I am starting a new thread with xara's last post since we are now up to some ungodly number of posts and some systems take an eternity to scroll up or down

xars says on Oct 26th
Re: What are we?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What about wordsters? It reminds me of roadsters. Gives the impression of driving down the linguistic highway at about 45pph (posts per hour) with the top down.


NOW, WHAT WE HAVE TO DATE….
We have Awadees, Awadtalkers, awadwhingers, logolept, logologist, logomach, logolators, linguaphiles, awadettes, awadwhiners Awaders, awaddlers, awadeers, Awaddy, wordies, logoscente or logoisseur Boarders, awadian, Awaddywaddy (even if Shanks did just make it up ), Waders babellers, wordmasters, babblers, and finally wordsters.

We could just stick with subscribers.

Call us anything you like, except unanimous!

Don't forget Astacks - another original contirbution by yours truly.

But Marty above seems to have the answer, saying "Call us Anything-you-like-except-unanimous" I think it has a nice ring to it. A cool acronym too: ayleu.

A cool acronym too: ayleu.

I agree, and if one makes an appellation out of it, for example ayleurs, it has a nice ring to it. Of course, were such a creation as "ayleur" to be accepted, that would smack of the paradoxical, would it not?

that would smack of the paradoxical, would it not?

Not sure.

It might smack of the piscine.

Or is that smacked with a fish?

Where's Shona when you need a velocipedist?

Marty

As you can see, both Max and I have accepted your convention: we are happy to be Ayleurs. Quick, start a signature campaign...

Maybe I'll follow Shona's lead and post furiously, perhaps a hundred in a week, and call every post Ayleur, including the word dozens of times in each post to make sure it quickly gains currency. Naturally every one of these putative piscine posts would include credit for Marty as author.

I don't like it. Too French-sounding

There you go Anna. We've just come up with a solution, and that same old aylment takes over the ayleurs - the need to be contrarian. Just accept the ruddy thing why don't we and move on! <---- only because I can't remember the code for "sticking my tongue out at you too, and waggling my fingers from my ears at the same time".

cheer

the sunshine warrior

Ayleur--I don't like it, either, though I love French.

Hasn't any obvious relevance, and sounds too reminiscent of
voyeur for my taste.

Just read Jo's post of the original letter announcing the
opening of AWADtalk. Anna, you were right: in that, we are called linguaphiles. Maybe we should stick to that, like shanks stuck to this Board. (How much was that Velcro
suit, anyway??)

though I love French

Niece, I must drag you swiftly from the gutter, lest your suit gets more than velcro stuck to it!

Too french... ah, mon semblable, mon frere...

I think it's obvious that we have developed a condition of logorrhea and verbal obstipation on this subject -- it has even reached the point of near logomachy. Part of the problem is that our diverse group, albeit brought together in a common AWADcause, has different verbiases. Some of us are verbivores (voracious consumers of words), some are logo/linguaphiles, others are logomaniacs, and still others are into outright epeolatry (worship of words) -- you know who you are! Having said all that, I believe everyone of us comes to this topic feeling that he (or she) is a logoisseur and thus one who enjoys with discrimination and appreciation the subtleties of words -- therein lies the rubric.

-Ron Obvious/Joe Friday

Apart from the botanical reference in the title of this post, it sums up what I like about Ayleur. The thing that gives ayleur its deliciosity (if shanks and Blackadder can do it, so can I) is its paradoxical nature. If we all accepted ayleur, it would, by definition, be untrue. By generating such dissent, it is validated. Anyone for a game of Catch?

but, the thing that gives ayleurs its insipidocity (and I love acronyms) is that it is too long to remember *what it stands for AND doesn't *sound much like what it stands for -- these quibbles relate to what makes a viable acronym -- they don't call them TLAs for nothin'. [YART is a borderline case, isn't it ?-:]

It might smack of the piscine

Hi guys,
It certainly does. It's brill.

We need an 'appelation' like I need a drink, err, a hike, and I love the built-in paradox.
Max, I offishally endorse your taking the piscatory approach to ensure the new word's currency.

I'm still going to use 'wordster' as well, though, slippery fish that I am...

"Ayleur, you've got me on my knees
Ayleur, I'm begging of you please,
Ayleur..."

Eric the (half a) Fish

I think it's obvious that we have developed a condition of logorrhea and verbal obstipation on this subject -- it has even reached the point of near logomachy. Part of the problem is that our diverse group, albeit brought together in a common AWADcause, has different verbiases. Some of us are verbivores (voracious consumers of words), some are logo/linguaphiles, others are logomaniacs, and still others are into outright epeolatry (worship of words) -- you know who you are! Having said all that, I believe everyone of us comes to this topic feeling that he (or she) is a logoisseur and thus one who enjoys with discrimination and appreciation the subtleties of words -- therein lies the rubric.

WHAT??
----------------------------------------------------------

Apart from the botanical reference in the title of this post, it sums up what I like about Ayleur. The thing that gives ayleur its deliciosity (if shanks and Blackadder can do it, so can I) is its paradoxical nature. If we all accepted ayleur, it would, by definition, be untrue. By generating such dissent, it is validated. Anyone for a game of Catch?

WHAT???

Good grief, you guys are getting as bad as Shakespeare!
Couldn't understand a word...mumbling into beard...

Niece, I must drag you swiftly from the gutter, lest your suit gets more than velcro stuck to it!

(Niece, meekly acquiescing: Thank you, Auntie.)

Come on, Jackie surely you didn't miss the infernal botanical reference in "Heller's Alyeurs"? If you're really having trouble, just remember that NZ English, like British English, is very non-rhotic.

surely you didn't miss the infernal botanical reference in "Heller's Alyeurs"? If you're really having trouble, just remember that NZ English, like British English, is very non-rhotic.

But...but...what do azaleas have to do with being in Hell?
And what's rhotic? William, Tell me or I'll Overture you.
(W. Shakespeare, that is.)

The "Hell Azaleas" only occurred to me as an afterthought, but it only works if you say it without pronouncing the "r" in Heller. "rhotic: adj. r -pronouncing, i.e. denoting a dialect or accent, in whichr is pronounced when it occurs before a consonant or before a pause."

game of Catch

I suppose it's an eleven-a-side match?

But--what on earth are Hell Azaleas??
I be as mystified as ever, 'cept fer rhotic (thank you).

Are they a flowery version of Hell's Angels?

Some of us are aunts and uncles, it would appear. Just wondering: "avuncular" is to uncle as "???" is to aunt?

n.b: Ænigma renders "avuncular" as "awad". Go figger.

I be as mystified as ever..
Hi Jackie,
Do you believe there is only knowledge or ignorance?

In reply to:

---

"Heller's Alyeurs"? If you're really having trouble, just remember that NZ English, like British English, is very non-rhotic.

---

Despite being non-rhotic, it took me a while. It sounds more like "Hello, Sailors"



Bingley

Bingley!!! Despite my remarks in the virtual world to the contrary, I would never greet an unknown man with.
"Hello, sailor"!!!!!!! Eep!

Now, as to: Do you believe there is only knowledge or ignorance?
Well now, what on earth prompted that question, I wonder?
Howsomever--in a sense, yes, we either know something or we don't. But, other senses must be mentioned, and I know I'm not going to list them all. We can know part(s) of things
only, and not the whole. If we make a correct guess, we could say we "knew" that. I still remember being astonished durng a game of Trivial Pursuit, that my mind dredged up the correct answer, "Skylab", when that had not been part of my conscious thoughts for years. So, even though I had "forgotten" it, did I actually "know" it?
And what about precognition, ESP (Extra-Sensory Perception), and just having "feelings" about things or people? This summer, I delayed leaving for the doctor's office for a while because I had a "feeling" we'd be in an
accident if I left when I'd intended, and on the way there
we passed two accidents, and on the way back we passed two
more. Did I "know" not to leave yet? I have no idea.
I be lievin' now.

either know something or we don't

Now where's that thread on knowing versus believing?

This is exactly what I was alluding to, wanting to test old hands' "cross-thread span of attention" ..
http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=words&Number=7278&page=&view=&sb=&vc=1#Post7278

Despite my remarks in the virtual world to the contrary, I would never greet an unknown man with.
"Hello, sailor"!!!!!!!

Well, Jackie, I should hope not! In the world that I used to inhabit, it was invariably a man who would use such a greeting. Which makes one wonder about Bingley, perhaps

the world that I used to inhabit

Now that's got to be worth another fred!

In the world that I used to inhabit, it was invariably a man who would use such a greeting. Which makes one wonder about Bingley, perhaps

Bingley can greet whomever he wants to, however he wants to.
But--I agree with the mav--just what world was this that you used to inhabit, anyway? Mars? Venus? Swan Lake?

I had a "feeling" we'd be in an accident if I left when..

I definitely believe in a special minority of coincedences being meaningful, and in the same way, some hunches/feelings are of special relevance. But if you had a feeling that turned out to be very meaningful and accurate, that you could express that clearly and verbally, it's totally outstanding.

And I wonder if you'd mind having a look at the following races and let me know who you think will win....

, it's totally outstanding.

Thank you. I'm very glad I didn't find out the hard way
that my hunch was right.

I am far too prone to seasickness to wish to address anyone as "sailor".

Bingley

This old discussion seems worthy of bringing up again. When I first was informed about the ayleurs being what AWADers called themselves (except those who balked at the term), I wondered what it meant.

I thought, "It must have something to do with wings--flights of fancy here--soaring with words..." And then someone else told me what it really meant.

Tonight I came across the old thread, read the discussion, and then tried to track down what it was in my memory that caused me to think of flight. Here's what I found in a OneLook reference:

aileron
noun [C]
SPECIALIZED
a movable part along the back edge of an aircraft's wing, used esp. to help the aircraft turn or to keep it level

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=aileron*1+0

...and:

1. aileron -- (an airfoil that controls lateral motion)

wing -- (one of the horizontal airfoils on either side of the fuselage of an airplane)

http://poets.notredame.ac.jp/cgi-bin/wn?cmd=wn&word=aileron

And then MW, which shows the etymology from the Fr. for "wing" (and that's what had been embedded in my memory by suggestion...):

Main Entry: ai·le·ron
Pronunciation: 'A-l&-"rän
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from diminutive of aile wing -- more at AISLE
Date: 1909
: a movable airfoil at the trailing edge of an airplane wing that is used for imparting a rolling motion especially in banking for turns -- see AIRPLANE illustration

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=aileron

So, all things considered and old arguments read, I still like my initial reaction to the word that it made me think of flight.

The reading's fun on this old thread, so I hope new people, like myself, will enjoy reading what the Aged Ones wrote.

Best regards,
WordWing