On 2024-02-29 04:53, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday or thereabouts, J. J. Lodder asked ...
>>> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It is even used in the USA as "on the caboose of the family-train"
>>>>>
>>>>> And guess what? It is another word from Middle-Dutch/Middle-German.
>>>>> To American by way of French. (by way of the navy)
>>>>
>>>> I wrote to a modern Danish dictionary with your information and got an
>>>> answer. The translation of the answer is mine, but the quote about the
>>>> etymology is copied directly:
>>>>
>>>> Danish text translated:
>>>>
>>>> The Dutch member of the language group seems to have access to
>>>> oed.com, where you'll find the information he supplies. Under the
>>>> tab "etymology" it says, however:
>>>
>>> Eh, no, but there are no doubt many other places
>>> where the same information can be found.
>>>
>>>> Quote:
>>>>
>>>> Identical with Dutch kabuis, kombuis, earlier Dutch combûse, cabûse,
>>>> Middle Low German kabhûse (whence modern German kabuse), also French
>>>> cambuse 'apparently introduced into the navy about the middle of the
>>>> 18th c.' (Littré). The original language was perhaps Low German; but
>>>> the history and etymology are altogether obscure.
>>>
>>> It is not very clear how the meaning transfered
>>> from the navy to the railways, and only in the USA.
>>> One may speculate that the original function was indeed
>>> for cooking for the train crews, on those long American distances.
>>
>> The early American trains didn't do long distances (meal-wise),
>> although those were beginning to show up in the 1850s.
>>
>>> The Dutch equivalent is called a 'remwagen'. (brake van)
>>> When the eary trains became longer and heavier the steam engine alone
>>> could no longer brake the train reliably and stably,
>>> and a brake wagon had to be added.
>>> Originally the brakemen worked exposed to all weather
>>> from the roofs of the carriages, but this was dangerous,
>>> and very uncomfortable, hence unreliable,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> Originally, US-wise, the engine only had brakes for itself, and the
>> brakemen had to turn wheels on each car.
>
> Wikipedia find pictures of brakemen from as late as WWII.
>
>> Even with only 20 boxcars,
>> that was a lot of jumping between cars for 4 or 5 brakemen.
>
> But they soon became ionised. Insisting that they must be un-
> ionised for safety they made rules of no more than two cars
> for each brakeman.

I always wondered what they called workers who were not un-ionised.

--
Which side of a chicken has more feathers?
The outside.

On 2024-02-29 01:01, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> It is not very clear how the meaning transfered
>> from the navy to the railways, and only in the USA.
>> One may speculate that the original function was indeed
>> for cooking for the train crews, on those long American distances.
>
> Changes in the meaning of words in different regions are often difficult
> to explain. Take the word "famous" which is "famøs" in Danish, but while
> "famous" is positive, "famøs" is not. A "famøs" person is sort of
> well-known, but not for their qualities.

We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
famous."

> Even within Scandinavia a word can have different meanings. "Rar" is a
> word in Norwegian, Swedish and Danish. In Norwegian it means "rare"
> (same word), but in Swedish and Danish it means "nice". We do, however,
> have a reminiscence of the rare-meaning in the word "raritet" (rarity).
>

--
Do illiterate people get the full effect of Alphabet soup?

lar3ryca wrote:

> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
> famous."

That reminds me of another word, because you actually have "infamous" to
cover the meaning you seek. It has a different meaning in Danish.
"Infam" is a very strong word about someone (or something) who is nasty.
In the movie "Godfather" the Italian word "infamita" is used with the
same meaning.

--
Bertel, Denmark

lar3ryca wrote:

> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
> Name Jr.
> or
> Name II
> Name III
> etc.

Yes, I know that from some of the rich families. Isn't "Junior" also
used alone?

--
Bertel, Denmark

In article <urqapt$mlkm$1@dont-email.me>,
Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
> lar3ryca wrote:

> > Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
> > Name Jr.
> > or
> > Name II
> > Name III
> > etc.

> Yes, I know that from some of the rich families. Isn't "Junior" also
> used alone?

At school in the 1950s when surnames were important we had, for one year,
Roberts I - VIII. They were all either brothers or cousins. When th eldestb
one left, everybody moved up one place.

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

lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:

> On 2024-02-29 01:08, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> >> It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one of the
> >> parents.
> >
> > Not in Denmark. I was surprised to find out that that is common in some
> > countries.
>
> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
> Name Jr.
> or
> Name II
> Name III
> etc.

Almost completely limited to the US of A, as far as I know.
The Romans were not dumb enough to number themselves in Roman numerals,

Jan

Kerr-Mudd, John <admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 08:08:29 +0100
> Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
>
> > Peter Moylan wrote:
> >
> > > It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one of the
> > > parents.
> >
> I am; it's a terrible idea. My father's side generally recycled about 4
> first names; not great for researching my genealogy. I suppose it does
> make easier to give a gggg-grandfather a name, but not easy to
> distinguish if it could also be any number of his uncles, cousins or
> grandchildren.

From the times when patronymic systems were in use
it seems that it must have been quite common.
There is no lack of Scandinavians with names like Johan Johanson,

Jan
(not Jan Jansen)

On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:55:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2024-02-29 01:08, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> > Peter Moylan wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one of the
>> >> parents.
>> >
>> > Not in Denmark. I was surprised to find out that that is common in some
>> > countries.
>>
>> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
>> Name Jr.
>> or
>> Name II
>> Name III
>> etc.
>
>Almost completely limited to the US of A, as far as I know.
>The Romans were not dumb enough to number themselves in Roman numerals,

It seems to me there have been some names followed by a Roman numeral
in the UK. The current one is Charles III. It's also been seen in
Europe: Benedict XVI, Felipe VI, Frederik X, Carl XVI Gustaf,
Hans-Adam II, Albert II, and Harald V to mention a few.

On 2024-02-29 10:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> lar3ryca wrote:
>
>> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
>> famous."
>
> That reminds me of another word, because you actually have "infamous" to
> cover the meaning you seek.

Actually, that is not the meaning at all. Infamous is, as you say, used
to describe someone who is widely known for his bad deeds or any other
distasteful actions or characteristic.

The meaning of the phrase "Famous for being famous". (which I made up,
though I may not have been the first to arrive at the same phrase), is
roughly "widely known for no apparent reason, the person or people
having no discernible talent or attractiveness."

An example that comes immediately to mind is an entire family of
Kardashians."

> It has a different meaning in Danish.
> "Infam" is a very strong word about someone (or something) who is nasty.
> In the movie "Godfather" the Italian word "infamita" is used with the
> same meaning.
>

--
Autocorrect has become my wurst enema.

On 2024-02-29 14:54, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 10:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>
>>> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
>>> famous."
>>
>> That reminds me of another word, because you actually have "infamous" to
>> cover the meaning you seek.
>
> Actually, that is not the meaning at all. Infamous is, as you say, used
> to describe someone who is widely known for his bad deeds or any other
> distasteful actions or characteristic.
>
> The meaning of the phrase "Famous for being famous". (which I made up,
> though I may not have been the first to arrive at the same phrase), is
> roughly "widely known for no apparent reason, the person or people
> having no discernible talent or attractiveness."
>
> An example that comes immediately to mind is an entire family of
> Kardashians."
>
>> It has a different meaning in Danish.
>> "Infam" is a very strong word about someone (or something) who is nasty.
>> In the movie "Godfather" the Italian word "infamita" is used with the
>> same meaning.

I should probably point out that I make exceptions for some people who
have what I consider 'talents' that I do not appreciate. In other words,
people who are famous for being talented in some way that many folks
seem to appreciate, but that I do not.

Examples that come immediately to mind are rap 'singers', Jerry
Seinfeld, and Will Farrell.

--
Stop global whining.

lar3ryca wrote:

> On 2024-02-29 10:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>
>>> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
>>> famous."
>>
>> That reminds me of another word, because you actually have "infamous" to
>> cover the meaning you seek.

> Actually, that is not the meaning at all. Infamous is, as you say, used
> to describe someone who is widely known for his bad deeds or any other
> distasteful actions or characteristic.

> The meaning of the phrase "Famous for being famous". (which I made up,
> though I may not have been the first to arrive at the same phrase),

The first example I see at Google Books is from 1896.

https://books.google.com/books?id=A1sTPBj5ctwC&pg=PA229

Ngram search shows it taking off in the 1960s and reading a peak, for
some reason, around 2013.

> is
> roughly "widely known for no apparent reason, the person or people
> having no discernible talent or attractiveness."
...

--
Jerry Friedman

On 01/03/24 07:11, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:55:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
>> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-02-29 01:08, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one of the
>>>>> parents.
>>>>
>>>> Not in Denmark. I was surprised to find out that that is common in some
>>>> countries.
>>>
>>> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
>>> Name Jr.
>>> or
>>> Name II
>>> Name III
>>> etc.
>>
>> Almost completely limited to the US of A, as far as I know.
>> The Romans were not dumb enough to number themselves in Roman numerals,
>
> It seems to me there have been some names followed by a Roman
> numeral in the UK. The current one is Charles III. It's also been
> seen in Europe: Benedict XVI, Felipe VI, Frederik X, Carl XVI
> Gustaf, Hans-Adam II, Albert II, and Harald V to mention a few.

That's a different system. Charles III is not the son of Charles II, and
so on for many of the others you mention. It's true that European
royalty uses Roman numerals, but they're not used in the way they're
used in North America.

In some quarters Charles III is considered brave for adopting the name
he did, considering what happened to Charles II.

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

On 01/03/24 03:10, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 01:01, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> It is not very clear how the meaning transfered
>>> from the navy to the railways, and only in the USA.
>>> One may speculate that the original function was indeed
>>> for cooking for the train crews, on those long American distances.
>>
>> Changes in the meaning of words in different regions are often difficult
>> to explain. Take the word "famous" which is "famøs" in Danish, but while
>> "famous" is positive, "famøs" is not. A "famøs" person is sort of
>> well-known, but not for their qualities.
>
> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
> famous."

We already have the word "notorious".

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

After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
> On 01/03/24 07:11, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:55:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:08, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one of the
>>>>>> parents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in Denmark. I was surprised to find out that that is common in some
>>>>> countries.
>>>>
>>>> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
>>>> Name Jr.
>>>> or
>>>> Name II
>>>> Name III
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Almost completely limited to the US of A, as far as I know.
>>> The Romans were not dumb enough to number themselves in Roman numerals,
>>
>> It seems to me there have been some names followed by a Roman
>> numeral in the UK. The current one is Charles III. It's also been
>> seen in Europe: Benedict XVI, Felipe VI, Frederik X, Carl XVI
>> Gustaf, Hans-Adam II, Albert II, and Harald V to mention a few.
>
> That's a different system. Charles III is not the son of Charles II, and
> so on for many of the others you mention. It's true that European
> royalty uses Roman numerals, but they're not used in the way they're
> used in North America.
>
> In some quarters Charles III is considered brave for adopting the name
> he did, considering what happened to Charles II.

Or perhaps what happened to Charles I. The Deuce was entrhoned after
the general unpleasantness.

/dps

--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020

"Larry":
> ...the phrase "Famous for being famous". (which I made up,
> though I may not have been the first to arrive at the same phrase)...
>
> An example that comes immediately to mind is an entire family of
> Kardashians."

Actually, the Kardashians are famous for being famous for being famous.
I don't think Larry gets credit for making it up, even if indepedently.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "E-mail is idiot-proof. (I know this because I have
msb@vex.net | received E-mail from idiots.)" -- Beppi Crosariol

On 29-Feb-24 20:59, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2024-02-29 14:54, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 10:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>
>>>> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
>>>> famous."
>>>
>>> That reminds me of another word, because you actually have "infamous" to
>>> cover the meaning you seek.
>>
>> Actually, that is not the meaning at all. Infamous is, as you say,
>> used to describe someone who is widely known for his bad deeds or any
>> other distasteful actions or characteristic.
>>
>> The meaning of the phrase "Famous for being famous". (which I made up,
>> though I may not have been the first to arrive at the same phrase), is
>> roughly "widely known for no apparent reason, the person or people
>> having no discernible talent or attractiveness."
>>
>> An example that comes immediately to mind is an entire family of
>> Kardashians."
>>
>>> It has a different meaning in Danish.
>>> "Infam" is a very strong word about someone (or something) who is nasty.
>>> In the movie "Godfather" the Italian word "infamita" is used with the
>>> same meaning.
>
> I should probably point out that I make exceptions for some people who
> have what I consider 'talents' that I do not appreciate. In other words,
> people who are famous for being talented in some way that many folks
> seem to appreciate, but that I do not.
>
> Examples that come immediately to mind are rap 'singers', Jerry
> Seinfeld, and Will Farrell.
>
I'm not familiar with Mssrs Seinfeld and Farrell, nor their style of
singing.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 29-Feb-24 23:49, Snidely wrote:
> After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :
>> On 01/03/24 07:11, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:55:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>> Lodder) wrote:
>>>
>>>> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:08, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> parents.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in Denmark. I was surprised to find out that that is common in
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> countries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
>>>>> Name Jr.
>>>>> or
>>>>> Name II
>>>>> Name III
>>>>> etc.
>>>>
>>>> Almost completely limited to the US of A, as far as I know.
>>>> The Romans were not dumb enough to number themselves in Roman numerals,
>>>
>>> It seems to me there have been some names followed by a Roman
>>> numeral in the UK.   The current one is Charles III.   It's also been
>>> seen in Europe:  Benedict XVI, Felipe VI, Frederik X, Carl XVI
>>> Gustaf, Hans-Adam II, Albert II, and Harald V to mention a few.
>>
>> That's a different system. Charles III is not the son of Charles II, and
>> so on for many of the others you mention. It's true that European
>> royalty uses Roman numerals, but they're not used in the way they're
>> used in North America.
>>
>> In some quarters Charles III is considered brave for adopting the name
>> he did, considering what happened to Charles II.
>
> Or perhaps what happened to Charles I.  The Deuce was entrhoned after
> the general unpleasantness.
>

Perhaps Charles Mk III made a block booking for the Mansion House, to
prevent its use for... that sort of thing.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2024-02-29 18:01, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 29-Feb-24 20:59, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 14:54, lar3ryca wrote:
>>> On 2024-02-29 10:18, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>> lar3ryca wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
>>>>> famous."
>>>>
>>>> That reminds me of another word, because you actually have
>>>> "infamous" to
>>>> cover the meaning you seek.
>>>
>>> Actually, that is not the meaning at all. Infamous is, as you say,
>>> used to describe someone who is widely known for his bad deeds or any
>>> other distasteful actions or characteristic.
>>>
>>> The meaning of the phrase "Famous for being famous". (which I made
>>> up, though I may not have been the first to arrive at the same
>>> phrase), is roughly "widely known for no apparent reason, the person
>>> or people having no discernible talent or attractiveness."
>>>
>>> An example that comes immediately to mind is an entire family of
>>> Kardashians."
>>>
>>>> It has a different meaning in Danish.
>>>> "Infam" is a very strong word about someone (or something) who is
>>>> nasty.
>>>> In the movie "Godfather" the Italian word "infamita" is used with the
>>>> same meaning.
>>
>> I should probably point out that I make exceptions for some people who
>> have what I consider 'talents' that I do not appreciate. In other
>> words, people who are famous for being talented in some way that many
>> folks seem to appreciate, but that I do not.
>>
>> Examples that come immediately to mind are rap 'singers', Jerry
>> Seinfeld, and Will Farrell.
>>
> I'm not familiar with Mssrs Seinfeld and Farrell, nor their style of
> singing.

Have I confused you by using commas to separate three entirely different
entities?

--
Why did the Star Wars movies come out in the sequence 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3?
Because in charge of sequence, Yoda was.

On 2024-02-29 17:29, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 01/03/24 03:10, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-02-29 01:01, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is not very clear how the meaning transfered
>>>> from the navy to the railways, and only in the USA.
>>>> One may speculate that the original function was indeed
>>>> for cooking for the train crews, on those long American distances.
>>>
>>> Changes in the meaning of words in different regions are often difficult
>>> to explain. Take the word "famous" which is "famøs" in Danish, but while
>>> "famous" is positive, "famøs" is not. A "famøs" person is sort of
>>> well-known, but not for their qualities.
>>
>> We need a word like "famøs" to more easily say "He is famous for being
>> famous."
>
> We already have the word "notorious".

Fair enough, but I won't use it in that sense, due to there being too
many other related meanings.

--
I have a boomerang that won't come back. I call it my stick.

charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> writes:

> At school in the 1950s when surnames were important we had, for one year,
> Roberts I - VIII. They were all either brothers or cousins. When th eldestb
> one left, everybody moved up one place.

In the phone directory for a region near me, there are pages of d'eon
and d'entremont, so many with the same first name that the phone book
often includes their local (sometimes risible) nicknames.

Even closer to home, I met Little Raymond. Inquiring why a 6'3" 250#
fisherman might be called "little", it was revealed that Big Raymond
was stupendously obese while Little Raymond looked like a football
quarterback in good trim.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

On 01/03/24 10:49, Snidely wrote:
> After serious thinking Peter Moylan wrote :

>> In some quarters Charles III is considered brave for adopting the
>> name he did, considering what happened to Charles II.
>
> Or perhaps what happened to Charles I. The Deuce was entrhoned after
> the general unpleasantness.

Thanks for the correction. This sort of thing is why I didn't do well in
History in school.

A somewhat comparable case was when Pope John XXIII announced the name
he would use. The "John" line had been skunked because of a period when
there was an antipope, so previous popes had been unwilling to take a
"John" name.

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

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 10:20:49 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 01/03/24 07:11, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024 19:55:14 +0100, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>> lar3ryca <larry@invalid.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2024-02-29 01:08, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>>>>> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's relatively common for a child to have the same name as one of the
>>>>>> parents.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not in Denmark. I was surprised to find out that that is common in some
>>>>> countries.
>>>>
>>>> Usually, the child(ren) the call themselves:
>>>> Name Jr.
>>>> or
>>>> Name II
>>>> Name III
>>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Almost completely limited to the US of A, as far as I know.
>>> The Romans were not dumb enough to number themselves in Roman numerals,
>>
>> It seems to me there have been some names followed by a Roman
>> numeral in the UK. The current one is Charles III. It's also been
>> seen in Europe: Benedict XVI, Felipe VI, Frederik X, Carl XVI
>> Gustaf, Hans-Adam II, Albert II, and Harald V to mention a few.
>
>That's a different system. Charles III is not the son of Charles II, and
>so on for many of the others you mention. It's true that European
>royalty uses Roman numerals, but they're not used in the way they're
>used in North America.

It could be that I got it wrong, but I remember reading of some
Roman numeral numbering within European families -- without,
however, the American standard of being father and son.

As I recall it, the numbers could increment around the branches
of the family tree, increasing for whichever cousin or nephew
came next, so it could be VIII or XI within a couple of generations.

Does that ring any bell?

>
>In some quarters Charles III is considered brave for adopting the name
>he did, considering what happened to Charles II.

Wasn't there an American boxer who named his kids ...
- Google - okay -

George Foreman's 10 Kids: Why He Named All of His Sons ..
https://people.com › Entertainment › Sports
Mar 12, 2019 — There's George Jr., George III ("Monk"), George IV
("Big Wheel"), George V ("Red") and George VI ("Little Joey").

--

Tony Cooper wrote:

> It seems to me there have been some names followed by a Roman numeral
> in the UK. The current one is Charles III. It's also been seen in
> Europe: Benedict XVI, Felipe VI, Frederik X, Carl XVI Gustaf,
> Hans-Adam II, Albert II, and Harald V to mention a few.

The Danish kings and queens are also numbered with Roman Numerals. Even
our now former queen Margrethe has the number II in spite of a
difference in spelling. The first one was queen Margrete I.

In my neighbourhood there is a road named after a king, Christian X.
GoogleMaps pronounces it "christian ex".

Since 1426 our kings have been alternating between the names Christian
and Frederik, except for a Hans that spoiled the system from the start
(being second king in that sequence). Queen Margrethe II corrected this
calamity by not naming her son Christian, which would have followed the
system since her father was a Frederik. By naming her son Frederik she
fixed the misorder, and we can now all breathe more freely. King
Frederik of course has named his first son Christian.

--
Bertel, Denmark

On 2024-02-28 23:30:16 +0000, navi said:

> Thank you all very much,
>
> "Whichth" can be used in a lot of different contexts that don't have
> anything to do with family.

This is the sort of question navi used to ask a lot, amounting to "how
much meaning can be packed into one word?" English on the whole doesn't
bother with such questions: if you need ten words to express a thought
clearly you use ten words.
>
> I heard this on a TV show once: "I don't mind a little junk in the
> trunk, a little juice in the caboose."
>
> It prompted me to look up 'caboose'.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-02-27 21:43:06 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 28/02/24 04:25, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2024-02-27 01:22, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 27/02/24 17:18, Hibou wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My sister is older than I am and my brother is younger.
>>>>
>>>> Une aînée, un cadet, et un benjamin. For once it's true that
>>>> French has a word for it (not that they're any help here).
>>>
>>> My francophone ex-wife was shocked when friends called their
>>> second child Benjamin, while having the clear intention to have a
>>> third child.
>>>
>>> The friends were following a different logic. Their children's
>>> names start with A, B, and C.
>>
>> My wife's parents used 'D' for all their children; Donald, Diane,
>> Darlene, Deborah, and Delphine (in order of oldest to youngest0.
>
> In the town where I grew up, the Denshaw family had 13 children, all of
> whom had names starting with 'D'. Dalma and Denzel were in my class.
>
> It brings to mind the Dr Seuss story "Too many Daves".

I know someone called Ken with middle inital E. *All* of his four
children have initials K.E. Perhaps Worse, my supervisor at Berkeley
was Daniel E. Koshland, Jr., one of most prominent biochemists of his
time. He had a son called Douglas E. Koshland, who is now having a very
succssful career in the same field.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.