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

Just notice the following on the Beebs languages page, kinda amusing and informative at the same time, it's slips and cross linguistics mistooks that people have noticed. Interesting how many soundalikes there are but that have completely different meanings. Especially in German and Dutch.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/community/fun/index.shtml

And I didn;t know about Red Square being Beautiful Square as well.

<\OT>

>> ..a show with a director who refers to almost everything and everyone as Mrs <<

This reminds me of a children's tv show where the smarmy, molly-coddling host (PeeWeeHerman?) patronised everything and everyone in a silly sing-songy voice and referred to all inanimate objects (many were in fact 'puppet animated' and had voices) as Mr This or Mr That something.

I don't actually remember the original program but a line from a 'Saturday Night Live' spoof of the show has been stuck in my mind for many years.
"Oh, careful! Don't step on Mister Puke."
For some reason it sounds like a line John Candy would have delivered. You remember John Candy who coincidentally played "Barfy" in 'Spaceballs'.


~jwf~

Oh and yes the famous sixties Brit comedy troupe "Beyond The Fringe" used to do a 'pirate' sketch (skit) in which one of the s was named Mister Puke.

~jwf~

I can only add Captain Pugwash to that!

turvy

Oh!...and Mr Hanky, the Christmas Poo!

t.

Ictoan,
Haven't time to check that now, but it reminded me of a line in the intro of a Radio 4 quiz "Wireless Wise" 18.30 Tuesday (available as "Listen again").
A seemingly inexperienced announcer says:
"It's 12 o'clock Greenwich.
Meantime here is the shipping forecast."
{or something v. similar.}

Little words often seem to have no connection to anything Latin or Germanic. In learning Polish, for example, I have discovered that our word "same" is .. well.. the same! .. in Polish : "to samo". Hadn't even thought about the origins of that before. But it certainly doesn't crop up in that form in any other language I know.

On looking it up, the dictionary stated that it was from Old Norse and Old English - so how can it be so similar to the Slavic?

My colleague said that she thought the word "each" was unconnected to anything else. Purely English. I couldn't agree, but can't find anything online because, of course, "each" is such a common word that it produces thousands of results if I search even on an etymological site.

For what it's worth:

"same - abstracted from O.E. swa same "the same as," influenced by O.N. samr
"same," both from P.Gmc. *samon, from PIE base *samos "same." Same here
as an exclamation of agreement is from 1895. Same difference curious way to
say "equal," is from 1945. "

"each - O.E. ælc "ever alike," from a "ever" + gelic "alike." Similar compounds
are found in other Gmc. languages (cf. Du. elk, O.Fris. ellik). Originally used as
we now use every (which is a compound of each) or all; modern use is by infl.
of L. quisque. Modern spelling appeared late 1500s. "

from http://www.etymonline.com/

Plaguesville, like it!

Another questions, hopefully not as daft this time, but I'm not placing any bets.

Numerical indicators, the 4th person in a line is the fourth, but a quarter of something is also a fourth. Same for fifth, sixth, tenth, thirty-tooth, hundreth (hundredth??) etcetera.

Except second. For some reason we don't have a second of something, we have a half of it. Any idea why this should be different? And, as mentioned, a quarter for a fourth, but no others.

*in his usual half cocked manner*

Well, halves and quarters are probably the most common of divisions. Constant or frequent usage often creates a need for variety. This is true of most things including ways of expressing ourselves. Hence nicknames and abbreviations.

Perhaps association with the Holy Trinity (Daddy-o, Laddy-o and Spook) discouraged the development of a casual euphemism for 'one third'.

The French have the 'menage a trois' but Brits never do anything by thirds. Curiously the Canadian game of 'hockey' is divided into three 'periods' while most other sports have the usual 'halves' and 'quarters'.

Of course the redoubtable Yankees have nine 'innings' in baseball.

~jwf~

Icotan

Firstly, we do have seconds of things - second in line or "I'll go second" and coming second. Second also has other meanings too - 1/60 of a minute and "I'll second that" - a supporter.

Secondly, half is a specific equal division in some senses and, I would think, is usually applied to two equal portions.

Thirdly, the same would apply to quarters as applies to half. Quarter has other meanings as well - hanged, drawn and quartered, to quarter the landscape, give or offer no quarter.

Finally (ha!), a thirty-tooth. Who or what has thirty teeth? Is it not thirty-second?

turvy

turvy?

thirty-tooth - I'm glad someone picked up on that!

I get that second has other meanings and so forth, I was just wondering why if you divide something into two parts, then those parts are not called seconds?

Used to really wind my grandfather up by refering to unequal halves! .

So, if you divide something into 2 unequal parts, what do you call those parts? They have to be halves really since there is no other word?

Yes, I suppose so.

How about two unequal parts? The two parts could be a quarter and three quarters!

Ten divided by four is 2.5 unless the parts are unequal - 1+2+3+4=10

Exam Question.
If it takes two men with standard shovels 4 hours and twenty minutes to dig a hole three feet square by four feet deep, how long would it take one man to dig half a hole?

turvy

2 men to dig a hole? Where have you been? What about the other 3 blokes to drink tea and leer at passing women?

Interesting,
half a hole, not possible
half a whole, perfectly acceptable

Good point on unequal halves being other fractions. Thinking about it, all the fractions and assumed to be equal. Hmmm.

Is it possible that the divisions of half & quarter originated before counting? Meaning equal proportions rather than numerical value?

Unequal halves must be other fractions, but I imagine they're usually too unwieldy or unnecessarily precise to use.
If a hole is planned to be a specific size when finished, half a hole will be when it is half dug!

M'dear Ms Teas,

The key to this old joke about holes is that a 'hole' is a hole is a hole but never a 'whole'. The word 'hole' itself has no connotation of size. There are large holes, deep holes, small holes, rabbit holes and foxholes.

While one may state specific dimensions for a particular hole one cannot say what is 'half a hole' without knowing the intended specifics of the hole yet to be. The hole which has yet to be dug therefore does not yet exist, posing the philosophical question, "Can something be half of something that does not exist?" The small hole can be made twice as big, but one cannot really say that the small hole is 'half' of another hole not yet dug.

And of course the small hole is already a hole if not yet the whole intended hole. When it was being dug, half of it would still have been a hole; yes, a smaller hole but a hole none-the-less. The point (if I haven't already blunted it) is that a hole is a hole, and the word is non specific about size.

In my disorganised and spiteful mind, it is similar to that old joke about 'When is a door not a door?' to which the answer is 'When it's "ajar"!'.

~jwf~

M'dear Ms Teas,

The key to this old joke about holes is that a 'hole' is a hole is a hole but never a 'whole'. The word 'hole' itself has no connotation of size. There are large holes, deep holes, small holes, rabbit holes and foxholes.

While one may state specific dimensions for a particular hole one cannot say what is 'half a hole' without knowing the intended specifics of the hole yet to be. The hole which has yet to be dug therefore does not yet exist, posing the philosophical question, "Can something be half of something that does not exist?" The small hole can be made twice as big, but one cannot really say that the small hole is 'half' of another hole not yet dug.

And of course the small hole is already a hole if not yet the whole intended hole. When it was being dug, half of it would still have been a hole; yes, a smaller hole but a hole none-the-less. The point (if I haven't already blunted it) is that a hole is a hole, and the word is non specific about size.

In my disorganised and spiteful mind, it is similar to that old joke about 'When is a door not a door?' to which the answer is 'When it's "ajar"!'.

~jwf~

Captain, the transporters are creating two of everything again. Captain? Uhm, Captain...?

~jwf~

Twice ~jfw~?

And on a related note, one time is once, two times is twice, three times is (archaically) thrice, four times is........?









........Anyone?

turvy

PS. How High is a Chinaman?

Although whilst a hole is a hole is a hole, halfway through digging it, one could say that the intended hole is only half dug,even though the hole what has been dug is a hole in itself and not half a hole (which would be a ho, which is something else entirely!).

turvy: once, twice, thrice
So, following the logic, fice, fice, sice, sice, eice, nice, tice, elice, twice (again) and so forth.

Which I guess is why we don;t bother as it gets confusing!

I wonder why once isn't onice?

P.S. he is indeed!