for a while we
lived in the same city (Berkeley))
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
ridiculed it in The Loved One, in which we read that a particular
suicide victim had passed away with a rope (etc.).
--
athel
Pat Durkin
2020-01-12 05:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
I agree with all that you, Harvey and Katy have said about this.
This sort of euphemism has been around for a long time, at least since
Jessica ridiculed it in The Loved One, in which we read that a
particular suicide victim had passed away with a rope (etc.).
I never read
Jessica's book. Wasn't that "The American Way of Dying"? But I associate "The Loved One" with another author entirely. Fiction, with Mr. Joyboy? A Waugh, perhaps? Strangely, although I read the book a few years before the film came out, I can name (Robert) Morse and Rod Steiger, though I really didn't like the film at all.
Pat Durkin
2020-01-12 05:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pat Durkin
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I agree with all that you, Harvey and Katy have said about this.
This sort of euphemism has been around for a long time, at least since
Jessica ridiculed it in The Loved One, in which we read that a
particular suicide victim had passed away with a rope (etc.).
I never read
Jessica's book. Wasn't that "The American Way of Dying"? But I associate "The Loved One" with another author entirely. Fiction, with Mr. Joyboy? A Waugh, perhaps? Strangely, although I read the book a few years before the film came out, I can name (Robert) Morse and Rod Steiger, though I really didn't like the film at all.
Sorry...I don't know that Jessica didn't write her own "The Loved One". I just checked...Evelyn Waugh wrote "The Loved One" to which I referred earlier.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2020-01-12 08:30:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by HVS
On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 09:20:13 +0000, Katy Jennison
I agree with all that you, Harvey and Katy have said about this.
This sort of euphemism has been around for a long time, at least since>
Jessica ridiculed it in The Loved One, in which we read that a>
particular suicide victim had passed away with a rope (etc.).
I never readJessica's book. Wasn't that "The American Way of Dying"?
But I associate "The Loved One" with another author entirely. Fiction,
with Mr. Joyboy? A Waugh, perhaps?
You're right. The American Way of Death (Jessica Mitford) (published
under that name in England) and The Loved One (Evelyn Waugh) were two
different books, one non-fiction, the other a novel. It's a long time
since I read either. Mitford made a reference to Waugh, saying that
inthe funeral industry they referred to him as Evelyn
Bites-the-Hand-that-Feeds-Him Waugh.
Strangely, although I read the book a few years before the film came
out, I can name (Robert) Morse and Rod Steiger, though I really didn't
like the film at all.
I thought the film was terrible, and didn't do justice to the book.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 15:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me. In practice, wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"? In this case, "accidentally shot".
The original sentence should name the model of "gun," then it would be
better (pistol, rifle, shotgun; or brand name; or caliber; probably other
possibilities).
charles
2020-01-10 19:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Young
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun
on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Northern BrE would say "He was killed with a gun".
Both of them sound artificial and stilted to me. In practice, wouldn't
one be more likely to say "He was shot"? In this case, "accidentally shot".
but he could be shot with an arrow fired from a bow.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
occam
2020-01-10 11:21:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
If you follow the NRA mantra "Guns don't kill people, people kill
people" then the sentence should read: "He was killed by a man with a gun"
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-10 15:41:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Yes.
Post by tonbei
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
The gun acted seemingly of its own volition.
Post by tonbei
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Under normal circumstances, yes.
Horace LaBadie
2020-01-10 22:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.

He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.

Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-10 23:48:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right),
Because "with" indicates means, and the gun is the actual means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Because "by" indicates agency, and the gun is not the actual agent
but the means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.
He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.
These three are correct, as "by" is used to indicate the agent in each
case.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
That one is OK but awkward: "... a woman was killed by a falling chunk
of building facade" or suchlike would be better.
Ross
2020-01-11 00:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right),
Because "with" indicates means, and the gun is the actual means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Because "by" indicates agency, and the gun is not the actual agent
but the means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.
He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.
These three are correct, as "by" is used to indicate the agent in each
Things like falling trees would not normally be considered
agents. "Cause" might work better.

On the other hand, "with" indicates instrumentality,
which in turn implies agency.

So

He was killed with a falling tree.

could only be used in case someone had deliberately
caused it to fall in order to kill him.

This is why neither preposition is entirely satisfactory.
Post by b***@aol.com
case.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
That one is OK but awkward: "... a woman was killed by a falling chunk
of building facade" or suchlike would be better.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-11 00:48:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right),
Because "with" indicates means, and the gun is the actual means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Because "by" indicates agency, and the gun is not the actual agent
but the means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.
He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.
These three are correct, as "by" is used to indicate the agent in each
Things like falling trees would not normally be considered
agents. "Cause" might work better.
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
Post by Ross
On the other hand, "with" indicates instrumentality,
which in turn implies agency.
So
He was killed with a falling tree.
could only be used in case someone had deliberately
caused it to fall in order to kill him.
Indeed.
Post by Ross
This is why neither preposition is entirely satisfactory.
I can't think of any better one than "by".
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
case.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
That one is OK but awkward: "... a woman was killed by a falling chunk
of building facade" or suchlike would be better.
Ross
2020-01-11 01:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right),
Because "with" indicates means, and the gun is the actual means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Because "by" indicates agency, and the gun is not the actual agent
but the means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.
He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.
These three are correct, as "by" is used to indicate the agent in each
Things like falling trees would not normally be considered
agents. "Cause" might work better.
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
But in linguistic (and I think philosophical) usage,
an agent is a conscious being. It may not be
the same in French.
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
On the other hand, "with" indicates instrumentality,
which in turn implies agency.
So
He was killed with a falling tree.
could only be used in case someone had deliberately
caused it to fall in order to kill him.
Indeed.
Post by Ross
This is why neither preposition is entirely satisfactory.
I can't think of any better one than "by".
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
case.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
That one is OK but awkward: "... a woman was killed by a falling chunk
of building facade" or suchlike would be better.
b***@aol.com
2020-01-11 01:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right),
Because "with" indicates means, and the gun is the actual means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
Because "by" indicates agency, and the gun is not the actual agent
but the means.
Post by Horace LaBadie
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.
He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.
These three are correct, as "by" is used to indicate the agent in each
Things like falling trees would not normally be considered
agents. "Cause" might work better.
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
But in linguistic (and I think philosophical) usage,
an agent is a conscious being. It may not be
the same in French.
To the best of my knowledge, in French, the distinction is between
"êtres animés and "êtres inanimés", and both can be "compléments
d'agent".
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by Ross
On the other hand, "with" indicates instrumentality,
which in turn implies agency.
So
He was killed with a falling tree.
could only be used in case someone had deliberately
caused it to fall in order to kill him.
Indeed.
Post by Ross
This is why neither preposition is entirely satisfactory.
I can't think of any better one than "by".
Post by Ross
Post by b***@aol.com
case.
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
That one is OK but awkward: "... a woman was killed by a falling chunk
of building facade" or suchlike would be better.
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-11 01:16:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
And this differs from the sentence you reject by what?
b***@aol.com
2020-01-11 04:08:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by b***@aol.com
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
And this differs from the sentence you reject by what?
I'm not sure which sentence you mean. If it's "He was killed by a gun",
the difference is that the gun is used by someone and is therefore a
means, whereas the tree falls on its own and is (arguably) an agent.
s***@gmail.com
2020-01-11 05:09:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by b***@aol.com
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
And this differs from the sentence you reject by what?
I'm not sure which sentence you mean. If it's "He was killed by a gun",
the difference is that the gun is used by someone and is therefore a
means, whereas the tree falls on its own and is (arguably) an agent.
But the context is that the gun went off by accident.
It wasn't used by someone.

(I also doubt that I know very many people in my neck of the woods
who would not accept "killed by a gun" even if the gun was used by a gang member
in a deliberate assault. I think I'm including the gun hobbyists I know.)


/dps
b***@aol.com
2020-01-11 07:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by b***@aol.com
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by b***@aol.com
To me, the tree is first and foremost the "agent" as the sentence is a
typical passive construction, though the modifier "falling" does indeed
provide the cause.
And this differs from the sentence you reject by what?
I'm not sure which sentence you mean. If it's "He was killed by a gun",
the difference is that the gun is used by someone and is therefore a
means, whereas the tree falls on its own and is (arguably) an agent.
But the context is that the gun went off by accident.
It wasn't used by someone.
That's right, thanks. I don't know how I could overlook that.
Post by s***@gmail.com
(I also doubt that I know very many people in my neck of the woods
who would not accept "killed by a gun" even if the gun was used by a gang member
in a deliberate assault. I think I'm including the gun hobbyists I know.)
/dps
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-11 01:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
Did those responsible for the building suffer loss of face?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-11 19:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
Did those responsible for the building suffer loss of face?
A lot more than that. The procedure for conducting inspections of
old-building exteriors has been changed, and the fines for violations
and for failing to remedy violations in a timely fashion have been increased.

Quite aside from the family's civil suit.

She was a 60-year-old prominent architect.
Sam Plusnet
2020-01-11 22:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
Did those responsible for the building suffer loss of face?
A lot more than that. The procedure for conducting inspections of
old-building exteriors has been changed, and the fines for violations
and for failing to remedy violations in a timely fashion have been increased.
Quite aside from the family's civil suit.
She was a 60-year-old prominent architect.
Was it happenstance that the victim was an architect, or was she
conducting one of those inspections of a dangerous building?
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-12 16:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Horace LaBadie
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
Did those responsible for the building suffer loss of face?
A lot more than that. The procedure for conducting inspections of
old-building exteriors has been changed, and the fines for violations
and for failing to remedy violations in a timely fashion have been increased.
Quite aside from the family's civil suit.
She was a 60-year-old prominent architect.
Was it happenstance that the victim was an architect, or was she
conducting one of those inspections of a dangerous building?
She just happened to be walking by.

It's a typical early-20th-century facade decorated with terra cotta, and
apparently the mortar that holds terra cotta in place doesn't have an
infinite lifespan.

Some years ago, all the terra cotta that completely covers the Woolworth
Building was replaced with Fiberglas tiles. I think that may have also
been done with the Wrigley Building in Chicago, which they boasted was
the largest building that was completely covered with terra cotta tile.
RH Draney
2020-01-11 08:47:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Horace LaBadie
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on
the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
What made me motivated to ask this question is most textbooks say in
explaining about usages of "by / with"
: He was killed with a gun (Right), he was killed by a gun. (Wrong).
There are so many obvious exceptions to this "rule" that it is
meaningless.
He was killed by a downed power line.
He was killed by a falling tree.
He was killed by runaway locomotive.
Recently, in New York City, a woman was killed by a chunk of building
facade.
Amy Winehouse was killed by the age of twenty-seven....r
Don P
2020-01-12 22:33:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
An independent source of data is coroners' reports, where the usual form
is "X died of a gunshot wound" (which covers both people killed by
single bullets, or several bullets, and those hit by the multiple
pellets of a shotgun.) Who fired the weapon is a separate topic.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter T. Daniels
2020-01-13 14:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don P
Post by tonbei
He was killed by a gun.
Could this sentence make sense in a situation where someone touched a gun on the table, and that gun went off by accident. He died because of it.
Then, could we say:" he was killed by a gun." ?
An independent source of data is coroners' reports, where the usual form
is "X died of a gunshot wound" (which covers both people killed by
single bullets, or several bullets, and those hit by the multiple
pellets of a shotgun.) Who fired the weapon is a separate topic.
TV cops call them "GSWs," which is two syllables longer than "gunshot
wounds." And isn't "DOA" ambiguous, depending on whose "arrival" where
is conceptualized?
Loading...