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

I'm saying "morrow"="morning". Saying I'll do it in the morning means I'll do it next day in the morning, not today in the morning, even in modern using. SO "tomorrow" or "on the morrow" meant next day morning.

I don't know how this came to mean the whole of next day, unless it was the plumbers mentioned earlier.

If it was plumbers that changed the meaning then 'on the morrow' would have come to mean 'a week next Tuesday, probably'

Gnomon, thanks for that, just me being particularly dense today, must have killed too many brain cells at the weekend

K - too right!

It is often said that the Irish do not have any word which conveys the sense of urgency of the Spanish word "mañana".

I remember a Spaniard at our Uni. Learning English whilst learning his subject. One of the first things he caught on to was 'ish'. Thereafter, everything time or date related was '-ish', he just seemed incapable of predicting the future with less than +/- 30 mins leaway!

Not that I'm much better myself!

Hi Ictoan,

I was ing at the "tokin' the fifth" posting, thus the subject line.

Ah! So I'm expected to read that as well. Ah the hazards inherent in HooToo conversations.

that's for not laughing at my jokes by the way

Perhaps someone with a good historical dictionary can help me prove or disprove a story I heard the other day regarding 'sloven' and 'slovenly'.

This much of the story is True:

While waiting for a parts order at a trendy garage that specialises in sports and European autos, I was admiring their tasteful decor of antique Halifax photographs, in particular one of several small carts gathered at a Farmer's Market taken about 150 years ago. These were peculiarly smaller than the usual four wheeled farm wagon or even the big two wheeled carts often pulled by oxen. These were very low and drawn by ponies and even small cows. Really, I saw their picture and was fascinated.

One of the mechanics seeing my obvious interest, lifted his head from the engine bay of the BMW he was working on and proceeded to inform me that these carts were called 'slovens', were of Dutch/German design and were peculiar in that they had a dropped or lowered axle which did not run straight across between the hubs of the still fairly large wheels. This allowed for a lower bed and therefore a lower 'liftover' height which made for easier loading and unloading.

This design, though practical for light loads and maneuverability in narrow city streets, lacked the strength and payload of a solid axled cart and was said to encourage 'laziness' and were often severely overloaded ("a lazy man's load"). So, claimed the mechanic, the word 'sloven' and then 'slovenly' came to mean lazy, indifferent or careless in action, and later in appearance.

It sounded like a 'mechanical' sort of truth so I fell for it hook, line and bait. But every dictionary I've looked at since, says it 'may be' or 'is perhaps' from the Dutch 'sloof' meaning (strangely enough) a tatty and tawdry tart (such as we were discussing recently). But none will say for certain.

The root is supposedly Indo-European 'sleubh' which one can readily see is likely the source of 'slob' with which 'sloven' has become synonomous. But I wonder if these dictionaries aren't putting the slob before the cart.


~jwf~

jwf,
The Concise OED gives a 15th century use of "sloven" = low character or manners. That seems a bit early for floating axles and independent lack of suspension. (Not that I would dare disagree with a motor mechanic.)

Partridge makes no mention of carriages "not even of any kind" He has sloven as "a rogue, a loafer (obs) hence a careless,lazy person, whence both "to sloven" and "slovenly". Then he meanders through middle English, old French and middle German finishing "?akin to Bavarian schlauch,lower German slu, Germanic schlau, sly or cunning, therefore to English sly, qv at slay" (which I misread as Slav)
Working on the same principles (?) I connect sloven with slouch,sloth, slough and slobber (probably caused by drinking sloe gin)I hope that conjures up jolly drinking Dutchmen slumping home in the carts to sleep it off.
I reckon that Partridge makes at least as many of his derivations up as jwf and I do.

".... makes at least as many of his derivations up as jwf and I do"

Well that's blown all my illusions completely out the water! And there I was thinking I was in the company of linguistic giants!

Just been asked this by an Indian colleague,
"Why is zero plural?"

The particular circumstance was with relation to a database when deleting data from it. You get "1 row deleted" or "3 rows deleted" but why "0 rows deleted"? My initial response was that it is because it is dealing with a potential, i.e. "0 rows deleted" actually means "There are lots of rows in the database, but of those rows none were deleted" and the "0 rows...." is just shorthand for that.

Am I anywhere near the mark?

Giants? Perhaps...
Cunning? Indubitably



BTW, the logic behind 0 = *shorthand for none, etc* makes sense to me

six7's
*linguistically 3'6", just tall enough to see over the counter*

Pedantically, I'd suggest that 'no' is the best analogue to '0', and I usually translate '0 rows deleted' to 'no rows deleted' when reading.

I thought of that, but that then begs the question, why is 'no' plural? What is wrong with saying 'no row deleted'?

To d*mn fast on the button there......

......and then you have to take it one level further and translate no rows deleted tot he entry above. I guess I was being lazy and missing that step out

*no row deleted* sounds like an incomplete sentence / phrase / whatever to me (which, BTW, I have no problem with) whereas *no row was deleted* and/or *not one row was deleted* sounds more *proper*

six7's
*I told you I was a midget*

Actually, 'no row deleted' (expanding naturally to the more grammatical 'no row [has been] deleted') doesn't sound too bad to me.

Essentially, asking 'why is zero/no plural' seems to be the same as asking why only 'one' is singular.

What was the word? Overcorrection?

Am I overcorrecting if I wince when someone says "none of us have eaten yet"? After all, if you said it "not one....." you would HAVE to say "Not one of us HAS eaten yet", wouldn't you.

This may be throwing a spanner in the works or light on the subject.