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

Or folk music, a capella singing, musical theatre . . .

You get an explosion of genres in the twentieth century: jazz splitting into ragtime, swing, bebop and so on; popular music splitting into rock'n'roll, country, rockabilly, mod, techno, metal, -- there must be a thousand.

Good point TC!
Forms are about structure and not necessarily about 'kinds or types' of content.

I wonder if the same error is made in the comment that "Literary genres include the novel and the sonnet".

If genre is content and not structure then obviously there are poems as well as novels (and even songs) about cowboys (and Indians) that would have to be considered as within the Western genre wouldn't they.

With music, as R-man points out, form or structure is often essential to content. "folk music, a capella singing, musical theatre" and other musical forms tend to specialise their content. These expectations are often the cause of much mirth by exploiting the tension between musical form and content.

I am reminded of the wonderful parody of the Theme Song from Gilligan's Island sung to the tune of Stairway to Heaven.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2lTB-UVvs


~jwf~

Since the OED has been a mainstay of this thread for years,
it seemed only fitting to post this announcement:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AT1GX20101130

And the good news is:

"Users in Britain can access the new online edition (www.oed.com)
free via their public libraries, while institutions and individuals
must pay to subscribe."


~jwf~

It's been that way for a while, ~jwf~

... but O tempora, o mores! was George Orwell actually responsible for "soft center."?

(oh, reuters, and with the full stop in that position).

We can only assume he adopted American English spelling in a spirit of wartime solidarity.

If that's not the aspect you were questioning...

The thing about the first citation in the OED is that it's the first written use of the word they can find. It doesn't mean it's the first usage, by any means; much like the phrases attributed to Shakespeare in A76533195 . From time to time the OED's edited to include things like earlier discoveries.

I was thinking of Elvising as access to my original account is still an impossibility, but I knew this thread wasn't entirely dead. Hello friends.
The other good thing my library provides free is the major local history and family history sites. The former I can access from home through my library card. personally I'm still using the institutional OED account from my last place of employment.<star

The new 600,000 word edition is getting rave reviews in NZ.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/last-word-new-zealand-created-pavlova-3933575

>>
"There are nearly 300 words in the dictionary which originate
from the Maori language, with Pakeha now recognised by it as
an official word.

New Zealanders can now also officially deem something broken
and half-cooked in local slang because of it being "pukeroo"
and "half-pie".
<<


~jwf~

Changing the subject totally...

I have the desire to try and incorporate the word 'titular' into correspondence in my work before I finish for Christmas and am really struggling to do so.

I work in employment relations for a trade union and I'm sure there might be an opportunity but need some help with ideas.

On a tangential note, how come such a cool word is so little used in modern times?

t.

First time I came across the word 'titular' was on an EP my elder brother bought called Summer Set, featuring Mr Acker BIlk, around 1959, pre-Stranger-on-the-shore. The sleeve listed the members of the Paramount Jazz Band, including

"Mr. Acker Bilk, clarinet and titular head"

I wondered (being 121at the time) what sort of instrument that was.

. . . being 11 at the time . . .

being 121 at the time...

Wow you are wearing well!!

t.

The current in-word seems to be eponymous, which is sort of the same thing, but covers more aspects. Unless there is a legal connotation to "titular" which seems likely.

Titular and eponymous synonymous? Nah, never

Until I looked it up

Another day, another foundation foundered

Hmm... we may be stretching the meaning of synonymous a bit.
There do seem to be some essential differences between titular and
eponymous. Maybe even quintessential differences.

For me, saying they are synonymous remains difficult when in practical terms,
one is a 'taking' and the other is a 'giving'. Titular is taking on a name while
eponymous is giving a name.

Titular appears to have come into being much earlier (c1590) and in a
political way referring to particular cases where certain persons are
granted titles of power but with no real capacity to wield that power.

It suggests an existing label is applied to a person but without true content.
The idea is that they are 'in title only' but not 'entitled' to actual power or
influence.

Eponymous refers to giving one's name (or having it applied by others)
to a thing, like Ford to the car or Bell to the telephone or Alzeimer to a
certain form of dementia.

Later uses of titular as a noun and in cases where titles are arbitrarily
created to suggest nobility but with no real authority do broaden its
meaning somewhat.

But on the whole I think it's safe to say that in titular the situation is one of
an existing nomenclature (name, title) being given to a person in a superficial
way while eponymous is a case of a person's name being associated with a
thing (and usually some sort of new thing) in need of a name.
Heimlich's manoeuvre for example.

Admittedly, in the specific use referring to churches with cardinals or bishops
in attendance, titular does suggest those persons (or at least their rank)
gives the place its name and status.



But I do see your point.

~jwf~

"Admittedly, in the specific use referring to churches with cardinals or bishops
in attendance, titular does suggest those persons (or at least their rank)
gives the place its name and status. "

You are given a bishopric instead of a knighthood - money for nothing and the chicks for free?

So the use of "titular" in Acker Bilk's case is definitely incorrect? He really was the leader of that band. Or so I was always led to believe.

>>..use of "titular" in Acker Bilk's case is definitely incorrect? <<

No, I believe it's correct, though I admit to being not that familiar with
the politics and management structure of the Acker Bilk orchestra.

But Dave Brubeck would be the titular head of the eponymous Dave
Brubeck Quartet.

If the words were synonyms they could be reversed, but it sounds
wrong to say Dave Brubeck is the eponymous head of the titular
Dave Brubeck Quartet.


~jwf~

Do you have his "Rotterdam Blues"? Dave in concert with his sons - and no doubt who is captain of the ship.

It may sound wrong to you ~jwf~ but I think it would be perfectly right to call Dave Brubeck the eponymous leader of the quartet that bears his name.

It seems to have originated in the practice of a year being named after the ruler or hero who became particularly distinguished in that year. He gave his name to the age; from the Greek epi (upon) + onoma (name).

Later or concurrently a common usage was 'the eponymous hero of a saga' such as the Odyssey (after Odysseus) and the Aeneid (Aeneas).

Titular is given four meanings in SOED: the first is the restrictive 'in title only' sense, but the other three allow full rights to the holder of such rank. The fourth meaning is the synonym with 'eponymous': 'from whom or which a title or name is taken'.

So Acker Bilk, being made titular head, not in the restricted sense, but simply 'appointed leader' of the band was also eponymous in giving his name to it.

A possible alternative scenario, in which the terms are not synonymous:

In the jazz band, the titular head
Was the one who ostensibly led;
He could swagger and preen
But that still didn't mean
That the others would do what he said.