|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 63 responses total. |
katie
|
|
response 25 of 63:
| 
May 26 16:09 UTC 1993 |
cleave
|
danr
|
|
response 26 of 63:
|
May 26 16:32 UTC 1993 |
Eric Rabkin's commentaries are great. I wrote to him and suggested
that he get the U-M Press to print a collection of them.
|
davel
|
|
response 27 of 63:
|
May 27 01:13 UTC 1993 |
I managed to hear the one in question, too, & enjoyed it a lot. (Somehow
my listening times often don't correlate well with UOM's commentary
schedule. This is sometimes a blessing, but Rabkin is usually worth hearing.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 28 of 63:
|
May 27 04:34 UTC 1993 |
Katie, I looked at your "cleave" for some time before it hit me! Yes!
If the dictionary's etiology is right, one is from the OE *cleofan*,
and the other from the OR *celofian*, which I would presume were at
one time pronounced differently.
|
katie
|
|
response 29 of 63:
|
May 27 05:09 UTC 1993 |
Don't you look at my cleave. You men are all alike.
|
davel
|
|
response 30 of 63:
|
May 27 11:47 UTC 1993 |
She's just been waiting for the chance to say that.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 63:
|
May 27 13:13 UTC 1993 |
And I walked right into it! Nice trap.
|
remmers
|
|
response 32 of 63:
|
May 28 12:14 UTC 1993 |
Yep, that was a booby trap all right.
|
mta
|
|
response 33 of 63:
|
May 28 23:20 UTC 1993 |
OUCH! ;)
|
danr
|
|
response 34 of 63:
|
May 29 01:45 UTC 1993 |
At the risk of sounding sexist, I must say that was a real hooter, Johann.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 35 of 63:
|
May 29 04:34 UTC 1993 |
I am now doing penchance for having bared this thread.
|
davel
|
|
response 36 of 63:
|
May 29 13:01 UTC 1993 |
Hm.
|
embu
|
|
response 37 of 63:
|
May 31 15:16 UTC 1993 |
getting back on the SUBJECT here, how about "I could care less", when the
speaker actually means "I couldn't care less"?
Also, "in" is a confusing prefix: "inconvenient" would mean that it wasn't
convenient, but "inflammable" means flammable! English is so much fun!
|
katie
|
|
response 38 of 63:
|
Jun 1 01:06 UTC 1993 |
The "in" in "inflammable" is from the word "inflame".
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 63:
|
Jun 1 04:07 UTC 1993 |
Rabkin mentioned the *in* in inflammable being a drift from the prefix
*en*, which conveys "to make or cause" (enable, endanger, enheighten).
|
davel
|
|
response 40 of 63:
|
Jun 1 10:27 UTC 1993 |
Yes. Note insure/ensure, inclose/enclose for example (though inclose is
pretty rare, isn't it?)
|
embu
|
|
response 41 of 63:
|
Jun 1 21:50 UTC 1993 |
The mysteries of life explained. Neat.
|
katie
|
|
response 42 of 63:
|
Jun 22 20:44 UTC 1993 |
embowel, disembowel.
|
davel
|
|
response 43 of 63:
|
Jun 23 00:39 UTC 1993 |
Interesting. I've never heard of "embowel"; is it for real? (Sounds like
it ought to mean stuffing the guts back in.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 44 of 63:
|
Jun 23 06:20 UTC 1993 |
Nice find, even if it is considered "rare", or "obsolete". What were
you doing when you thought of it (if I may ask.......)?
|
katie
|
|
response 45 of 63:
|
Jun 23 13:28 UTC 1993 |
Wouldn't you like to know!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 46 of 63:
|
Jun 23 14:44 UTC 1993 |
Why, yes. That is why I asked. (Funny people, that tell me what I
already knew I was thinking, as though I didn't...mumble mumble...)
|
katie
|
|
response 47 of 63:
|
Jun 25 14:35 UTC 1993 |
It came to me in a dream.
|
katie
|
|
response 48 of 63:
|
Jun 25 14:35 UTC 1993 |
(Now I sleep with the lights on.)
|
young
|
|
response 49 of 63:
|
Jun 27 19:27 UTC 1993 |
Alright, the phrase should be "for all intents and purposes," right? On a
cheesy tv movie, I heard a woman say "for all intensive purposes."
|