Discussion:
Projector = entrepreneur
Add Reply
Steve Hayes
2021-12-02 09:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
An etymology and translation question.

Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or similar
etymological dictionary let me know when "projector" first was used
for a person who initiated business projects and ventures?

I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur", but
it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to know
when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the second half
of the 17th cenury.

Also, could anyone with knowledge of Russian let me know if it could
conceivably be used as a translation for the Russion "promyshlenik" in
the 17th century.

For what it's worth, I'm writing a children's novel, and though it is
fiction, I don't want to mislead kids with grossly anachronistic word
usage -- minor anachronisms are probably unavoidable.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Adam Funk
2021-12-02 11:22:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or similar
etymological dictionary let me know when "projector" first was used
for a person who initiated business projects and ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur", but
it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to know
when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the second half
of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.

[not marked obsolete or rare!]

1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to be
thought the projector of it.

a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New Playes
(1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and wealths,
that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such great works.

1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The reasons
why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the fourth or to the
seventh degree.

a1665 J. Goodwin Πλήρωμα τὸ Πνευματικόv (1670) xvii. 481 How happy
then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they whose
hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.

1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors or
Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.

1738 J. Swift Compl. Coll. Genteel Conversat. p. xlix To desire a
Patent granted..to all useful Projectors.

1807 T. Young Course Lect. Nat. Philos. I. ix. 92 One of the most
common fallacies, by which the superficial projectors of machines for
obtaining a perpetual motion have been deluded.

1841 E. Miall in Nonconformist 1 1 The great design of the
projectors of this paper.

1884 Law Times 22 Mar. 379/2 The contractors were not paid either
by the projector or the company.

1933 H. Walpole Vanessa (1972) iii. ii. 326 A most interesting
man—name of Yerkes—the projector of the new electric Underground.

1968 D. D. Gladwin & J. M. White Eng. Canals ii. i. 6 With the
earlier canals the engineer was often at the meetings in person to
support the projectors' claims.

1995 S. Schama Landscape & Memory ix. 538 The best that John
Evelyn, a keen projector of a British Eden..felt he could do, was a
petting zoo of genteel English creatures like tortoises and squirrels.

b. (In negative sense.) A schemer; a person who lives by his or her
wits; a promoter of bogus or unsound business ventures; a cheat, a
swindler. Now rare (archaic in later use).

1615 in R. F. Williams Birch's Court & Times James I (1848)
(modernized text) I. 368 She is..much visited by cozeners and
projectors, that would fain be fingering her money upon large offers.

[skipping]

1907 F. W. Chandler Lit. Roguery vi. 240 Pug's master is the
victim of a more expert rascal, the projector Meercraft, who with his
accomplices..plays upon Fitzdottrel's ambition to become Duke of
Drownlands.


HTH
Post by Steve Hayes
Also, could anyone with knowledge of Russian let me know if it could
conceivably be used as a translation for the Russion "promyshlenik" in
the 17th century.
Out of my league.
Post by Steve Hayes
For what it's worth, I'm writing a children's novel, and though it is
fiction, I don't want to mislead kids with grossly anachronistic word
usage -- minor anachronisms are probably unavoidable.
Good luck!
--
the purple piper plays his tune
the choir softly sing
three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Steve Hayes
2021-12-02 13:43:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors or
Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
Thanks very much. That is the usage I was trying to verify.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-08 21:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or similar
etymological dictionary let me know when "projector" first was used
for a person who initiated business projects and ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur", but
it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to know
when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the second half
of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to be
thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New Playes
(1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and wealths,
that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The reasons
why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the fourth or to the
seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481 How happy
then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they whose
hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors or
Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker',
cagnate with Dutch 'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,

Jan
Quinn C
2021-12-09 13:57:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Some trucks have signs on the rear. "Passing side" on one side, and
"suicide" on the other.
But, being Australian trucks, on the wrong side, of course.
--
The need of a personal pronoun of the singular number and common
gender is so desperate, urgent, imperative, that ... it should long
since have grown on our speech -- The Atlantic Monthly (1878)
lar3ryca
2021-12-10 01:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Some trucks have signs on the rear. "Passing side" on one side, and
"suicide" on the other.
But, being Australian trucks, on the wrong side, of course.
On a winter vacation to the Bahamas, I rented a Jeep in Nassau one day,
and drove around the perimeter of the island. I had no trouble driving on
the left for the 99 mile trip.

What nearly did me in several times, though, was looking to my left when
I wanted to cross the street.
Joy Beeson
2021-12-11 04:15:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by lar3ryca
What nearly did me in several times, though, was looking to my left when
I wanted to cross the street.
During my brief visit to London, I would look a driver right in the
eye and then step in front of him -- a car coming from that direction
had to be on the other side of the street.

I only got caught once using the wrong rules while riding my bike:
Near the end of the tour, I executed a perfect left turn, then found
myself on the opposite side of the road from the rest of the tour. I
don't recall how I got back to where I belonged.

I had more trouble re-adapting to US rules than I had in adapting to
operating my vehicle on the left.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
Ken Blake
2021-12-11 19:18:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by lar3ryca
What nearly did me in several times, though, was looking to my left when
I wanted to cross the street.
During my brief visit to London, I would look a driver right in the
eye and then step in front of him -- a car coming from that direction
had to be on the other side of the street.
Near the end of the tour, I executed a perfect left turn, then found
myself on the opposite side of the road from the rest of the tour. I
don't recall how I got back to where I belonged.
I had more trouble re-adapting to US rules than I had in adapting to
operating my vehicle on the left.
We cleverly solved the driving on the left problem in London by not
driving at all, staying on public transit for our whole time there.
I've never driven on the wrong side of road (wrong, from my perspective)
in the UK or anywhere else. I fear that doing so would be very
dangerous. Most of the time, I wouldn't have a problem, but in the event
of an emergency, my reaction might be in the wrong direction.
Peter Moylan
2021-12-12 00:36:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
On Thu, 9 Dec 2021 17:05:12 -0800 (PST), lar3ryca
Post by lar3ryca
What nearly did me in several times, though, was looking to my
left when I wanted to cross the street.
During my brief visit to London, I would look a driver right in
the eye and then step in front of him -- a car coming from that
direction had to be on the other side of the street.
I only got caught once using the wrong rules while riding my
bike: Near the end of the tour, I executed a perfect left turn,
then found myself on the opposite side of the road from the rest
of the tour. I don't recall how I got back to where I belonged.
I had more trouble re-adapting to US rules than I had in
adapting to operating my vehicle on the left.
We cleverly solved the driving on the left problem in London by not
driving at all, staying on public transit for our whole time
there.
I've never driven on the wrong side of road (wrong, from my
perspective) in the UK or anywhere else. I fear that doing so would
be very dangerous. Most of the time, I wouldn't have a problem, but
in the event of an emergency, my reaction might be in the wrong
direction.
I've found that shifting the driver's seat to the other side of the car
automatically makes me switch sides of the road, so driving in different
countries has not been a problem for me.

The only serious error I've made of that kind was in Australia. Some
major divided roads in Melbourne have two or three lanes in each
direction, plus service roads running alongside the main road. Coming
out of a minor road to turn right onto one of these highways, I
miscounted the number of dividers and ended up facing oncoming traffic.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Hibou
2021-12-10 10:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Some trucks have signs on the rear. "Passing side" on one side, and
"suicide" on the other.
But, being Australian trucks, on the wrong side, of course.
I agree - but my reason is probably different from yours.

When two vehicles pass, they create an eddy in the air between them. If
there's any chance at all of it seeding a tornado (sowing the wind and
reaping the whirlwind, so to speak), then this is bad news.

Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation. To
avoid seeding, the eddies between vehicles should turn the other way.

It follows that we should drive on the left in the northern hemisphere,
and on the right in the southern.

Voilà for the idea. Actually, I don't know if such seeding occurs
(though something must start tornadoes spinning).
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-10 10:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hibou
Post by Quinn C
Some trucks have signs on the rear. "Passing side" on one side, and
"suicide" on the other.
But, being Australian trucks, on the wrong side, of course.
I agree - but my reason is probably different from yours.
When two vehicles pass, they create an eddy in the air between them. If
there's any chance at all of it seeding a tornado (sowing the wind and
reaping the whirlwind, so to speak), then this is bad news.
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation. To
avoid seeding, the eddies between vehicles should turn the other way.
It follows that we should drive on the left in the northern hemisphere,
And in civilised countries, of course, that's what we do, except perhaps
at Warton (between Preston and Lytham St Annes) up until 1998, when
Tornado seeding was actively encouraged.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Hibou
2021-12-10 11:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
And in civilised countries, of course, that's what we do, except perhaps
at Warton (between Preston and Lytham St Annes) up until 1998, when
Tornado seeding was actively encouraged.
That takes me back. I worked on the avionics - not at Warton, at a
subcontractor.
Mark Brader
2021-12-10 15:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
--
Mark Brader | "...so I'm going to be a good boy till the New Year
Toronto | when a new issue of luck is handed out."
***@vex.net | --Robert Bannister
lar3ryca
2021-12-10 16:14:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-10 16:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 16:32:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-10 16:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
ROTFL. Yes, excepting those tornados near Oz,
for the supermen among us equiped with X-ray vision,
or a mind's eye,

Jan
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-10 17:01:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay over
here, transpondially.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-12-10 17:47:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-10 18:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-10 19:06:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of
your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
No. I just watched, and I wondered, and I occasionally bullied them with
the toe of my shoe, and now and then in outrage they would sting me in
harmless revenge.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 19:09:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
A children's book on the weather that I read WIWAK called them "tiny
tornadoes". They were more like three feet across than three inches,
though. (They also contained a lot more dried leaves than dried
petals.)
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-12-11 00:29:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of
your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in the
hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches across, but
you could walk through the column of dust without being hurt. (Apart
from being pelted by the dust particles.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-11 01:31:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in the
hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches across, but
you could walk through the column of dust without being hurt. (Apart
from being pelted by the dust particles.)
I think you're talking about real dust devils (one of which I once rather
foolishly allowed to pelt me), and I think Richard and Hen3ry I mean
Lar3ry are talking about little wind eddies, mostly near buildings, that
might pelt your ankles with dead petals or leaves.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2021-12-11 13:40:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world
with the highest incidence of tornados is south-east England,
especially Kent, but they don't seem to be as destructive as
those in North America. We had a nasty one in north-east
France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about
three inches across. You could see them because they swept up
dried petals and gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in
the hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches
across, but you could walk through the column of dust without being
hurt. (Apart from being pelted by the dust particles.)
I think you're talking about real dust devils (one of which I once
rather foolishly allowed to pelt me), and I think Richard and Hen3ry
I mean Lar3ry are talking about little wind eddies, mostly near
buildings, that might pelt your ankles with dead petals or leaves.
I think of Fritz Leiber's "Smoke Ghost" as something similar.
Quinn C
2021-12-12 04:51:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Moylan
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in the
hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches across, but
you could walk through the column of dust without being hurt. (Apart
from being pelted by the dust particles.)
I think you're talking about real dust devils (one of which I once rather
foolishly allowed to pelt me), and I think Richard and Hen3ry I mean
Lar3ry
You've been more perceptive than me; until now, I've seen that handle
only as "lar3[something, whatever]".
--
If Helen Keller is alone in the forest and falls down, does she
make a sound?
Ken Blake
2021-12-12 15:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in the
hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches across, but
you could walk through the column of dust without being hurt. (Apart
from being pelted by the dust particles.)
I think you're talking about real dust devils (one of which I once rather
foolishly allowed to pelt me), and I think Richard and Hen3ry I mean
Lar3ry are talking about little wind eddies, mostly near buildings, that
might pelt your ankles with dead petals or leaves.
True, I've never seen a large and dangerous dust devil, but i have seen some
that were 10 or 15 feet high, and swirling quickly enough that I knew not to
step into them. I did once, and never will again. It was strong enough to
pick up sand.
They can be very dangerous if you're driving and they're laden with
sand. They can reduce visibility to near zero.
Lewis
2021-12-11 16:16:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of
your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in the
hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches across, but
you could walk through the column of dust without being hurt. (Apart
from being pelted by the dust particles.)
I think of dust devils as being about 4-6 ft high, and it seems I saw
them more in childhood than I do now. After a brief consultation with my
wife, we agreed the place we saw them most was on school playgrounds,
especially ones from when we where kids that had a big dusty field.
Seems most of them now are blacktop and grass, so fewer devils.

They also appeared most often in the same spots.

I can't remember when I last saw one, but my wife saw one in our front
drive within the last few months.
--
Nothing is impossible for those who don't have to do it.
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-11 17:17:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and
clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of
your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a
mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
We used to get them in the playground WIWAL - tiny ones, about three
inches across. You could see them because they swept up dried petals and
gave them a free merry-go-round ride.
Did you have a name for them? We have always called them 'dust devils'.
They are called willy-willies in Australia. Ours, which arrived in the
hottest part of summer, were a lot bigger than three inches across, but
you could walk through the column of dust without being hurt. (Apart
from being pelted by the dust particles.)
I think of dust devils as being about 4-6 ft high, and it seems I saw
them more in childhood than I do now.
...

I think of them as being at least 20 feet high. Wikipedia has nice pictures.

I see way more now than I did in childhood, since I spent my childhood
in the Cleveland area, where there are no dust devils. You could probably
see the odd waterspout if you lived by the lake, though.
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff
2021-12-10 19:19:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature
of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils. (I must try ordering a dust-devil Rossini one day.)

No doubt there is an 'official' English definition of each, but I don't
know it. There might be a school of thought that says a tornado only
deserves the name if it starts around a thundercloud and reaches down,
while a dust devil starts over hot ground and reaches up.
--
Paul
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 19:52:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-7, Paul Wolff wrote:
...
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils. (I must try ordering a dust-devil Rossini one day.)
Ma foie!
Post by Paul Wolff
No doubt there is an 'official' English definition of each, but I don't
know it. There might be a school of thought that says a tornado only
deserves the name if it starts around a thundercloud and reaches down,
while a dust devil starts over hot ground and reaches up.
I don't think water is involved in dust devils (which we have around here).
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-10 20:18:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils. (I must try ordering a dust-devil Rossini one day.)
Ma foie!
Post by Paul Wolff
No doubt there is an 'official' English definition of each, but I don't
know it. There might be a school of thought that says a tornado only
deserves the name if it starts around a thundercloud and reaches down,
while a dust devil starts over hot ground and reaches up.
I don't think water is involved in dust devils (which we have around here).
Waterspouts are not unusual around the North Sea.
They form in summer, over relatively warm water.
Here are three from Wikipedia:
<Loading Image...>

Jan
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 20:12:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
...
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils.
...

While I'm on the subject, the BBC says the UK averages 30-50 tornadoes
per year. Most are small and don't do much damage. Britain's "Tornado
Alley" is from Berkshire to London.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3QTh1mRGDNg16cDYHgCNP0G/do-you-live-in-the-british-tornado-alley

That article also says that the UK's average number per land area is the
highest in the world except for the Netherlands. However, Kansas, with
about the same area as Great Britain, has an average of 96 tornadoes per
year, so I'm not sure how the comparison is supposed to work.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 22:06:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils.
...
While I'm on the subject, the BBC says the UK averages 30-50 tornadoes
per year. Most are small and don't do much damage. Britain's "Tornado
Alley" is from Berkshire to London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3QTh1mRGDNg16cDYHgCNP0G/do-you-live-in-the-british-tornado-alley
That article also says that the UK's average number per land area is the
highest in the world except for the Netherlands. However, Kansas, with
about the same area as Great Britain, has an average of 96 tornadoes per
year, so I'm not sure how the comparison is supposed to work.
Compile figures on a national basis, so that Kansas' bid for the top
slot is dragged down by all those other states which just don't try very
hard.
You're probably right (and I don't really mind that New Mexico tries harder
on dust devils). The claim in the article was

"When you think of tornados you probably imagine twisters moving across
dust-bowls in the United States, but in fact the UK gets an average of 30-50
tornadoes a year. That’s more tornadoes per land area than anywhere else
in the world (except – weirdly – the Netherlands.)"

Apparently "anywhere" meant "any country". And it's really not wrong to
imagine plains (not dust bowls, at least at the moment) in the U.S. when
you think of tornadoes.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2021-12-12 00:42:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 5:06:37 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
"When you think of tornados you probably imagine twisters moving
across dust-bowls in the United States, but in fact the UK gets an
average of 30-50 tornadoes a year. That’s more tornadoes per land
area than anywhere else in the world (except – weirdly – the
Netherlands.)"
Apparently "anywhere" meant "any country". And it's really not
wrong to imagine plains (not dust bowls, at least at the moment) in
the U.S. when you think of tornadoes.
Sadly, overnight there was severe tornado damage and death in the
Mississippi Valley and northeast.
We had a destructive tornado in this region a month or two ago. Mildly
destructive: if I recall correctly, in only demolished a couple of
houses. It was nevertheless notable because, as far as I know, there
have never been tornadoes here before now. Yet another sign that the
climate is changing.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Paul Wolff
2021-12-10 23:13:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils.
...
While I'm on the subject, the BBC says the UK averages 30-50 tornadoes
per year. Most are small and don't do much damage. Britain's "Tornado
Alley" is from Berkshire to London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3QTh1mRGDNg16cDYHgCNP0G/do-you
-live-in-the-british-tornado-alley
That article also says that the UK's average number per land area is the
highest in the world except for the Netherlands. However, Kansas, with
about the same area as Great Britain, has an average of 96 tornadoes per
year, so I'm not sure how the comparison is supposed to work.
On the other hand, from Maidenhead in Berkshire, once my home town:
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/44604310>
(We had a BBC weatherman here some while back - oh, Philip Eden, not
Philip Avery.)
--
Paul
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-12-11 09:17:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
I've heard - and repeated - that southern England has a very high
tornado density, but I wonder if the figures here conflate tornados and
dust devils.
...
While I'm on the subject, the BBC says the UK averages 30-50 tornadoes
per year. Most are small and don't do much damage. Britain's "Tornado
Alley" is from Berkshire to London.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3QTh1mRGDNg16cDYHgCNP0G/do-you
-live-in-the-british-tornado-alley
That article also says that the UK's average number per land area is the
highest in the world except for the Netherlands. However, Kansas, with
about the same area as Great Britain, has an average of 96 tornadoes per
year, so I'm not sure how the comparison is supposed to work.
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/feeds/44604310>
(We had a BBC weatherman here some while back - oh, Philip Eden, not
Philip Avery.)
Yes, and he wrote a book -- probably Change in the Weather, 2006 -- in
which he acknowledged help from people in this group.
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
Mark Brader
2021-12-11 00:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
While I'm on the subject, the BBC says the UK averages 30-50 tornadoes
per year. Most are small and don't do much damage. Britain's "Tornado
Alley" is from Berkshire to London.
A while back I got curious about tornadoes in England and did some
googling to find out when was the first time that one was recorded.

The year turns out to have been 1091, and the interesting bit was
that it was also the *worst* tornado ever recorded in England, or
at least, one of the worst. Or might have been.

Discussion at:

http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dj8q8s/the_london_tornado_of_1091/
--
Mark Brader, Toronto But that's what all the other
***@vex.net individualists are doing!

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Ken Blake
2021-12-11 03:14:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
While I'm on the subject, the BBC says the UK averages 30-50 tornadoes
per year. Most are small and don't do much damage. Britain's "Tornado
Alley" is from Berkshire to London.
A while back I got curious about tornadoes in England and did some
googling to find out when was the first time that one was recorded.
The year turns out to have been 1091, and the interesting bit was
that it was also the *worst* tornado ever recorded in England, or
at least, one of the worst. Or might have been.
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dj8q8s/the_london_tornado_of_1091/
Any measurements, guesses, etc. from that long ago are suspect. There's
no good way to compare it with recent ones.
Lewis
2021-12-10 21:52:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
It's a much, much better idea than viewing it from below.
Quite right, but I think I have an even better idea. I'll just stay
over here, transpondially.
According to something I once read, the region of the world with the
highest incidence of tornados is south-east England, especially Kent,
but they don't seem to be as destructive as those in North America. We
had a nasty one in north-east France the other day, however.
How often do tornadoes in Europe take out multiple towns? How often do
they exceed F0? F2?

<Loading Image...>
--
Truth is seen through keyholes
Snidely
2021-12-10 23:52:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
Indeed, I would not have responded at all. The original joke was good.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Not for me, it wouldn't. Viewing a tornado from above is *always* a mistake.
Also a good point!
There's a pretty good chance that 7-10 people at a time are viewing
multiple tornadoes a day from above. There may be another 7-10 people
viewing one tornado a day from above but within the atmosphere, as both
USAAF and NASA/NWS have planes capable of flying above most
thunderstorms.

Airliners don't have that option and generally divert to another lane.

/dps
--
Killing a mouse was hardly a Nobel Prize-worthy exercise, and Lawrence
went apopleptic when he learned a lousy rodent had peed away all his
precious heavy water.
_The Disappearing Spoon_, Sam Kean
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 16:34:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
I was wondering that too. Wikipedia says about 99% of tornadoes in the northern
hemisphere turn counterclockwise, and (contrary to something it seems to imply)
the only possible explanation is the Earth's rotation, no matter how indirect the
effect is.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-10 16:51:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
I was wondering that too. Wikipedia says about 99% of tornadoes in the
northern hemisphere turn counterclockwise, and (contrary to something it
seems to imply) the only possible explanation is the Earth's rotation, no
matter how indirect the effect is.
WDYM 'indirect'? It is the dominant effect,
at tornado scale,

Jan
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 17:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by lar3ryca
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Hibou
Tornadoes turn anticlockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in
the southern (viewed from above), because of the Earth's rotation.
Wrong.
Would the addition of an 'almost always' have changed the nature of your response?
I was wondering that too. Wikipedia says about 99% of tornadoes in the
northern hemisphere turn counterclockwise, and (contrary to something it
seems to imply) the only possible explanation is the Earth's rotation, no
matter how indirect the effect is.
WDYM 'indirect'? It is the dominant effect,
at tornado scale,
What scale do you have in mind? According to Wikipedia, the importance of the
Coriolis effect is given by the Rossby number; if the number is much greater
than 1, the Coriolis effect is unimportant. Tornadoes have Rossby numbers
around 1,000 and the "mesocyclones" they typically form from have Ro around
50-100, using numbers from Wikipedia again.

I assume tornadoes rotate cyclonically because mesocyclones do, and
mesocyclones rotate cyclonically because they form in storms in low-
pressure areas, which typically have Ro<1.
--
Jerry Friedman
CDB
2021-12-09 14:09:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481 How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb. "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
--
Born together, innit.
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 09:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481 How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb. "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word
that was cognate with D. 'nemen', but it got replaced
by a word that evolved into E. 'to take'
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations,
but 'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is still
"ondernemen", right?
--
Apparently I lack some particular perversion which today's
employer is seeking. ---Ignatius J Reilly
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-12-10 09:57:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by CDB
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481 How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb. "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word
that was cognate with D. 'nemen', but it got replaced
by a word that evolved into E. 'to take'
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations,
but 'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is still
"ondernemen", right?
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD and
others who don't understand that things can be quoted without being
Post by Adam Funk
  'Forlorn hope,' Lewis had ventured.
  And Morse had agreed. 'Did you know that "forlorn hope" has got
nothing to do with "forlorn" or "hope"? It's all Dutch: "Verloren hoop"
- "lost troop".'
  'Very useful to know, sir.'
Jan: is that right?
Post by Adam Funk
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-10 10:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596   Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131   I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652   R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659)    A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660   Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312   The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665   J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481   How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714   Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2   Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb.  "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word
that was cognate with D. 'nemen', but it got replaced
by a word that evolved into E. 'to take'
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations,
but 'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is still
"ondernemen", right?
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD and
others who don't understand that things can be quoted without being
Post by Adam Funk
  'Forlorn hope,' Lewis had ventured.
  And Morse had agreed. 'Did you know that "forlorn hope" has got
nothing to do with "forlorn" or "hope"? It's all Dutch: "Verloren
hoop" - "lost troop".'
  'Very useful to know, sir.'
Jan: is that right?
Well, I'm not Jan, but yes, it would appear so. Wiktionary cites OED as
supporting this etymology: “forlorn hope, n.”, in OED Online Paid
subscription required⁠, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press,
1897; “forlorn hope, phrase”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford
University Press, 2019–present.

Someone with a paid subscription may choose to confirm this?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 10:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596   Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131   I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652   R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659)    A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660   Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312   The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665   J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481   How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714   Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2   Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb.  "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word
that was cognate with D. 'nemen', but it got replaced
by a word that evolved into E. 'to take'
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations,
but 'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is still
"ondernemen", right?
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD and
others who don't understand that things can be quoted without being
Post by Adam Funk
  'Forlorn hope,' Lewis had ventured.
  And Morse had agreed. 'Did you know that "forlorn hope" has got
nothing to do with "forlorn" or "hope"? It's all Dutch: "Verloren
hoop" - "lost troop".'
  'Very useful to know, sir.'
Jan: is that right?
Well, I'm not Jan, but yes, it would appear so. Wiktionary cites OED as
supporting this etymology: “forlorn hope, n.”, in OED Online Paid
subscription required⁠, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press,
1897; “forlorn hope, phrase”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com; Oxford
University Press, 2019–present.
Someone with a paid subscription may choose to confirm this?
(I did in reply to Athel.)

You can probably log in with a UK library card number.
--
Slade was the coolest band in England. They were the kind of guys
that would push your car out of a ditch. ---Alice Cooper
CDB
2021-12-10 13:52:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by CDB
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?)
or similar etymological dictionary let me know when
"projector" first was used for a person who initiated
business projects and ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like
"entrepreneur", but it was in use like that in the 18th
century -- I just want to know when it began, and if it
was in use in that sense in the second half of the 17th
cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or
designs an enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or
founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist.
(1846) 3rd Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it
were disadvantage to be thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five
New Playes (1659) A hearty blessing on their braines,
honours, and wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers,
and Performers of such great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312
The reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did
forbid to the fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii.
481 How happy then, above all worldly Projectors and
Designers, are they whose hearts are perswaded to hearken
to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the
Projectors or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not
proceed to Print the said Scheme.., until they have laid
their Proposals before the General Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with
Dutch 'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb.
"Nimble", now, that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word that was cognate with
D. 'nemen', but it got replaced by a word that evolved into E.
'to take'
And there's a game called "nim".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nim
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations, but
'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is
still "ondernemen", right?
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD
and others who don't understand that things can be quoted without
Post by Adam Funk
'Forlorn hope,' Lewis had ventured.
And Morse had agreed. 'Did you know that "forlorn hope" has got
nothing to do with "forlorn" or "hope"? It's all Dutch: "Verloren
hoop" - "lost troop".'
'Very useful to know, sir.'
Jan: is that right?
Well, I'm not Jan, but yes, it would appear so. Wiktionary cites OED
as supporting this etymology: “forlorn hope, n.”, in OED Online Paid
subscription required⁠, Oxford, Oxfordshire: Oxford University
Press, 1897; “forlorn hope, phrase”, in Lexico, Dictionary.com;
Oxford University Press, 2019–present.
Someone with a paid subscription may choose to confirm this?
No paid subscription, but I have occasionally seen "leading a forlorn
hope" when the meaning from context was pretty clearly "entertaining a
forlorn hope".
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 10:55:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Adam Funk
Post by CDB
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481 How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb. "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word
that was cognate with D. 'nemen', but it got replaced
by a word that evolved into E. 'to take'
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations,
but 'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is still
"ondernemen", right?
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD and
others who don't understand that things can be quoted without being
Post by Adam Funk
  'Forlorn hope,' Lewis had ventured.
  And Morse had agreed. 'Did you know that "forlorn hope" has got
nothing to do with "forlorn" or "hope"? It's all Dutch: "Verloren hoop"
- "lost troop".'
  'Very useful to know, sir.'
Jan: is that right?
The OED agrees:

Etymology: < Dutch verloren hoop (in Kilian 1598), lit. ‘lost
troop’ (hoop = heap n., German haufen). Compare French enfants
perdus. (Among sailors mispronounced flowing hope.)

from 1579: In early use, a picked body of men, detached to the
front to begin the attack; a body of skirmishers. Now usually, a
storming party.

but it didn't take long to add the modern meaning:

from 1643: With wordplay or misapprehension of the etymology: A
faint hope, a ‘hope against hope’; an enterprise which has little
chance of success.
--
they're OK, the last days of May
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-10 15:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD and
others who don't understand that things can be quoted without being
Fuck you, Mister Nasty.

Not that that asinine remark has anything to do with any sort of prior
discourse about your inability to quote copy-pasted material correctly.
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 16:28:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 2:57:44 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
"Death is now my neighbour", Colin Dexter (with apologies to PTD and
others who don't understand that things can be quoted without being
Post by Adam Funk
'Forlorn hope,' Lewis had ventured.
And Morse had agreed. 'Did you know that "forlorn hope" has got
nothing to do with "forlorn" or "hope"? It's all Dutch: "Verloren hoop"
- "lost troop".'
'Very useful to know, sir.'
Jan: is that right?
...

One might argue with "nothing to do". "Lorn" and "lost" come from the
same Proto-Indo-European root, though the verbs were already different
in Proto-Germanic, according to etymonline.
--
Jerry Friedman
J. J. Lodder
2021-12-10 10:52:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by CDB
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or
similar etymological dictionary let me know when "projector"
first was used for a person who initiated business projects and
ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur",
but it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to
know when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the
second half of the 17th cenury.
1. a. A person who forms a project; one who plans or designs an
enterprise or undertaking; a proposer or founder of some venture.
[not marked obsolete or rare!]
1596 Earl of Essex in H. Ellis Orig. Lett. Eng. Hist. (1846) 3rd
Ser. IV. 131 I think the action such as it were disadvantage to
be thought the projector of it.
a1652 R. Brome Weeding of Covent-Garden i. i. 1 in Five New
Playes (1659) A hearty blessing on their braines, honours, and
wealths, that are Projectors, Furtherers, and Performers of such
great works.
1660 Bp. J. Taylor Ductor Dubitantium I. ii. iii. 312 The
reasons why the Projectors of the Canon law did forbid to the
fourth or to the seventh degree.
a1665 J. Goodwin ??????? ?? ??????????v (1670) xvii. 481 How
happy then, above all worldly Projectors and Designers, are they
whose hearts are perswaded to hearken to the Counsel of God.
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Related semantically, but not cognate: different verb. "Nimble", now,
that's cognate to "ondernemer".
You are right, Middle English had a word
that was cognate with D. 'nemen', but it got replaced
by a word that evolved into E. 'to take'
'to take' and 'nemen' are still direct translations,
but 'ondernemer' and 'undertaker' have become false friends.
'undertaker' should be translated with 'begrafenisondernemer',
But "undertake" (not in the passing on the wrong side sense) is still
"ondernemen", right?
Translating 'to undertake' with 'ondernemen'
or 'undertaker with 'ondernemer'
will be a mistake in almost all cases.

See for example
<https://nl.bab.la/woordenboek/engels-nederlands/undertake>
or
<https://www.mijnwoordenboek.nl/vertaal/EN/NL/undertake>
for some example sentences.

Dutch 'ondernemer' should be translated with 'entrepreneur'
or something equivalent, never with 'undertaker'.
E. 'undertaker' should in almost all cases
be translated to Dutch 'begrafenisondernemer'.

Dutch has retained the original general meaning,
in English it has become specialised,

Jan
Ken Blake
2021-12-09 15:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
musika
2021-12-09 15:57:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
1714   Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2   Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Common in the UK for long enough. Perhaps it has recently made its way
to Oz.
--
Ray
UK
Ken Blake
2021-12-09 16:08:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714   Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2   Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Common in the UK for long enough. Perhaps it has recently made its way
to Oz.
OK, thanks. I didn't know that either.
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-09 17:03:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
1714   Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2   Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
It's idiomatic in the UK.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
musika
2021-12-09 19:17:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
--
Ray
UK
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-09 19:39:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?

Maybe crawlunders?
--
Jerry Friedman
Paul Wolff
2021-12-09 21:56:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
--
Paul
charles
2021-12-10 09:09:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
And, every so often, you'll get a truck stuck under the bridge.
Post by Paul Wolff
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
I don't mind those. The lowing can be a soothing sound. I do worry about
the Heavy Plant Crossings.
trifids?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Lewis
2021-12-10 09:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
And, every so often, you'll get a truck stuck under the bridge.
Post by Paul Wolff
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
I don't mind those. The lowing can be a soothing sound. I do worry about
the Heavy Plant Crossings.
trifids?
Wrong day.
--
"I can't marry her; she's my friend!"
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 09:07:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
And, every so often, you'll get a truck stuck under the bridge.
Post by Paul Wolff
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
I don't mind those. The lowing can be a soothing sound. I do worry about
the Heavy Plant Crossings.
BEWARE OF THE TRIFFIDS
--
I am a traveler of both time and space
to be where I have been
Paul Wolff
2021-12-10 23:16:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
 How are you fixed for flyunders?
 Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact:  Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low
Bridge" here, and must have one of those signs.
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
For more details, see animal husbandry.
I remember when I was a child my parents explaining about bulls and cows
getting married and having calves.
--
Paul
Lewis
2021-12-11 16:17:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
 How are you fixed for flyunders?
 Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact:  Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low
Bridge" here, and must have one of those signs.
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
For more details, see animal husbandry.
I remember when I was a child my parents explaining about bulls and cows
getting married and having calves.
That's a lot of bull!
--
If fashion is your trade then when you're naked I guess you must be
unemployed.
Peter Moylan
2021-12-11 00:18:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low
Bridge" here, and must have one of those signs.
But not necessarily "Cattle Crossing".
For more details, see animal husbandry.
That's illegal here.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Mark Brader
2021-12-09 22:16:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
That words is "dive-unders". (At least in connection with British
railways, where "burrowing junction" is also heard.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "It is almost always wrong to strive for
***@vex.net gilt by association." --Martin Ambuhl
Jerry Friedman
2021-12-10 16:28:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
That words is "dive-unders". (At least in connection with British
railways, where "burrowing junction" is also heard.)
...

Thanks.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-10 21:57:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
That words is "dive-unders".  (At least in connection with British
railways, where "burrowing junction" is also heard.)
"It is almost always wrong to strive for gilt by association."
Lie down with gilt, get up with piglets.
<Like>
--
Sam Plusnet
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 09:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
Vhy a duck? Vhy no a chicken? (Chico)
--
[Those cookbooks] seem to consider _everything_ a leftover, which you
must do something with. For instance, cake. This is like telling you
what to do with your leftover whisky. ---Peg Bracken
Lewis
2021-12-10 09:43:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I think the number is lower here, I don't remember seeing signs for
anything over 15ft (~4.5m). A quick search didn't turn up a regulatory
minimum to avoid posting a warning sign.
--
The hippo of recollection stirred in the muddy waters of the mind.
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 11:00:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
--
I don't quite understand this worship of objectivity in
journalism. Now, just flat-out lying is different from being
subjective. ---Hunter S Thompson
CDB
2021-12-10 16:57:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That
the Projectors or Undertakers of any such Bank, do
not proceed to Print the said Scheme.., until they
have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker',
cagnate with Dutch 'ondernemer', which is nowadays
bad Dunglish,
passing on the wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say
"pass" instead of "overtake" when talking about an
ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs. (The height is given in both
metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low
Bridge" here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
I am sure it came from an idiot doing conversions to metric. 198
1/8th inches is 5.03 meters. The real question is probably "why 1/8"
and the answer is probably that the statutes originally said "over
16 feet" and something else said "measurements to within 1/8th of an
inch".
A rod is 16 1/2 feet in length. WIWAK we learned stuff like that in
grade 3.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(unit)
Adam Funk
2021-12-10 16:53:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
I am sure it came from an idiot doing conversions to metric. 198 1/8th
inches is 5.03 meters. The real question is probably "why 1/8" and the
answer is probably that the statutes originally said "over 16 feet" and
something else said "measurements to within 1/8th of an inch".
I think it is a conversion, but not by an idiot.

16 ft 6 in = 5.0292 m, so rounding to the nearest cm gives 5.03 with
an error of only 0.016%.
--
I used to be better at logic problems, before I just dumped
them all into TeX and let Knuth pick out the survivors.
---plorkwort
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-10 18:06:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
I am sure it came from an idiot doing conversions to metric. 198 1/8th
inches is 5.03 meters. The real question is probably "why 1/8" and the
answer is probably that the statutes originally said "over 16 feet" and
something else said "measurements to within 1/8th of an inch".
I think it is a conversion, but not by an idiot.
16 ft 6 in = 5.0292 m, so rounding to the nearest cm gives 5.03 with
an error of only 0.016%.
It does seem a bit odd to give the spurious 3 cm of extra precision,
when that inch could mean the difference between getting stuck and not.
Signing it at 16 ft. 5 in. gives a modicum more protection.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-10 21:40:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
I am sure it came from an idiot doing conversions to metric. 198 1/8th
inches is 5.03 meters. The real question is probably "why 1/8" and the
answer is probably that the statutes originally said "over 16 feet" and
something else said "measurements to within 1/8th of an inch".
I think it is a conversion, but not by an idiot.
16 ft 6 in = 5.0292 m, so rounding to the nearest cm gives 5.03 with
an error of only 0.016%.
It does seem a bit odd to give the spurious 3 cm of extra precision,
when that inch could mean the difference between getting stuck and not.
Signing it at 16 ft. 5 in. gives a modicum more protection.
People will soon recognise that there is a fudge factor in the displayed
height and make allowances.

Car speedometer readings are treated that way.
--
Sam Plusnet
Snidely
2021-12-10 23:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
I am sure it came from an idiot doing conversions to metric. 198 1/8th
inches is 5.03 meters. The real question is probably "why 1/8" and the
answer is probably that the statutes originally said "over 16 feet" and
something else said "measurements to within 1/8th of an inch".
I think it is a conversion, but not by an idiot.
16 ft 6 in = 5.0292 m, so rounding to the nearest cm gives 5.03 with
an error of only 0.016%.
It does seem a bit odd to give the spurious 3 cm of extra precision,
when that inch could mean the difference between getting stuck and not.
Signing it at 16 ft. 5 in. gives a modicum more protection.
People will soon recognise that there is a fudge factor in the displayed
height and make allowances.
Car speedometer readings are treated that way.
Some of these could increase increase your rental fees:

[warning ... one spurious pick maneuver included]

(yeah, that's not 16' 6")

/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-10 21:56:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Adam Funk
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
How are you fixed for flyunders?
Maybe crawlunders?
For those we have Low Bridge signs.
(The height is given in both metres & feet & inches.)
Fascinating fact: Any bridge lower than 5.03 metres is a "Low Bridge"
here, and must have one of those signs.
I wonder where 5.03 came from? It's very close to 16 & 1/2 feet.
I am sure it came from an idiot doing conversions to metric. 198 1/8th
inches is 5.03 meters. The real question is probably "why 1/8" and the
answer is probably that the statutes originally said "over 16 feet" and
something else said "measurements to within 1/8th of an inch".
I think it is a conversion, but not by an idiot.
16 ft 6 in = 5.0292 m, so rounding to the nearest cm gives 5.03 with
an error of only 0.016%.
It does seem a bit odd to give the spurious 3 cm of extra precision,
when that inch could mean the difference between getting stuck and not.
Signing it at 16 ft. 5 in. gives a modicum more protection.
I'm not sure, but I think that when the process of shifting to metric
units began, conversion tables were issued and their use required -
rather than relying on individuals doing calculations using log tables
or slide rules (these were pre-calculator days).

Those 3 cm are not spurious. I suppose you could argue that the extra
0.8mm is spurious (rounding error), but I doubt if you could get anyone
to agree.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-11 14:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
It does seem a bit odd to give the spurious 3 cm of extra precision,
when that inch could mean the difference between getting stuck and not.
Signing it at 16 ft. 5 in. gives a modicum more protection.
I'm not sure, but I think that when the process of shifting to metric
units began, conversion tables were issued and their use required -
rather than relying on individuals doing calculations using log tables
or slide rules (these were pre-calculator days).
I'm reading Harari's *Sapiens* now -- Hebrew original, Englished by
the author with two helpers. Curiously, it's in British English, and the
absence of the serial comma often makes for confusion; but that
makes it even more curious that at one point he says something
like "one band of hunter-gatherers might not be familiar with territory
60 miles away," which obviously is simply a less than apt rendition of
the guess "100 km" -- but why would he do that? (I'm reminded of a
Frenchperson who objected strenuously to rendering "une dizaine"
as "a dozen." We just don't have a word for 'a ten-en'.)
Post by Sam Plusnet
Those 3 cm are not spurious. I suppose you could argue that the extra
0.8mm is spurious (rounding error), but I doubt if you could get anyone
to agree.
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.

A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful. Our underpasses are signed in feet and inches.
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-11 19:36:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful.
Really?
If your vehicle is 4.82 metres high, can you not tell if the posted
bridge clearance is greater or less than this figure?

Our underpasses are signed in feet and inches.

No surprise there. Do you attach any significance to this?

A quick check seems to show that UK low bridges are marked by signs
showing the clearance in both metric and imperial units.
There could still be an odd bridge somewhere which is only signposted in
imperial units, but it becomes less likely as the years go by.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2021-12-11 20:04:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful.
Really?
Really. Meters are too big for everday use, cm are too small. Decimeters
would be better than either of those, but still ... we don't measure in
"hands" any more for the same reason. (They're useful for horses because
horses come in heights appropriately sized to be estimated in 4-inch jumps.)
Post by Sam Plusnet
If your vehicle is 4.82 metres high, can you not tell if the posted
bridge clearance is greater or less than this figure?
_If_ you know that. How often do you measure the air pressure
in your tires to guess how little/much height they add to the
vehicle?
Post by Sam Plusnet
Our underpasses are signed in feet and inches.
No surprise there. Do you attach any significance to this?
"16" (actually one more often sees 14 or a little less; I don't know what
sort of minimum each state might require for marking; many underpasses
have arches, and each lane is labeled) is the sort of number that lets yoiu
"eyeball" the thing. "4" is too small a number because the unit is too gross.
Post by Sam Plusnet
A quick check seems to show that UK low bridges are marked by signs
showing the clearance in both metric and imperial units.
There could still be an odd bridge somewhere which is only signposted in
imperial units, but it becomes less likely as the years go by.
And you wonder why innumeracy increases.

If an estimated height has an "error bar" of almost half a yard each way,
what use is it?
Sam Plusnet
2021-12-12 01:19:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful.
What would be really useful here would be the experience of someone who
grew up using imperial measures, and then made the transition to metric
units and thus has lots of experience of both systems.

Do they find metric units clumsy - or more simple and straightforward?

Happily there is just such a person. Me.

Metric units are easier to use. You can relax now.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Really?
Really. Meters are too big for everday use, cm are too small. Decimeters
would be better than either of those,
I assume this was humour. "5.03 metres" contains metres, decimetres and
centimetres. You can offer as much precision as the circumstances warrant.


but still ... we don't measure in
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"hands" any more for the same reason. (They're useful for horses because
horses come in heights appropriately sized to be estimated in 4-inch jumps.)
Wrong of course.
It's fairly common for a horse to be stated as say "13.2 hands".
But let's not pursue your decoy any further.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
If your vehicle is 4.82 metres high, can you not tell if the posted
bridge clearance is greater or less than this figure?
_If_ you know that. How often do you measure the air pressure
in your tires to guess how little/much height they add to the
vehicle?
It's hard to see the sign or the bridge itself through your smokescreen.
Can you really not look at two numbers and detect which is larger?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Our underpasses are signed in feet and inches.
No surprise there. Do you attach any significance to this?
"16" (actually one more often sees 14 or a little less; I don't know what
sort of minimum each state might require for marking; many underpasses
have arches, and each lane is labeled) is the sort of number that lets yoiu
"eyeball" the thing. "4" is too small a number because the unit is too gross.
Post by Sam Plusnet
A quick check seems to show that UK low bridges are marked by signs
showing the clearance in both metric and imperial units.
There could still be an odd bridge somewhere which is only signposted in
imperial units, but it becomes less likely as the years go by.
And you wonder why innumeracy increases.
Is that pure invention, or do you have relevant data to show that a
transition to metric units has such an effect?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If an estimated height has an "error bar" of almost half a yard each way,
what use is it?
Indulge me.
Can you point out where this "error bar of almost half a yard each way"
came from?
It doesn't have any place in the real world - and certainly none in this
discussion.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter Moylan
2021-12-12 03:38:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to
Metric, are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units
of sizes that are actually useful.
What would be really useful here would be the experience of someone
who grew up using imperial measures, and then made the transition to
metric units and thus has lots of experience of both systems.
Do they find metric units clumsy - or more simple and
straightforward?
Happily there is just such a person. Me.
Metric units are easier to use. You can relax now.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Really?
Really. Meters are too big for everday use, cm are too small.
Decimeters would be better than either of those,
I assume this was humour. "5.03 metres" contains metres, decimetres
and centimetres. You can offer as much precision as the
circumstances warrant.
It has just occurred to me that a major reason for these transpondial
misunderstandings is the use of the decimal point. It comes naturally to
anyone who is used to measuring in metres and the like. The question of
having units that are too big or too small never arises. Is 2.65 metres
too big or too small?

In the USA, in my experience, you would almost never see a length
expressed as 2.36 feet. More typically it is written as 2 feet and 4
5/16 inches. Quantities have to be written in terms of units and
subunits. Conversely, you would never find a European expressing a
length of 2.65 metres as 2 metres 6 decimetres 5 centimetres; that's
just not natural.

So it's not a question of which units you use. It's a question of
whether you express it in decimal notation or fractional notation. I
have the strong impression, from comments in this newsgroup, that
fractional notations get a lot more coverage in US schools than in the
rest of the world.

(One of my annoyances with the US banking system, when I was there, was
that I couldn't write a cheqck for $11.25. It had to be written as "11
and 25/100 dollars". But that was long ago, so perhaps that particular
silliness no longer exists.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Tony Cooper
2021-12-12 04:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:38:44 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to
Metric, are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units
of sizes that are actually useful.
What would be really useful here would be the experience of someone
who grew up using imperial measures, and then made the transition to
metric units and thus has lots of experience of both systems.
Do they find metric units clumsy - or more simple and
straightforward?
Happily there is just such a person. Me.
Metric units are easier to use. You can relax now.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Really?
Really. Meters are too big for everday use, cm are too small.
Decimeters would be better than either of those,
I assume this was humour. "5.03 metres" contains metres, decimetres
and centimetres. You can offer as much precision as the
circumstances warrant.
It has just occurred to me that a major reason for these transpondial
misunderstandings is the use of the decimal point. It comes naturally to
anyone who is used to measuring in metres and the like. The question of
having units that are too big or too small never arises. Is 2.65 metres
too big or too small?
In the USA, in my experience, you would almost never see a length
expressed as 2.36 feet. More typically it is written as 2 feet and 4
5/16 inches. Quantities have to be written in terms of units and
subunits. Conversely, you would never find a European expressing a
length of 2.65 metres as 2 metres 6 decimetres 5 centimetres; that's
just not natural.
So it's not a question of which units you use. It's a question of
whether you express it in decimal notation or fractional notation. I
have the strong impression, from comments in this newsgroup, that
fractional notations get a lot more coverage in US schools than in the
rest of the world.
(One of my annoyances with the US banking system, when I was there, was
that I couldn't write a cheqck for $11.25. It had to be written as "11
and 25/100 dollars". But that was long ago, so perhaps that particular
silliness no longer exists.)
When writing a US check, the amount is entered twice. It is entered
as "Eleven and 25/100 dollars" and also as $11.25 just to the right of
that. Usually, on the $11.25 side, we write the 25 over a bar with xx
below the bar.

If you write the amount only once, and as $11.25, if the . is not
clearly discernable by the machine reader, you might have $1125 paid
to someone.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-12-12 06:59:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 12 Dec 2021 14:38:44 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
(One of my annoyances with the US banking system, when I was
there, was that I couldn't write a cheqck for $11.25. It had to be
written as "11 and 25/100 dollars". But that was long ago, so
perhaps that particular silliness no longer exists.)
When writing a US check, the amount is entered twice. It is entered
as "Eleven and 25/100 dollars" and also as $11.25 just to the right
of that. Usually, on the $11.25 side, we write the 25 over a bar
with xx below the bar.
If you write the amount only once, and as $11.25, if the . is not
clearly discernable by the machine reader, you might have $1125 paid
to someone.
Sorry, I was unclear by not distinguishing between the amount in numbers
and the amount in words.

Back when Australians used cheques, in the "amount in words" part we
wrote "Eleven dollars and twenty-five cents". American checks don't let
you do that because the word "dollars" is pre-printed.

We could also have put it all in dollars by writing "Eleven point two
five dollars", but as a matter of custom we didn't. The one thing we
would *never* do was write it as a fraction.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Lewis
2021-12-12 05:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful.
What would be really useful here would be the experience of someone who
grew up using imperial measures, and then made the transition to metric
units and thus has lots of experience of both systems.
I started with metric and had to learn imperial when I was 8. We had to
learn things like rods and chains and pecks. This was in the middle of
the US's aborted attempt to move to metric, so I was also forced to
'learn' the metric system in the dumbest possible way. I swear it was
designed to make sure no one ever used metric measures.

I did know feet and inches even before I had to learn the rest of the
imperial system. It''s been 45 years and I still don't understand why we
have two different ounces.

I did pretty much stop using metric for 10 years because it really was
just to hard to deal with both, but once I was talking regularly to
people online, I primarily use metric for online, and I use it for all
'my' stuff, so my waether app is in C and my maps are in km.
Post by Sam Plusnet
Do they find metric units clumsy - or more simple and straightforward?
I find the imperial system to be laughably bad and dumb in every way.
None of makes the slightest sense at all.
Post by Sam Plusnet
Metric units are easier to use. You can relax now.
I do not even understand how someone can claim that metric is
"confusing" or :too hard".
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Really?
Really. Meters are too big for everday use, cm are too small. Decimeters
would be better than either of those,
I assume this was humour. "5.03 metres" contains metres, decimetres and
centimetres. You can offer as much precision as the circumstances warrant.
I've never used decimeters or decilitres, cm and ml are perfectly
usable. I've recently seen cl used more than I recall ever seeing as a
child, but I probably don't use it for anything but a can of soda/pop in
Europe.

When I was in Mexico, things came in litres or half litres, which where
not referred to as 500ml or 50cl, they were half a litre. I don't
remember what the small coke bottles were, we generally got a litre
bottle on the rare occasions we'd buy sidral.
--
"He loves Nature in spite of what it did to him." - Forrest Tucker
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-12-12 09:53:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful.
What would be really useful here would be the experience of someone who
grew up using imperial measures, and then made the transition to metric
units and thus has lots of experience of both systems.
Do they find metric units clumsy - or more simple and straightforward?
Happily there is just such a person. Me.
There is another such person: me.
Post by Sam Plusnet
Metric units are easier to use.
I agree.
Post by Sam Plusnet
You can relax now.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Really?
Really. Meters are too big for everday use, cm are too small. Decimeters
would be better than either of those,
I assume this was humour. "5.03 metres" contains metres, decimetres
and centimetres. You can offer as much precision as the circumstances
warrant.
but still ... we don't measure in
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"hands" any more for the same reason. (They're useful for horses because
horses come in heights appropriately sized to be estimated in 4-inch jumps.)
Wrong of course.
It's fairly common for a horse to be stated as say "13.2 hands".
But let's not pursue your decoy any further.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
If your vehicle is 4.82 metres high, can you not tell if the posted
bridge clearance is greater or less than this figure?
_If_ you know that. How often do you measure the air pressure
in your tires to guess how little/much height they add to the
vehicle?
It's hard to see the sign or the bridge itself through your smokescreen.
Can you really not look at two numbers and detect which is larger?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Sam Plusnet
Our underpasses are signed in feet and inches.
No surprise there. Do you attach any significance to this?
"16" (actually one more often sees 14 or a little less; I don't know what
sort of minimum each state might require for marking; many underpasses
have arches, and each lane is labeled) is the sort of number that lets yoiu
"eyeball" the thing. "4" is too small a number because the unit is too gross.
Post by Sam Plusnet
A quick check seems to show that UK low bridges are marked by signs
showing the clearance in both metric and imperial units.
There could still be an odd bridge somewhere which is only signposted in
imperial units, but it becomes less likely as the years go by.
And you wonder why innumeracy increases.
Is that pure invention, or do you have relevant data to show that a
transition to metric units has such an effect?
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If an estimated height has an "error bar" of almost half a yard each way,
what use is it?
Indulge me.
Can you point out where this "error bar of almost half a yard each way"
came from?
It doesn't have any place in the real world - and certainly none in
this discussion.
--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.
Richard Heathfield
2021-12-12 10:34:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snip>
Other things that I seldom or never use are pascals, hectares,
That's the one that gets me all the time. Whenever they tell us that a
fire has destroyed, for example, 15000 hectares of forest I try to
figure out whether that's a lot or a little. First I have to remember
how many m^2 there are in an are, then I need to estimate the square
root of the result to visualize how big it is.
Or you could double it, and that's how many football pitches it is.

1 acre = 1 football pitch (ish)
1 hectare = two football pitches (ish)

15000 ha then is 30,000 soccer pitches, which is a *lot*.

For bigger areas:

1 million hectares = 3 counties (UK or US)
1 million acres = Los Angeles (or Washington DC)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Ken Blake
2021-12-12 15:05:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
That's the one that gets me all the time. Whenever they tell us that a
fire has destroyed, for example, 15000 hectares of forest I try to
figure out whether that's a lot or a little. First I have to remember
how many m^2 there are in an are, then I need to estimate the square
root of the result to visualize how big it is.
I always think of a hectare as 2.5 acres.

Tony Cooper
2021-12-11 20:21:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to Metric,
are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of sizes
that are actually useful.
Really?
If your vehicle is 4.82 metres high, can you not tell if the posted
bridge clearance is greater or less than this figure?
Our underpasses are signed in feet and inches.
No surprise there. Do you attach any significance to this?
A quick check seems to show that UK low bridges are marked by signs
showing the clearance in both metric and imperial units.
There could still be an odd bridge somewhere which is only signposted in
imperial units, but it becomes less likely as the years go by.
Based solely by an experience in driving a rental box truck, the
height of the box is written on the surface above the windshield.

I'm going to assume that the figure is in the same units as the figure
on the bridge that says "Clearance xx.x ft"

https://static.tti.tamu.edu/visualmedia/safetynet/2014/v1i3/low-bridge-signs.html
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-12-12 00:28:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to
Metric, are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of
sizes that are actually useful. Our underpasses are signed in feet
and inches.
A quick sampling of the web suggests that US low bridge signs round to
the nearest half foot, and signs elsewhere round to the nearest
decimetre (about four inches).

Going down to inches or centimetres would be a delusion of accuracy, in
my opinion, given the flexibility in truck tyres and suspension.

Looking for an Australian example, I found this

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-29/low-clearance-signs-1/11120874?nw=0

where the important part is "Despite several warning signs, 34 trucks
have hit the Bayswater bridge since 2014."
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Paul Wolff
2021-12-12 11:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
If height warnings are not being translated from Customary to
Metric, are they given in hundredths of a meter? I doubt it.
A really good example of how metric manages to not have units of
sizes that are actually useful. Our underpasses are signed in feet
and inches.
A quick sampling of the web suggests that US low bridge signs round to
the nearest half foot, and signs elsewhere round to the nearest
decimetre (about four inches).
Going down to inches or centimetres would be a delusion of accuracy, in
my opinion, given the flexibility in truck tyres and suspension.
Looking for an Australian example, I found this
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-29/low-clearance-signs-1/11120874?nw=0
where the important part is "Despite several warning signs, 34 trucks
have hit the Bayswater bridge since 2014."
With respect, the important part is the word "clearance", which
primarily means the clear separation between one thing and another. If I
was passing an obstacle and was told I had plenty of clearance, I'd be
happy.

Shouldn't the "clearance" in any instance mean the clear separation of
the top of the truck from the underside of the bridge?
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2021-12-12 12:28:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Peter Moylan
Looking for an Australian example, I found this
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-29/low-clearance-signs-1/11120874?nw=0
where the important part is "Despite several warning signs, 34
trucks have hit the Bayswater bridge since 2014."
With respect, the important part is the word "clearance", which
primarily means the clear separation between one thing and another.
If I was passing an obstacle and was told I had plenty of clearance,
I'd be happy.
Shouldn't the "clearance" in any instance mean the clear separation
of the top of the truck from the underside of the bridge?
Good point. I'd seen such signs so often that I've never given thought
to the meaning of the word.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Paul Wolff
2021-12-09 21:55:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
Now that's a bit over the top.
--
Paul
Quinn C
2021-12-09 23:35:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Neither have I, probably since we Americans usually say "pass" instead of
"overtake" when talking about an ordinary driving action.
If it's any help, we also have underpasses over here.
And they're open during Passover?
--
Canada's brand is well-intentioned genocide.
-- Hannah McGregor
Paul Wolff
2021-12-09 22:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Adam Funk
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
I have definitely hard it but I cannot recall the context. I want to say
I heard it in California, but it might have been in something I watched
whilst in California. I think of it as being a BrE import, like
roundabout.=, also making incursion into the US.
I too think I've heard it - my recollection says a safe driving campaign
in Britain linked undertaking (passing on the inside) with the British
profession of undertaker (funeral director / mortician). "See you later,
undertaker" sort of thing.
--
Paul
Peter Moylan
2021-12-10 00:09:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Adam Funk
1714 Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2 Ordered, That the
Projectors or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to
Print the said Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals
before the General Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
Maybe just in Australia. I've never heard it.
Some of our road planners provide an extra undertaking lane at major
intersections. The lane only lasts for a short distance on the other
side, so traffic using it has to merge. The theory is that extra lanes
help the flow of slow-moving traffic leaving a light that has just
turned green, and that natural merging will be possible as the traffic
speeds up.

The practice is quite different. Undertaking lanes are used by impatient
young drivers, who gamble on being able to accelerate fast enough to cut
in in front of the rest of the traffic.

There's one heavy-traffic road that I often use where you have to brake
sharply after crossing the intersection, because of the disruption of
drivers cutting in at the front of the queue.

Only undertakers are in favour of this practice.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
occam
2021-12-10 19:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
1714   Boston News-let. 16 Aug. 2/2   Ordered, That the Projectors
or Undertakers of any such Bank, do not proceed to Print the said
Scheme.., until they have laid their Proposals before the General
Assembly.
And so there still was a use of 'undertaker', cagnate with Dutch
'ondernemer', which is nowadays bad Dunglish,
Yet another sense of "undertaking" is now appearing: passing on the
wrong side in traffic.
I have not heard of 'undertaking' used in this context. The term usually
used to describe this sort of undisciplined driving is called
'overtaking on the inside'.
Some trucks have signs on the rear. "Passing side" on one side, and
"suicide" on the other.
('suicide' is at least consistent with the use of 'undertaking'.)
occam
2021-12-12 10:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Steve Hayes
An etymology and translation question.
Would someone with access to the OED (Jerry Friedman?) or similar
etymological dictionary let me know when "projector" first was used
for a person who initiated business projects and ventures?
I think it has now been superseded by words like "entrepreneur", but
it was in use like that in the 18th century -- I just want to know
when it began, and if it was in use in that sense in the second half
of the 17th cenury.
Yes, projector was the word used by the French before they stumbled
across 'entrepreneur', following the remark made by George W.

(Don't believe everything Snopes.com tells you. It cites the
pathological liar Alastair Campbell, who would deny his own grandmother
if it served his political purposes.)
Loading...