Discussion:
"sneaky suspicion" v "sneaking suspicion"
(too old to reply)
Maria C.
2008-11-15 18:54:34 UTC
Permalink
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.

My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?

* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"

Maria C.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
2008-11-15 19:15:25 UTC
Permalink
"Maria C." wrote:

[...]
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers," of course. From "AUE" + "-er."

~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
Maria C.
2008-11-16 16:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers," of course. From "AUE" + "-er."
Thanks, and please see my reply to Mark for an explanation for my
question.
--
Maria C.
Mark Brader
2008-11-15 19:53:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "One thing that surprises you about this business
***@vex.net | is the surprises." -- Tim Baker
Robert Lieblich
2008-11-16 01:37:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
original post, the footnote should have been punctuated:

-- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?

Both sides of the pond.
--
Bob Lieblich
Both sides now
Irwell
2008-11-16 02:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Lieblich
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
-- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?
Both sides of the pond.
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
Maria C.
2008-11-16 16:44:24 UTC
Permalink
Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have Bob
blocked. ????
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Lieblich
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
-- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?
True.
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Lieblich
Both sides of the pond.
Ditto.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
--
Maria C.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2008-11-16 17:01:29 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Elizabetha Regina (2nd June 1953 was the day when her Gracious Majesty
was crowned -- curious that I remember the exact date after more than
half a century, when more significant dates have faded from memory).
--
athel
Robert Bannister
2008-11-16 23:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Elizabetha Regina (2nd June 1953 was the day when her Gracious Majesty
was crowned -- curious that I remember the exact date after more than
half a century, when more significant dates have faded from memory).
I only remember it because I had been off sick, and when I returned to
school, I discovered I had been entered in and had won the ballot in my
class to attend. I spent several hours standing in the drizzle behind a
very tall policeman. I don't think I actually saw 'er.
--
Rob Bannister
Irwell
2008-11-17 14:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Elizabetha Regina (2nd June 1953 was the day when her Gracious Majesty
was crowned -- curious that I remember the exact date after more than
half a century, when more significant dates have faded from memory).
I only remember it because I had been off sick, and when I returned to
school, I discovered I had been entered in and had won the ballot in my
class to attend. I spent several hours standing in the drizzle behind a
very tall policeman. I don't think I actually saw 'er.
We went cycling around Box Hill on that day, about the only people in
Southern England not glued to the telly. Heard about Hilary/Tensing
climbing Everest, curious coincindence.
Robin Bignall
2008-11-17 22:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Elizabetha Regina (2nd June 1953 was the day when her Gracious Majesty
was crowned -- curious that I remember the exact date after more than
half a century, when more significant dates have faded from memory).
I only remember it because I had been off sick, and when I returned to
school, I discovered I had been entered in and had won the ballot in my
class to attend. I spent several hours standing in the drizzle behind a
very tall policeman. I don't think I actually saw 'er.
We went cycling around Box Hill on that day, about the only people in
Southern England not glued to the telly. Heard about Hilary/Tensing
climbing Everest, curious coincindence.
There was only one house with a telly in my area, and somehow most
people in the street, including kids, trooped through to get a glimpse
of the ceremony, and of this (to us) new-fangled invention. During
the year following, those large X and H aerials sprang up everywhere.
For a while the local council tried to ban them from council houses,
since they were in contravention of the "no changes to premises
allowed" rule, but they had to give in eventually.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Chuck Riggs
2008-11-18 16:42:56 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:51:15 +0000, Robin Bignall
Post by Robin Bignall
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
[ ... ]
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Elizabetha Regina (2nd June 1953 was the day when her Gracious Majesty
was crowned -- curious that I remember the exact date after more than
half a century, when more significant dates have faded from memory).
I only remember it because I had been off sick, and when I returned to
school, I discovered I had been entered in and had won the ballot in my
class to attend. I spent several hours standing in the drizzle behind a
very tall policeman. I don't think I actually saw 'er.
We went cycling around Box Hill on that day, about the only people in
Southern England not glued to the telly. Heard about Hilary/Tensing
climbing Everest, curious coincindence.
There was only one house with a telly in my area, and somehow most
people in the street, including kids, trooped through to get a glimpse
of the ceremony, and of this (to us) new-fangled invention. During
the year following, those large X and H aerials sprang up everywhere.
For a while the local council tried to ban them from council houses,
since they were in contravention of the "no changes to premises
allowed" rule, but they had to give in eventually.
We were one of the first in my Northern Virginia neighbourhood, but
all the TV showed during the day were the McCarthy hearings. I
remember watching them with friends and family, since there was
nothing else and occasionally something funny would happen, but what
we kids actually wanted were cartoons.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Irwell
2008-11-16 17:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have Bob
blocked. ????
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Lieblich
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
-- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?
True.
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Lieblich
Both sides of the pond.
Ditto.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
All along the Mall and other places in 1953 London.
Ian Jackson
2008-11-16 17:44:52 UTC
Permalink
In message <gfpil7$p52$***@aioe.org>, Maria C. <***@sbcglobal.net>
writes
Post by Maria C.
Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have
Bob blocked. ????
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Lieblich
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
Agreed. (How could I possibly disagree with Rey?) But in the
-- Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs"?
True.
Post by Irwell
Post by Robert Lieblich
Both sides of the pond.
Ditto.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Elizabeth Regina?
Coronation Day 2 June, 1953!
--
Ian
Nick Spalding
2008-11-16 18:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have Bob
blocked. ????
You are posting via aioe and presumably reading that way too. It misses
a lot of posts. Totals for a number of servers for aue for the last 28
days:

<fixed pitch>
 alt.usage.english
  Merge IOL NIN APN ALB AIO MOZ NDD TNV
  Total 6881 6841 6829 6880 6835 4944 6847 6834 6835
  Avg. 246 244 244 246 244 177 245 244 244
  99.42% 99.24% 99.99% 99.33% 71.85% 99.51% 99.32% 99.33%

IOL – My ISP's server
NIN – news.individual.net - EUR10 p.a.
APN – Forté's rebadged Easynews - $2.95 p.m. for 12GB
ALB – news.albasani.net - free
AIO – news.aioe.org - free
MOZ – news.motzarella.org - free
NDD – news.datemas.de - free
TNV – news.tornevall.net - free
--
Nick Spalding
Maria C.
2008-11-16 20:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Spalding
Post by Maria C.
Note from Maria: My server doesn't have Bob's post, and I don't have
Bob blocked. ????
You are posting via aioe and presumably reading that way too. It
misses a lot of posts. [stats]
You are right about where I was posting from. It was an inadvertency. I
had downloaded aioe for reasons I've now forgotten. I'm deleting it, and
reverting to my regular server/whatever.

Thanks for the heads up, Nick.
--
Maria C.
John Varela
2008-11-17 00:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Spalding
Totals for a number of servers for aue for the last 28
<fixed pitch>
 alt.usage.english
  Merge IOL NIN APN ALB AIO MOZ NDD
TNV
  Total 6881 6841 6829 6880 6835 4944 6847 6834
6835
  Avg. 246 244 244 246 244 177 245 244
244
  99.42% 99.24% 99.99% 99.33% 71.85% 99.51% 99.32%
99.33%
I suppose the minor differences result from varying spam suppression
results.
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
Wood Avens
2008-11-16 22:53:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
"er ... er ..." on them.
--
Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
the Omrud
2008-11-16 23:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
Post by Maria C.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
"er ... er ..." on them.
As in

--
David
Mark Brader
2008-11-17 06:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
Post by Maria C.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
"er ... er ..." on them.
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <Loading Image...>.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto, ***@vex.net
#define MSB(type) (~(((unsigned type)-1)>>1))
Ian Jackson
2008-11-17 08:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Wood Avens
Post by Maria C.
Post by Irwell
What were those er signs in 1953 London all about?
What "er signs"?
Those people on or around 2 June 1953, who weren't quite sure why
everyone else was putting out flags and so put up their own signs with
"er ... er ..." on them.
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland. There was a lot of debate about it at the
time. Of course, the previous Pope, John-Paul the Second, was known (in
some circles, in the Starwars days) as J2P2.
--
Ian
Mark Brader
2008-11-17 19:52:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.

[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
"Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
number.

[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
are no complaints.

[3] The highway is not named after her.
--
Mark Brader | "...it's a characteristic ... of organizations that try
Toronto | to anticipate every possible failure: they easily
***@vex.net | come to believe that they *have*..." --Henry Spencer

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Ian Jackson
2008-11-17 20:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.
[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
"Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
number.
[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
are no complaints.
[3] The highway is not named after her.
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. At the time of the coronation, there was a lot
of debate about her title was to be. E2R is a compromise. These days, I
doubt if many Scots could care less! However, if anyone has any UK
money, and objects to it having 'Elizabeth II', I will gladly relieve
them of their burden at no charge.
--
Ian
Mark Brader
2008-11-17 21:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. ...
True (FSVO "Scottish queen"), but irrelevant. Doubly irrelevant to the QEW.
--
Mark Brader | "People tend to assume that things they don't know
Toronto | about are either safe or dangerous or useless,
***@vex.net | depending on their prejudices." -- Tim Freeman
Don Aitken
2008-11-17 22:26:47 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:16:11 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.
[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
"Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
number.
[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
are no complaints.
[3] The highway is not named after her.
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. At the time of the coronation, there was a lot
of debate about her title was to be. E2R is a compromise. These days, I
doubt if many Scots could care less! However, if anyone has any UK
money, and objects to it having 'Elizabeth II', I will gladly relieve
them of their burden at no charge.
In response to the fuss made by the Scots at that time, it was
announced she, and all future sovereigns, would be referred to by the
*higher* of the two numbers, where they are different. So William (if
and when) will be William V, although only the fourth to reign in
Scotland. A "Scottish" number seems unlikely to be used until we get
another James, and that will still cause problems with any surviving
Jacobites. None of the other Scottish royal names (Alexander,
Constantine, and so on) have been popular among royals for several
centuries. Possibly Margaret would be the best bet.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Amethyst Deceiver
2008-11-19 16:11:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.
[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
"Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
number.
[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
are no complaints.
[3] The highway is not named after her.
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. At the time of the coronation, there was a lot
of debate about her title was to be. E2R is a compromise. These days, I
doubt if many Scots could care less! However, if anyone has any UK
money, and objects to it having 'Elizabeth II', I will gladly relieve
them of their burden at no charge.
Does Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother not count as a queen of Scotland>
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-11-19 16:30:44 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:11:21 -0000, Amethyst Deceiver
Post by Amethyst Deceiver
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER. I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.
[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
"Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
and Elizabeth I of Scotland". Scotland doesn't rate a separate
number.
[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
are no complaints.
[3] The highway is not named after her.
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. At the time of the coronation, there was a lot
of debate about her title was to be. E2R is a compromise. These days, I
doubt if many Scots could care less! However, if anyone has any UK
money, and objects to it having 'Elizabeth II', I will gladly relieve
them of their burden at no charge.
Does Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother not count as a queen of Scotland>
No. She was not a monarch, just the wife of a monarch.

Queen has two distinct meanings in this context: a female monarch, and the
wife or widow of a male monarch.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Cece
2008-11-19 17:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 16:11:21 -0000, Amethyst Deceiver
Post by Amethyst Deceiver
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Ian Jackson
Until 1955, signs for the QEW read ER.  I daresay some drivers went "er"
when they saw them: <http://www.thekingshighway.ca/IMAGES/QEW_old.jpg>.
Presumably they omitted the Roman numeral II (between the E and the R)
to avoid offending those Canadians of Scottish ancestry (of which there
many). While ER is E2R for England, Wales (and probably N Ireland), she
is only E1R for Scotland.
Triply wrong.
[1] Our monarch is also Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not
   "Elizabeth II of England, Wales, and probably Northern Ireland
   and Elizabeth I of Scotland".  Scotland doesn't rate a separate
   number.
[2] Her name is shown on our coins correctly as ELIZABETH II, and there
   are no complaints.
[3] The highway is not named after her.
As Scotland didn't ever have a previous Queen called Elizabeth, E2R may
be queen of the UK but, in strictest terms, is only the first Scottish
queen called Elizabeth. At the time of the coronation, there was a lot
of debate about her title was to be. E2R is a compromise. These days, I
doubt if many Scots could care less! However, if anyone has any UK
money, and objects to it having 'Elizabeth II', I will gladly relieve
them of their burden at no charge.
Does Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother not count as a queen of Scotland>
No. She was not a monarch, just the wife of a monarch.
Queen has two distinct meanings in this context: a female monarch, and the
wife or widow of a male monarch.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Specific term: Queen Regnant and Queen Consort.

Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
-- but that is the position he holds. The other direction -- when
Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power. But
that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
the Omrud
2008-11-20 19:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cece
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
-- but that is the position he holds. The other direction -- when
Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power. But
that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact). He would
still be a prince even if he'd never met any Queens. I don't believe
there's any specific reason why the husband of a reigning UK monarch
would automatically become a prince.
--
David
James Silverton
2008-11-20 19:58:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Cece
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that
title officially -- but that is the position he holds. The
other direction -- when Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he
thought he became a real king of England, but he was only King
Consort and had no actual power. But that's (at least
partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
I thought "twice-born" was a Hindu phrase but I guess you mean Philip
inherited two titles of "Prince". I'm not particularly interested in
investigating Philip but were not all the legitimate children of some
Italian prices, princesses or princes too?
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
the Omrud
2008-11-20 20:22:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Post by Cece
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that
title officially -- but that is the position he holds. The
other direction -- when Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he
thought he became a real king of England, but he was only King
Consort and had no actual power. But that's (at least
partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
I thought "twice-born" was a Hindu phrase but I guess you mean Philip
inherited two titles of "Prince". I'm not particularly interested in
investigating Philip but were not all the legitimate children of some
Italian prices, princesses or princes too?
Albert was the second son of a Duke named Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield,
which wouldn't have made him a prince in his own right. The WikiP
article suddenly starts referring to him as "the prince" during his
courtship of Victoria, but it's not clear why.
--
David
James Silverton
2008-11-20 21:09:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Post by the Omrud
The WikiP article suddenly starts referring to him as "the prince"
during his courtship of Victoria, but it's not clear why.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
the Omrud
2008-11-20 22:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would be
immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-11-20 22:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would be
immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
I assumed it was a radiation induced spelling mutation.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Irwell
2008-11-21 02:37:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Post by the Omrud
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would be
immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
I assumed it was a radiation induced spelling mutation.
Don't joke about it, our first born was hatched in Whitehaven in
the early 1950s.
Mike Lyle
2008-11-21 23:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would
be immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
During the war he decided to blend with his British surroundings by
changing it to Sackville-Cowan-Windscale.
--
Mike.
Irwell
2008-11-22 03:14:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by the Omrud
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would
be immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
During the war he decided to blend with his British surroundings by
changing it to Sackville-Cowan-Windscale.
Have a slice of Mountbatten cake.
Paul Wolff
2008-11-22 23:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by the Omrud
Post by James Silverton
Post by the Omrud
Albert was the second son of a Duke named
Saxburg-Cohen-Sellafield, which wouldn't have made him a
prince in his own right.
I like the second name in the triple barrel given later German history.
Ah. Sorry. I did not transcribe it entirely accurately, which would
be immediately obvious to Brits from the final part of the name.
During the war he decided to blend with his British surroundings by
changing it to Sackville-Cowan-Windscale.
All too apt, a cowan being one who wears a cap which doesn't fit.

And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
--
Paul
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-11-23 00:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
Are there any suggestions for the nearby Seascale?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Wolff
2008-11-23 11:11:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Post by Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
Are there any suggestions for the nearby Seascale?
If they have an open attitude and wish to retain a family connection, I
would suggest Frankfort on the Main.
--
Paul
Wood Avens
2008-11-23 11:15:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
They will, Oscar, they will.
--
Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Mike Lyle
2008-11-23 23:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
They will, Oscar, they will.
What about Trawsfynydd?

It occurs to me that Beaufort would make a very neat pair with Berkeley.
--
Mike.
Paul Wolff
2008-11-23 23:29:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Wood Avens
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
They will, Oscar, they will.
What about Trawsfynydd?
The Trawsfynydd Holiday Village is very well thought of, in some classes
of society (no capital 'S' there, as readers will note).
Post by Mike Lyle
It occurs to me that Beaufort would make a very neat pair with Berkeley.
It's Berkshire for me. For a taste of English country life, see this:

http://www.pointtopoint.co.uk/news-2007/areas_midlands.html

where the Old Berks set out their stalls each Easter Monday. I see that
the page repeats: but then, so does the event. Those with stout legs
can walk there from here along the Ridgeway: turn right before the White
Horse and Wayland's Smithy. Enjoy the Best Picnic competition!
--
Paul
Wood Avens
2008-11-24 09:41:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 23:02:28 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Wood Avens
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 23:13:33 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
And while I have the floor, 'they' should have had the imagination to
rename Windscale Beaufort.
They will, Oscar, they will.
What about Trawsfynydd?
Oh, for Trawsfynydd they simply adjust the pronunciation.
--
Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Don Aitken
2008-11-20 20:06:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:40 GMT, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by Cece
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
-- but that is the position he holds. The other direction -- when
Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power. But
that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact). He would
still be a prince even if he'd never met any Queens. I don't believe
there's any specific reason why the husband of a reigning UK monarch
would automatically become a prince.
There isn't. The full story goes something like this.

Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles ahortly before hia
marriage, in 1947, although the validity of these renunciations is
more than a little doubtful. He adopted a new surname at the same
time, it being thought that von
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg would not create the desired
impression in the aftermath of the war (the fact that three of his
brothers-in-law had fought on the German side was bad enough). This
enabled him to be married as "Capt. Philip Mountbatten RN". The next
day he was granted, along with his dukedom, the style of Royal
Highness. He was not made a Prince of the United Kingdom until 1957.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Cece
2008-11-21 20:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:31:40 GMT, the Omrud
Post by Cece
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century.  Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
-- but that is the position he holds.  The other direction -- when
Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power.  But
that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).  He would
still be a prince even if he'd never met any Queens.  I don't believe
there's any specific reason why the husband of a reigning UK monarch
would automatically become a prince.
There isn't. The full story goes something like this.
Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles ahortly before hia
marriage, in 1947, although the validity of these renunciations is
more than a little doubtful. He adopted a new surname at the same
time, it being thought that von
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg would not create the desired
impression in the aftermath of the war (the fact that three of his
brothers-in-law had fought on the German side was bad enough). This
enabled him to be married as "Capt. Philip Mountbatten RN". The next
day he was granted, along with his dukedom,  the style of Royal
Highness. He was not made a Prince of the United Kingdom until 1957.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Philip was granted the style and titles of HRH Duke of Edinburgh, Earl
of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich the evening before the wedding. But
all the printing for the wedding had already been done, so none of it
had the titles. Note: he was not made a prince at that time.

A year later, someone mentioned to George VI that his grandchild, the
child of his daughter HRH Princess Elizabeth, would have only the
courtesy titles of a child of a duke; a son would be (by courtesy)
Earl of Merioneth and a daughter Lady [name]. Immediately, the king
declared that Elizabeth's children would be princes and princesses.
Charles was born Prince Charles of Edinburgh (as Elizabeth had been
Princess Elizabeth of York before 1936, and William now is Prince
William of Wales), dropping the "of Endinburgh" when his mother became
Queen.

Philip was called "Prince Philip" for years before he actually got the
dignity of being a Prince of the United Kingdom -- 1957.
Nick Spalding
2008-11-20 22:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Cece
Prince Philip is Prince Consort, as was Prince Albert in the 19th
century. Although, IIRC, Philip does not have that title officially
-- but that is the position he holds. The other direction -- when
Mary I married King Philip of Spain, he thought he became a real king
of England, but he was only King Consort and had no actual power. But
that's (at least partly) why Albert and Philip are only princes.
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact). He would
still be a prince even if he'd never met any Queens. I don't believe
there's any specific reason why the husband of a reigning UK monarch
would automatically become a prince.
I think Albert was too. I doubt if he would have been considered for
the job if he were not.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
John Varela
2008-11-20 22:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
Born-again, was he?
--
John Varela
Trade NEW lamps for OLD for email.
the Omrud
2008-11-20 22:34:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by the Omrud
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
Born-again, was he?
No, he was born as two princes, concurrently. On a table, if the story
runs true.
--
David
Roland Hutchinson
2008-11-20 23:10:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by John Varela
Post by the Omrud
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
Born-again, was he?
No, he was born as two princes, concurrently.
His poor mother!
Post by the Omrud
On a table, if the story runs true.
I'm sure that didn't help, either.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it.
Don Aitken
2008-11-21 00:52:38 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:34:26 GMT, the Omrud
Post by the Omrud
Post by John Varela
Post by the Omrud
Philip's a prince because he was born as one (twice, in fact).
Born-again, was he?
No, he was born as two princes, concurrently. On a table, if the story
runs true.
My favorite twist to this is that the house where he was born was
called ""Mon Repos".

HMQ was born in even more down-market circumstances, in a house which
was not only in a street, but even had (horror of horrors) a number.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Maria C.
2008-11-16 16:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No.
Post by Maria C.
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
"AUEers". Or alt.usage.englishmen :-).
That's what I thought, but I was having a brief, broken synapse ("senior
moment") at the time and couldn't recall what abbreviation I usually
use. And no, I have no idea if "broken synapse" works in that sentence,
but there it is. I like it.

Note: Part of what Mark's deletion ("...") stands for is 'Google shows
that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.' (I wish you
handn't deleted that part, Mark. I don't want people thinking I'd use
"sneaky" in the phrase being discussed.)
--
Maria C.
Mark Brader
2008-11-16 19:48:47 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Maria C.
2008-11-16 20:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Maria C.
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. ...
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
Note: Part of what Mark's deletion ("...") stands for is 'Google
shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.' (I
wish you handn't deleted that part, Mark. I don't want people
thinking I'd use "sneaky" in the phrase being discussed.)
Huh? I deleted, as usual, the content that I was not responding to.
I don't see why anyone would make such an assumption about your usage
from the sentence as shortened.
Maybe I'm suffering from STS: Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth,
Paranoia....
--
Maria C.
R H Draney
2008-11-15 21:29:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
A "sneaking suspicion" is one that you arrive at in tiny increments...a "sneaky
suspicion", if there is such a thing, is suspecting that someone is being
sneaky....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Maria C.
2008-11-16 16:50:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
use) is more common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky"
version? If so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40
or so)? And, which version do you personally use?
A "sneaking suspicion" is one that you arrive at in tiny
increments...a "sneaky suspicion", if there is such a thing, is
suspecting that someone is being sneaky....r
Hmm. I sort of thought that a "sneaky suspicion" might be one in which
the suspector was being sneaky -- maybe by planting the suspiction in
the minds of people who aren't usually so suspicious.

More likely, though, a "sneaky suspicion" is a sister to "another thing
coming."
--
Maria C.
Robert Bannister
2008-11-16 23:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
A "sneaking suspicion" is one that you arrive at in tiny increments...a "sneaky
suspicion", if there is such a thing, is suspecting that someone is being
sneaky....r
I have a sneaking suspicion that it's more likely to be people
mishearing the original.
--
Rob Bannister
m***@gmail.com
2008-12-01 00:58:25 UTC
Permalink
The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking" suspicion.
This is the most commonly used version (because it's the correct one).
"Sinking" is the second most commonly used version (because it sounds
like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.

Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version most
commonly heard in conversation.

hope that clarifies things...
m***@gmail.com
2008-12-01 03:00:50 UTC
Permalink
(woops, just fixed a major typo!)
The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking"suspicion.
This is the most commonly used version (because it's the correct one).
"Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it sounds
like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.
Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version most
commonly heard in conversation.
hope that clarifies things...
Chuck Riggs
2008-12-01 11:02:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
(woops, just fixed a major typo!)
The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking"suspicion.
This is the most commonly used version (because it's the correct one).
"Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it sounds
like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.
Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version most
commonly heard in conversation.
hope that clarifies things...
You contradicted yourself, on "sneaky", so it didn't. Is it commonly
used or is it not and in what part of the world is it commonly used,
if it is?
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Raymond O'Hara
2008-11-16 03:49:02 UTC
Permalink
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion" is
used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And, which
version do you personally use?
NO
Maria C.
2008-11-16 16:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
use) is more common. My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard
the "sneaky"
version? If so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40
or so)? And, which version do you personally use?
NO
Is that an emphatic "no" or an initialism of sorts? (I suppose it could
stand for Neither One, but that wouldn't quite fit.)
--
Maria C.
dearcilla
2008-11-16 08:26:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
Maria C.
I'm under 40, and I tend towards "sneaking suspicion" but I'm sure
I've heard the alternate too.

It sort of seems to me that a sneaking suspicion creeps up on you, but
a sneaky suspicion is one _you_ are creeping up on.
Maria C.
2008-11-16 17:01:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by dearcilla
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
use) is more common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky"
version? If so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40
or so)? And, which version do you personally use?
I'm under 40, and I tend towards "sneaking suspicion" but I'm sure
I've heard the alternate too.
It sort of seems to me that a sneaking suspicion creeps up on you, but
a sneaky suspicion is one _you_ are creeping up on.
However, the "sneaky suspicion" I mentioned was used in the sense of a
"sneaking suspicion" -- as far as I could determine. The cat allegedly
making the statement may well adhere to a different (and higher) set of
rules than we mere humans do, of course.
--
Maria C.
Chuck Riggs
2008-11-16 14:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
Not until today.
Post by Maria C.
If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
I've only seen "AUEers" used as the colloquial form of "AUE members",
which is an informal way of writing "alt.usage.english members", of
course, recognizing that "members" occasionally causes some
definitional problems for newcomers, who are informally and fondly
known as "newbies" in this and in other newsgroups.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Maria C.
2008-11-16 20:37:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Riggs
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky
suspicion" is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I
use) is more common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
Not until today.
I hadn't seen it before. And if I'd heard it, I must have heard it as
"sneaking." Mishearing is, no doubt, why there are 47,900 instances (per
Google) of "sneaky suspicion."
Post by Chuck Riggs
Post by Maria C.
If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
* Which is correct: "AUEers" or "AUErs?"
I've only seen "AUEers" used as the colloquial form of "AUE members",
which is an informal way of writing "alt.usage.english members", of
course, recognizing that "members" occasionally causes some
definitional problems for newcomers, who are informally and fondly
known as "newbies" in this and in other newsgroups.
I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
look right. Crazy.
--
Maria C.
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
2008-11-16 22:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Maria C. wrote:

[...]
Post by Maria C.
I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
look right. Crazy.
I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't look
right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you usually write
"aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.

I've posted about this matter several years ago, recommending the
standard "AUE" and "AUEer."

Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue," "aueer,"
"aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual atrocities.

~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
Murray Arnow
2008-11-17 02:12:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
Post by Maria C.
I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
look right. Crazy.
I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't look
right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you usually write
"aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.
I've posted about this matter several years ago, recommending the
standard "AUE" and "AUEer."
Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue," "aueer,"
"aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual atrocities.
Lest you take too much credit, Rey, I believe I was using AUE early on,
and I think, before you. As far as AUEer, I also used that as consistent
usage deriving from AUE early on. The question is who was the first to
use AUE and AUEer?
Reinhold [Rey] Aman
2008-11-17 03:42:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Murray Arnow
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
Post by Maria C.
I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just
didn't look right. Crazy.
I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't
look right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you
usually write "aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.
I've posted about this matter several years ago, recommending <---
the standard "AUE" and "AUEer."
Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue,"
"aueer," "aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual
atrocities.
Lest you take too much credit, Rey,
I don't take ANY credit for *creating* or *coining* "AUE" and "AUEer,"
nor do I take ANY credit for being the *first* user of them.
Post by Murray Arnow
I believe I was using AUE early on, and I think, before you. As far
as AUEer, I also used that as consistent usage deriving from AUE early
on. The question is who was the first to use AUE and AUEer?
I don't care. Note that I wrote above that several years ago I only
*RECOMMENDED* "AUE" and "AUEer" as the standard, reacting to a variety
of ugly spellings and variants (see above). Several of the ugliest ones
are still used today by at least three females.

At that time, Evan posted something about who used "AUE" (and perhaps
"AUEer") first and/or before me, including the year, if I remember
correctly. I don't think your name was among the very early users, Murray.
--
~~~ Reinhold [Rey] Aman ~~~
Murray Arnow
2008-11-17 05:10:24 UTC
Permalink
This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.
Chuck Riggs
2008-11-17 16:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Murray Arnow
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
At that time, Evan posted something about who used "AUE" (and perhaps
"AUEer") first and/or before me, including the year, if I remember
correctly. I don't think your name was among the very early users, Murray.
Rey, I'm rarely quoted. That's of no particular matter; I make an effort
at making my presence ephemeral. I did notice, however, at the time I
started writing "AUE," "A.U.E" was the common form. But as you would
correctly put it "who really gives a shit"? This is just some of the
useless trivia that overburdens my brain.
If not the first I believe I was one of the first to write "AUEer",
not that I really give a FRA who wrote it first.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Maria C.
2008-11-17 16:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
[...]
Post by Maria C.
I've been writing "AUEers" for a long time. Suddenly, it just didn't
look right. Crazy.
I'm sure you're mistaken, Maria. The reason why "AUEers" didn't look
right to you is this: Like about a dozen other RRs, you usually write
"aue" and other *lowercase* derivatives.
Well, "a long time" is relative, yes?

Actually, the reason I frequenty type "aue" (sans quotes) is because it
saves shifting to caps (and then unshifting). But "aue" is, I admit,
incorrect. (Hmm, or is it? The group is listed as "alt.usage.english" in
the list of groups. So why are caps obligatory?)
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
I've posted about this matter several years ago, recommending the
standard "AUE" and "AUEer."
That's probably why I switched to "AUE" and "AUEers" at some point.
Post by Reinhold [Rey] Aman
Anyone interested can search Google groups for users of "aue,"
"aueer," "aue-er," "a.u.e.er," "a.u.e.-er" and similar visual
atrocities.
I may be guilty of "aue-ers" or even "aue'ers." (Note: "aueer" looks
like a typo for "queer.")

Actually, we may want a new reference/designation for the people who
post to alt.usage.english. A couple of ideas: "the e-gang" or "the
e-posters." The 'e' serves for "english" or for "electronic."

Not too serious,
Maria C.
John Holmes
2008-11-17 08:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No, never.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Cece
2008-11-17 19:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Holmes
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version?
No, never.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
OTOH, I have never heard or read the "sneaking" version. The phrase
is "sneaky suspicion." It describes the feeling one has when a
proposal or someone else's actions aren't quite too good to be true,
but one's subconscious is suspicious -- the suspicion is sneaky,
hiding in the murk while it snakes tendrils of suspicion into the
conscious mind.
Maria C.
2008-11-17 20:40:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cece
OTOH, I have never heard or read the "sneaking" version. The phrase
is "sneaky suspicion."
If I may ask, where is that the case? That is, where are you in this
world, and also, what may you have read that included "sneaky
suspicion"?
Post by Cece
... It describes the feeling one has when a
proposal or someone else's actions aren't quite too good to be true,
but one's subconscious is suspicious -- the suspicion is sneaky,
hiding in the murk while it snakes tendrils of suspicion into the
conscious mind.
Wiktionary.org describes "sneaking suspicion" as:

A premonition, or hunch. A belief based on very little evidence
[Example] I have the sneaking suspicion that he has already taken a
decision about this.*

And Merriam-Webster says of "sneaking":
3 a: not openly expressed or acknowledged <a sneaking respect for
culture - H. A. Burton> b: that is a persistent conjecture <a sneaking
suspicion>

So, I would think that "sneaky suspicion" is a simple mishearing of
"sneaking suspicion." (And that's often how our language changes over
time.)

In any case, I thank you for your reply, as it certainly makes a case
for "sneaky suspicion" being in use as a term.

*Note the quote: "...has already taken a decision." Bah. I hope at least
some people still "make" decisions.
--
Maria C.
Cece
2008-11-19 17:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
OTOH, I have never heard or read the "sneaking" version.  The phrase
is "sneaky suspicion."
If I may ask, where is that the case? That is, where are you in this
world, and also, what may you have read that included "sneaky
suspicion"?
... It describes the feeling one has when a
proposal or someone else's actions aren't quite too good to be true,
but one's subconscious is suspicious -- the suspicion is sneaky,
hiding in the murk while it snakes tendrils of suspicion into the
conscious mind.
A premonition, or hunch. A belief based on very little evidence
[Example] I have the sneaking suspicion that he has already taken a
decision about this.*
3 a: not openly expressed or acknowledged <a sneaking respect for
culture - H. A. Burton> b: that is a persistent conjecture <a sneaking
suspicion>
So, I would think that "sneaky suspicion" is a simple mishearing of
"sneaking suspicion." (And that's often how our language changes over
time.)
In any case, I thank you for your reply, as it certainly makes a case
for "sneaky suspicion" being in use as a term.
*Note the quote: "...has already taken a decision." Bah. I hope at least
some people still "make" decisions.
--
Maria C.
U.S. Grew up in Indiana; now live in Texas. Heard? Family and
friends (including English teachers). Read? Could have been
anywhere; I've read lots and lots of mysteries, science fiction, and
mainstream in the last 50 years.
Maria C.
2008-11-22 21:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cece
U.S. Grew up in Indiana; now live in Texas. Heard? Family and
friends (including English teachers). Read? Could have been
anywhere; I've read lots and lots of mysteries, science fiction, and
mainstream in the last 50 years.
Thanks for the information, Cece.
--
Maria C.
m***@gmail.com
2008-12-01 03:07:55 UTC
Permalink
The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking" suspicion.

This is the most commonly used version on Google & Yahoo (because
it's the correct one).
"Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it
sounds like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.

Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version I most
commonly hear in conversation.
Hope that clarifies things...
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-12-01 09:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking" suspicion.
This is the most commonly used version on Google & Yahoo (because
it's the correct one).
"Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it
sounds like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.
Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version I most
commonly hear in conversation.
Hope that clarifies things...
There is no question of one version being "correct" and others being
"incorrect" in any absolute sense. Some people use one version, others use
another.

If you are conversing with a group of people who use one version, and you want
to be seen as part of the group, then the "correct" version to use is the one
that they are using.

The phrases I'm familiar with in BrE are "sneaking suspicion" and "sinking
feeling". I've not come across "sinking suspicion" until this thread. I don't
think I've met "sneaky suspicion" before.

Googling for these phrases on .uk sites gives:

29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
2008-12-01 10:58:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Post by m***@gmail.com
The correct use is actually, and only, "sinking" suspicion.
This is the most commonly used version on Google & Yahoo (because
it's the correct one).
"Sneaking" is the second most commonly used version (because it
sounds like the correct one)
"Sneaky" is by far the least commonly used version which, again, is
wrong.
Funnily, though not surprisingly, "sneaky" is the version I most
commonly hear in conversation.
Hope that clarifies things...
There is no question of one version being "correct" and others being
"incorrect" in any absolute sense. Some people use one version, others use
another.
If you are conversing with a group of people who use one version, and you want
to be seen as part of the group, then the "correct" version to use is the one
that they are using.
The phrases I'm familiar with in BrE are "sneaking suspicion" and "sinking
feeling". I've not come across "sinking suspicion" until this thread. I don't
think I've met "sneaky suspicion" before.
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Mike Lyle
2008-12-01 23:08:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
[...]
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
--
Mike.
m***@gmail.com
2008-12-02 03:18:08 UTC
Permalink
@Peter: point well taken. I sometimes will change my choice of words
depending on the group I am in, but I recognize that doing so can mean
using the "wrong phrase", gramatically speaking. The term is
"sinking", and variations of it are therefore still gramaically
incorrect, although perhaps somewhat less invalid for the reasons you
give. :O)

@Chuck: I had stated that "sneaky" is the least commonly found one
when Googling, although I think you may have been reading a version of
my post that I thought I deleted (I guess it did it wrong!). Again, an
internet search yeilds the results I mentioned, though in
conversation, the opposite is true, at least in my experience. That
must be why it seemed to you like a contradiction.
Chuck Riggs
2008-12-02 10:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@gmail.com
@Peter: point well taken. I sometimes will change my choice of words
depending on the group I am in, but I recognize that doing so can mean
using the "wrong phrase", gramatically speaking. The term is
"sinking", and variations of it are therefore still gramaically
incorrect, although perhaps somewhat less invalid for the reasons you
give. :O)
@Chuck: I had stated that "sneaky" is the least commonly found one
when Googling, although I think you may have been reading a version of
my post that I thought I deleted (I guess it did it wrong!). Again, an
internet search yeilds the results I mentioned, though in
conversation, the opposite is true, at least in my experience. That
must be why it seemed to you like a contradiction.
I think I see what happened. It is nothing to worry about, Mark.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
2008-12-02 10:38:04 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:08:38 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
[...]
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
does it mean?
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Mike Lyle
2008-12-02 23:54:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:08:38 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
[...]
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
does it mean?
I'd take it to be a telescoping of ideas: a suspicion gives rise to a
sinking feeling. I'm not sure I'll use it any time soon, though.
--
Mike.
Chuck Riggs
2008-12-03 10:13:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:54:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:08:38 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
[...]
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
does it mean?
I'd take it to be a telescoping of ideas: a suspicion gives rise to a
sinking feeling. I'm not sure I'll use it any time soon, though.
Suspicions rise. Once I feel a sinking suspicion, I'll start using the
expression. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that
occurrence, though. .
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-12-03 10:29:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:54:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:08:38 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
[...]
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
does it mean?
I'd take it to be a telescoping of ideas: a suspicion gives rise to a
sinking feeling. I'm not sure I'll use it any time soon, though.
Suspicions rise. Once I feel a sinking suspicion, I'll start using the
expression. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that
occurrence, though. .
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Wood Avens
2008-12-03 10:58:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:29:31 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Do you think so? To me a "sneaking suspicion" is the tiny, intuitive
doubt about something which arises before one has worked out the
causes or reasons for the doubt.
--
Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
2008-12-03 13:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:29:31 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Do you think so? To me a "sneaking suspicion" is the tiny, intuitive
doubt about something which arises before one has worked out the
causes or reasons for the doubt.
Agreed. There will usually be an emotion associated with a doubt, but, to me,
intuition is an intellectual process, albeit one not involving conscious
reasoning. An intuitive doubt seems to result from the mind comparing what is
consciously hypothesised with "patterns" of existing knowledge and reasoning.
An intuitive doubt can sneak up on one because the unconscious mind recognises
(or thinks it recognises) a flaw in the conscious reasoning.

See in particular 5.b. below.
OED:

intuition

1,2,3 Obs.

4. Scholastic Philos. ...angelic and spiritual beings...

5. a. Mod. Philos. The immediate apprehension of an object by the mind
without the intervention of any reasoning process; a particular act of
such apprehension.

b. Immediate apprehension by the intellect alone; a particular act of such
apprehension.

c. Immediate apprehension by sense; a particular act of such apprehension.
Esp. in reference to Kant, who held that the only intuition (anschauung,
intuitus) possible to man was that under the forms of sensibility,
space, and time.

6. In a more general sense: Direct or immediate insight; an instance of
this.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chuck Riggs
2008-12-04 09:57:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:29:31 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 23:54:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 23:08:38 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
Post by Mike Lyle
Post by Chuck Riggs
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 09:01:21 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
[...]
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
29,900 for "sinking feeling"
10,600 for "sneaking suspicion"
3,190 for "sneaky suspicion"
503 for "sinking suspicion"
The first two are common in AmE, too. Those people who wrote "sneaky
suspicion" were probably mixing it up with "sneaking suspicion". As
for the last one, I suspect it is simply a thinko.
More than likely. I quite like "sinking suspicion", though. A
portmanteau phrase, you could call it.
I like the sound of it very much, but I have to ask myself, just what
does it mean?
I'd take it to be a telescoping of ideas: a suspicion gives rise to a
sinking feeling. I'm not sure I'll use it any time soon, though.
Suspicions rise. Once I feel a sinking suspicion, I'll start using the
expression. I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that
occurrence, though. .
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
there.
--
Regards,

Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
R H Draney
2008-12-04 15:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wood Avens
On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:29:31 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
there.
Let's just leave it in the sink....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Purl Gurl
2008-12-04 17:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Chuck Riggs
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
there.
Let's just leave it in the sink.
No, leave it in the dishwasher with the dead fish.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
R H Draney
2008-12-05 00:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by R H Draney
Post by Chuck Riggs
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
there.
Let's just leave it in the sink.
No, leave it in the dishwasher with the dead fish.
Sparky's dead?!...how did it happen?...r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Purl Gurl
2008-12-05 00:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Purl Gurl
Post by R H Draney
Post by Chuck Riggs
Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)
To me a "sinking feeling" is an emotional reaction to something; a "sneaking
suspicion" is primarily intellectual.
Well put, leaving no room or need, as I see it, for a "sinking
suspicion". Whoever found the term somewhere, I wish he'd left it
there.
Let's just leave it in the sink.
No, leave it in the dishwasher with the dead fish.
Sparky's dead?!...how did it happen?
Dry cycle.
--
Purl Gurl
--
So many are stumped by what slips right off the top of my mind
like a man's bad fitting hairpiece.
JimboCat
2008-11-17 17:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria C.
In a "cat photos" email making the rounds, the term "sneaky suspicion"
is used. Google shows that "sneaking suspicion" (which I use) is more
common.
My questions to any/all AUEers*: Have you heard the "sneaky" version? If
so, is it used mostly by younger people (say, under 40 or so)? And,
which version do you personally use?
Cat humor has its very own grammar and vocabulary. You can see more of
it than you can ever absorb at

http://icanhascheezburger.com

or just google "lolcats". I can't get to http://speaklolspeak.com from
work here, but it purports to be a lolspeak wiki and so might be
somewhat helpful in confusing and complicating the issue, if that's
what you want.

In any case, "sneaky suspicion" definitely smacks of lolspeak. It
probably implies the suspicious one (a cat, no doubt) is as sneaky as
he is suspicious, and has the situation well in hand.

Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Wanted dead and/or alive: Shroedinger's cat." [John Schild]
Loading...