Discussion:
A conversation with Sis
Add Reply
Tony Cooper
2021-03-19 23:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.

Sis also took the side of the protestors, but that's what she does.
She waits until I've declared a position, and then takes other side.

However, it's been an amusing thread to read. Strong opinions have
been voiced in dissension. I seemed to have stepped on Chrysi Cat's
tail. The resulting rebuke was based on the grounds that I was trying
to set universal usage. But, then, (?)* confused me by going on about
some westward migration of terms across this country. I was already
confused about (?)* since (?)* has recently used "colour" and
"presenter" in posts indicating an across the pond poster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I don't know whether to use "she", "he", "him", "her", or "erm" in
the (?) place. No declaration of acceptable pronouns has been made,
but there's indication that the choice is necessary. I'm not crossing
that Rubicon again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am also confused by the poster who refers to "Pamela" as "he", but I
haven't questioned that in order to give that poster's caps lock a
rest. Pamela's posts have a definite sharply feminine voice to me.
Janet-like.

Lewis amazed me when he alluded to his 40 years of marriage and
insisting he has never heard his wife utter the word "panties". I've
got 17 years on him in duration of marriage, and I would never pretend
to have noticed whether or not my wife has uttered any particular
word. I commend him on his attention to his wife's every word.

My wife and I have a very comfortable and satisfying marriage, but I
freely admit that she often speaks whole sentences that I don't pay
attention to. That comes up quite often when I say she didn't mention
that we were supposed to do, or go to, something on a particular date
or at a particular time, and she insists that she did.

I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
used to describe that. Not to mention that a skirt was the usual outer
layer. To say a woman wore pants was to say she was the boss of the
family. (Usually true, but meant uncomplimentary to the husband)

I can't recall anyone siding with me on this issue. Where's a stooge
when you need one?
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-20 11:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't recall anyone siding with me on this issue. Where's a stooge
when you need one?
Ya need to up the pay rate. Not me.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-20 14:20:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
The OED has:

pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.

They are worn when pedal pushing.

Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't recall anyone siding with me on this issue. Where's a stooge
when you need one?
Ya need to up the pay rate. Not me.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-20 15:41:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
As I may have said before, some twenty or twenty-five years ago, as
one of my physics classes was starting, there was some comment on
the capri pants one of my students was wearing. I remarked that in my
day, those were called pedal pushers. A male friend of that student
said, "She's a peddler! And a pusher!"

I haven't used the phrase since.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
...

"Brothel creepers" don't creep.
--
Jerry Friedman
Cheryl
2021-03-20 23:07:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
As I may have said before, some twenty or twenty-five years ago, as
one of my physics classes was starting, there was some comment on
the capri pants one of my students was wearing. I remarked that in my
day, those were called pedal pushers. A male friend of that student
said, "She's a peddler! And a pusher!"
I think I've finally trained myself to call them capris because no one
younger than me knows what peddle pushers are.
--
Cheryl
Quinn C
2021-03-20 19:19:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
Those aren't that similar. They would've been to "pedal-pushing shorts".
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
But are they made for loafing, made for sneaking? Maybe in the minds of
the name givers.
--
Learning the rules that govern intelligible speech is an
inculcation into normalized language, where the price of not
conforming is the loss of intelligibility itself.
-- Judith Butler
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-21 00:50:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
Those aren't that similar. They would've been to "pedal-pushing shorts".
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
But are they made for loafing, made for sneaking? Maybe in the minds of
the name givers.
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-21 08:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
Those aren't that similar. They would've been to "pedal-pushing shorts".
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
But are they made for loafing, made for sneaking? Maybe in the minds of
the name givers.
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
musika
2021-03-21 09:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 23:49:43 GMT, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants".  While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it.  When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer.  The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher  n.  (a) a cyclist;  (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912   Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4   {the cyclist sense}
1944   Life 28 Aug. 65/2   When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
Those aren't that similar. They would've been to "pedal-pushing shorts".
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
But are they made for loafing, made for sneaking? Maybe in the minds of
the name givers.
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
--
Ray
UK
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-21 10:38:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:29:40 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants".  While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it.  When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer.  The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
pedal pusher  n.  (a) a cyclist;  (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912   Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4   {the cyclist sense}
1944   Life 28 Aug. 65/2   When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
Those aren't that similar. They would've been to "pedal-pushing shorts".
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
But are they made for loafing, made for sneaking? Maybe in the minds of
the name givers.
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Probably you're right. I think my mother sometimes referred to them,
but I don't remember an example.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
occam
2021-03-22 07:22:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.

Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-22 07:53:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-22 10:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
All that demonstrates of course that inflation doesn't exist,
and that we need to print Euros by the thousands of billions
to increase it,

Jan
Janet
2021-03-22 12:10:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@imm.cnrs.fr
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Not always :-)

In UK middle class, business and aspirational social circles, men
who have their suits, shirts and shoes bespoke (handmade to measure) are
not unusual.


Janet.
Tony Cooper
2021-03-22 13:06:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Janet
says...
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Not always :-)
In UK middle class, business and aspirational social circles, men
who have their suits, shirts and shoes bespoke (handmade to measure) are
not unusual.
While some men may pay "astronomical" amounts for shoes, their closets
will probably contain no more than three - maybe up to four - pair of
dress shoes. Their choices are between black, brown, cordovan (or
oxblood) and cap toe, wing tip, or plain. They can wear 10 to 20
year-old shoes without fear of being fashion outed.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 15:27:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Not always :-)
In UK middle class, business and aspirational social circles, men
who have their suits, shirts and shoes bespoke (handmade to measure) are
not unusual.
While some men may pay "astronomical" amounts for shoes, their closets
will probably contain no more than three - maybe up to four - pair of
dress shoes. Their choices are between black, brown, cordovan (or
oxblood) and cap toe, wing tip, or plain. They can wear 10 to 20
year-old shoes without fear of being fashion outed.
I still have four pair of dress shoes: one plain black, one wing-tip
black, one plain brown, one wing-tip brown, however I've never worn any
of them since I retired 28 years ago. These days I wear nothing but
running shoes, for which I typically pay around $40-$50.

I can't remember for sure what I paid for those dress shoes, but I think
it was around $100 a pair.

Why do I still have them? They take up almost no room, and who knows,
one day, I may need one of them.
--
Ken
Lewis
2021-03-23 09:10:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Janet
says...
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Not always :-)
In UK middle class, business and aspirational social circles, men
who have their suits, shirts and shoes bespoke (handmade to measure) are
not unusual.
While some men may pay "astronomical" amounts for shoes, their closets
will probably contain no more than three - maybe up to four
Three? FOUR?! There's black and there';s brown.... that other dress shoes
would you ever need? Are white dress hoes rally a thing in Florida, I
thought that was a Miami Vice thing. :)
Post by Tony Cooper
pair of dress shoes. Their choices are between black, brown,
cordovan (or oxblood) and cap toe, wing tip, or plain. They can wear
10 to 20 year-old shoes without fear of being fashion outed.
Ah, oxblood, that seems a bit trendy. Not sure it will catch on.
--
gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed the
were not here,
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 15:03:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.

I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.

By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
--
Ken
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-22 16:07:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
EUR500 (international)

Here 500€
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 16:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
EUR500 (international)
Here 500€
Thanks.
--
Ken
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-22 16:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
EUR500 (international)
Here 500€
Thanks.
In the Republic of Ireland €500.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
occam
2021-03-22 23:55:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
EUR500 (international)
Here 500€
Thanks.
In the Republic of Ireland €500.
But they drive on the left side of the road, don't they?
Peter Moylan
2021-03-23 01:23:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
EUR500 (international)
Here 500€
Thanks.
In the Republic of Ireland €500.
But they drive on the left side of the road, don't they?
Most Irish roads don't have a left and right side. They drive in the middle.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
occam
2021-03-23 10:58:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
EUR500 (international)
Here 500€
Thanks.
In the Republic of Ireland €500.
But they drive on the left side of the road, don't they?
Most Irish roads don't have a left and right side. They drive in the middle.
Is it not odd that we do not have any Irish contributors to this forum?
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.) I am a relative newcomer to this forum,
but I cannot recall anyone representing the Irish perspective here for
the last 8 years.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-23 11:27:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the Republic of Ireland €500.
But they drive on the left side of the road, don't they?
Most Irish roads don't have a left and right side. They drive in the middle.
Is it not odd that we do not have any Irish contributors to this
forum? (I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.) I am a relative newcomer to
this forum, but I cannot recall anyone representing the Irish
perspective here for the last 8 years.
Brian Goggin (Limerick) and Padraig Breathnach (somewhere in Ulster)
were among the most respected of our respected regulars. Padraig left
because he felt that nobody supported him in a dispute with Rey. Brian
just disappeared, probably to get a life.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 14:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Is it not odd that we do not have any Irish contributors to this
forum? (I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.) I am a relative newcomer to
this forum, but I cannot recall anyone representing the Irish
perspective here for the last 8 years.
Brian Goggin (Limerick) and Padraig Breathnach (somewhere in Ulster)
were among the most respected of our respected regulars. Padraig left
because he felt that nobody supported him in a dispute with Rey. Brian
just disappeared, probably to get a life.
That must have been a very long time ago.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-24 02:18:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Is it not odd that we do not have any Irish contributors to this
forum? (I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.) I am a relative
newcomer to this forum, but I cannot recall anyone representing
the Irish perspective here for the last 8 years.
Brian Goggin (Limerick) and Padraig Breathnach (somewhere in
Ulster) were among the most respected of our respected regulars.
Padraig left because he felt that nobody supported him in a
dispute with Rey. Brian just disappeared, probably to get a life.
That must have been a very long time ago.
It seems recent, but when I look at my travel notes I see that it was in
2006.

By the way, when I said that Pádraig lives in Ulster, that is
potentially misleading. He lives in northern Ireland but not in Northern
Ireland. That is, he's in one of the three counties.

I could tell you more precisely if I went back to Facebook, but I've had
it with Facebook.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Tony Cooper
2021-03-24 03:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:18:27 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Is it not odd that we do not have any Irish contributors to this
forum? (I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.) I am a relative
newcomer to this forum, but I cannot recall anyone representing
the Irish perspective here for the last 8 years.
Brian Goggin (Limerick) and Padraig Breathnach (somewhere in
Ulster) were among the most respected of our respected regulars.
Padraig left because he felt that nobody supported him in a
dispute with Rey. Brian just disappeared, probably to get a life.
That must have been a very long time ago.
It seems recent, but when I look at my travel notes I see that it was in
2006.
By the way, when I said that Pádraig lives in Ulster, that is
potentially misleading. He lives in northern Ireland but not in Northern
Ireland. That is, he's in one of the three counties.
I could tell you more precisely if I went back to Facebook, but I've had
it with Facebook.
Does Charles - call me Chuck - Riggs qualify? He was an American, but
living and posting from the ROI.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Lewis
2021-03-23 14:40:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.)
Well, that is simply wrong. Entirely wrong. In every conceivable way,
wrong.
--
NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR FROM MY ARMPITS Bart chalkboard Ep. 3F01
occam
2021-03-23 14:41:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.)
Well, that is simply wrong. Entirely wrong. In every conceivable way,
wrong.
Thank you for that well argued case. You've convinced me.
Lewis
2021-03-23 17:29:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.)
Well, that is simply wrong. Entirely wrong. In every conceivable way,
wrong.
Thank you for that well argued case. You've convinced me.
I do not care if I convince you or not, if you go about blathering
idiocy like "this part of Ireland is not Ireland" you will be regarded as
a fool. Your choice.

But you are 100%, entirely, in every conceivable way, wrong.
--
Ah, you're a Penguin too?
Pilgrim, my son. Pilgrim. Yes, of the Hare Krishnas.
Hairy Fishnuts.
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-23 17:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.)
Well, that is simply wrong. Entirely wrong. In every conceivable way,
wrong.
Thank you for that well argued case. You've convinced me.
I do not care if I convince you or not, if you go about blathering
idiocy like "this part of Ireland is not Ireland" you will be regarded as
a fool. Your choice.
But you are 100%, entirely, in every conceivable way, wrong.
I get asked about Irish people. I don't say the NI aren't Irish, but I do say that the SI
aren't British.

I mean, if we're talking official nationality ie; passports, the northerners are Brits and
the southereners are Irish.

Is there something I don't know about nationality in Ireland? Maybe I have it all arse
about face. Dunno.

Cultural identity is obviously another matter.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Lewis
2021-03-23 23:29:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.)
But you are 100%, entirely, in every conceivable way, wrong.
I get asked about Irish people. I don't say the NI aren't Irish, but I do say that the SI
aren't British.
I mean, if we're talking official nationality ie; passports, the northerners are Brits and
the southereners are Irish.
Is there something I don't know about nationality in Ireland? Maybe I have it all arse
about face. Dunno.
The country is Northern IRELAND. People born in Belfast are Irish. The
Island they live on is Ireland. Some of these people that occam claims
do not live in Ireland have lived in Ireland for literally countrles
generations.
--
IT IS NOT YET MIDNIGHT? 'I shouldn't think it's more than a quarter
past eleven.' THEN WE HAVE THREE-QUARTERS OF AN HOUR 'How can you
be sure?' BECAUSE OF DRAMA, MISS FLITWORTH.. THE KIND OF DEATH
WHO POSES AGAINST THE SKYLINE AND GETS LIT UP BY LIGHTNING
FLASHES, said Bill Door, disapprovingly, DOESN'T TURN UP AT
FIVE-AND-TWENTY PAST ELEVEN IF HE CAN POSSIBLY TURN UP AT
MIDNIGHT.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-23 16:15:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by occam
(I don't count N.I. as 'Irish'.)
Well, that is simply wrong. Entirely wrong. In every conceivable way,
wrong.
FFI see "1066 and all that"; it explains clearly the location of the
Scots and Irish and various times.

NI is still in the EU common market, but has politicians who are so layal
to Britain that .. I dunno it's all an enigma wrapped in a history.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-22 16:26:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
[ … ]
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I think they're both correct. In France they write 500€, so that's what
I write. Jan will be able to tell us what they write in The Netherlands.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 17:50:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
[ … ]
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I think they're both correct. In France they write 500€, so that's what
I write. Jan will be able to tell us what they write in The Netherlands.
I Just checked on the web site of a hotel I know in Rome. There the €
precedes the number. Since I know Italy the best of all European
countries, that's what I'm used to, and the reason I asked is that you
wrote it the other way around.
--
Ken
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-22 18:09:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
[ … ]
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I think they're both correct. In France they write 500€, so that's what
I write. Jan will be able to tell us what they write in The Netherlands.
I Just checked on the web site of a hotel I know in Rome. There the € precedes the number.
May be a stupid question, but was it the hotel's own site or an agency? And in Italian?

I notice that booking.com precedes the number with the currency sign, but that is a Dutch
company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign - it doesn't state which country does what, just
that most tag it on the end.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 18:41:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
[ … ]
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I think they're both correct. In France they write 500€, so that's what
I write. Jan will be able to tell us what they write in The Netherlands.
I Just checked on the web site of a hotel I know in Rome. There the € precedes the number.
May be a stupid question, but was it the hotel's own site or an agency?
Hotel's
Post by Paul Carmichael
And in Italian?
The site lets you choose either one. In both, the € precedes the number.
--
Ken
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-23 09:08:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Ken Blake
[ … ]
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I think they're both correct. In France they write 500€, so that's what
I write. Jan will be able to tell us what they write in The Netherlands.
I Just checked on the web site of a hotel I know in Rome. There the €
precedes the number.
May be a stupid question, but was it the hotel's own site or an agency? And in Italian?
I notice that booking.com precedes the number with the currency sign, but
that is a Dutch company.
Not any more. It was a Dutch start-up, originally.
Headquarters is still in Amsterdam though.
Post by Paul Carmichael
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_sign - it doesn't state which country
does what, just that most tag it on the end.
The natural thing is to write it as you say it.
So that puts the euro sign at the end, for most languages.
BTW, Dutch is a special case. There wasn't a guilder sign,
so the special Florin sign Fl was used instead.
It always went before the numbers, never behind.
When behind, it was written out as 'gulden'.
With the Euro sign some keep it in front, like the Fl was,
others move it to the end,

Jan
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-22 17:10:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,

Jan
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 17:52:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Thanks. I suspected as much.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
You mean 3€50 to indicate three and a half Euros? I don't think I've
ever seen that.
--
Ken
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-22 17:59:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen € used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.

The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK followed
the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long s for
shilling.

Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 18:37:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen € used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.
The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK followed
the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long s for
shilling.
Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
I don't know about Turkish liras, but I don't think £ was ever used for
the Italian lira.
--
Ken
charles
2021-03-22 18:42:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138¤ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700¤ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500¤. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500¤ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500¤ or ¤500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen ¤ used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.
The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK followed
the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long s for
shilling.
Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
I don't know about Turkish liras, but I don't think £ was ever used for
the Italian lira.
It certainly was when we were there in 1988
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Quinn C
2021-03-22 19:40:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138¤ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700¤ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500¤. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500¤ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500¤ or ¤500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen ¤ used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.
The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK followed
the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long s for
shilling.
Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
I don't know about Turkish liras, but I don't think £ was ever used for
the Italian lira.
It certainly was when we were there in 1988
I remember it as "L."

Wikipedia:

| The primary symbol for the Italian lira was L. but the symbols ₤ (two
| bars), £ (Unicode 'POUND SIGN', one bar) and prefix "Lit." were
| common.
--
Bring home one dismembered body part, once, mind you, once,
and people get twitchy about checking your luggage ever after.
-- Vicereine Cordelia
in L. McMaster Bujold, Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 20:21:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by charles
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138¤ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700¤ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500¤. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500¤ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500¤ or ¤500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen ¤ used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.
The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK followed
the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long s for
shilling.
Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
I don't know about Turkish liras, but I don't think £ was ever used for
the Italian lira.
It certainly was when we were there in 1988
I remember it as "L."
Same for me.
Post by Quinn C
| The primary symbol for the Italian lira was L. but the symbols ₤ (two
| bars), £ (Unicode 'POUND SIGN', one bar) and prefix "Lit." were
| common.
--
Ken
charles
2021-03-22 21:04:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Quinn C
Post by charles
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138¤ in
real money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the
USA way "real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would
be be a better place if there were a single currency used by all
countries, and that currency should be the Euro since it starts
out being used by many countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my wife wanted to buy
new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at 700¤ on
display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500¤. (I
do realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500¤
sounds like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has
ever spent as much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500¤ or ¤500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind, but one also
sees the other one convention. Third possibility: a small euro sign
as decimals separator, in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen ¤ used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless
others) used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from
centavos (e.g. 10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used
to that convention sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it
looked very odd.
The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK
followed the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long
s for shilling.
Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
I don't know about Turkish liras, but I don't think £ was ever used
for the Italian lira.
It certainly was when we were there in 1988
I remember it as "L."
Same for me.
L with a bar across, so it looks like £
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Ken Blake
2021-03-22 20:20:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Ken Blake
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138¤ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700¤ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500¤. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500¤ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500¤ or ¤500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen ¤ used like that, but countries that in the
past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.
The way / was used to separate shillings from pence in the UK followed
the same principle, / being a stylized version of the long s for
shilling.
Maybe £ was used like that as a symbol for Italian and/or Turkish
liras. I don't remember.
I don't know about Turkish liras, but I don't think £ was ever used for
the Italian lira.
It certainly was when we were there in 1988
Since you seem so very sure, I'll believe you. I think the firat time I
was there was around 1985. If it was used then, I don't remember it.
--
Ken
Mark Brader
2021-03-22 20:35:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen [euro sign] used like that, but countries that in
the past that had escudos as currency (Portugal, Chile, doubtless others)
used $ as escudo symbol with $ to separate escudos from centavos (e.g.
10$50 for ten escudos and 50 centavos). People used to that convention
sometimes used it for US $ as well, but then it looked very odd.
Likewise in France, in handwritten signage you used to see 10F50 -- with
the F typically superscripted -- meaning 10 francs 50 centimes. I would
therefore not be surprised if some people there do use the euro sign that
way, but, like Athel, I don't remember seeing it myself. Oh, here's one:

Loading Image...

Note that a decimal point is used *as well*.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Accuracy is many ways more important speed."
***@vex.net | --David Kleinecke

My text in this article is in the public domain.
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-22 21:26:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
There is no standard. Most common is euro sign behind,
but one also sees the other one convention.
Third possibility: a small euro sign as decimals separator,
in accordance with the way it is spoken,
I don't think I've seen € used like that,
From a hardware store near to you:
<https://www.bricodepot.fr/marseille/>

Unusual perhaps, but certainly done,

Jan
Lewis
2021-03-23 09:22:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
You communist!

Me communist too, of course.
Post by Ken Blake
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
Possibly if she hasn't bought nice shoes in 40 years, but even then a
bit unlikely.
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.

However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",

For $ when posting online I try to prefix it with US since the $ sign is
used for many different currencies.

The fractional euro has no set sign, and that will vary by country.

Since the word euro is a currency, it is incorrect to capitalize it, but
this is a common error. It is a legal Scrabble word, just like xu and
franc.

I;m not sure who uses the ¢ sign other than the US. I do not remember it
in Mexico, for example, prices were simply decimals if there was a
fractional peso.
--
Is a vegetarian permitted to eat animal crackers?
Ken Blake
2021-03-23 16:53:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
You communist!
Me communist too, of course.
Post by Ken Blake
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
Possibly if she hasn't bought nice shoes in 40 years, but even then a
bit unlikely.
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.
However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is
incorrect?
Post by Lewis
For $ when posting online I try to prefix it with US since the $ sign is
used for many different currencies.
I usually postfix the number with (USD), so I'd write $200 (USD).
Post by Lewis
The fractional euro has no set sign, and that will vary by country.
Since the word euro is a currency, it is incorrect to capitalize it, but
this is a common error. It is a legal Scrabble word, just like xu and
franc.
I;m not sure who uses the ¢ sign other than the US.
Even in the US, it's not very commonly used these days.


I do not remember it
Post by Lewis
in Mexico, for example, prices were simply decimals if there was a
fractional peso.
--
Ken
Quinn C
2021-03-23 17:26:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.
However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is
incorrect?
Isn't that just the general rules for number + unit?
--
Well, if that isn't the Quacta calling the Stifling slimy.
-- Boba Fett
Ken Blake
2021-03-23 18:55:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.
However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is
incorrect?
Isn't that just the general rules for number + unit?
Yes, for something like 3 inches.

No, for something like 3".
--
Ken
Lewis
2021-03-23 17:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
You communist!
Me communist too, of course.
Post by Ken Blake
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
Possibly if she hasn't bought nice shoes in 40 years, but even then a
bit unlikely.
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.
However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is
incorrect?
I would have to look it up again, but I got it from the EU when I had to
look it up about... 20 years ago? Yes,, that sounds about right,
1999-2001.

Ah, Wikipedia has a link:

<http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm#position>

Position of the euro sign (€) in amounts
The euro sign is followed by the amount without space:

a sum of €30

NB:
The same rule applies in Dutch, Irish and Maltese. In all other official
EU languages the order is reversed; the amount is followed by a hard
space and the euro sign:

une somme de 30 €
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
For $ when posting online I try to prefix it with US since the $ sign is
used for many different currencies.
I usually postfix the number with (USD), so I'd write $200 (USD).
I prefer the look of US$20, but that's just style. I also thing the D is
redundant with the $.
Post by Ken Blake
Even in the US, it's not very commonly used these days.
It is for prices under a full dollar.
--
Margo: Although Dark King is a little generic as far as villain names go,
wouldn’t you say?
Eliot: I have notes.
Ken Blake
2021-03-23 19:05:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
You communist!
Me communist too, of course.
Post by Ken Blake
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
Possibly if she hasn't bought nice shoes in 40 years, but even then a
bit unlikely.
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.
However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is
incorrect?
I would have to look it up again, but I got it from the EU when I had to
look it up about... 20 years ago? Yes,, that sounds about right,
1999-2001.
<http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm#position>
Yes, thanks.
Post by Lewis
Position of the euro sign (€) in amounts
a sum of €30
The same rule applies in Dutch, Irish and Maltese. In all other official
EU languages the order is reversed; the amount is followed by a hard
une somme de 30 €
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
For $ when posting online I try to prefix it with US since the $ sign is
used for many different currencies.
I usually postfix the number with (USD), so I'd write $200 (USD).
I prefer the look of US$20, but that's just style. I also thing the D is
redundant with the $.
Perhaps the D is redundant, but to me it's a clarification of what kind
of dollar the $ represents. If I were writing it your way, I certainly
wouldn't use the D. USD$20, with the D and $ next to each other, is
clearly redundant.
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Even in the US, it's not very commonly used these days.
It is for prices under a full dollar.
I just went to the web site of a local grocery store. You are of course
right. Perhaps I had forgotten because so few prices are under a dollar
these days.
--
Ken
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-23 20:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Lewis
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
You communist!
Me communist too, of course.
Post by Ken Blake
Even if women's shoes are much more expensive than men's, 500€ sounds
like a fortune for shoes to me. I don't think my wife has ever spent as
much as $100.
Possibly if she hasn't bought nice shoes in 40 years, but even then a
bit unlikely.
Post by Ken Blake
By the way, which is correct, 500€ or €500? Or are both correct?
I always but the currency symbol first, but I don't know of a rule for
all currencies. The rule for the euro specifically is either postfix or
prefix.
However, "€200" or "200 €" and not "200€",
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is
incorrect?
I would have to look it up again, but I got it from the EU when I had to
look it up about... 20 years ago? Yes,, that sounds about right,
1999-2001.
<http://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-370303.htm#position>
Position of the euro sign (€) in amounts
a sum of €30
The same rule applies in Dutch, Irish and Maltese. In all other official
EU languages the order is reversed; the amount is followed by a hard
une somme de 30 €
A link, but a useless one.
This is just a style guide for official EU publications.
It has nothing to do with actual usage by Europeans,
or even with styles used by European newspapers,

Jan
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-23 18:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Interesting, do you have a web citation that confirms that "200€" is incorrect?
I see it a lot here in Spain.
Post by Lewis
For $ when posting online I try to prefix it with US since the $ sign is
used for many different currencies.
I usually postfix the number with (USD), so I'd write $200 (USD).
Funny that, as the international convention (or is that European?) is to put the letters
first (USD200) with no symbol.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-23 10:44:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical.
Me too, and it doesn't seem like that long ago. My first job after
college paid $50 a week, of which I took home about $35.
I usually object to anyone calling something different from the USA way
"real," but not in this case. In my view, the world would be be a better
place if there were a single currency used by all countries, and that
currency should be the Euro since it starts out being used by many
countries.
That is precisely what John Maynard Keynes proposed
in 1944 in Bretton Woods. (a worldwide reserve currency)

He was vetoed by the Americans of course,
who (quite unselfishly of course)
felt that the dollar should fit that role,


Jan
Lewis
2021-03-23 09:07:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by musika
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
I thought they were two-tone shoes.
Yes. And Wiki redirects this to 'Spectator shoes', a two-tone semi-brogue.
Apparently you can still get these, provided your shoe budget extends to
the astronomical.
There was a time when I would have regarded $164.99 USD (138€ in real
money) as astronomical. Nowadays, not so much. Several months ago my
wife wanted to buy new shoes, and we went to a shop that had shoes at
700€ on display in the window. I hope she's not going to want them, I
thought. Fortunately she didn't, but we still paid about 500€. (I do
realize, of course, that women's shoes are typically much more
expensive than men's.)
I am not sure about that, good shoes are expensive, but they will last
forever. The last pair of dress shoes I bought were maybe 25 years ago,
and they still look new. Of course, They are not worn that often, but if
they were I'd expect I would have needed them re-soled and they would
till be fine. They are largely the same shoes as my father got when he
graduated from high school in 1946 and was still wearing in 1986.

I could quote His Grace, Duke of Ankh on the quality of boots, but I'll
spare you my Pratchett dump just this once.
--
Keep calm and 🎼Let it Go🎵
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-21 14:22:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent shoes. I think these were white shoes worn by men. (Not
tennis shoes, however, but regular shoes that were white.)
The "white-show law firms" are the most elitist, prestigious ones on
Wall Street and in D.C. See e.g. *Trading Places* for folks like the
elderly Melvyn Douglas and Walter Pidgeon and Don Ameche portraying
them.
Graham
2021-03-21 22:11:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Sam Plusnet
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Many years ago (1950s, or 1960s at a pinch) people used to refer to
co-respondent
That doesn't appear much these days since the change to the divorce laws.
Quinn C
2021-03-21 15:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
But are they made for loafing, made for sneaking? Maybe in the minds of
the name givers.
In a similar vein, I understand the term "Brothel Creepers" made it
across the Atlantic.
Wiktionary classifies that as "dated". I don't think I'm going to pick
it up now.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Peter Moylan
2021-03-21 06:23:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
Those aren't that similar. They would've been to "pedal-pushing shorts".
In my youth, those two items were called "runners" and "swimmers".

Sorry, I have to take half of that back. Runners were shoes.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
phil
2021-03-21 08:11:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
pedal pusher n. (a) a cyclist; (b) originally U.S. (in plural)
short trousers worn by girls or women, reaching just below the knee
and suitable for wearing when cycling.
1912 Bulletin (Sydney) 15 Aug. 16/4 {the cyclist sense}
1944 Life 28 Aug. 65/2 When college girls took to riding
bicycles in slacks, they first rolled up one trouser leg, then
rolled up both. This..has now produced a trim variety of long
shorts, called ‘pedal pushers’.
They are worn when pedal pushing.
Similarly "running shorts" don't run and "swimming trunks" don't swim,
"loafers" don't loaf, "sneakers" don't sneak, etc.
Winklepickers...
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-20 14:31:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
"Pedal-pushers" was a 1950s term for what were later called "capri pants"
(or maybe "Capri pants"), as sometimes worn by Laura Petrie (Mary Tyler
Moore) on *The Dick Van Dyke Show*. Maybe the term referred to trousers
that were short enough that the cuffs didn't get caught in a bicycle chain
but long enough to protect a lady's modesty.
Cheryl
2021-03-20 23:09:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
"Pedal-pushers" was a 1950s term for what were later called "capri pants"
(or maybe "Capri pants"), as sometimes worn by Laura Petrie (Mary Tyler
Moore) on *The Dick Van Dyke Show*. Maybe the term referred to trousers
that were short enough that the cuffs didn't get caught in a bicycle chain
but long enough to protect a lady's modesty.
In my days pedal pushers, which now go under the name of "capris" in my
part of the world, were mostly a garment for young girls. Our mothers,
if they wore them at all, did so only in the most informal situations,
like when at a beach.
--
Cheryl
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-21 11:31:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
"Pedal-pushers" was a 1950s term for what were later called "capri
pants" (or maybe "Capri pants"), as sometimes worn by Laura Petrie
(Mary Tyler Moore) on *The Dick Van Dyke Show*. Maybe the term
referred to trousers that were short enough that the cuffs didn't get
caught in a bicycle chain but long enough to protect a lady's
modesty.
In my days pedal pushers, which now go under the name of "capris" in
my part of the world, were mostly a garment for young girls. Our
mothers, if they wore them at all, did so only in the most informal
situations, like when at a beach.
But, but that would *reveal the ankles*!! </Victorian porn>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
J. J. Lodder
2021-03-21 14:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
"Pedal-pushers" was a 1950s term for what were later called "capri
pants" (or maybe "Capri pants"), as sometimes worn by Laura Petrie
(Mary Tyler Moore) on *The Dick Van Dyke Show*. Maybe the term
referred to trousers that were short enough that the cuffs didn't get
caught in a bicycle chain but long enough to protect a lady's
modesty.
In my days pedal pushers, which now go under the name of "capris" in
my part of the world, were mostly a garment for young girls. Our
mothers, if they wore them at all, did so only in the most informal
situations, like when at a beach.
But, but that would *reveal the ankles*!! </Victorian porn>
Indeed, unthinkable. So respectable Victorian ladies rode tricycles,
hand-cranked ones of course,

Jan
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-21 21:07:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
"Pedal-pushers" was a 1950s term for what were later called "capri
pants" (or maybe "Capri pants"), as sometimes worn by Laura Petrie
(Mary Tyler Moore) on *The Dick Van Dyke Show*. Maybe the term
referred to trousers that were short enough that the cuffs didn't get
caught in a bicycle chain but long enough to protect a lady's
modesty.
In my days pedal pushers, which now go under the name of "capris" in
my part of the world, were mostly a garment for young girls. Our
mothers, if they wore them at all, did so only in the most informal
situations, like when at a beach.
But, but that would *reveal the ankles*!! </Victorian porn>
Amelia Jenks Bloomer was a Victorian.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Moylan
2021-03-21 06:26:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in
my vocabulary).
"Pedal-pushers" was a 1950s term for what were later called "capri
pants" (or maybe "Capri pants"), as sometimes worn by Laura Petrie
(Mary Tyler Moore) on *The Dick Van Dyke Show*. Maybe the term
referred to trousers that were short enough that the cuffs didn't get
caught in a bicycle chain but long enough to protect a lady's
modesty.
In my early cycling days, trousers for men and boys had cuffs, and
getting them caught in the chain was a serious potential hazard. If we
didn't have bicycle clips then we had to use shoe laces or string to
bind the bottom of the trouser legs.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-21 11:38:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
In my early cycling days, trousers for men and boys had cuffs, and
getting them caught in the chain was a serious potential hazard. If we
didn't have bicycle clips then we had to use shoe laces or string to
bind the bottom of the trouser legs.
Nowadays, I only go cycling in cycling shorts. If it's too cold for that, I walk.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-21 11:55:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Moylan
In my early cycling days, trousers for men and boys had cuffs, and
getting them caught in the chain was a serious potential hazard. If we
didn't have bicycle clips then we had to use shoe laces or string to
bind the bottom of the trouser legs.
Nowadays, I only go cycling in cycling shorts. If it's too cold for that, I walk.
-- Paul.
https://paulc.es/elpatio
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-21 21:14:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Peter Moylan
In my early cycling days, trousers for men and boys had cuffs, and
getting them caught in the chain was a serious potential hazard. If we
didn't have bicycle clips then we had to use shoe laces or string to
bind the bottom of the trouser legs.
Nowadays, I only go cycling in cycling shorts. If it's too cold for that, I walk.
-- Paul.
https://paulc.es/elpatio
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
We're inland Málaga province. Winter colder, summer hotter. At 440m.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/municipios/fuente-de-piedra-id29055
It's good to know you can buy Yorkshire tea and Paxo stuffing without
leaving the village.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-22 08:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
We're inland Málaga province. Winter colder, summer hotter. At 440m.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/municipios/fuente-de-piedra-id29055
It's good to know you can buy Yorkshire tea and Paxo stuffing without leaving the village.
Can we? First I've heard. We were getting that sort of stuff in Fuengirola, but brexit
stopped that.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-22 19:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
We're inland Málaga province. Winter colder, summer hotter. At 440m.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/municipios/fuente-de-piedra-id29055
It's good to know you can buy Yorkshire tea and Paxo stuffing without
leaving the village.
Can we? First I've heard. We were getting that sort of stuff in
Fuengirola, but brexit stopped that.
"The English Shop" 29520 Fuente de Piedra, Málaga

https://englishshop-fuente.com

"We deliver to residential parks in the local area weekly or you can
call by and collect your order from our shop in Fuente de Piedra. "
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-22 19:49:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
We're inland Málaga province. Winter colder, summer hotter. At 440m.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/municipios/fuente-de-piedra-id29055
It's good to know you can buy Yorkshire tea and Paxo stuffing without leaving the village.
Can we? First I've heard. We were getting that sort of stuff in Fuengirola, but brexit
stopped that.
"The English Shop"    29520 Fuente de Piedra, Málaga
https://englishshop-fuente.com
"We deliver to residential parks in the local area weekly or you can call by and collect
your order from our shop in Fuente de Piedra. "
That came and went.
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-23 02:28:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
We're inland Málaga province. Winter colder, summer hotter. At 440m.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/municipios/fuente-de-piedra-id29055
It's good to know you can buy Yorkshire tea and Paxo stuffing
without leaving the village.
Can we? First I've heard. We were getting that sort of stuff in
Fuengirola, but brexit stopped that.
"The English Shop"    29520 Fuente de Piedra, Málaga
https://englishshop-fuente.com
"We deliver to residential parks in the local area weekly or you can
call by and collect your order from our shop in Fuente de Piedra. "
That came and went.
You mean that the internet - and Google Maps - can be wrong? <gasp>
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Paul Carmichael
2021-03-23 08:40:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Paul Carmichael
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
How cold does it get in Málaga (15° at this moment, I see)?
We're inland Málaga province. Winter colder, summer hotter. At 440m.
http://www.aemet.es/es/eltiempo/prediccion/municipios/fuente-de-piedra-id29055
It's good to know you can buy Yorkshire tea and Paxo stuffing without leaving the
village.
Can we? First I've heard. We were getting that sort of stuff in Fuengirola, but brexit
stopped that.
"The English Shop"    29520 Fuente de Piedra, Málaga
https://englishshop-fuente.com
"We deliver to residential parks in the local area weekly or you can call by and
collect your order from our shop in Fuente de Piedra. "
That came and went.
You mean that the internet - and Google Maps - can be wrong?  <gasp>
A friend of mine who died 2 years ago still has a bar in the village. Bamboleo. The
puticlub (Eclipse) has been closed for at least a year. Another friend closed his bar
(Kopass) 3 years ago. Bar Tello closed 3 years ago.

The list goes on...
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio
Ken Blake
2021-03-20 18:00:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
How does that work? I use feet to push pedals (i.e. that isn't in my
vocabulary).
Pedal pushers are short pants that end well above the ankle. I don't
know for sure but I assume they got their name for being safer on a
bicycle than long pants that might get caught in the gears.
--
Ken
CDB
2021-03-20 13:38:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am
evidently out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is
represented in this group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is
used in the phrasing "pulling down her pants". While I still think
of it as meaning "panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer
pants.
Sis also took the side of the protestors, but that's what she does.
She waits until I've declared a position, and then takes other side.
However, it's been an amusing thread to read. Strong opinions have
been voiced in dissension. I seemed to have stepped on Chrysi Cat's
tail. The resulting rebuke was based on the grounds that I was
trying to set universal usage. But, then, (?)* confused me by going
on about some westward migration of terms across this country. I was
already confused about (?)* since (?)* has recently used "colour"
and "presenter" in posts indicating an across the pond poster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I don't know whether to use "she", "he", "him", "her", or "erm" in
Post by Tony Cooper
the (?) place. No declaration of acceptable pronouns has been made,
but there's indication that the choice is necessary. I'm not
crossing that Rubicon again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am also confused by the poster who refers to "Pamela" as "he", but I
Post by Tony Cooper
haven't questioned that in order to give that poster's caps lock a
rest. Pamela's posts have a definite sharply feminine voice to me.
Janet-like.
Lewis amazed me when he alluded to his 40 years of marriage and
insisting he has never heard his wife utter the word "panties".
I've got 17 years on him in duration of marriage, and I would never
pretend to have noticed whether or not my wife has uttered any
particular word. I commend him on his attention to his wife's every
word.
My wife and I have a very comfortable and satisfying marriage, but I
freely admit that she often speaks whole sentences that I don't pay
attention to. That comes up quite often when I say she didn't
mention that we were supposed to do, or go to, something on a
particular date or at a particular time, and she insists that she
did.
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it.
When I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her
pants, the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The
word "jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have
been used to describe that. Not to mention that a skirt was the usual
outer layer. To say a woman wore pants was to say she was the boss
of the family. (Usually true, but meant uncomplimentary to the
husband)
I can't recall anyone siding with me on this issue. Where's a
stooge when you need one?
At the next opportunity, please transmit my kindest regards to your Sis.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-20 14:27:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
I am also confused by the poster who refers to "Pamela" as "he", but I
haven't questioned that in order to give that poster's caps lock a
rest. Pamela's posts have a definite sharply feminine voice to me.
Janet-like.
Someone compared "Pamela" to some other troll that infests other
newsgroups, who is apparently a male using a female name, and
"Pamela" acceded to the comparison.
Lewis
2021-03-21 16:29:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Lewis amazed me when he alluded to his 40 years of marriage
Nearly 40 years that my wife and I have been together, not nearly 40
that we were married.
Post by Tony Cooper
insisting he has never heard his wife utter the word "panties".
No. I said she had never referred to her panties as "pants" but now that
you mention it, panties is not a word she uses much at all.
Post by Tony Cooper
got 17 years on him in duration of marriage, and I would never pretend
to have noticed whether or not my wife has uttered any particular
word. I commend him on his attention to his wife's every word.
She is the person I talk to the most, and the person I have talked to
the most in my life. It's been a rare day in the c. 39 years that we
have not spoken, and on those days we mailed letters.
Post by Tony Cooper
My wife and I have a very comfortable and satisfying marriage, but I
freely admit that she often speaks whole sentences that I don't pay
attention to.
Well... I would not admit to that in a public space.
Post by Tony Cooper
That comes up quite often when I say she didn't mention that we were
supposed to do, or go to, something on a particular date or at a
particular time, and she insists that she did.
If it's not on our shared calendar (digital calendar) it doesn't count.
Post by Tony Cooper
I can only defend my position by claiming my age made me do it. When
I was of the age when a female might be said to pull down her pants,
the word "pants" would not have meant the outer layer. The word
"jeans" or "slacks" or "pedal-pushers" or somesuch would have been
used to describe that. Not to mention that a skirt was the usual outer
layer.
I can easily count the number of times my wife wore a dress since I have
met her (it's a number less than 20¹, and almost all were formal dances
in high school and college), and skirts is simpler as it's exactly 0.
Post by Tony Cooper
I can't recall anyone siding with me on this issue. Where's a stooge
when you need one?
¹ I came up with 14, but I am certain I am forgetting a few. As for
skirts, she did own one and wore it to a job interview at one point, but
I was in California or Maryland/DC at the time. When she was younger she
was forced to wear a dress on Sundays for church, but that had ended by
the time we started dating.
--
All our loves are first loves
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-21 19:18:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 3/19/21 5:49 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
...
Post by Tony Cooper
I seemed to have stepped on Chrysi Cat's
tail. The resulting rebuke was based on the grounds that I was trying
to set universal usage. But, then, (?)* confused me by going on about
some westward migration of terms across this country. I was already
confused about (?)* since (?)* has recently used "colour" and
"presenter" in posts indicating an across the pond poster.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I don't know whether to use "she", "he", "him", "her", or "erm" in
the (?) place. No declaration of acceptable pronouns has been made,
but there's indication that the choice is necessary. I'm not crossing
that Rubicon again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The declaration was made back in August: "she" (as indicated by
"transgoddess"), though "they" was all right.


https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/3nOdOvByAr4/m/hLYRutXVCwAJ
--
Jerry Friedman
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-22 04:05:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Sis and I talked earlier today, and I informed her that I am evidently
out of synch with the rest of the world - as it is represented in this
group - in my understanding of "pants" when it is used in the phrasing
"pulling down her pants". While I still think of it as meaning
"panties", everyone else takes it to mean the outer pants.
Sis also took the side of the protestors, but that's what she does.
She waits until I've declared a position, and then takes other side.
However, it's been an amusing thread to read. Strong opinions have
been voiced in dissension. I seemed to have stepped on Chrysi Cat's
tail. The resulting rebuke was based on the grounds that I was trying
to set universal usage. But, then, (?)* confused me by going on about
some westward migration of terms across this country. I was already
confused about (?)* since (?)* has recently used "colour"
Your answer *HERE,* specifically, is that I was not a fan of the
Websterian Split in the first place, once I learned (is that a spot for
"learnt" or is it a case where the verb has to be regular even outside
some varieties of AmE?) of it.

And then AFTER I discovered its existence, I felt like rejecting
Webster's spellings, when possible, might be a good way of showing my
displeasure with where the US were (and I hate to say it, but that IS
once again not only *A* proper conjugation, but perhaps the only
one--because BOTH sides are starting to agree Washington's permissible
level of power is no greater and possibly less than that of
Brussels/Strasbourg) under Bush.

If you found online activity of mine between 2009 and about '11, you
/might/ depending upon the community actually see me using Webster's
spellings, but after that I once again went back to 'reject Webster, as
a way to reject "the single nation-state where federal law is moving
ever closer to Alabama law".

Of course, if you couldn't tell already, I also DESPISE Leftpondian
punctuation on quoted statements--and you may NOT have been able to
tell, since that particular "tell" was left out of your notes. That's a
simple matter of "I prefer punctuation INSIDE quotation marks--though I
DO exclusively CALL them quotation marks--to reflect the actual
expressed statement verbatim. That means that there are rare occasions
where my punctuation would be inside the quotation, but far too often it
would be best served outside", and of course I HAVE to choose as an
example a sentence that works with either arrangement. That action in
the previous sentence is both cute and completely unintentional. That
action in SCHOOL got me marked down repeatedly in creative-writing
classes and I can't recall if I managed to follow AMA properly in essays
or not, but it both felt and still feels wrong to place punctuation
misleadingly.

I was born in San Jose, CA, six weeks before my father received a
military transfer from Sunnyvale to Long Beach. He went USAF Reserve two
years after that as the result of being given expressly conflicting
orders by two full colonels, which led to his wanting to leave Greater
L.A. (he hates cities that deserve the term) and a company offering him
the chance to establish their Denver regional office. When the part that
could be done from out of a "commute at the weekends" setup was out of
the way, he moved my mother, my then-2-year-old sister, and 4-year-old
me to a new subdivision that's currently in about the middle of
Centennial, Colorado. We spent 17 years there, moving a bit further away
from Denver proper partly to improve his commute and partly because he
preferred a different house to retire to, and have been in the same home
just above Parker for 23 years. The irony of that transfer being to
Greater Denver, which isn't much less dense in population in 2021 than
L.A. was in '81, is not lost on me but I don't bring it up with him
because I don't like facing his anger.

And yes, I _do_ mean "we", as I'm not exactly suited to keep house
without it being literally the ONLY thing I do on a daily basis.

I was apparently sufficiently verbal AT 4 that MOSTLY I haven't received
much of a Colorado-English overwrite over the Southern California
substrate--if anything, there's more of my parents' Portland upbringing
in my accent. That might be due to spending at least 1 1/2 months, most
summers, around some combination of my extended family in Portland and
my the families of my father's two best Air Force buddies, who were
still in northern Orange County.

Somehow that combination causes issues like "king" sounding like "keen"
unless I carefully enunciate the "g", and "pool" and "school" being
perfect rhymes for "cruel". My MOTHER also says "worsh" and
"Worshington" --this may be the result of HER mother being from the
Driftless Area and Mom spending about 18 months there as a girl, or
possibly by osmosis from Mom's cousins whose mother actually actively
MOVED INTO Appalachia-- but while I can duplicate her pronunciation and
that's obviously the way I learned the words, I was able to tell _those_
were non-standard just about anywhere OTHER than small parts of VERY
Rural, East-of-the-Mississippi America and adopted the "waash"
pronunciation.
And one of the few Colorado-isms I _did_ start picking up, my father
metaphorically slapped out of my head the first time he heard it:
"Ore-eh-GONE" earned me a 'it hasn't GONE anywhere--the only way to
pronounce it is "ORE-uh-gun". I'm no longer sure if there even ARE other
Colorado pronunciations that I'm passivly avoiding. Strangely, it's
actually easier to pull my speech towards SOUTHERN white English by
putting a few around me than to pull it east and north from L.A.

There are others that pop up every now and again (like the names for the
letters "O" and "L" being able to be confused when I'm spelling out, and
not just over a phone), but I wouldn't be able to come up with any
/near-/comprehensive catalogue off the top of my head.

Of course, the BIG key here should have been that I'm defensive enough
about rhoticism that I mentioned I "have to try to think about which
side is spelling things" when it comes to 'words that have "-er" in the
middle'.

For that matter, have I ever used "Umm--" in a conversation here?

Because 99 times out of 50, as they say, I'm more likely to type that
than the _interjection_ "erm"--and as far as I know, they both represent
the very same sound?
Post by Tony Cooper
and "presenter" in posts indicating an across the pond poster.
In /most/ cases, when I go Rightpondian in that case, I'm either already
talking mainly /to/ one, mainly discussing /their/ culture (half my
streaming audio these days is Radio 2 and a bit of the rest is 6 Music,
so I'm picking up pieces), or both.

I /may/ have occasionally referred to as a US game-show or talk-show
host as a presenter, though I can't think of any off the top of my head,
and certainly none where I was talking mainly among other US-types.

I try to be careful, though, because I'm worried I'll slip up and refer
to an anchor as a presenter, when there's apparently a rather bright
line/clear divide (and "clear" would be my instinctual choice of those
two) between newsreaders and presenters outside the US and getting clearer.

Or--wait, was that a case of reversing cause and effect and someone
already corrected me about that?

If I go Rightpondian regarding FOOTBALL, that might actually be my
father's influence, as there are occasional times when the Futbal/footy
types get snitty about "soccer" and the two of us were USSF-certified
officials, him from 1987-2005 and me for about the time I was in high
school.

On the other hand, I'll also go Leftpondian regarding football if only
gridiron/ American Football fans are around--it's a favourite sport of
mine to _watch,_ though I despised playing it the few times I tried. I
don't _do_ well with 500 lb of humans atop me, even for 15 seconds, and
even if I did I can neither catch nor throw an American football at all
reliably.
Post by Tony Cooper
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I don't know whether to use "she", "he", "him", "her", or "erm" in
the (?) place. No declaration of acceptable pronouns has been made,
but there's indication that the choice is necessary. I'm not crossing
that Rubicon again.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a very wise decision on your part. I still have no intention of
putting my pronouns in sig, but those pronouns are strictly "she/her";
I'm not even a great fan of "singular they/them".

A "he/him" and to a slightly lesser extent an "erm" or even a "sie"
would have indeed been a repeat performance of stepping on my tail.


<snip the rest, as it wouldn't earn a response from me anyway>
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Peter Moylan
2021-03-22 04:43:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
For that matter, have I ever used "Umm--" in a conversation here?
Because 99 times out of 50, as they say, I'm more likely to type that
than the _interjection_ "erm"--and as far as I know, they both
represent the very same sound?
Depends on dialect. For me they are different sounds, although the
vowels are moderately close. My hesitation sounds are "um" and "er", but
because of having had a lecturing career I tried to train myself out of
both. When speaking publicly, my hesitation "sound" is <silence>.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-22 07:54:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>

Said update being the /existence/ of the new portion of my sig.

I still won't put my pronouns in my Twitter bio, but that's mainly
because I'm maxed on characters.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

---

My subject pronoun is ALWAYS "she", my object pronoun is always "her",
and my possessives are her/hers. There were no pronouns here for 17
years because people used to assume that preference based on "goddess".
Use "they/them" and I'll grudingly tolerate it. Do NOT use "sie" unless
you're talking about me in German and don't use "ze" under any
circumstances. Misgender me instead and you'll wish you were dead.
Mark Brader
2021-03-22 20:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "If you can't see the picture, I'll send you
***@vex.net | a thousand words." --Michael Wares
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-22 20:52:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.

I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

---

My subject pronoun is ALWAYS "she", my object pronoun is always "her",
and my possessives are her/hers. There were no pronouns here for 17
years because people used to assume that preference based on "goddess".
Use "they/them" and I'll grudingly tolerate it. Do NOT use "sie" unless
you're talking about me in German and don't use "ze" under any
circumstances. Misgender me instead and you'll wish you were dead.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-22 21:11:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
---
My subject pronoun is ALWAYS "she", my object pronoun is always "her",
and my possessives are her/hers. There were no pronouns here for 17
years because people used to assume that preference based on "goddess".
Use "they/them" and I'll grudingly tolerate it. Do NOT use "sie" unless
you're talking about me in German and don't use "ze" under any
circumstances. Misgender me instead and you'll wish you were dead.
There's plenty of room for your pronoun preference in your original sig, e.g., "Transgoddess (she)". If you've said that, I don't think you need to say what you'll grudgingly tolerate or what will demonstrate that you're quick to anger.

Am I the only person who's been tempted to write "(he/her/their/oneself)"?
--
Jerry Friedman (he/him)
Quinn C
2021-03-23 14:10:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Am I the only person who's been tempted to write "(he/her/their/oneself)"?
I have indeed wondered why some people give three forms (I haven't
encountered four, I think.) Orally, just saying "he" or "she" can easily
be missed, so it's good practice to say "he/him", "she/her" for
redundancy and clarity, but three seem unnecessary, and even more so in
writing.

Having multiple sets of pronouns (e.g. "he/they/fae") is a different
case, but in that case, people usually name just one form per set.
--
The least questioned assumptions are often the most questionable
-- Paul Broca
... who never questioned that men are more intelligent than women
Tony Cooper
2021-03-22 21:25:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
I would think it would depend on which bits of information are the
ones that you feel are most importent to you to be observed by the
readers.

In your case, considering your aversion to conventional US spelling,
the most useful bit to your readers would be your native language and
location...just in case we forget that manifesto you recently
supplied.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Quinn C
2021-03-23 14:10:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
I'm one more who thinks "goddess" is guidance enough. Adding pronouns is
always a good thing, but not required.
--
- History is full of lies.
- Ain't that the truth.
-- Andromeda, S04E12
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-23 16:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 14:10:12 GMT, Quinn C
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
I'm one more who thinks "goddess" is guidance enough. Adding pronouns is
always a good thing, but not required.
Maybe the protaganist would be OK with "Oh powerful and awesome Lord"?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-23 19:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
I'm one more who thinks "goddess" is guidance enough. Adding pronouns is
always a good thing, but not required.
I wonder how (or indeed if) an atheist or an agnostic should be expected
to address a goddess?
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Tony Cooper
2021-03-23 20:26:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
I'm one more who thinks "goddess" is guidance enough. Adding pronouns is
always a good thing, but not required.
I wonder how (or indeed if) an atheist or an agnostic should be expected
to address a goddess?
I'm still trying to figure out what an "anthrocat" and an "anthrofox"
is when it's at home.

As far as I can tell, it's something produced by artwork in an
anthropomorphic style. I guess she means she visualizes herself as
being represented in that style, but that's not doing much for me in
determining how we should visualize her.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Lewis
2021-03-23 23:32:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
I wonder how (or indeed if) an atheist or an agnostic should be expected
to address a goddess?
"So, what makes you think you're a goddess?"
--
I've got a sonic screwdriver!
Yeah? I've got a chair!
... Chairs *are* useful.
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-23 23:51:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
I wonder how (or indeed if) an atheist or an agnostic should be expected
to address a goddess?
"So, what makes you think you're a goddess?"
It is an interesting idea though.

The field must be open for you or I to adopt any label which we find
pleasing.

God-Emperor is a tad over the top, but it does have a certain feel to it.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Lewis
2021-03-24 01:01:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Lewis
Post by Sam Plusnet
I wonder how (or indeed if) an atheist or an agnostic should be expected
to address a goddess?
"So, what makes you think you're a goddess?"
It is an interesting idea though.
The field must be open for you or I to adopt any label which we find
pleasing.
God-Emperor is a tad over the top, but it does have a certain feel to it.
Sure, if you want to be a drug-addled giant worm.
--
Cause love's such an old fashioned word
And love dares you to care for the people on the
Edge of the night, and love dares you to change
Our way of caring about ourselves,
This is our last dance This is ourselves.
Under Pressure.
Ken Blake
2021-03-23 23:40:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Chrysi Cat
<snipped the whole last post--this is only an update, and a test of my
new sig>
More than 4 lines. You have failed.
I can either keep the sig under 4 lines or ditch the pronouns info.
I know which one several other people want here, so I need a vote on
which master to serve.
I'm one more who thinks "goddess" is guidance enough. Adding pronouns is
always a good thing, but not required.
I wonder how (or indeed if) an atheist or an agnostic should be expected
to address a goddess?
Goddess damn you!
--
Ken
Loading...