h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As things are a bit quiet (hmm, maybe I killed the conversation again, sorry!) I thought I'd aska question I've been wanting to ask for a bit.

We've seen some interesting words, derivations and etymologies on here. Some of which, in and of themselves, are not that interesting but who's history or etymology is fasciniating. So, which words do you find the most interesting and why?

Or you could all just go back to sleep

Gnomon, why would "Mici Magairle" be best translated as "Balls Barry"? I thought Finbarr was the origin of Barry. Which part of "Mici Magairle" would be Barry? Or were you rendering the alliteration, as in Scrotum Sam?

I chose Balls Barry because Testicle Terrence sounded too refined.

Ictoan, to address your question about words with interesting backgrounds, I like eponyms because although the meaning is often uninspired the derivation can be fascinating. Also toponyms of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A632990

Toponyms ....

I used to live in South Norwood (South North Wood) .... there is also Upper Norwood and West Norwood .... the geographical proximities doesn't bear much relationship to their names as West is North of South .... sadly there appears to be no North Norwood

In Nova Scotia, places got their names before roads, in the days when travel was mostly by water.

So, a major river like the La Havre would be divided into Upper Middle and Lower La Havre. Then there are branches of the river.
This results in places having names like Upper East Lower Branch Middle La Havre and West Middle Branch Lower La Havre East.

It mighta made sense coming at it in a boat, but it's just confusing on 20th century roadway signs. Fortunately most of these old farmin-an-fishin communities have rotted back into the ground and no longer exist.

My favourites are Middle West Musquodobit and Little Neck Grand Narrows. It's a shame though that the Mushaboom river wasn't bigger.
But there's always Head o' Sheet Harbour and Middle East Pepeswick.

peace
~jwf~ Shag Bay, Nova Scotia

Pepeswick: wick is an old English word ending from the Viking -vík meaning bay, so Pepeswick in Nova Scotia is probably called after somewhere in England, although I've never heard of it. Unless this is definitive proof that the Vikings really did reach Vínland!

I'm getting a bit fed up! Is it right to arrogantly denounce people for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive?

I'd like someone to convincingly explain why it's such a bad thing to allegedly do. Is it just a legacy of Latin, or does it really sound so bad?

I hope no one is upset at my effort to shamefacedly construct a few examples!

It is wrong to arrogantly denounce people for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive.

This is one of those rules which was thought up by grammarians in an attempt to "clean up" the language. Most of us have been ignoring it for years. The grammarians' alternative always sounded more stilted than the supposed fault: "Boldly to go where no-one has gone before". This is always a good sign that the "rule" is a load of codswallup. If the correct version sounds worse than the wrong version, then it's not actually wrong.

I believe we all have an intuitive (and largely unconscious) understanding of our native tongue, and that what 'sounds right' is almost certainly correct. It works for me.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Here's one of my faves. Why does it sound OK (or does it?) to say 'There is a group of people who believe...' but stilted if you say 'There is a number of people who believe...'?

Acceptable to say 'There is a collection of paintings' but ever so slightly precious to say 'There is a series of paintings that have been collected'?

It may be that there is a host of reasons for this, or even that there is a range of reasons.

But it bugs me.

I'm sure the -vik in Norse names (as in Reykavik 'smoky bay') is cognate with -wich from Old English, as in Sandwich ('sandy bay') in Kent. I should mention that - I kid you not - there is a village next to Sandwich called Ham. The road sign with the words 'Ham Sandwich' on it frequently goes walkabout. OK, shall I also tell the story of how Britain's main contribution to world cuisine got its name...?

While I'm here, I should mention that I am considering writing an entry on the vagaries of adverb position, which will no doubt include mention of the strange case of the split infinitive.

...some people might not know. The Earl of Sandwich (one of them) was a compulsive gambler. He didn't want to go through the palaver of having lunch, so started ordering his butler for two pieces of bread with something inbetween. 'Yes - a round of Geralds' as Blackadder would have it. Hmm, bit of a doorstep, this one.

"There is a group of people who believe" - That sounds OK and is reckoned to be 'good grammar'.

"There is a number of people who believe" - this sounds like it should be 'There are a number of people who believe'.

We may be getting confused by the "who believe". Try a simpler version:

"There is a group of people at the door". OK
"There are a group of people at the door". Definitely wrong.
"There is a number of people at the door". Sounds wrong.
"There are a number of people at the door". Sounds right.
"THere is a few people at the door". Wrong.
"There are a few people at the door". Right.

How about

"There is a family of people"
"There is a brace of partridges"
"There are a dozen people"
"THere are tall people"


"A number of" sounds like a descriptive phrase, like "a dozen" or "tall" so the thing we are talking about is "people", so it has to be "are". "A group of" is stronger. It is the thing we are talking about. So it must be "there is a group"

I have another theory about this.

A group of people, a brace of partridge (not partridges, purleeze), a herd of buffalo, a family of wondrous beings, a pair of trousers, a set of accounts, and so on, all suggest a single unit so we seem happy to put the verb in the singular.

Whereas number, range, series usually seem to convey plurality rather than unity, so we prefer the plural form of the verb with the singular collective noun.

A good example of the triumph of sense over grammatical correctness, no?

But in writing it's usually possible to avoid the dilemma, should you so wish, by rewording the sentence.

Plurality in English is an extremely slippery notion, and a nightmare to teach. My Italian friend speaks excellent English, but still says things like 'the five pounds, have you got them?' I can't really correct him, and couldn't explain the notional plural without one of us losing patience.

By the way, we say a brace of partridges, etc in British English. Or is it just that my perceptions have been corrupted by my vegetarianism?

Strangely enough, I've also heard 'a brace of partridges', but never 'a brace of pheasants'. Tell that to your Italian friend

My fave dictionary - Collins Millennium edition - includes an example in the definition: "Brace n. ... 5. a pair; two, esp. of game birds: a brace of partridges." Not that being in a dictionary makes it right, but it sounds OK, as does "a brace of partridge"...

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Yay, back to the Sheep / Shoop conversation!

On place names, I was most disappointed on my one and only trip to Canada (visiting Calgary) not to have made it to Head Smashed In Buffalo Jump. Theres a certain literal purity to it...

Well, at the risk of wading in on the split infinitive, I almost always find split infinitives sound odd and stilted rather than the other way round. The problem is that people trying to avoid them always choose the wrong word order:

"It is wrong to arrogantly denounce people for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive."
"It is wrong arrogantly to denounce people for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive."
"It is wrong to denounce people arrogantly for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive."
"It is arrogantly wrong to denounce people for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive."

Only one of these sounds right to me, I will leave you to work out which.

But Manolan, which of these sounds right to you?

"I arrogantly denounce people for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive."
"I denounce people arrogantly for the supposed 'crime' of splitting an infinitive."