Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #577268 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-26 12:18 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-28 20:10 +1100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 164 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english
White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:18 -0800
Re: White Privilege Horace LaBadie <hlabadie@nospam.com> - 2015-12-26 15:46 -0500
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-26 17:58 -0330
Re: White Privilege Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:12 -0800
Re: White Privilege Helen Lacedaemonian <helenofsunnyvale@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 23:50 -0800
Re: White Privilege Helen Lacedaemonian <helenofsunnyvale@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 23:48 -0800
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-27 06:58 -0330
Re: White Privilege "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> - 2015-12-27 08:46 -0500
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 08:32 -0800
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 08:49 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 10:40 -0800
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 10:57 -0800
Re: White Privilege Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2015-12-27 20:20 -0500
Re: White Privilege spuorgelgoog@gowanhill.com - 2015-12-27 12:16 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 13:19 -0800
Re: White Privilege charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-27 21:49 +0000
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 14:06 -0800
Re: White Privilege James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2015-12-27 23:15 +0100
Re: White Privilege charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-27 22:20 +0000
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 20:34 -0800
Re: White Privilege Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-28 12:27 +0000
Re: White Privilege richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-28 19:29 +0000
Re: White Privilege "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-28 22:15 +0000
Re: White Privilege charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-27 22:26 +0000
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 20:06 -0500
Re: White Privilege wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2015-12-28 01:34 +0000
Re: White Privilege John Dawkins <artfldodgr@aol.com> - 2015-12-28 10:26 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 20:40 -0800
Re: White Privilege Horace LaBadie <hlabadie@nospam.com> - 2015-12-28 01:54 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 04:18 -0800
Re: White Privilege Horace LaBadie <hlabadie@nospam.com> - 2015-12-28 09:05 -0500
Re: White Privilege Horace LaBadie <hlabadie@nospam.com> - 2015-12-28 11:59 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 11:39 -0800
Re: White Privilege Horace LaBadie <hlabadie@nospam.com> - 2015-12-28 15:42 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 13:23 -0800
Re: White Privilege charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-28 09:27 +0000
Re: White Privilege Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-28 12:30 +0000
Re: White Privilege "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> - 2015-12-28 11:44 -0500
Re: White Privilege James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2015-12-27 23:15 +0100
Re: White Privilege charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-27 22:22 +0000
Re: White Privilege "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-28 13:57 +0000
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 09:23 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> - 2015-12-28 11:37 -0500
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 15:12 -0800
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 15:38 +1100
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 22:53 -0700
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 06:41 -0800
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 09:52 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 08:38 -0800
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 13:26 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-28 22:19 +0000
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 17:47 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 19:58 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-27 22:26 +0000
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-28 20:23 +1100
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-28 08:45 -0330
Re: White Privilege HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> - 2015-12-28 14:31 +0000
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-28 11:53 -0330
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 10:18 -0800
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-28 15:52 -0330
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2015-12-28 14:54 -0500
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 14:14 -0800
Re: White Privilege Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-31 01:24 -0800
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 09:38 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 11:16 -0800
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 12:31 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 06:03 -0800
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-04 09:12 -0500
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 07:26 -0800
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2015-12-28 15:09 -0500
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-28 16:55 -0330
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-04 12:56 -0500
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-04 14:07 -0700
Re: White Privilege Mike Barnes <mikebarnes333@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 22:07 +0000
Re: White Privilege wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2016-01-04 21:57 +0000
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0500
Re: White Privilege wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2016-01-05 01:24 +0000
Re: White Privilege Rich Ulrich <rich.ulrich@comcast.net> - 2016-01-04 21:14 -0500
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 15:59 -0700
Re: White Privilege msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-28 18:20 -0600
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 19:45 -0500
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 17:53 -0700
Re: White Privilege msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-28 22:53 -0600
Re: White Privilege Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2015-12-28 21:08 -0800
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 22:54 -0700
Re: White Privilege msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-29 06:23 -0600
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-30 11:51 +1100
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-29 18:58 -0700
Re: White Privilege msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-29 22:19 -0600
Re: White Privilege bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-12-29 21:04 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 07:01 -0800
Re: White Privilege Horace LaBadie <hlabadie@nospam.com> - 2015-12-30 11:47 -0500
Re: White Privilege Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-31 01:30 -0800
Re: White Privilege Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-12-31 01:37 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 20:02 -0800
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 22:55 -0700
Re: White Privilege Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-29 11:08 +0100
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 15:57 +1100
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 08:44 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 18:09 -0800
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 20:50 -0700
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-28 20:44 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 06:49 -0800
Re: White Privilege rcpj@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) - 2015-12-29 17:18 +0000
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 15:48 +1100
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 22:57 -0700
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-29 08:42 -0330
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-04 12:56 -0500
Re: White Privilege Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> - 2016-01-04 18:38 +0000
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 12:03 -0800
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0500
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 18:03 -0500
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 16:11 -0800
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-04 17:36 -0500
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-04 19:14 -0330
Re: White Privilege richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2016-01-04 22:52 +0000
Re: White Privilege wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) - 2016-01-05 01:34 +0000
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-04 19:55 -0700
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-05 06:24 -0330
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-05 13:32 -0500
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-05 15:20 +1100
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2016-01-04 19:02 -0330
Re: White Privilege Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> - 2016-01-05 13:32 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 18:49 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-05 12:02 +0000
Re: White Privilege msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-29 06:24 -0600
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-29 06:01 -0700
Re: White Privilege msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-29 22:15 -0600
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 08:30 -0800
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 12:28 -0500
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-29 14:11 -0330
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 10:29 -0800
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-29 16:16 -0330
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-29 16:20 -0330
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-29 14:05 -0700
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-29 17:58 -0330
Re: White Privilege Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 23:25 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 17:58 -0800
Re: White Privilege Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-30 10:27 +0100
Re: White Privilege Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2015-12-30 01:57 -0800
Re: White Privilege Jack Campin <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> - 2015-12-30 10:04 +0000
Re: White Privilege HVS <usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> - 2015-12-30 12:01 +0000
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-30 11:57 +1100
Re: White Privilege Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> - 2015-12-30 01:24 +0000
Re: White Privilege Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 23:32 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 04:20 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Don Phillipson" <e925@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> - 2015-12-27 14:08 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 13:23 -0800
Re: White Privilege Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 16:49 -0500
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 14:07 -0800
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-27 19:08 -0700
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 19:14 -0800
Re: White Privilege Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 19:19 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Dr. HotSalt" <alien8752@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 11:25 -0800
Re: White Privilege "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 13:27 -0800
Re: White Privilege Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 23:37 -0800
Re: White Privilege RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-06 03:15 -0700
Re: White Privilege Helen Lacedaemonian <helenofsunnyvale@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 21:16 -0800
Re: White Privilege bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-06 22:51 -0800
Re: White Privilege Helen Lacedaemonian <helenofsunnyvale@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:19 -0800
Re: White Privilege Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-27 17:26 -0330
Re: White Privilege David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 10:36 -0800
Re: White Privilege Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-28 10:12 +0100
Re: White Privilege Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-28 20:10 +1100
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n5svuj0111@news4.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #577785 |
On 12/28/2015 7:09 PM, Dr. HotSalt wrote: > > I was named Mark because there are no common nicknames for it.* My grandfather came from a large family who considered that a requirement: Forrest, Walter, Ralph, Scott, Lacy...and yet only Forrest used the name on his birth certificate...my grandfather used "Jim"; two of the others couldn't have nickified "Elbert" or "Scott"....r
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 20:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0777bade-6c14-43f7-b630-8862de6d4f4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577785 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:09:59 PM UTC-5, Dr. HotSalt wrote: > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:32:06 AM UTC-5, HVS wrote: > > > On 28 Dec 2015, Cheryl wrote > > > > > > It used to be considered proper years ago to give children > > > > formal, serious names, often after older relatives names along the > > > > same principles, and even if the children were actually called by > > > > some odd nickname. After all, they might prefer a formal > > > > traditional name, or be taken more seriously with one, as adults. > > Biblical names were once popular with America's middle class for that reason. > > > > There's certainly been a huge change in the conventions surrounding > > > names/nicknames since IWAL. There are undoubtedly exceptions, but > > > I'd be fairly surprised to find somebody my age (early 60s) to have > > > been christened with a nickname -- Jack/Harry/Zac/Beth/Penny/Maggie > > > or such-like. > > My father's first name, on his birth certificate, was "Bob". He was born in Kentucky in 1896. I think that was fairly unusual at the time, and probably still is. > > > My parents mentioned one time that if I'd been a girl, they would > > > probably have christened me "Penelope" in order to call me "Penny". > > > I don't think the idea of christening the child "Penny" would ever > > > have occurred to them. > > My older sister was named "Ann". Not "Annabelle", not anything-"ann". ... "Ann" isn't a nickname. "Nan" was a nickname for "Ann(e)", though. -- Jerry Friedman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 06:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f18cb930-e3a5-4afb-b350-792ac76be9bf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577817 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 11:44:49 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote: > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:09:59 PM UTC-5, Dr. HotSalt wrote: > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:32:06 AM UTC-5, HVS wrote: > > > > On 28 Dec 2015, Cheryl wrote > > > > > > > > It used to be considered proper years ago to give children > > > > > formal, serious names, often after older relatives names along the > > > > > same principles, and even if the children were actually called by > > > > > some odd nickname. After all, they might prefer a formal > > > > > traditional name, or be taken more seriously with one, as adults. > > > > Biblical names were once popular with America's middle class for that reason. > > > > > > There's certainly been a huge change in the conventions surrounding > > > > names/nicknames since IWAL. There are undoubtedly exceptions, but > > > > I'd be fairly surprised to find somebody my age (early 60s) to have > > > > been christened with a nickname -- Jack/Harry/Zac/Beth/Penny/Maggie > > > > or such-like. > > > > My father's first name, on his birth certificate, was "Bob". He was born in Kentucky in 1896. > > I think that was fairly unusual at the time, and probably still is. Chicago linguistics professor Bill Darden always signs his work Bill J. Darden and has to correct editors who try to change it to William J. His Totally Official name, as registered on his Appalachian birth certificate, is Billy-Joe.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rcpj@panix.com (Pierre Jelenc) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 17:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n5uf91$hii$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #577895 |
In article <f18cb930-e3a5-4afb-b350-792ac76be9bf@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 11:44:49 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:09:59 PM UTC-5, Dr. HotSalt wrote:
>> > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> > > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 9:32:06 AM UTC-5, HVS wrote:
>> > > > On 28 Dec 2015, Cheryl wrote
>> > >
>> > > > > It used to be considered proper years ago to give children
>> > > > > formal, serious names, often after older relatives names along the
>> > > > > same principles, and even if the children were actually called by
>> > > > > some odd nickname. After all, they might prefer a formal
>> > > > > traditional name, or be taken more seriously with one, as adults.
>> >
>> > Biblical names were once popular with America's middle class for
>that reason.
>> >
>> > > > There's certainly been a huge change in the conventions surrounding
>> > > > names/nicknames since IWAL. There are undoubtedly exceptions, but
>> > > > I'd be fairly surprised to find somebody my age (early 60s) to have
>> > > > been christened with a nickname -- Jack/Harry/Zac/Beth/Penny/Maggie
>> > > > or such-like.
>> >
>> > My father's first name, on his birth certificate, was "Bob". He
>was born in Kentucky in 1896.
>>
>> I think that was fairly unusual at the time, and probably still is.
>
>Chicago linguistics professor Bill Darden always signs his work Bill J. Darden
>and has to correct editors who try to change it to William J. His Totally
>Official name, as registered on his Appalachian birth certificate, is Billy-Joe.
Frank Zappa's full name was Frank Vincent Zappa, not "Francis" as he
believed for many years until he had to obtain a birth certificate.
Pierre
--
Pierre Jelenc
The Gigometer www.gigometer.com
The NYC Beer Guide www.nycbeer.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 15:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n5t36v$rpd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #577659 |
On 2015-Dec-29 01:31, HVS wrote: > My parents mentioned one time that if I'd been a girl, they would probably > have christened me "Penelope" in order to call me "Penny". I don't think the > idea of christening the child "Penny" would ever have occurred to them. My parents were strongly against shortening names, and I suppose I've inherited that. One of my brothers is called Mick by his friends, including his wife, but he's always Michael in the family. When my twins were born I got into a conversation with someone in the hospital grounds, and he asked me the children's names. When I told him the boy was called Jonathan, he said "Jon: that's a good name. You can't shorten that." -- Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW, Australia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 22:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n5t7gg4foa@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #577818 |
On 12/28/2015 9:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote: > On 2015-Dec-29 01:31, HVS wrote: > >> My parents mentioned one time that if I'd been a girl, they would probably >> have christened me "Penelope" in order to call me "Penny". I don't think the >> idea of christening the child "Penny" would ever have occurred to them. > > My parents were strongly against shortening names, and I suppose I've > inherited that. One of my brothers is called Mick by his friends, > including his wife, but he's always Michael in the family. My brother's name, as found on his Totally Official State of California Birth Certificate, is "Micael" (the nurse who filled out the form didn't know how to spell, and when he was about sixteen we discovered that it was more trouble than it was worth to get an official amendment).... He's always been "Mike".... My mother always said that if he'd been born a girl he would have been named "Linda"...instead, when he was old enough, he went off and *married* a Linda.... Twice....r
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 08:42 -0330 |
| Message-ID | <defblaFt7stU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #577830 |
On 2015-12-29 2:27 AM, RH Draney wrote: > On 12/28/2015 9:48 PM, Peter Moylan wrote: >> On 2015-Dec-29 01:31, HVS wrote: >> >>> My parents mentioned one time that if I'd been a girl, they would >>> probably >>> have christened me "Penelope" in order to call me "Penny". I don't >>> think the >>> idea of christening the child "Penny" would ever have occurred to them. >> >> My parents were strongly against shortening names, and I suppose I've >> inherited that. One of my brothers is called Mick by his friends, >> including his wife, but he's always Michael in the family. > > My brother's name, as found on his Totally Official State of California > Birth Certificate, is "Micael" (the nurse who filled out the form didn't > know how to spell, and when he was about sixteen we discovered that it > was more trouble than it was worth to get an official amendment).... > > He's always been "Mike".... > > My mother always said that if he'd been born a girl he would have been > named "Linda"...instead, when he was old enough, he went off and > *married* a Linda.... > > Twice....r > One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult today. -- Cheryl --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 12:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mxgnr52rxqum.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> |
| In reply to | #577866 |
* Cheryl: > One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her > mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital > Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and > whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary > Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was > surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades > earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult > today. Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a historical model like a saint. My grandmother's name was Martha Margarete, but she only used the second one. Only a few close relatives called her "Gretel". -- Performance: A statement of the speed at which a computer system works. Or rather, might work under certain circumstances. Or was rumored to be working over in Jersey about a month ago.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Will Parsons <varro@nodomain.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 18:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnn8lf0d.26g.varro@anukis.local> |
| In reply to | #579131 |
On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: > * Cheryl: > >> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her >> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital >> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and >> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary >> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was >> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades >> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult >> today. > > Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about > the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in > the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they > always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. > > Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a > historical model like a saint. Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better filled out with another name. -- Will
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 12:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce1f1c11-85eb-4820-a181-000fdafe8787@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579140 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:38:08 AM UTC-8, Will Parsons wrote: > On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: > > * Cheryl: > > > >> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her > >> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital > >> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and > >> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary > >> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was > >> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades > >> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult > >> today. > > > > Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about > > the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in > > the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they > > always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. > > > > Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a > > historical model like a saint. > > Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary > Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has > become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better > filled out with another name. My sister was named Julia Mary. She dropped the Mary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <158fm2hhaxazy.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> |
| In reply to | #579171 |
* David Kleinecke: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:38:08 AM UTC-8, Will Parsons wrote: >> On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: >>> * Cheryl: >>> >>>> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her >>>> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital >>>> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and >>>> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary >>>> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was >>>> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades >>>> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult >>>> today. >>> >>> Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about >>> the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in >>> the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they >>> always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. >>> >>> Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a >>> historical model like a saint. >> >> Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary >> Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has >> become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better >> filled out with another name. > > My sister was named Julia Mary. She dropped the Mary. Catholics often add "Mary" to the names of their children, even male ones, without the intent of using it in everyday life. -- The Internet? Is that thing still around? - Homer Simpson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 18:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oeul8btvuvgbpo1catlc1cdd6ra9a3q45a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #579217 |
On Mon, 4 Jan 2016 17:36:56 -0500, Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote: >* David Kleinecke: > >> On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:38:08 AM UTC-8, Will Parsons wrote: >>> On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: >>>> * Cheryl: >>>> >>>>> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her >>>>> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital >>>>> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and >>>>> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary >>>>> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was >>>>> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades >>>>> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult >>>>> today. >>>> >>>> Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about >>>> the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in >>>> the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they >>>> always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. >>>> >>>> Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a >>>> historical model like a saint. >>> >>> Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary >>> Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has >>> become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better >>> filled out with another name. >> >> My sister was named Julia Mary. She dropped the Mary. > >Catholics often add "Mary" to the names of their children, even >male ones, without the intent of using it in everyday life. My wife is a "Kathleen Marie", but the "Marie" was only used by her mother, and then only when it was something like "Kathleen Marie! Get your homework done now!". Other than that, it remained unused except on official documents. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 16:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7aa314ed-c734-4a7e-9631-11796038fdd9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579217 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:36:59 PM UTC-8, Oliver Cromm wrote: > * David Kleinecke: > > > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 10:38:08 AM UTC-8, Will Parsons wrote: > >> On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: > >>> * Cheryl: > >>> > >>>> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her > >>>> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital > >>>> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and > >>>> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary > >>>> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was > >>>> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades > >>>> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult > >>>> today. > >>> > >>> Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about > >>> the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in > >>> the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they > >>> always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. > >>> > >>> Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a > >>> historical model like a saint. > >> > >> Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary > >> Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has > >> become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better > >> filled out with another name. > > > > My sister was named Julia Mary. She dropped the Mary. > > Catholics often add "Mary" to the names of their children, even > male ones, without the intent of using it in everyday life. No Catholics were involved. The last Catholics in my family seem to have left the church around the time of the Civil War.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1wkzxwaf85xnq$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> |
| In reply to | #579140 |
* Will Parsons: > On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: >> * Cheryl: >> >>> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her >>> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital >>> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and >>> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary >>> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was >>> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades >>> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult >>> today. >> >> Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about >> the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in >> the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they >> always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. >> >> Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a >> historical model like a saint. > > Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary > Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has > become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better > filled out with another name. "Mary Ann" combines two short names that may work better in combination. It might even be seen as a variant of Marian/Marianne. Likewise "Mary Jane", but "Mary Margaret" seems pretty long as a standard appellation. I haven't encountered the even worse "Mary Elizabeth" - I know one Liz and one Beth. -- If the aeroplane industry had advanced at the same rate as the computer industry, today's planes could circumnavigate the world in ten seconds, be two inches long, and crash twice a day. Peter Moylan in alt.usage.english
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:14 -0330 |
| Message-ID | <df0au6F8vpqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579218 |
On 2016-01-04 7:06 PM, Oliver Cromm wrote: > * Will Parsons: > >> On Monday, 4 Jan 2016 12:56 PM -0500, Oliver Cromm wrote: >>> * Cheryl: >>> >>>> One of my aunts, always called Maise, was baptized Mary Marguerite (her >>>> mother had a good friend named Marguerite). At the time, Vital >>>> Statistics people recorded births by transcribing baptismal records, and >>>> whoever did hers read the handwritten name as the much more common Mary >>>> Margaret. Aunt Maise eventually got the mistake corrected - it was >>>> surprisingly easy; I helped her as she had left the province decades >>>> earlier and I was on the spot. It would probably be much more difficult >>>> today. >>> >>> Since I've been watching Once Upon A Time, I was wondering about >>> the combination Mary Margaret. It's one of the main characters in >>> the series, and nobody calls her just one of the two names, they >>> always go together, even though there's no official hyphen. >>> >>> Why does this seem to be such a fixed combination? I can't find a >>> historical model like a saint. >> >> Not only this, but other combinations with "Mary" - "Mary Anne", "Mary >> Elizabeth", "Mary Louise", &c. My theory is that "Mary" alone has >> become to be felt too plain to be used on its own, but it better >> filled out with another name. > > "Mary Ann" combines two short names that may work better in > combination. It might even be seen as a variant of > Marian/Marianne. Likewise "Mary Jane", but "Mary Margaret" seems > pretty long as a standard appellation. I haven't encountered the > even worse "Mary Elizabeth" - I know one Liz and one Beth. > I've met a least one Mary Elizabeth, although it's not as common as other compounds. Or perhaps many Mary Elizabeths use only one of their names. -- Cheryl --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6et3f$2fd$2@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk> |
| In reply to | #579218 |
In article <1wkzxwaf85xnq$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote: >I haven't encountered the even worse "Mary Elizabeth" It risks being mistaken for a brand of sardines: http://canthecanlisboa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/MARIE-ELISABETH-0111.jpg -- Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wollman@bimajority.org (Garrett Wollman) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 01:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n6f6ih$334$2@grapevine.csail.mit.edu> |
| In reply to | #579218 |
In article <1wkzxwaf85xnq$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info>, Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote: >"Mary Ann" combines two short names that may work better in >combination. It might even be seen as a variant of >Marian/Marianne. An ex-boss of mine was a "Mary Ann", and it was a source of unending frustration to her that various people she did business with simply could not deal with the fact that her given name had a space in it. She would just toss any mail that came her way with the salutation "Dear Mary A.,". >Likewise "Mary Jane", but "Mary Margaret" seems pretty long as a >standard appellation. The Sisters of Mercy, who operated the elementary school I attended, had a tradition that *everyone* was Sr. Mary Margaret. They used a third name to disambiguate, and they would often abbreviate "Mary Margaret", so you'd see older documents refer to "Sr. M. M. NameSheActuallyUsed". -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n6fbfj02h90@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #579265 |
On 1/4/2016 6:34 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: > > The Sisters of Mercy, who operated the elementary school I attended, > had a tradition that *everyone* was Sr. Mary Margaret. They used a > third name to disambiguate, and they would often abbreviate "Mary > Margaret", so you'd see older documents refer to > "Sr. M. M. NameSheActuallyUsed". They don't make nun names like that no more: https://youtu.be/nhQa3_wWrR4 ....r
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 06:24 -0330 |
| Message-ID | <df1i63FhrbvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579277 |
On 2016-01-04 11:25 PM, RH Draney wrote: > On 1/4/2016 6:34 PM, Garrett Wollman wrote: >> >> The Sisters of Mercy, who operated the elementary school I attended, >> had a tradition that *everyone* was Sr. Mary Margaret. They used a >> third name to disambiguate, and they would often abbreviate "Mary >> Margaret", so you'd see older documents refer to >> "Sr. M. M. NameSheActuallyUsed". > > They don't make nun names like that no more: > > https://youtu.be/nhQa3_wWrR4 I knew someone who was named after an aunt who was a nun back in the days when they all changed their names - Immmaculata. The niece went by 'Mackie'. When the local orders gave the nuns the option of returning to their original names, and all or almost all of them did, it seemed to take a surprisingly short period of time for everyone to adjust to the change considering how difficult it can be for people to get a new nickname adopted - or a childish one dropped. -- Cheryl --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 13:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mzps9inz4adz$.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> |
| In reply to | #579218 |
* Oliver Cromm:
> "Mary Ann" combines two short names that may work better in
> combination. It might even be seen as a variant of
> Marian/Marianne. Likewise "Mary Jane", but "Mary Margaret" seems
> pretty long as a standard appellation. I haven't encountered the
> even worse "Mary Elizabeth" - I know one Liz and one Beth.
Well, I found one I know: Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio appears in
Grimm and Limitless. I don't know what she likes to be called,
though.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english
csiph-web