Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
#59930 03/06/02 08:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
In September 2001 article in Smithsonian magazine an English professor who is a leading lterary forensic expert found it significant that notes attributed to the Unabomber several times used the phase "You can't eat your cake and have it too", alleging that this was a British, not an Amercan usage, which is said to be "You can't have your cake and eat it too." I have always heard it the Unabomber's way, but search of Internet shows the alleged American way is much more common. The alleged British way makes more sense to me. (I can have my cake, and eat it later, but not vice-versa.) Any comments?


#59931 03/07/02 08:41 AM
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 144
R
member
Offline
member
R
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 144
I can categorically state that, as a Brit, I have never used "You can't eat your cake and have it too", but have always said 'You can't have your cake and eat it'.

Does that help at all? Probably not!


#59932 03/07/02 10:23 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
W
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
I like thinking about those situations in which you can have your cake and eat it, too.

You know, like when it's an especially huge cake--plenty to spare--can even freeze some of it for later eating.

I think flexible, vertical thinkers are especially adept at having their cakes and eating them, too.

Now linear thinkers: they're the ones who can't have their cake and eat it, too. They get too hung up on details, such as, "Is it really a cake if it's only in the imagination?" And "What is it to really 'have' anything? Must you have the whole thing in order to have it?" And other such considerations that keep them from enjoying even a single bite.

Bite regards,
WholeWind


#59933 03/07/02 06:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
The article begins: "Closing his evening broadcast on Febrary 15,1996, poker-faced as ever, CBS anchor Dan Rather intoned: 'The same scholar who recently used his computer to identify what he says is an undiscovered poem by Shakespeare and got some high-profile attention for himself has unleashed his machine on author Anonymous.' "

"The statistical apparatus that forms the backbone of Foster's analysis has
led to a widespread misconception, the very one that Dan Rather mongered in his 1996 broadcast."

Quite possibly the author intended to insult Dan Rather. A monger is a small-time dealer in such commodities as iron, fruit, vegetables, and fish.
Quite different from a highly paid presenter on a multimillion dollar TV network.
It is also a bit surprising to see a former English professor verbing that noun.

He should get a flunking grade.



#59934 03/07/02 07:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
shall we take a look in the OED and see when monger was actually verbed?
<fires off another netscape window>
.
.
<logs into MPL proxy server>

yes, well monger is a very old word, dating back to C10 OE; and it was first verbed, to deal or traffic in, (in print) by the Observer on 5 Feb 1928: Both American and British opinion is laughing out of court those who monger their scares about the United States Navy.

at least give him a C-

('twould be interesting to learn the context of that citation.)

#59935 03/07/02 07:37 PM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
K
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
K
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Foster's analysis

dr. bill, would this be the same Foster we discussed at
http://wordsmith.org/board/showflat.pl?Cat=&Board=wordplay&Number=49886, starting on Christmas day?


#59936 03/07/02 08:23 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Dear Keiva:"Don Foster has become a celebrity. Just last winter he made People magazine and newspapers across the country by proving that the beloved American poem 'The Night Before Christmas' had been written not by the straitlaced Bible teacher to whom it had always been attributed, Clement Clarke Moore, but rather by a bon vivant named Henry Livingston."


#59937 03/07/02 08:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Reminded me of flamboyant English prof at MIT over sixty years ago, who told his class that they should write the way he drove, unconsciously.


Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
K
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
K
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Just last winter he made People magazine and newspapers across the country by proving ...

But take a critical look at the book, before jumping to accept the conclusion dr. bill quoted. A more accurate verb-clause would be "claiming to have proved".

But I do hope that Professor Foster enjoyed the publicity.


#59939 03/07/02 11:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Here is one more real goof in that article. Keiva, please do not go ape about it. The author is stupid enough to use the word 'debunker" in a extra stupid way. He is mentioning a guy who is believed by FBI to be responsible for a series of bombings. Instead of saying the guy was a psychopathic neo-Nazi, the article says: "The FBI had a long list of suspects. One of them was Eric Robert Rudolph, a white supremacist,debunker of the Holocaust and survival expert."

I think it quite stupid of Smithsonian editors to let that word get by them.


#59940 03/08/02 12:14 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
K
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
K
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
No problem, dr. bill. I believe that's a fairly standard (though imprecise) term for those who deny that the Holocaust ever occurred.


#59941 03/08/02 01:03 AM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
The author is culpably insensitive to use the term the way he did. I would be entirely in agreement with you if you felt that the Smithsonian editors ought apologise for it.


Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
F
addict
Offline
addict
F
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 428
But I do hope that Professor Foster enjoyed the publicity.

I actually had a course with Prof. Foster at Vassar, and though I expect he gripes and moans about the curse of fame, he struck me as the kind of person who greatly enjoys the sound of his own voice. Very intelligent and insightful, but pretty well self-centered.


#59943 03/08/02 12:58 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 328
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 328
The author is stupid enough to use the word 'debunker" in a extra stupid way.

Nice catch, Uncle Bill. I don't know if the author ever apologized, but check out the "To The Editor" section of the November Smithsonian-- another reader brings up the same point you just did:

I find it ironic that...author David Roberts refers to Eric Robert Rudolph as, among other things, a "debunker of the Holocaust." This in an article about word usage. Webster's defines "bunk" as "something pretentious and empty or plausible but erroneous, as a speech, an opinion or doctrine" and "to debunk, to divest of 'bunk.'" Those who would deny the historical fact of the Holocaust are more accurately described as "Holocaust deniers." Facts may be denied by the ignorant or bigoted, but one cannot "debunk" a fact. Norman Fried Oceanside, CA

I find the name "Holocaust deniers" entirely too polite for these poor excuses for human beings, but.

#59944 03/08/02 02:41 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Dear Rapunzel: Thanks for your post. Now I don't have to write a letter to the editor. I didn't read my Smithsonians until just recently because of vision problem, and then didn't read them in order. your adoring reprobate Uncle Bill


#59945 03/09/02 11:37 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
wwh, I understand how your economical phrase, "psychopathic neo Nazi", covers "white supremist" and "debunker of the Holocaust" but how does it cover "survival expert"? How about "psychopathic neo Nazi survivalist"? BTW what have you got against "debunker of the Holocaust"? One who debunks something, or who attempts to debunk something, is a "debunker", are they not? Or must one actually succeed at debunking the thing debunked before one can be described as a "debunker"?


#59946 03/10/02 01:31 AM
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
M
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
M
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409

#59947 03/10/02 01:41 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
K
Carpal Tunnel
Offline
Carpal Tunnel
K
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
apologist for the Holocaust.
or "denier".


#59948 03/10/02 02:03 AM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
W
wwh Offline OP
Carpal Tunnel
OP Offline
Carpal Tunnel
W
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Dear plutarch: anybody who tries to deny the Holocaust is a sick son of a bitch.

I think the "survival expert" was mentioned just as additional documentation of his being paranoid, plus an explanation of how he has been able to escape being captured, if he is still alive.


#59949 03/10/02 12:54 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
P
veteran
Offline
veteran
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,385
nutcase ... sicko ... psycho ... but not a debunker
I checked out the meaning of "debunk" and you guys are 100% correct ... on ALL counts. A debunker is one who exposes a falsehood, for example, a miraculous drug. A "debunker of the holocaust" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. BTW the derivation of "debunk" is quite interesting. It goes back to the 1820s when a Congressman by the name of Walker, representing a District in North Carolina known as Buncombe, persisted in making an empty speech in spite of protests. Afterwards, Walker defended his speech saying he felt the need "to speak for Buncombe". Buncombe was shortened to "bunkum" and later to "bunk". Hence, a "debunker" is one who exposes "bunk". One who speaks "bunk" is not a "debunker" but a perpetrator of "bunk", some of it harmless, even amusing, some of it injurious, even criminal, such as a denier of the Holocaust.
What should we call such a person, a probunker?
Or perhaps a bunkerator?


Page 1 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  Jackie 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,912
Posts229,271
Members9,179
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
TRIALNERRA, befuddledmind, KILL_YOUR_SUV, Heather_Turey, Standy
9,179 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (A C Bowden), 285 guests, and 4 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,542
wofahulicodoc 10,502
LukeJavan8 9,915
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2024 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5