The use of the word ‘tie’ to indicate a draw in a sporting competition is well known, but whence comes the use of ‘cup tie’, meaning a competition with a cup as the reward for the winner? Any thoughts?
Whence comes it? Whither gang it? Was I sleeping when it went by?
What does it mean "Cup tie"
It's not a race for a tie
That you wear, or even
A score even-steven.
Aha! "bringing together" means "tie".
When people come together from all over for a "Cup tie", they are like strands which will be tied together in competition for days.
"Meet" is another word for "tie". When the meet is over, the tie is over. Competitors become 'untied' and they go their separate ways.
Note: "Tie" is a Britishism which we hear in North America in connection with the sport of tennis, primarily [I think
, perhaps golf, as well]. Tennis originated in England so the Brits 'own' the vocabulary of the sport*
, just as Americans, who invented the computer and the Internet, own the vocabulary of the computer and the Internet. [This last assertion could stir up a lively debate. :) ]
In North America, we call a sporting event a "meet", not a tie. As you are from the U.K., dxb, you may not be aware of that.
Now, where does even-steven
From the Mavens' Word of the Day:
Question:The other day, while doling out treats to my "kids" (my two Border Terriers) I uttered even-steven and then wondered where this phrase came from. Any ideas?
AnswerThis is a rhyming compound meaning 'having settled accounts', as in "Give me $10 and we'll be even-steven." It also means 'having an equal score; tied', as in "The teams were even-steven." So it's just an emphatic form of "even." Also spelled even-Steven or even-Stephen, its connection with the male name "Steven/Stephen" is obvious. If this were the whole story, it would be considered an American English slang term from the 1860s. (Though it's now informal rather than slang.)
But other connections have been suggested.http://snipurl.com/dfny*
The Russians appear to 'own' the vocabulary of pedology [an AWAD not long ago] because they did all the pioneering research in the field [of soil science].
The French appear to own the vocabulary of wine because they were the first to make the industry an art, which sounds like a contradiction in terms, but that's the whole point, isn't it?
Unfortunately for the French, French wine is losing its snob appeal, and, therefore, its market share world-wide. But we'll keep the French vocabulary anyway. We don't call the "Davis Cup Tie" the "Davis Cup Meet" just because the Brits lose to the Yanks. [Oops! I could be stirring up another debate. :) ]
tennis started in the monestaries of france, not england.
and many tennis terms are from french words, the thought is the term 'love' for zero is from the french term for an egg.. (the french term is l'ouf, as i recall)
even the name of the game, tennis, comes from a french term.
i have never heard the term tie used with tennis in the US.--(and living with in walking distance of NY Arther Ashe stadium, home to the US Tennis Open, i do actually hear a lot of tennis terms.)
is tie a direct translation of the french term for a tournament, of tennis?
as for meet- that term is used in a limited context-- track and field, gymnastics, and wrestling, and sometimes tennis.
it is sports term, but i would hardly say .."we call a sporting event a "meet",.. ", unless i was talking about those specific sports.
in NY, i think tournament is used more often than meet for tennis. while individuals might play a game; they are more likely to play a set of games ( a set) , for prizes, it an OPEN or tournament.
and i suppose, like a 1000 monkeys, typing on a 1000 typewriters for 1000 years, you too, might one day make a interesting, well scanned limerick.
until then, could you keep them to a thead for limericks?
there have been several. and while one or two have escaped from word play and fun, in general...
Thanks for straightening me out, Of Troy. I am sorry if I seemed to be holding myself out as an expert. I was trying to get a little discussion [even "lively debate"] going, and, thanks to you, that is happening.
re "have never heard the term tie used with tennis in the US."Austria bullish ahead of Davis Cup tie
ABC SportsAustria has been practising at the Sydney International Tennis Centre ahead of the Davis Cup tie against Australia, which starts on Friday.http://snipurl.com/dfqy
If the Brits didn't invent tennis, Of Troy, they certainly brought it out of its cloister. As I understand it, the Wimbledon is the longest running continuous annual tennis tournament in the world.
BTW I see that you have given a nod to the new standards of civility around here by whiting out your harshest criticisms. I suppose that is an improvement over past vituperations, but others might prefer you to send messages of this kind to me by PM.
As for my limerick, I ask you to judge it, Of Troy, for its content, not on the basis of its form or rhyme.
I received some kind comments from others about the limericks I posted yesterday in Q & A. Some others do not see mixing a little fun along with edification as a despoliation of Q & A.
Of course, you may not think my limericks are edifying, but, then, I did not choose the words I have been discussing in limerick form. Other people posted those words, including the term "Cup tie".
BTW I understand that there is a petition circulating about naming a moderator for AWADtalk. Have you put yourself forward for that job, Of Troy. Or perhaps you have already been acclaimed without volunteering. Or perhaps you are, like themilum, "self-annointed". At least themilum gives my limericks "Place Two" in a field of one. :)
Let's just have fun and learn some stuff from one another. OK, Of Troy. Your post above filled in a lot of cracks and I am most grateful for that. Thank you. Sincerely.
dixbie, re: your question, I have never heard the term cup tie.
Re: limericks--unless I am mistaken, they were designed as a means to have fun. I hope this doesn't sound too harsh--I have been in a bad mood since yesterday morning--but I would like to ask that limericks be confined to Wordplay and FUN, please.
I always respect your opinion, but I don't always agree with it.
Why censure limericks as a form of expression if they contain content which is relevant and even informative? We don't punish people for misspellings or awkward sentence construction in Q & A. Why would we ban limericks which do not contain offensive language?
Jackie, I think your suggestion of confining limericks to "Wordplay", not just mine but anyone's inoffensive verse, is arbitrary and unfair and even an infringement on free speech. [To be perfectly frank with you, Jackie, I think the proposed ban on harmless limericks, especially limericks intended to convey information which is responsive to a question or the subject of discussion, would be worse than an unwarranted intrusion on free speech. It would a ludicrous intrusion on free speech. I'm tempted to say "comical", but it isn't really funny.]
Where will this sort of censorship end, Jackie?
Should we also ban free verse from "Q & A"? Or even TEd Rem's delightful little stories which are as edifying as a butterskotch sundae with a cherry on top, but just as much fun as a butterskotch sundae. [I happen to like butterskotch sundaes, but maybe you like chocolate sundaes, but that's the point, isn't it? We don't all enjoy the same thing but we all enjoy humor, wherever we can find it. Hey, this isn't a lecture hall, or a Sunday School, Jackie. This is AWADtalk. :) ]
Of course, if you have been installed as the new official moderator with powers to censure people like me whose informative little rhymes offend your personal sensibilities or Of Troy's, then, of course, I must accept your decision. Reason and fairness are then reduced to irrelevance to satisfy the whims of a few at the cost of free speech.
Why would we punish limericks?
because yours suck, as the kids say, and add nothing; in fact, they subtract a lot... not to mention your loooong posts that effectively kill many otherwise-interesting threads
Because by definition, limericks are a light or humorous verse (Merriam-Webster). Not that humor should never be seen in this category, but one limerick after another after another quite frankly seems like something other than trying to edify the thread(s).
because yours suck
Well, now, perhaps, we're getting at the real reason why Jackie is seeking to ban my limericks in Q & A.
Because they "suck", as you put it, ASp.
Well, let us say they do "suck". But let us also say that the author of a limerick is making a sincere and well-intentioned attempt to answer a question or provide a little information while having a little harmless fun at the same time. And let's say a few people, like yourself and Of Troy, and perhaps, Jackie, do not admire the quality of the limerick. Perhaps its rhyme or meter is imperfect, although its content is impeccable. Is that a reason to ban the limerick, ASp?
If it is, then we should also ban misspellings in Q & A, and fractured english as well. Some people find that kind of expression off-putting, even more off-putting than an imperfect rhyme. [I hasten to add, I am not one of those people. Speaking for myself alone, I am only interested in the substance of a post, if it's sincere, not its form or style, just substance.]
Or maybe we should ban gratuitously rude and insulting and degrading and disruptive, inflammatory remarks in Q & A. That would really be something, wouldn't it?
If Jackie were to do that, ASp, Q & A would become a blissful sanctuary for me. And perhaps for others as well. :)
Does that sound like a deal, ASP?
Will the real moderator around here please step forward.
Dear ASp: I assume that one of you three, either Jackie or yourself or Of Troy, or perhaps all three of you together, has been officially installed by Anu as the new moderator around here with arbitrary powers to censor people like me who disquiet you, for whatever reason.
If any one of you have been formally and officially invested with such powers, please let me know and I will be your obedient servant and accept you arbitrary edict without further ado.
But, if none of you has been invested with these extraordinary powers, please do us all the kindness of sending me your thoughts in a PM and I will seriously consider your arguments if they are framed respectfully with actual reasons, not irrational bias, to support them.
perhaps, we're getting at the real reason why Jackie is seeking to ban my limericks in Q & A. Nope; quality has nothing to do with it; it's the fact of their being here.
AND, I wasn't trying to "ban" them: I was asking that they not be posted here.
I am reminded of a certain young boy I used to know who very rarely did the chores that he knew he was supposed to do--and subsequently would complain long and loudly about getting yelled at, as though it were a big surprise to him that he got in trouble.
So now I am wondering why, when grown people persist in doing something again and again that they know will be unwelcome, do they subsequently complain about being unpopular? And I am not talking about just one person.
Edit: just read the suggestion about taking this to PM. Excellent idea. dixbie, I apologise for my part in corrupting your thread.
Nope; quality has nothing to do with it; it's the fact of their being here.
Well, thank you, Jackie. I'm glad to know that your ban was based on some principle which you think justifies an abridgement of free speech.
May I know what that principle is, Jackie?
We can all agree that "hate" language should be banned in Q & A and everywhere, other than the "hate" language which ASp and Of Troy use against me whenever it suits them*.
But, on what principle do you justify a ban on harmless limericks in Q & A, specifically, limericks which provide relevant and useful information in response to a question or an invitation for discussion?
Saying such limericks do not belong here, Jackie, is not a reason -- unless you are now the official, fully authorized Board moderator around here.
If Anu has invested you with such powers, Jackie, then you don't need reasons.
So, please tell me -- as well as anyone else who doesn't know what your official powers are in the wake of the petition I've heard about -- do you have these official arbitrary powers, or not?
That is certainly a fair question, is it not?
* Surely, it has escaped no-one's notice, Jackie, that you never hesitate to raise your eyebrow at my peccadillos, if they are even that, whilst turning a blind eye, over and over and over again, to the bellicosities of ASp and Of Troy, bellicosities which throw this Board into senseless turmoil over and over and over again, just as they are doing once again now [with your disapproving eyebrow once again arched at me, not at them].
oh so its bellicose to react to unending torment?
and tormenting? that? that's harmless fun.or so you say.
even when i say, hey its no fun, (quitely) your responce is, people like them. oh yeah, sure. people love screaming brats in the mall too, (and say to themselves thank god i don't have to go home with that spoiled nasty child.)
but i guess someone loves them.
and yes, you're right, you have every right to behave like a boor (aliteration--a boring boor)
and i haven't signed the petition to increase jackies powers. because as much as i want you gone, i am leary.
what i would like is:
limericks for the most part (ie 99% of the time) confined to word play and fun. not gone, not banished, just in their place.
i would also like not to be adressed familiarly by you, (but i doubt that will be respected)
i would like not to have words or thoughts or beliefs attributed to me (by you especially)
is that bellacose?
i don't tell others what you think
i do tell you what i think
i don't persist in behaving in a way that annoys and alienates others.
i think you do.
others who thought the same, no longer post here. so i could be wrong, but others have clearly agreed with me, to the point of voting with their feet. and they have publicly posted that your posts, your behavior was the reason for their departure.
i think its very rude to annoy, insult and pester, and to drive posters away from this site, and then claim all the rude behavior is others faults!
bellacose is war like. i am not the aggressor. i am fighting, (and often fighting mad) but i am often reacting. and i have been called to task, and i have apologied. and edited posts. i don't act defient all the time.
i think you do.
Jackie is not making a rule, but echoing others complaints. the limericks are annoying.
they are a cute trick done well, and ugly when done poorly, and tiresome when done endlessly.
Jackie is not making a rule, but echoing others complaints
I haven't heard any "complaints", Of Troy. I have received some compliments on my limericks in Q&A [which happen to total 3, somewhat shy of "endless", even you will agree].
I have also heard some diatribes calculated to throw this Board into senseless turmoil once again. But I don't regard those malacious incitements as "complaints", Of Troy.
Why do I say your bellicosities are "calculated" to throw this Board into senseless turmoil? Because you and ASp do it every time, and it works every time, Of Troy.
Every time you and ASp, usually acting in tandem, attack me without provocation with insults and malicious innuendos, traffic to the Board plummets in the wake, even when I totally ignore your insults.
You want chapter and verse on this, Of Troy. You and ASp did it on the "skookum" thread. You did it with your gratuitous "throwing pearls to pigs" insult on my "pedology" thread, ASp did it on my daily comment on Anu's daily AWAD a few weeks ago, and then again on my "Signing-off with Courage" post last Thursday.
And you and ASp both invaded my "Golden Rule" post about "doing unto others" by greeting a vulgar joke about "golden showers" with rave reviews. [As I recall, you shared with us your witticism "Don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining".]
Do you really think anyone enjoys reading your hateful and incessant diatribes more than they enjoy reading my imperfect limericks, Of Troy?
Most of this discussion seems to be focussed on tennis, but the phrase "cup tie" is also widely used in English football, which most definitely did NOT originate in the monasteries of France.
Bless you, Vernon, for dragging us back on track.
> English football, which most definitely did NOT originate in the monasteries of France.
...even if Arsenil do seem to currently owe more to France than Blighty (mentioning no specific cup ties, of course) ;)
"...was I sleeping when it passed?"
Delightful. Glad I was awake to see it.
And dxb, I am one, I think, with faldage meaning, saw nor heard its passing.
And Faldage, I think I rather your smithy name as adjective.
>I haven't heard any "complaints", Of Troy.
that's just a tad disingenuous, sir. I for one specifically requested via PM that you confine your limericks to Wordplay. I believe I referred to the one in the sn*llyg*aster thread as particularly weak. (and not just because it followed immediately upon my request. I believe, contrary to your own personal views, that serious Qs about words are obfuscated by your efforts.)
that's just a tad disingenuous, sir.
I'm glad you said "just a tad", tsuwm.
Here is what you posted on your "snollygaster" thread after we had our very civilized exchange about this by PM.I nearly didn't add this post, because it didn't seem to add anything to the dialectic of the forum; but then I thought of the clever, rhyming salutation and, what with the icon, I was good to go! : )
To which I replied onscreen with this:
"Well, that's a jolly good show." [with a big
I thought that was the end of it, tsuwm, and that your concerns had been satisfactorily addressed in my PMs in reply.Note:
This post is quite lengthy and I have been criticized for making lengthy posts. In deference to that criticism, I invite you, tsuwm, and other readers to skip directly to the bottom of this post for my concluding statements. I have highlighted those statements in bold for your convenience.
Returning to my reply:
As you know, in the last PM I sent you regarding "snollygoster", I said:
1. I thought both of your words "snollygoster" and "snallygaster" are "excellent" words worth remembering.
2. My limerick is intended as a "mnemonic tool" to aid in remembering your words while having a little fun with them at the same time. I told you I would add a lead to each limerick I posted explaining the reason for the limerick, which I did
3. I acknowledged that my "snollygoster" limerick was imperfect, but I explained that I deliberately sacrificed perfection in the rhyme to get both words "snollygoster" and "snallygaster", along with the meaning of each, into 5 lines.
4. I said I was glad we are both agreed that mixing a little fun with learning is a good thing, not something to be discouraged.
I didn't hear further from you on this, tsuwm, apart from your complimentary post quoted above ["clever rhyming salutation ... I was good to go"], so I naturally assumed that whatever "complaint" you had about my limerick was satisfied.
Now you seem to have a different view of the matter. Your new position seems "a tad disingenuous, sir". :)
Tsuwm, I thought we were getting along just fine yesterday, and I was very happy about that. Frankly, I thought it was very presumptuous of you to say that you are "good to go" with my limerick as though you have some special status around here to decide what is acceptable and what is not under the rules as you personally interpret them.
I chose to ignore that presumption yesterday when you responded positively to my respectful and exhaustive explanations.
But now that you seem to have recanted, I must tell you very simply and directly that I do not agree with your new opinion, and, furthermore, while you have every right to express your opinion, and even to change it, your opinion on this subject has no more weight or value around here than mine does.
The fact is, tsuwm, I do not acknowledge that you have any more right to ban my limericks for arbitrary, unfair or capricious reasons than Jackie does, or Of Troy does, or ASp does. I have gone to great trouble to explain that the limericks I posted in Q&A are intended as mnemonic aids which are relevant to the word being discussed, and potentially useful and informative.
Once you guys get into the censorship business, or even think you have the right to censor other people's harmless and inoffensive posts
, it's a very slippery slope from there.
Next thing you know, someone will want to censor free verse in Q&A even if it is clever and responsive to the subject under discussion. Or they may want to censor TEd Rem's "butterskotch sundaes" [mentioned earlier] which everyone loves because they are just plain fun.If you really want to censor something in Q&A, tsuwm, why don't you and Jackie get together and ban hateful language, vulgarities and personal insults. If you and Jackie were to do that, your efforts to censor harmless, informative rhymes [good or bad rhymes or both] would look less bizarre.
> while you have every right to express your opinion, and even to change it, your opinion on this subject has no more weight or value around here than mine does.
Actually Pluto you could not be more wrong in this statement if you tried. tsuwm has earned both the deep affection and respect in which he is held by most participants on this board, through his generous sharing of his mind and good nature over many years. It is not simply some sort of capricious accident. I will not go further, in order to spare the blushes of a modest pensioner <eg>
You seem to show no understanding that you are radically out of tune with the substantive majority opinion on this board. This is most evident in these particular ways:
1. Lengthy posts tend to be seen as abnormal, and need to be particularly rich in content or perspective to appear as other than personal vanity
2. Repetitive posts tend to be irksome, and this is where the ‘one size response fits all’ nature of your limericks tends to grate, even disregarding the neutral fact that they are mostly not technically accomplished or witty
3. Legalistic arguments seem to bore most people to distraction; recognition is expected that some threads have a serious intent of enquiry whilst others are light-hearted.
4. The majority of participants here have a very high IQ and assume a quickness of wit and understanding; whilst they mostly actively welcome all new people joining discussions on whatever level appeals to them, there is an unspoken but real assumption that regular participants need to respect the intellectual level by not dragging all discussion to the most rudimentary ‘obviousized’ remarks or explanations. It is in this context that your complete failure to understand tsuwm’s bitterly heavy irony in his ‘good to go’ remark recalls the definition of sarchasm.
I am bothering to make these points explicit and public not out of any animosity, but in the probably vain hope that it may help you to understand how different some other perspectives are.
Now if you are considering a petition to limit repetitive strings of TEd’s punies… ;0
Well, I must say this is refreshing and welcome, Maverick: A carefully reasoned response which is intended to shed light not heap abuse.
It is late for me and I won't digest all you have said at this time. But I will consider all that you have said fully and carefully.
I can say this much now, Maverick. I am not aware of what "majority" you are talking about.
Are you talking about a "majority" of old-timers who know each other personally, and meet together socially annually, and chat online in their own private talkforum [which ASp has talked about]?
Or are you talking about a "majority" of all the members of AWADtalk, including those like myself who may never have met any of the members of AWADtalk personally?
Or are you talking about the "majority" which hasn't even arrived at AWADtalk yet? People who might look us over without actually joining in because the whole thing looks too much like an old-timer's Mutual Admiration Society?
Personally, I am hopeful that we will have a talk forum here which will be attractive to newcomers because the people who run the place [de facto or de jure] understand the importance of the rules of "natural justice".
What are the rules of "natural justice"?
1. That every person is entitled to a "fair hearing". What is a "fair hearing"? A fair hearing is one which is focused on facts and issues and which is not drowned out by personal insults of the sort which some influential old-timers specialize in around here.
2. The person or persons whose conduct or decisions are being questioned should not be entitled to sit in judgment on their own case. Why? Because such people have a conflict of interest.
It is not a secret that ASp and Of Troy and Jackie and tsuwm are all involved in decision-making around here, or at least they think they are, whether Anu actually gave them that power is another matter entirely.
That means, Maverick, that if there is a criticism of a decision which one of them makes, or all of them make together, they shouldn't be allowed to decide their own case. But they do. They always do. They don't even seem to know that there is anything wrong, fundamentally wrong, with this practice.
To the best of my knowledge and belief, no-one who has had a legitimate complaint about anything the favored few do or say around here has ever had anything resembling a "fair hearing". Certainly I have never had one.
Maverick, you want peace here. I want peace here. Everyone wants peace here. But we can never have any lasting peace on this Board, Maverick, nor can we ever expect to become attractive to newcomers to join us and remain, unless and until we achieve some basic understanding and appreciation and respect for the principles of "natural justice".
I didn't invent the principles of "natural justice", Maverick. They go all the way back to the Romans. They have been recognized in your country and mine and the United States for as long as we have had courts to administer justice in our countries.
But as basic as these principles are to the administration of justice in the real world, Maverick, they are totally unknown, or if known, totally ignored, on AWADtalk. And these principles have been totally absent for as long as I have been visiting and posting here, and that goes back over 3 years.
I wasn't around for the infamous "flame-war", and I have never met or exchanged a single communication with the fellow who was driven away from this Board [who co-founded another Board guided by actual principles]. But, knowing that fellow's reputation on the Board he co-founded, Wordcraft, I am almost 100% certain that there never would have been a "flame-war" if that fellow had been given a "fair hearing".
I've plenty of sympathy for your feelings about natural justice Plutarch, but most people are here for (degrees of) fun rather than legalistic arguments. I agree about the need for restraint of personal insults and it's no secret my views have been expressed clearly to my fellow interlocutors here, even if (like other mere 'umans) I am also sometimes guilty of getting carried away.
As far as 'what majority', it's beyond real debate. Like most boards, this only ever has a comparatively small number of active participants at any one time, and who is here makes it what it is. Around 40 regular contributors here also meet elsewhere, in other public and private forums. I don't pretend to speak in detail for the diverse range of individuals comprising this group, but it's equally easy to spot major divergent behaviour. The main thing is that new posters do indeed have to be actively welcomed, and we have a pretty fair record of doing just that.
You could imho fit in perfectly easily if you just relaxed a bit more - but hey, that's only my $0.02 and I've no special access to The Truth or The Rules. ~ Unlike the only person to have ever been ejected from this forum, whose insistence that he knew best about how we should all be governed makes your final statement categorically incorrect.
I won't drag this out with endless repetition or debate, because it's hijacked someone else's thread and is probably really tedious to many people. Believe me when I say that I wish you to find some peace and pleasure in any online activity you indulge in.
thanks for trying mav, but it is clear, plutarch thinks he is a court of law, (or perhaps that he is dickens and going to earn a penny per word) and he explains all the facts, as he sees them, adn wants his view of things to prevail, he wants to win the case about a word. he is not interested in the truth --since the english common law system that most of are familiar with is not a search for truth, but for facts. so he does seak truth, or beauty, and he fails to see the merit in our searches.
that is how it seems to me.
i think he is not interested in truth or beauty. he seems interested in distracting and muddying the waters, (as a LAWYER always is)in pretending things are simple and any idiot can see--if they just limit themselves to seeing thing his way, there is only one explaination (HIS) and one judgement to make (IN HIS FAVOR) and he WINS the case.
but we are not jurors to be weedled and cojolled and played with. and we are not bored, or scared or eager to be done with the process.. i don't see our discussions as something that leads to a verdict, I don't want to look only at the facts, i don't want to treat others here as advisaries, and for me, his tactics backfire.
he seems to wants use to quickly come to a verdict on a word. we want to philisophical discuss them, and to see the beauty, to hold and savor the word.. to enjoy them. Not to render verdicts in his favor, to he can win the case.
i suspect i would have done much better in my divorce settlement with a lawyer like plutarch on my side. but even when it was in my best interest to engage a lawyer like him, i couldn't.
Now, will all of the antagonists, protagonists, and just plain agonists, go to a neutral corner and just stay the f*** there?
There are way to many overly inflated egos and bruised ids and whatever else you want to call it. I think I speak for the real majority when I say ENOUGH!!!
If you can't have fun, have an absence.
I feel, at last, that I have had my say.
In any case, I haven't anything more to say.
So there's no reason for me to stay. :)
We 3 take our leave of you. :)
"I feel, at last, that I have had my say."
Well, I haven't.
>...even if Arsenil do seem to currently owe more to France than Blighty (mentioning no specific cup ties, of course) ;)
I have it on good authority that Max concurs. There is a NZer playing in the next cup tie involving that pathetic bunch of losers and has-beens playing out of Highbury. Blackburn Rovers has a NZer in their starting XI.
This is in response to Plutarch's post about "what majority?"
I've been a member for a while, but still a newbie or something because I don't post often. Regardless, I am TIRED of this stuff.
I have never met any of the AWADers in person. I have no knowledge of any "private" or alternate chat room or board that any AWADers might use.
I am without great esteem or respect here because I haven't yet earned any, although I don't feel DIS-respected or UN-esteemed. I expect that my low-profile has kept me from being highly regarded, and on the other hand, not badly regarded. That's OK with me - I participate as and when I can.
But I do get very tired of the long, legalistic posts. I get extremely tired of the fighting and contention. I've said it before: I have enough in my life to make me tired and sad. Don't we all, if we take in the news and live our lives in the world? Why would I come here just to get more of the same stuff I can see ANYWHERE ELSE!>?????!!
So sue me.
Nah. How about a big hug instead of a lawsuit?
Anyway, have you met Of Troy? She's our resident expert on knitting and all things having to do with cordage, weaving, etc. Neat lady.
I don't know if anyone has welcomed you before, but, for myself, WELCOME!!!
[bold]‘cup tie’, meaning a competition with a cup as the reward for the winner[/bold]
dxb, I don't quote agree with this meaning, I'm afraid.
I think a 'tie' in the context you mean is one contest between two teams, rather than the whole competition, which is made up of a collection of ties. So one match in one round with two teams playing. This suits both FA Cup usage and the Davis Cup usage others have mentioned.
I think the other thing about 'tie' in this context is that a tie tends to be a standalone 'event' with its own date and attendance etc. So one match in a Wimbledon tournament doesn't, to me, feel like a tie as it is not separate enough. (At least until we get to quarter-finals etc, and they have their own words already!!) Also it doesn't involve 'teams' as such - although I concede doubles could be considered teams, at a stretch.
I think it is totally different from a 'meet' or 'competition' as I think by definition these have more than two teams involved and a 'tie' has two and only two.
As for whence it comes, sorry, cannot help!
> one contest between two teams, rather than the whole competition
I agree with your remarks, oh bountiful one ;)
To have a stab at your underlying question, dixbie, I’d say the sense comes from the equalising effect of the ‘drawn-by-lots’ mechanism – tied together, to be split apart by the sudden death playoff. This sense evidently goes back to at least the 17th century:tie (n.)
"that with which anything is tied," O.E. teag, from P.Gmc. *taugo (cf. O.N. taug "tie," tygill "string"), from PIE *deuk- "to pull, to lead" (cf. O.E. teon "to draw, pull, drag;" see duke). Fig. sense is recorded from 1555. Meaning "equality between competitors" is first found 1680, from notion of a connecting link (tie-breaker is recorded from 1961). Sense of "necktie, cravat" first recorded 1761. The railway sense of "transverse sleeper" is from 1857, Amer.Eng. The verb is from O.E. tigan, tiegan. In the noun sense of "connection," tie-in dates from 1934. Tie-dye first attested 1904. Tie one on "get drunk" is recorded from 1951. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=tie&searchmode=term