|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Who was Sir Boyle Roche?
He also invented the Roche clip [more fondly remembered than his "herb" tea].
BTW Roche tea fell out of favor when a follower was caught burning the midnight oil at both ends.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear Jackie: we had several posts about Sir Boyle Roche over ayear ago.
Mr Speaker, I smell a rat; I see him forming in the air and darkening the sky; but I'll nip him in the bud."
The statement comes from an Irish MP (Member of Parliament) of the late 18th century, Sir Boyle Roche. The picture it evokes — of a creature that combines rat-ness with features of both clouds and flowers — is one worthy of Lewis Carroll.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Ok, thanks. He boyled his tea, I presume?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Sir Boyle Roche's other great contribution to the English language was:
"And what has posterity ever done for us?"
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 4,189 |
Isn't steam a mist, as is fog, and so doesn't boiling water (i.e. steaming water) evaporate directly into mist then? If steam is not a type of mist, then what is it? Which leads to the question of the choice of mists(s) in the plural in the metaphor wm cited. Why a plural? Why not "the mist of coincidence". Is the author implying there are degrees of coincidince just as ther are degrees of mist (light mist, steam, heavy fog, etc.) You can have an obvious coincidence or a subtle coincidence, and other varieties of coincidence in between, can't you? In fact, a miracle, or synchronicity, would be a heavy coincidence, not very misty at all, and, OTOH, there are miniscule connections you become aware of in some things which might lead you to say 'there might be some coincidence there.' So the plurality of mist must be of some consequence in the chosen metaphor here. And, speaking of the plurality of mist, the expression " clouded in a sea [of]" is something I've heard frequently over the years in both writing and speech, almost something of an idiom. Once a metaphor takes on its own life as an idiomatic expression (which is like a new word) the linguistic specifics of its original conjuring then take a back shelf to its new semantic life, don't you think? Specifically, I agree it is the same as, say, "drowning in a sky of trouble." But if the meaning is implicit and not obscure then the language of the metaphor works, does it not? And, Faldage, just one question: Who's on first? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,296 |
This whole question of steam is interesting, Juan. It's been raised here on this thread several times. I googled just now "steam and condensation" to try to get a better handle on the relationship between the two, and read this note about steambaths: "Evaporation of water requires heat. Condensation releases heat. When we spill water on the rocks, heat is taken from the rocks to evaporate the water into steam. When the steam condenses into water on our skin, the latent heat of the steam is released onto our bodies. This is why people put grass in their mouths. The steam condenses in the grass, not the lungs. http://www.ankn.uaf.edu/VS/steambaths.htmlMy hunch is the steam we can see is the condensed water that results when the released hot gas from the boiling kettle is immediately cooled and condensed by the cooler temperature of the air. That boiling water, in other words, evaporates to gaseous state, but is immediately visible due to condensation caused by the cooler air. I would think steam is a combination of gas and water--two things occurring nearly simulataneously, but, oh, the difference! We can't see the gas of evaporated water (obviously) that is occurring so rapidly, but we do see the resultant rapid-fire result of the nearly instantly condensed water in the plume of steam. Metaphorically, I don't have any problem with the water in that kettle evaporating into a mist since the condensation factor occurs so very, very directly in connection with the evaporation of the kettle water. That's why I suggested above to Maa' that we could have a bit of fun on the hill with her steaming kettle and exploring metaphorical connections. Also, didn't Faldage suggest as much with his whitened-out smudge pot way up there toward the beginning of the thread--or did I miss his jest?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Once a metaphor takes on its own life ... the linguistic specifics of its original conjuring then take a back shelf to its new semantic life
How true, W'ON. Another twist on this phenomenon: expressions which enter the language which are not true to the original.
A famous example: Winston Churchill is remembered for saying "I have nothing to offer but blood, sweat and tears" but he actually said:
"I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat."
When we accuse someone of "gilding the lily", we think we are quoting Shakespeare. But Shakespeare wrote "To gild refined gold, to paint the lily".
Invariably, the mis-quotation which enters the language is an improvement on the original.
How much of a literary giant's reputation is owed to a rogue editor, I wonder?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
>Invariably, the mis-quotation which enters the language is an improvement on the original.
Invariably? Forgive me, nut I can't resist. All generalisations are dangerous. Here's a famous misquote that is not, in my opinion, an improvement on the original.
"Alas, poor Yorrick, I knew him well."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247
enthusiast
|
|
OP
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 247 |
Here's a famous misquote that is not, in my opinion, an improvement on the original:
"Alas, poor Yorrick, I knew him well."
Some might consider this the exception which proves the rule, sjm, but, personally, I prefer the popular misquote to the original:
'Alas, poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 742 |
I don't like the misquote because it makes no sense - why would a crown prince know a court jester well. Add in the fact that in the original he is talking to Horatio, and it just grates yet more.
Oh, and here's another misquote that, in my opinion, is not as good as the original:
"A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,810
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
846
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
