'More or Less' -
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gjy078> (audio 9m)

The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
frequency in speech or text.

Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>frequency in speech or text.

Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".

On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:

>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>> frequency in speech or text.
>
> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".

Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
common people.

For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, at 09:17:01, Peter Moylan posted:
>On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>
>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>
>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>
>Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>common people.
>
>For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>
While the Romans had 'sus' -> English 'swine', though those words were
both of pre-Roman (Indo-European) origin. But this isn't relevant to the
English class struggle.
--
Paul W

Op 18/10/2023 om 20:18 schreef Paul Wolff:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, at 09:17:01, Peter Moylan posted:
>> On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary,
>>>> no by
>>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>>
>>>    Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>>>    more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>>
>> Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>> upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>> common people.
>>
>> For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>> farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>>
> While the Romans had 'sus' -> English 'swine', though those words were
> both of pre-Roman (Indo-European) origin. But this isn't relevant to the
> English class struggle.

Class vocabulary seems to me but a limited part of the Frenchisation of
English.
Scientific/learned vocabulary in turn would be comparable to many other
languages.
Where English got frenchised at a much deeper level IMO is rather for
common words like, er, say, "common, vocabulary, limited, part, turn,
comparable, language, level", etc :o)

--
guido wugi

On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:07 PM UTC-7, wugi wrote:
> Op 18/10/2023 om 20:18 schreef Paul Wolff:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, at 09:17:01, Peter Moylan posted:
> >> On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >>> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >>
> >>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary,
> >>>> no by
> >>>> frequency in speech or text.
> >>>
> >>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
> >>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
> >>
> >> Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
> >> upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
> >> common people.
> >>
> >> For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
> >> farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
> >>
> > While the Romans had 'sus' -> English 'swine', though those words were
> > both of pre-Roman (Indo-European) origin. But this isn't relevant to the
> > English class struggle.
> Class vocabulary seems to me but a limited part of the Frenchisation of
> English.
> Scientific/learned vocabulary in turn would be comparable to many other
> languages.
> Where English got frenchised at a much deeper level IMO is rather for
> common words like, er, say, "common, vocabulary, limited, part, turn,
> comparable, language, level", etc :o)
>
"frenchised" isn't a word in English, to my knowledge. "Frenchified" would probably
do the job.

bill

On 19/10/2023 09:15, bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 18, 2023 at 5:46:07 PM UTC-7, wugi wrote:
>> Op 18/10/2023 om 20:18 schreef Paul Wolff:
>>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023, at 09:17:01, Peter Moylan posted:
>>>> On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>>> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary,
>>>>>> no by
>>>>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>>>>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>>>>
>>>> Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>>>> upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>>>> common people.
>>>>
>>>> For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>>>> farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>>>>
>>> While the Romans had 'sus' -> English 'swine', though those words were
>>> both of pre-Roman (Indo-European) origin. But this isn't relevant to the
>>> English class struggle.
>> Class vocabulary seems to me but a limited part of the Frenchisation of
>> English.
>> Scientific/learned vocabulary in turn would be comparable to many other
>> languages.
>> Where English got frenchised at a much deeper level IMO is rather for
>> common words like, er, say, "common, vocabulary, limited, part, turn,
>> comparable, language, level", etc :o)
>>
> "frenchised" isn't a word in English, to my knowledge. "Frenchified" would probably
> do the job.
>

On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes -
freely - from the French.

BTW English is not the only language that has a franchise on French words.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/the-history-of-franchise-voting-rights-movies

On 18/10/2023 17:13, Hibou wrote:
> 'More or Less' -
> <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gjy078> (audio 9m)
>
> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
> frequency in speech or text.

I regularly listen to the 'More or Less' BBC R4 program, as I find it
does an excellent analysis of stats (faux or real) appearing in everyday
news. I was not particularly convinced by the counting method of
English-from-French words. When a statistician says "Well, it
depends..." you know the stats are on a slippery slope.

On 19/10/2023 8:30 am, occam wrote:
> On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes
> - freely - from the French.

The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 1:15:44 PM UTC+5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 8:30 am, occam wrote:
> > On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes
> > - freely - from the French.
> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
>
Can one have both beauty and 'je ne sais quoi'?
> --
> Richard Heathfield
> Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.

Sometimes, one can use 'truc' 'Fam. (1886) chose quelconque,
qu'on ne peut ou ne veut designe'.

On 19/10/23 20:40, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:

>> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
>
> Sometimes, one can use 'truc' 'Fam. (1886) chose quelconque,
> qu'on ne peut ou ne veut designe'.

Esperanto lesson: "kana kielmidiru" means "wicker whatnot".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:45:35 +0100
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 19/10/2023 8:30 am, occam wrote:
> > On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes
> > - freely - from the French.
>
> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
>
It's all in the shoulder shrug.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 3:40:41 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 18/10/2023 17:13, Hibou wrote:

> > 'More or Less' -
> > <https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0gjy078> (audio 9m)
> > The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
> > frequency in speech or text.
>
> I regularly listen to the 'More or Less' BBC R4 program, as I find it
> does an excellent analysis of stats (faux or real) appearing in everyday
> news. I was not particularly convinced by the counting method of
> English-from-French words. When a statistician says "Well, it
> depends..." you know the stats are on a slippery slope.

We get "More or Less" at 11:50 on Saturday night. That episode, from
two weeks ago, was rather well done. There's only so much they can
squeeze into ten minutes.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>
>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>
>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>
>Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>common people.
>
>For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.

Was the animal ever called "pork"? To me the animal is "pig and the
meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."

On 19/10/2023 16:06, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>>
>>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>>
>> Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>> upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>> common people.
>>
>> For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>> farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>
>
> Was the animal ever called "pork"? To me the animal is "pig and the
> meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."
>

This was what it was all about. Animal = pig (from Anglo-Saxon). When
the Norman French invaded (1066) they brought the word "porc" or
"porcin" to mean pig (I don't see where "cochon" (current French for
pig) comes in). Porc devolved to pork.
Lots of animal products follow the same way e.g. cow/boeff/beef

--
Chris Elvidge, England
GOLDFISH DON'T BOUNCE

On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:06:27 AM UTC-6, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >
> >>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
> >>> frequency in speech or text.
> >>
> >> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
> >> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
> >
> >Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
> >upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
> >common people.
> >
> >For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
> >farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.

> Was the animal ever called "pork"?

Yes. 'Also in Middle English "a swine, a hog" (c. 1400).'

https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=pork&utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=ds_search

Also, shortly after the Norman Conquest, many of "the people who ate it"
would have been speaking Norman French, not English.

> To me the animal is "pig and the
> meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."

I'd bet that's true for everybody now.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 19/10/2023 16:06, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>
>>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>>
>>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>>
>> Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>> upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>> common people.
>>
>> For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>> farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>
>
> Was the animal ever called "pork"? To me the animal is "pig and the
> meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."
>

Sorry, previous posted by mistake (miss-click), before fact-check.

--
Chris Elvidge, England
GOLDFISH DON'T BOUNCE

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 16:29:32 +0100, Chris Elvidge <chris@mshome.net>
wrote:

>On 19/10/2023 16:06, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>>>>> frequency in speech or text.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>>>> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>>>
>>> Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>>> upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>>> common people.
>>>
>>> For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>>> farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>>
>>
>> Was the animal ever called "pork"? To me the animal is "pig and the
>> meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."
>>
>
>This was what it was all about. Animal = pig (from Anglo-Saxon). When
>the Norman French invaded (1066) they brought the word "porc" or
>"porcin" to mean pig (I don't see where "cochon" (current French for
>pig) comes in). Porc devolved to pork.
>Lots of animal products follow the same way e.g. cow/boeff/beef

Thanks very much.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:33:57 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
<jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 19, 2023 at 9:06:27?AM UTC-6, Ken Blake wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> >> Hibou <vpaereru-u...@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
>> >
>> >>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
>> >>> frequency in speech or text.
>> >>
>> >> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
>> >> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
>> >
>> >Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
>> >upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
>> >common people.
>> >
>> >For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
>> >farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.
>
>> Was the animal ever called "pork"?
>
>Yes. 'Also in Middle English "a swine, a hog" (c. 1400).'
>
>https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=pork&utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=ds_search
>
>Also, shortly after the Norman Conquest, many of "the people who ate it"
>would have been speaking Norman French, not English.
>
>> To me the animal is "pig and the
>> meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."
>
>I'd bet that's true for everybody now.

Probably. I didn't know it was ever different.

On 19/10/2023 11:40, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
>
> Sometimes, one can use 'truc' 'Fam. (1886) chose quelconque,
> qu'on ne peut ou ne veut designe'.
>
>
<whoosh!>

In article <nbh2ji99j8irme4unkk97evsasakqoht9t@4ax.com>,
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:17:01 +1100, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> >On 19/10/23 02:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
> >> Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> writes:
> >
> >>> The answer depends on how one counts them - yes in the dictionary, no by
> >>> frequency in speech or text.
> >>
> >> Sometimes there are French expressions that can sound a little
> >> more solemn. For example, "to commence" versus "to begin".
> >
> >Many of those distinctions come from the days when French was the
> >upper-class language in England, and English was the language of the
> >common people.
> >
> >For another simple example, consider the animal called "pig" by the
> >farmers who raised it, but "pork" by the people who ate it.

> Was the animal ever called "pork"? To me the animal is "pig and the
> meat of the pig, not the animal itself, is "pork."

Memory of schoolboy: Latin "porcus" was pig

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té²
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 19/10/2023 12:39, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:45:35 +0100
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/10/2023 8:30 am, occam wrote:
>>> On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes
>>> - freely - from the French.
>>
>> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
>>
> It's all in the shoulder shrug.
>

The shoulder shrug does not have the same meaning.

But if you *have* to do the shrug, don't forget the accompanying sound
'bof!' muttered with an out-breath.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:01:49 +0200
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 19/10/2023 12:39, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:45:35 +0100
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 19/10/2023 8:30 am, occam wrote:
> >>> On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes
> >>> - freely - from the French.
> >>
> >> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
> >>
> > It's all in the shoulder shrug.
> >
>
> The shoulder shrug does not have the same meaning.
>
> But if you *have* to do the shrug, don't forget the accompanying sound
> 'bof!' muttered with an out-breath.

Thanks; as you can tell, I'm not at all fluent in French. (Raises
one eyebrow - or is that Vulcan - oh dear.)
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 19:01:49 +0200
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:

> On 19/10/2023 12:39, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2023 08:45:35 +0100
> > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> On 19/10/2023 8:30 am, occam wrote:
> >>> On the other hand 'to franchise' is a word in English which comes
> >>> - freely - from the French.
> >>
> >> The trouble with French is that it has no word for 'je ne sais quoi'.
> >>
> > It's all in the shoulder shrug.
> >
>
> The shoulder shrug does not have the same meaning.
>
> But if you *have* to do the shrug, don't forget the accompanying sound
> 'bof!' muttered with an out-breath.

Thanks; as you can tell, I'm not at all fluent in French. (Raises
one eyebrow - or is that Vulcan - oh dear.)
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.