jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > jerryfriedman <jerry.friedman99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> ..
>
> >> > Danish has "kaudervælsk", and ODS (dictionary of the Danish language
> >> > until 1950) explains it as a German word "Kauderwelsch" where "kauder"
> >> > may come from "kaudern": do business, usure (? what an usurer does),
> >> > haggle - used about the foreign or mixed language that foreign peddlers
> >> > would use. "-vælsk" means "foreign" with a negative connotation.
> >>
> >> There's no English verb corresponding to "usurer". You have to
> >> say "practice usury", "lend money at interest", or some such.
>
> > "Loan Shark", for bad American ones?
> > (but indeed not one word)
>
> "Loansharked" and "loan-sharked" seem to exist. I meant but
> didn't quite say that there's no English verb corresponding
> etymologically to "usurer".
>
> I think of "loanshark" as the correct spelling, and what is
> Google Ngrams' opinion against mine?

Found it spelled as one word in "Get Shorty" by Elmore Leonard.
(a well-known gangster novel and Hollywood ganster comedy)

Jan

Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote:

> On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >
> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> >>>
> >>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2), where
> >>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
> >>>>> comprehend.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
> >>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
> >>>>> 3- Greek }
> >>>>> 4- Dutch } -> Chinese
> >>>>
> >>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
> >>>> based on the existence of the book:
> >>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
> >>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
> >>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
> >>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
> >>>>
> >>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
> >>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
> >>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
> >>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
> >>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
> >>>
> >>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
> >>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
> >>
> >> Yes, same root for all.
> >> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
> >>
> >>> The Walloons do
> >>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
> >>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
> >>
> >> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
> >> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
> >> Dutchman: We don't, you do!
> >
> > Nice. I must remember that.
> >
> > It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> > Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> > national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> > logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> > *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> > *Chinawoman.
> >
>
> East Indiaman sprang to mind -- but that, of course, woulddn't be a person.

In Dutch the same term may refer to both the vessel
and the sailors serving on it.
I think the same is the case in English, but less often so.

The birders among us may know about the 'Oostvaardersplassen',

Jan

Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:

> On 2024-04-13, jerryfriedman wrote:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >
> >> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> > ..
> >
> >>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
> >>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
> >>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
> >>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
> >>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
> >
> >> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
> >> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
> > ..
> >
> > Yep. Another one is "walnut", not native to Britain.
>
> Even the "English walnut", which has the more accurate synonym
> "Persian walnut".

I doubt the accuracy. Dutch etymology gives 'walnoot'
as originally meaning 'Keltische noot'.
Hence from the same Old Germanic 'wal' root
as 'neighbouring people not speaking our language.
No Persians involved,

Jan

On 13/04/2024 19:26, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 13-Apr-24 10:49, Phil wrote:
>> On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> occam <occam@nowhere.nix> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Today I stumbled on a mapping of language (1) -> language (2),
>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>> language #1 refers to language #2 as confusing or difficult to
>>>>>>> comprehend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1- English -> Greek ("It's Greek to me")
>>>>>>> 2- Italian -> Arabic ("Is that Arabic?")
>>>>>>> 3- Greek   }
>>>>>>> 4- Dutch   }   -> Chinese
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Never heard or seen that one, probably a misunderstanding,,
>>>>>> based on the existence of the book:
>>>>>> Peter Ho, Dat is Chinees voor mij- Zin en onzin over China,
>>>>>> <https://www.singeluitgeverijen.nl/de-geus/boek/dat-is-chinees-voor-mij/>
>>>>>> (sense and nonsense about China)
>>>>>> It is a book explaining China and Chinese culture.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>>>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>>>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>>>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>>>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>>>>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, same root for all.
>>>> Applies to Romance or Celtic languages spoken by others.
>>>>
>>>>> The Walloons do
>>>>> call themselves Wallons (ones I know do, anyway), but the Welsh for
>>>>> Welsh (Cymraeg) is nothing like "Welsh".
>>>>
>>>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
>>>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
>>>> Dutchman:   We don't, you do!
>>>
>>> Nice. I must remember that.
>>>
>>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the
>>> only national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is
>>> there any logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't
>>> think *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but
>>> never *Chinawoman.
>>>
>>
>> East Indiaman sprang to mind -- but that, of course, woulddn't be a
>> person.
>>
> It also deviates from the usual 'ships are female' convention.
>

That had occurred to me too. Although "East Indiawoman" has all sorts of
things wrong with it.

--
Phil B

Sam Plusnet wrote:

> On 13-Apr-24 10:49, Phil wrote:
>> On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
...

>>> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
>>> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
>>> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
>>> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
>>> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
>>> *Chinawoman.
>>>
>>
>> East Indiaman sprang to mind -- but that, of course, woulddn't be a person.
>>
> It also deviates from the usual 'ships are female' convention.

As does "man o' war". I think ships were non-binary avant la
lettre. Speaking of which, "For she's only a darned Mounseer"
(W. S. Gilbert).

--
Jerry Friedman

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:

> On 13-Apr-24 10:49, Phil wrote:
> > On 13/04/2024 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >> On 2024-04-12 20:49:00 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
[-]
> >>> You remind me of a exchange I heard long ago:
> >>> Englishman: Why do you call yourself Dutch?
> >>> Dutchman: We don't, you do!
> >>
> >> Nice. I must remember that.
> >>
> >> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> >> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> >> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> >> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> >> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> >> *Chinawoman.
> >>
> >
> > East Indiaman sprang to mind -- but that, of course, woulddn't be a person.
> >
> It also deviates from the usual 'ships are female' convention.

Not at all. Ships can be obviously male, like Hood and and Bismarck,
and still be refered to as 'she'.
Like in 'Bismarck fired her guns', or 'she was scuttled by her crew',
Using he and his here would be quite wrong,

Jan

Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:

> jerryfriedman wrote:

>> I think of "loanshark" as the correct spelling, and what is
>> Google Ngrams' opinion against mine?

> Did you try an Ngram ("loan-shark,loanshark")? It's quite interesting.
> The word appears from 1900 and it has three dominating peaks around
> 1916, 1940 and 1965 (roughly). The hyphened word took over in 1970 and
> peaked in 1980 and yielded again in 2000, but the two spellings are
> roughly equal today.

I tried "loanshark" and "loan shark" but not "loan-shark", but I
did see those peaks, which I can't explain. Panics about
gangsters?

"Hyphenated" is far more common than "hyphened", by the way.

--
Jerry Friedman

On 13/04/24 20:21, Phil wrote:
>
> Also Manxman; and ISTR that the Irish version of the Irish joke features
> a Kerryman.

Don't pay the Kerryman
Till he gets you to the other side.

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

On 14/04/24 00:56, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2024-04-13 13:17:24 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
>> On 13/04/24 20:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>> I have a little Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea Pidgin) - to -
>>>> German phrasebook which is part of a series called
>>>> Kauderwelsch-Sprechführer (Peter-Rump-Verlag). I thought at
>>>> first the term was being used for pidgins etc., but all the
>>>> other titles in the series seem to be for proper languages
>>>> (Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese etc.).
>>>
>>> I see. It is an enormous series. Some of the volumes in the seies
>>> are for slang variants, like 'British Slang – das andere
>>> Englisch'
>>
>> Don't knock such books. When I was a student learning French, I
>> came across a book of French slang. It taught me a few new words,
>> giving me an understanding of the verbs "se ficher" and "se foutre"
>> that weren't covered in formal classes. On a camping trip, I
>> managed to use the terms "papier cul" and "les chiottes" that I
>> hadn't learnt in class.
>
> And you doubtless learned that "baiser" doesn't mean what you were
> taught at school.

We would have studied some older novels, so no doubt we encountered
"baiser" with its traditional and respectable meaning.

Something I find interesting is that *as a verb* baiser now can only
mean "fuck", but the *noun* baiser continues to be perfectly
respectable. One's maiden aunt still says "Donne-moi un baiser".

The camping trip I mentioned above was in Australia, but a majority of
those present were francophones. The campsite had a toilet block, but a
vital item was missing, and we had to resort to things like grass. One
morning I discovered that the lack had been remediated, so I came back
to the others saying "Y'a du papier dans les chiottes". One person
responded with "Peter, who has been teaching you French?" So I slipped
back to the slightly more respectable "Il y a du papier-cul à la toilette".

Even in English, "bum paper" is more respectable than "shithouse".

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

On 14/04/24 03:17, Janet wrote:
> In article <17f30c20f386b314427f4e96daaca53e@www.novabbs.com>,
> jerry.friedman99@gmail.com says...
>>
>> Janet wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1qryb8a.16duo7tpbyamwN%nospam@de- ster.demon.nl>,
>>> nospam@de-ster.demon.nl says...
>>
>>>>
>>>> Dutch has: 'Ik snap er geen jota van' for this, (lit: I
>>>> understand not a iota of it, so, I don't understand even the
>>>> smallest part) with the obvious biblical reference,
>>
>>> Now you've made me wonder about a jot/iota link.
>>
>>> Jot; even less than a tiny amount.
>>
>> Your wonder is correct.
>>
>> https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=jot
>
> Thanks very much, that is very satisfying.

Further information: the Latin (and therefore English) lower-case i has
two parts, the jot and the tittle. If I remember correctly, the tittle
is the lower stroke, and the jot is the dot.

Slightly paradoxically, the Greek iota has no jot. (Unless I have the
names back to front.) The Turkish version comes in two flavours.

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

J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Not at all. Ships can be obviously male, like Hood and and Bismarck,
> and still be refered to as 'she'.

Aren't Hood and Bismarck lastnames?

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 2024-04-13 23:58:29 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 14/04/24 00:56, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2024-04-13 13:17:24 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>
>>> On 13/04/24 20:55, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Ross Clark <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I have a little Tok Pisin (Papua New Guinea Pidgin) - to -
>>>>> German phrasebook which is part of a series called
>>>>> Kauderwelsch-Sprechführer (Peter-Rump-Verlag). I thought at
>>>>> first the term was being used for pidgins etc., but all the
>>>>> other titles in the series seem to be for proper languages
>>>>> (Indonesian, Turkish, Portuguese etc.).
>>>>
>>>> I see. It is an enormous series. Some of the volumes in the seies
>>>> are for slang variants, like 'British Slang – das andere
>>>> Englisch'
>>>
>>> Don't knock such books. When I was a student learning French, I
>>> came across a book of French slang. It taught me a few new words,
>>> giving me an understanding of the verbs "se ficher" and "se foutre"
>>> that weren't covered in formal classes. On a camping trip, I
>>> managed to use the terms "papier cul" and "les chiottes" that I
>>> hadn't learnt in class.
>>
>> And you doubtless learned that "baiser" doesn't mean what you were
>> taught at school.
>
> We would have studied some older novels, so no doubt we encountered
> "baiser" with its traditional and respectable meaning.
>
> Something I find interesting is that *as a verb* baiser now can only
> mean "fuck", but the *noun* baiser continues to be perfectly
> respectable. One's maiden aunt still says "Donne-moi un baiser".

Yes, but "Donne-moi un bizou" is becoming more common.
>
> The camping trip I mentioned above was in Australia, but a majority of
> those present were francophones. The campsite had a toilet block, but a
> vital item was missing, and we had to resort to things like grass. One
> morning I discovered that the lack had been remediated, so I came back
> to the others saying "Y'a du papier dans les chiottes". One person
> responded with "Peter, who has been teaching you French?" So I slipped
> back to the slightly more respectable "Il y a du papier-cul à la toilette".
>
> Even in English, "bum paper" is more respectable than "shithouse".

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-04-13 23:58:29 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> The camping trip I mentioned above was in Australia, but a majority of
> those present were francophones. The campsite had a toilet block, but a
> vital item was missing, and we had to resort to things like grass.

During my years of seeing the world as a student, the only item that I
was conscious of having been stolen in a youth hostel (or equivalent)
was the roll of toilet paper I had brought from England to Istanbul
with me.

> One
> morning I discovered that the lack had been remediated, so I came back
> to the others saying "Y'a du papier dans les chiottes". One person
> responded with "Peter, who has been teaching you French?" So I slipped
> back to the slightly more respectable "Il y a du papier-cul à la toilette".
>
> Even in English, "bum paper" is more respectable than "shithouse".

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Le 13/04/2024 à 09:23, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
>
> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> *Chinawoman.

Google Books finds examples of 'Swissman', though not from authors I've
heard of.

Better 'Dutchman' than 'Netherman', perhaps.

'Burman' - though the suffix is perhaps 'n' rather than 'man'.

If 'Manxman' qualifies as national, then perhaps 'Ulsterman' too.

Hibou wrote:

> Google Books finds examples of 'Swissman', though not from authors I've
> heard of.
>
> Better 'Dutchman' than 'Netherman', perhaps.

In Danish "-land" almost always results in "-lænder" [1], even for some
Danish regions. I know the word "Highlander". Isn't "-lander" used with
nations?

I tried to think of Danish words with -man, but I think that we only use
it with "nordmand" and "franskmand". The most productive ending is
"-er".

[1] Germany (Tyskland) is an exception. A German is called "en tysker".
That is probably inspired by the Germans' own word "Deutscher".

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

On 2024-04-14 09:01:10 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:

> Hibou wrote:
>
>> Google Books finds examples of 'Swissman', though not from authors I've
>> heard of.
>>
>> Better 'Dutchman' than 'Netherman', perhaps.
>
> In Danish "-land" almost always results in "-lænder" [1], even for some
> Danish regions. I know the word "Highlander". Isn't "-lander" used with
> nations?
>
> I tried to think of Danish words with -man, but I think that we only use
> it with "nordmand" and "franskmand". The most productive ending is
> "-er".
>
> [1] Germany (Tyskland) is an exception. A German is called "en tysker".
> That is probably inspired by the Germans' own word "Deutscher".

Icelander, New Zealander, Luxemburger, maybe Liechtensteiner (we don't
talk about Liechtensteiners much). I can't think of any others.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2024-04-14 09:31:11 +0000, Athel Cornish-Bowden said:

> On 2024-04-14 09:01:10 +0000, Bertel Lund Hansen said:
>
>> Hibou wrote:
>>
>>> Google Books finds examples of 'Swissman', though not from authors I've
>>> heard of.
>>>
>>> Better 'Dutchman' than 'Netherman', perhaps.
>>
>> In Danish "-land" almost always results in "-lænder" [1], even for some
>> Danish regions. I know the word "Highlander". Isn't "-lander" used with
>> nations?
>>
>> I tried to think of Danish words with -man, but I think that we only use
>> it with "nordmand" and "franskmand". The most productive ending is
>> "-er".
>>
>> [1] Germany (Tyskland) is an exception. A German is called "en tysker".
>> That is probably inspired by the Germans' own word "Deutscher".
>
> Icelander, New Zealander, Luxemburger, maybe Liechtensteiner (we don't
> talk about Liechtensteiners much). I can't think of any others.

There is also Hollander, but I don't think that is much used today, and
I don't think Netherlander has really caught on.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

jerryfriedman wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
> ...

>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.

>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
> ...

> Yep. Another one is "walnut", not native to Britain.

Also "Walton on Thames", settlement of the welsh who chose not to flee
the Roman invasion.

On 2024-04-14 09:49:07 +0000, LionelEdwards said:

> jerryfriedman wrote:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>>> On 2024-04-12 14:09:38 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:
>> ...
>
>>>> Dutch does have 'Koeterwaals', for impossible to understand language.
>>>> From German 'Kauderwelsch' perhaps from 'Churer Welsch',
>>>> the Romance language spoken in the Swiss canton Chur.
>>>> (so not from Belgian 'Waals/Wallon')
>>>> It may be cognate with English 'Welsh'.
>
>>> I have the idea that Welsh, Waals/Wallon, Vlach, Welschland and others
>>> are all cognate and come from a word meaning "foreign".
>> ...
>
>> Yep. Another one is "walnut", not native to Britain.
> Also "Walton on Thames", settlement of the welsh who chose not to flee
> the Roman invasion.

Along with other similar examples: Wallington, Wallingford, Wallasey

I wondered about Walpurgis Night, but as far as I can find out that has
nothing to do with it.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Not at all. Ships can be obviously male, like Hood and and Bismarck,
> > and still be refered to as 'she'.
>
> Aren't Hood and Bismarck lastnames?

You want the Sloop John B instead?

Jan

In article <uvfq0t$3g0a5$1@dont-email.me>,
gadekryds@lundhansen.dk says...
>
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Not at all. Ships can be obviously male, like Hood and and Bismarck,
> > and still be refered to as 'she'.
>
> Aren't Hood and Bismarck lastnames?

Shirley the Hood was named for Little Red Riding Hood

Janet

J. J. Lodder wrote:

>>> Not at all. Ships can be obviously male, like Hood and and Bismarck,
>>> and still be refered to as 'she'.
>>
>> Aren't Hood and Bismarck lastnames?
>
> You want the Sloop John B instead?

I don't know what that has to do with anything. My point is that last
names have no sex.

--
Bertel
Kolt, Denmark

Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >>> Not at all. Ships can be obviously male, like Hood and and Bismarck,
> >>> and still be refered to as 'she'.
> >>
> >> Aren't Hood and Bismarck lastnames?
> >
> > You want the Sloop John B instead?
>
> I don't know what that has to do with anything. My point is that last
> names have no sex.

Strange.
Do you really believe that those ships were named after a name?

Jan

Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 14/04/24 00:56, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
...

>> And you doubtless learned that "baiser" doesn't mean what you were
>> taught at school.

> We would have studied some older novels, so no doubt we encountered
> "baiser" with its traditional and respectable meaning.
,,,

And some poetry? "Baise m'encor, rebaise moy et baise." Well, now
that I think about it, we read that in college, which you weren't
including in "school".

--
Jerry Friedman

Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
...

> It reminds me of something I was wondering a while ago: English-,
> Welsh-, Scots-, Irish-, French-, Dutch- and Norse- seem to be the only
> national prefixes that can take -man or -woman as suffix. Is there any
> logic? Swiss- would seem an obvious contender, but I don't think
> *Swissman exists. In the past Chinaman was acceptable, but never
> *Chinawoman.

I'll just mention that all those adjectives end with a version of
the -ish suffix.

--
Jerry Friedman