From an-teallach.com!suilven.an-teallach.com!not-for-mail Sun Jul 24 21:44:48 BST 1994 Article: 17672 of mail.words-l Newsgroups: mail.words-l Path: an-teallach.com!suilven.an-teallach.com!not-for-mail Followup-To: poster Reply-To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu Date: Sun, 24 Jul 1994 07:29:52 GMT Sender: English Language Discussion Group Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU From: ffrlp@aurora.alaska.edu Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks Subject: English without romance (Was: Re: Why do we have synonyms!?!?) Message-ID: <9407241007.aa11783@gate.demon.co.uk> Approved: news@suilven.an-teallach.com Reading Peter Moylan and Ken Miller (and others) on the subject "Why do we have Synonyms" brought to mind the short article "Uncleftish Beholding", by Poul Anderson, which appeared some years ago in _Analog_ magazine. Peter Moylan (peter@ee.newcastle.edu.au) wrote [tongue-in-cheek]: >>By the way, your posting is full of neologisms. Could you >>please revise it to use only the original "plain English" >>words? To which Ken Miller (kcmiller@netcom.com), Dodgson Chair of Boojumology, replied [even more tongue-in-cheekly]: >Yes, indeed. One ought only to use only Anglo-Saxon words.... ...and proceded to quote "Jabberwocky." In "Uncleftish Beholding", Anderson has replaced all non-Germanic vocabulary with equivalent neologisms based on Anglo-Saxon (or in a few cases, Scandinavian) roots. I use this article in my introductory linguistics class to show students what English might look like today if the Norman invasion had never occurred (and if for the sake of linguistic "purity" the guardians of our sacred tongue had pursued a policy of the sort now being enforced by the French Academy.) I attach an excerpt from "Uncleftish Beholding" for your amusement and edification. Roger Parks Dept of Foreign Languages University of Alaska, Fairbanks _____________________________________________ From "Uncleftish Beholding" (by Poul Anderson)* For most of its being, mankind did not know what things are made of, but could only guess. With the growth of worldken, we began to learn, and today we have a beholding of stuff and work that watching bears out, both in the workstead and in daily life. The underlying kinds of stuff are the _firststuffs_, which link together in sundry ways to give rise to the rest. Formerly we knew of ninety-two firststuffs, from waterstuff, the lightest and barest, to ymirstuff, the heaviest. Now we have made more, such as aegirstuff and helstuff. The firststuffs have their being as motes called _unclefts_. These are mighty small. . . . Most unclefts link together to make what are called _bulkbits_. Thus, the waterstuff bulkbit bestands of two waterstuff unclefts, the sourstuff bulkbit of of two sourstuff unclefts, and so on. . . . At first it was thought that the uncleft was a hard thing that could be split no further; hence the name. Now we know it is made up of lesser motes. There is a heavy _kernel_ with a forward bernstonish lading, and around it one or more light motes with backward ladings. The least uncleft is that of everyday waterstuff. Its kernel is a lone forwardladen mote called a _fisrtsbit_. Outside it is a backwardladen mote called a _bernstonebit_. . . . Early worldken folk thought bernstonebits swing around the kernel like the Earth around the Sun, but now we understand they are more like waves or clouds. *_Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact_, Mid-December 1989:132-35. From an-teallach.com!betanews.demon.net!demon!pipex!bnr.co.uk!bnrgate!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!chpc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!tribune.usask.ca!sask.usask.ca!duncanj Mon Jul 25 18:08:58 BST 1994 Article: 1262 of alt.usage.english Path: an-teallach.com!betanews.demon.net!demon!pipex!bnr.co.uk!bnrgate!corpgate!news.utdallas.edu!chpc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!tadpole.com!uunet!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!tribune.usask.ca!sask.usask.ca!duncanj From: duncanj@sask.usask.ca Newsgroups: alt.usage.english Subject: Grass Strip Date: 21 Jul 94 16:28:09 -600 Organization: University of Saskatchewan Lines: 52 Message-ID: <1994Jul21.162809.1@sask.usask.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: sask.usask.ca Greetings: This question has been posted various places, but then I found you. I have been wondering what one calls the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the road. I found out that it is called a lot of things. I have a list of 23 terms below. This started as a joke, but I found it very interesting that, for example, there a four terms that I know of for the strip from Ohio. Now I am curious to collect all the terms for the strip that I can. Here is my list: Berm (Concise Oxford, What do other dictionariess say?) Boulevard (Canada, US Midwest & N.West) Buffer Strip (a DPW term, I'm told) Curb (Washington, DC) ?Curb Lawn Curb Strip (?Texas) Easement (Texas?, Ann Arbor, MI) Verge or Grass Verge (Commonwealth, Netherlands) Devil strip (Akron, OH) Tree lawn (Cleveland, OH) Tree terrace (Columbus, OH) Dog Park (Struthers, OH) [You will note these are all from the NE and Central parts of the state. What about the South and West?] ?Median (N.J.) Nature Strip (Australia) Park (Buffalo, NY) Parking (Des Moines, Iowa) Parking Strip (Philadelphia? Utah?) Parkway (Missouri) Public Grass (Iowa) Right of Way (Grand Rapids, MI) ?Ribbon Shoulder (Canada) No word. Some just call it the grass between the sidewalk and road. (Canada, US) Snowbank (Canada, Winter) Snowbank Area (Canada, Summer) [The last two are a joke, my own suggestion] I'd love to have more terms for this, especially from non-English speaking countries. Rob Duncan ============================================ Robert Duncan robert.duncan@usask.ca Dept. of English, University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, Canada (PhD student)