|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 1, 2008 13:25:48 GMT
From Quinion's comment it sounds as though it might be applied among peasant (for want of a better word) branches of the family who produced many offspring, the connections between whom might become rather blurry over time.
I've not even come across the concept before, let alone the word. It sounds quite handy, though for those cases where it would be appropriate.
Sue
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 14:14:48 GMT
I've never heard shirttail relative before! Is that an American expression, or is it also common in British English? What do Australians say? Sue From Webster's: shirttail n. the part of a shirt extending below the waist
adj. [Colloq.] being only distantly related [a shirttail cousin] Both are flagged as Americanisms.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 14:35:57 GMT
To go back to the Swedish term, that will be "släkt till släkt" and would translate to "from generation to generation" as is used, for example, when referring to family stories or histories passed down the ages. No doubt very much used within families with an emigrant history. TfS "Släkt till släkt" use within our group of family and friends has had this meaning of "related to a relative" or "relative of a relative," much like Barry's having an uncle in common with someone without actually being blood-related to that person. It's never seemed to have been used in the sense of "generation to generation." It's a phrase used within otherwise all-English speaking; e.g., "We are släkt till släkt."
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 1, 2008 14:40:23 GMT
> I've never eard shirttail relative before! Is that an American expression, or is it also common in British English? <
Never heard it before.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 1, 2008 14:45:18 GMT
Incidentally, I had heard many years ago that when the Swedes (from Sweden) wanted to study "old" Swedish (the language), they would come to the US where Swedes had settled (usually the Midwest, probably Nebraska) and study those who still spoke Swedish as it was when they had left Sweden (or even the next generation). The language evolutions occurring in Sweden, of course, had had no effect on the Swedish-Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Jun 1, 2008 17:56:22 GMT
Incidentally, I had heard many years ago that when the Swedes (from Sweden) wanted to study "old" Swedish (the language), they would come to the US where Swedes had settled (usually the Midwest, probably Nebraska) and study those who still spoke Swedish as it was when they had left Sweden (or even the next generation). The language evolutions occurring in Sweden, of course, had had no effect on the Swedish-Americans. As of course a lot of US English has words and phrases that derive from Elizabethan (ie Liz I) English - diaper, fall (the season), gotten, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 1, 2008 20:32:58 GMT
>I've never heard shirttail relative before!<
Nor I.
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 2, 2008 0:00:23 GMT
As of course a lot of US English has words and phrases that derive from Elizabethan (ie Liz I) English - diaper, fall (the season), gotten, etc.
This would suggest that if you wanted to study Elizabethan English, you should go to America! I'm not sure that the emigrant Swedish would be any closer to the Swedish of c. 1850 than Canadian French is to French. While some aspects of the language and items of vocabulary might remain stubbornly the same, others would be bound to be influenced by the place of immigration. It would be very interesting to see what had changed and what had remained the same. Perhaps that's what the modern Swedish linguists were studying. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Sue M-V on Jun 2, 2008 0:02:40 GMT
It's a phrase used within otherwise all-English speaking; e.g., "We are släkt till släkt." That's interesting, Dave. I think that in Swedish you'd be more likely to say "släkt med släkt" in that context. I'll have to ask around tomorrow. Sue
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 2, 2008 1:04:02 GMT
Never encountered shirttail relative before now, but I don't think many Aussies would use it - it's a tad too close to shirttail (or simply shirt) lifter - not a complementary term at all.
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 2, 2008 5:41:43 GMT
Several of my Webster's dictionaries give mongooses as the plural; one also allows mongeese, as does the Scrabble ® Players Dictionary. Bill Bryson says mongooses is the plural, pointing out that the word is not related to our English goose/geese. Mongoos is listed by some as another spelling for the singular.
|
|
|
Post by rickcarpenter on Jun 2, 2008 13:00:17 GMT
If you feel there is some grammatical or semantic reason for which it needs to be there before "bear", why does a comma not then need to be there before "bees" and "mongooses"? As a typographer, I think the final commas and semicolons make a listing look more elegant. At times however, I have to put forth work without them because we print what professors etc. have written, and they sometimes use them and sometimes don't. If I'm free to do stylistic corrections, though, in they go! To answer your final question: Uhhhhh... grammatical or semantic reasons? I'dunno.... But doing that would be carrying my commaphilia too far, don't you think?
|
|
|
Post by Dave M on Jun 2, 2008 13:51:03 GMT
> grammatical or semantic reasons? I'dunno.... But doing that would be carrying my commaphilia too far, don't you think? <
I think it WOULD be carrying commas too far: the comma is simply not needed for us to get the sense carried by "and". But then, I can get that same sense with A, B and C.
|
|
|
Post by Tone on Jun 2, 2008 20:53:18 GMT
It's mongooses.
A man wanted to buy two mongooses/mongeese from a pet shop.
He started to send an e-mail to order them, but got hung up on the correct plural.
So he sent an e-mail: "Please supply me with a mongoose. And another one with it."
Tone
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jun 3, 2008 2:27:13 GMT
[...] as a typographer [...] And Gabriel-Ernest is a (retired, I think?) typesetter of the hot-metal school, and I massage words ( DTP) in InDesign (and glyphs in Illustrator) all day ... . Perhaps a little type humour, then ... Four fonts walk into a bar. The barman says "Oi - get out! We don't want your type in here".Okay - all groan now!
|
|