This is the Message Centre for J

American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 181

J

Okay, Leo, I was going through this thread to make revisions, and I looked up 'pocketbook' in google. The definitions I found generally agreed with your use of it, which is different from my understanding of the word. Maybe that's a dialectic variation on my part, rather than yours smiley - smiley


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 182

Leo


It's funny you mention looking it up - did you use "define: pocketbook" or use an actual dictionary? Because we had this argument in an English class. We looked it up in Merriam Webster online, and the handbag definition was third. Also, while my friend is from Pittsburgh, in your region-ish, the professor was from Texas, and agreed with her. So even if it's a handbag by definition, it probably isn't used to mean "handbag" very widely. But if you don't want to use it, feel free.


When you talk about midwestern vowels - I've recently been hearing a "no" that sounds like "naw" but not quite how I always imagined "naw" in my head. Sort of nasal. Is that what you mean? I think the AViator stuff would greatly enhance the entry. smiley - ok


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 183

J

I used some dictionary site and wiki I think, which were the first things that turned up. I'll look into that more.


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 184

8584330

Pocketbooks and Pocket Books

Yes, pocketbooks are purses, just like the dictionary says. On the other hand, since the 1930s Pocket Books has been the paperback publishing division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., a New York publisher since the 1920s.



American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 185

broelan

My grandmother always used 'pocketbook' to mean her handbag. I think I've also heard it used to mean a ladies' wallet (but never a man's).


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 186

psychocandy-moderation team leader

Likewise, my grandmother refers to her purse/ handbag as a "pocketbook", and I've also heard it used by people of my parents' generation to refer to a ladies' wallet. I don't recall ever hearing anyone of my age (or younger) using the term at all, though.


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 187

J

I've always understood it to mean a lady's wallet. smiley - weird


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 188

8584330

We women have numerous words for that thing in which we carefully cram all our needful items. We understand menfolk can't possibly appreciate the subtle differences among totes, bags, pocketbooks, and the like. Mr. Nerd claims I keep a black hole in mine, a theory he says explains both its weight and its holding capacity.


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 189

Leo

And clutch, reticule, satchel, Minaudiere, frame bag, hobo bag, shoulder bag, sack bag, bucket bag, pouch, belt bag, and baguette. smiley - biggrinsmiley - boing

And I know that from searching the internet, because all handbags look the same to me. smiley - handbag (Not sure if that's a frame bag or a satchel.)


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 190

J

A baguette? smiley - laugh I thought that was bread.


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 191

Researcher 198131

I never understood the term pocketbook for handbag. 1, It doesn't fit in your pocket and 2, it is not a book.

In Oz we say handbag or just bag.
Purse is a term we use for wallet, usually describing a female's wallet. Or change purse.

smiley - elf


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 192

8584330

In defense of the word "pocketbook": A particular rather old-fashioned style of pocketbook opens out and snaps closed, very much like a particular old-fashioned style of book. And words tend to last longer than fashion trends.



American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 193

Researcher 198131

I knew there would be some logical etymology behind it. Thanks Happy Nerd.

smiley - elf


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 194

vogonpoet (AViators at A13264670)

Well I hope I can do a more imaginative job with the AV map than the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7223461.stm

I never understood the primaries very well - how do they decide within each party how many delegates are available for each state? Whats with independent voters deciding they might prefer Candidate A to Candidate B, do they get a chance? And why all the middle men in the first place - can the delegates who have been voted to vote for Candi A just turn around and decide to vote for Candi B instead?


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 195

J

You are very curious smiley - smiley
Each state gets a certain number of delegates based on population. Democrats have more delegates at their convention, so there are more Dem delegates from a given state than Republican delegates. But there are also 'Superdelegates', who are not elected from a primary. They represent about a fifth of the total delegates on the Dem side. The Republicans have many fewer Superdelegates, I think. Superdelegates are members of the party elected to high positions, like Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor of a large city or National Committeeperson.

Independent voters can vote in states with 'open' primaries. It really depends on state law. New Hampshire, for example, has an 'open' primary, which allows independents to vote in either party's primary (and a Dem can vote in a Republican primary, or vice versa). Some states are 'closed', meaning only a person registered as a Democrat can vote in the Democratic primary.

Delegates can pretty much choose for themselves who to vote for. I know that the Democratic National Committee says that delegates get to vote based on their own decisions. Maybe not the Republicans, I'm not sure. Superdelegates get to vote for whoever they want to. And if a convention is decided after the first ballot of polling all the delegates, some people will flip probably sides.


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 196

J

--> probably flip sides.
It's early. smiley - coffee


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 197

vogonpoet (AViators at A13264670)

So there is a pool of say 100 Democratic delegates in a state, then after the primaries, some of those delegates are in camp A and some in camp B. Then comes the convention, and before anyone decides who will be the Democratic presidential candidate, its back to being a pool of 100 delegates?

No that can't be right...

Each camp for this state has 100 potential delegates who are theoretically supporters of the leader of each camp, then if camp A gets 60% of vote, they get to send 60 of their delegates, camp B sends 40 of their own. That sounds more reasonable? Unless you are republican, in which case in some states camp A gets to send 100, and camp B 0.

Then all the other states do the same thing, all the voted for delegates plus the super delegates are locked up in a room someplace, and then they vote, and the person in charge of camp A just has to hope that all the people who were his/her friends at the start of the campaign and when the primaries were carried out are still his/her friends.

And after all this, you still have an entire presidential campaign to fight. Wow it sounds like hard work. Unless you are an independent (candidate this time), in which case you just check your bank account and decide to run for presidency ... Will Ralph Nalder be stepping up to the plate this year?


As a brit, I find American politics complicated, slightly strange, and interesting. It does seem to take up an awful lot of energy though...





American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 198

Baron Grim

Until around the 1940's these delegates would go to the National Convention to "decide" who the party candidate would be. But because of things like "Super Tuesday" and minute by minute reporting of polls telling the public who is ahead, the decision is made long before that and the Conventions are just big tent revivals preaching to the choir. This year may be different and many are hoping for an open Convention on both sides. For example, if Clinton and Obama keep divvying up the delegates neither may have an overwhelming majority come Convention time and it will become more like a caucus where each side tries to win over the opponent's chosen delegates.


Believe it or not, this part still makes more sense than what happens in the National Election with the "Electoral College" thrown into the mix.


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 199

vogonpoet (AViators at A13264670)

Nobody said democracy was meant to be easy...


American Regional Dialects - a Request

Post 200

J

It's actually even a bit more complicated than that, vp. I responded to your post before I left this morning, so I had to simplify things a bit smiley - winkeye

Most states on the Democratic side have three kinds of delegates that they send to the convention. The unpledged 'Superdelegates' are one kind. Another kind are the ones who go to the candidate that wins a plurality in the state. The last kind are awarded based on winning Congressional districts, or possibly proportionally depending. What part of the 'pie' are the unpledged delegates, and what part of the pie are the other two depends on the state. I'm not sure how it works for the Republicans (I'm much more familiar with the Democratic side), but I think their system tends to be much simpler. But of course, it all depends on the state.

The delegates are picked by the campaigns, I believe. So these aren't professional delegates. If Barack Obama wins 40 delegates in Ohio, his campaign will pick 40 supporters in Ohio to send to the convention.

A brokered convention may be interesting. There have been conventions that have gone into 30, 40, 50+ ballots before a nominee is decided. It's always possible. It would be another scenario from "The West Wing", where a broken convention occurred in the last season. Life imitates art. smiley - smiley

As for Nader, I've heard rumblings about him running again this year smiley - groan It's basically become his profession - to run for President every four years. And he'll keep becoming less and less relevant.


Key: Complain about this post

More Conversations for J

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more