GalacticCactus Forum

Forums => English & Linguistics => Topic started by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 06:15:38 AM

Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 06:15:38 AM
In fin de siècle London, were pharmacies call apothecaries or chemists?  And how do I go about finding out such a thing, besides, you know, asking my favorite GC linguist?

I've begun an unaccustomed foray into fanfic, specifically Sherlock Holmes stories.  It's a lot of fun, but sometimes I'm a little hung up on the correct vocabulary.

As an aside, I was kind of shocked at the gratuitous bigotry that Doyle throws around!  I hadn't read through his opus (I'm partway through now).  Yikes!  I can see why he would be well-loathed in some quarters.

My versions are bigotry-free!
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 07:33:40 AM
Will it be Holmes free?  'Cuz he's a pretty loathesome protagonist in his own right.
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 07:50:30 AM
Well, you see, it's slashfic.  You know how Watson has a huge crush on Holmes?  Well, in my version, feelings are reciprocated and, well...

 
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 08:45:54 AM
Quote
You know how Watson has a huge crush on Holmes?
I never thought of it that way.

Heroe worship != crush
Title: Query
Post by: Jonathon on January 15, 2007, 09:27:10 AM
The OED says this:
Quote
The earlier name for: One who prepared and sold drugs for medicinal purposes—the business now (since about 1800) conducted by a druggist or pharmaceutical chemist. From about 1700 apothecaries gradually took a place as general medical practitioners, and the modern apothecary holds this status legally, by examination and licence of the Apothecaries' Company; but in popular usage the term is archaic.
Title: Query
Post by: kojabu on January 15, 2007, 11:56:52 AM
Quote
Well, you see, it's slashfic.  You know how Watson has a huge crush on Holmes?  Well, in my version, feelings are reciprocated and, well...
:lol:

Oh! And I have a game called 221 B Baker Street and in it there's an apothecary.  
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 11:58:52 AM
Thanks JB.  So, I guess "druggist" or "chemist" would be appropriate.  I know that "apothecary" is archaic now, I just wasn't sure if it would sound that way 100-some years ago.

And Porter, you are forgetting the fact that I assume that everyone is gay.  Holmes and Watson included.
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 12:01:12 PM
Quote
And Porter, you are forgetting the fact that I assume that everyone is gay. Holmes and Watson included.
You seem to be forgetting that we don't all share that quirk of yours. :P
Title: Query
Post by: kojabu on January 15, 2007, 12:02:15 PM
Gay until proven otherwise?
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:02:16 PM
Quote
I have a game called 221 B Baker Street and in it there's an apothecary.
Well, that confuses things for me more.  I'd like to use the word "apothecary", because, well, I like the word and feel bad that it doesn't get a chance to get out much.  And it is important to me that my trashy fiction be as well-crafted as I can make it.
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:03:02 PM
Quote
Gay until proven otherwise?
Yeah, pretty much.
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 12:06:55 PM
And how can this be proven?
Title: Query
Post by: Jonathon on January 15, 2007, 12:15:40 PM
Unfortunately, since you're a Mormon male, it can never be proven.
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:26:01 PM
Quote
And how can this be proven?
I have no idea.
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 12:29:20 PM
So, if you assume everybody is gay unless proven otherwise, and you don't have any way for people to prove to you that they aren't gay, does the word "gay" become synonomous with the word "alive"?
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:33:54 PM
I don't think so.  I know plenty of people who assume that everyone is straight "unless proven otherwise".  Does that make straight synonymous with alive?
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 12:36:57 PM
It depends on their criterion for "proven otherwise".  If it's impossible for somebody to be proven straight to them, then possibly.

You see by your criterion, the set of "people who are alive" and "people who are gay" are exactly the same, making the words, in some ways, indistinguishable from each other.

---

Myself, I tend to take people's word on such things.  If you say you're gay, I believe you.  If you say you're not, I believe you.

Usually.
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:39:43 PM
Quote
Myself, I tend to take people's word on such things.  If you say you're gay, I believe you.  If you say you're not, I believe you.
Me too.  But I rarely ask.
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 12:40:41 PM
I don't believe I've ever asked anybody in my life.
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:51:16 PM
Well, I was going to say "never ask", but then I remembered that I did ask someone if they were looking for a man or a woman, when they asked if I knew anyone suitable for a romance.

Of course, I spoke without thinking first, and immediately regretted my question.  I ought to have said something along the lines of "tell me about the kind of person you are looking for."

But that's the time that turned my "never" into a "rarely".
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 15, 2007, 12:55:56 PM
Why did you regret your question?  

And in fact, why did you even need to ask, if you already knew they were gay, just like everybody else? ;)
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 15, 2007, 12:58:24 PM
The question embarrassed the other person.  And even though I have that unconscious assumption, doesn't mean that I am dolt enough to assume that my unconscious assumptions are correct.
Title: Query
Post by: pooka on January 16, 2007, 12:56:50 PM
I think all people are potentially gay, in the same sense that all people are potentially anorexic.  I think some people fall easily into it, and pretty much anyone could be trained into it.  But that's very different from saying everyone is anorexic until proven otherwise.
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 25, 2007, 08:44:38 AM
OK. I've been doing my own research, pretty much reading stuff that was current at the time, and in fin de siecle London, they called pharmacies, "chemists".  "Apothecary" was not unknown but would have sounded really quaint.

I finished my Sherlock Holmes story, and I'm kind of sad, because I had such a good time writing it!  And researching the period, including the very limited pharmacopeia they had at their disposal, was really interesting.
Title: Query
Post by: pooka on January 25, 2007, 01:42:12 PM
Wasn't it principally comprised of things that made you purge one way or the other?  Calomel and whatnot?
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 25, 2007, 01:49:38 PM
Lots of laudanum.  Laudanum and laxatives.  Because the laudanum is so constipating, I guess.
Title: Query
Post by: imogen on January 27, 2007, 09:38:25 AM
Quote
I think all people are potentially gay, in the same sense that all people are potentially anorexic.  I think some people fall easily into it, and pretty much anyone could be trained into it.  But that's very different from saying everyone is anorexic until proven otherwise.
Excuse me?  

I think all people are potentially gay, in the same sense that all people are potentially anorexic.

You know what?  I have really liked reading (and sporadically, I know, interacting with) this board, partly because I have been able to grow to appreciate people with a very different view from mine.  

But the idea that gay can be equated with anorexia without even an eyebrow raised - d'you guys not see any difference?
Title: Query
Post by: pooka on January 27, 2007, 03:41:36 PM
I usually use obesity as the analogy.  Do you think of that as less of an eating disorder than anorexia?  Because it kills way more people.  It's all a matter of perspective.  No one gives electro-shock therapy to overeaters, there is plenty of social acceptance that it's simply another way of being human.  I don't think gay people or disordered eaters see themselves as evil, nor do I think they are personally evil, but I don't think their actions are morally neutral.  
Title: Query
Post by: Tante Shvester on January 27, 2007, 03:44:28 PM
Well, yeah.  But I thought I'd said too much already, so I was holding my tongue, for once.

But thanks, Imogen, for validating my feelings about that comparison.
Title: Query
Post by: pooka on January 27, 2007, 03:47:09 PM
My views in no way reflect any kind of universal Mormon position.  They are just my own weird little thoughts, so don't make it the whole board's issue.  Perhaps you should PM me.
Title: Query
Post by: Porter on January 27, 2007, 05:15:44 PM
Quote
But the idea that gay can be equated with anorexia without even an eyebrow raised - d'you guys not see any difference?
Pooka didn't equate gay with anorexia.  She said that they shared one aspect, that anybody has the potential to be that way. Her words were "I think all people are potentially gay, in the same sense that all people are potentially anorexic."

It's like saying "Pooka is female, in ths same sense that Brinestone is female."  Pooka is not Brinestone, and I never said they were.  I just said that they have a characteristic in common.
Title: Query
Post by: pooka on January 27, 2007, 05:30:31 PM
Sorry, I've had a hot and cold day.  I shouldn't have gotten defensive.  I hope you'll stick around more, Imogen.  
Title: Query
Post by: Jonathon on January 27, 2007, 08:13:13 PM
Quote
You know what?  I have really liked reading (and sporadically, I know, interacting with) this board, partly because I have been able to grow to appreciate people with a very different view from mine. 

But the idea that gay can be equated with anorexia without even an eyebrow raised - d'you guys not see any difference?
I definitely see a difference, but like Porteiro, I didn't think pooka was saying they were the same. And to be honest, I was so weirded out by the whole conversation that I didn't really know how to respond and thus decided to just ignore it.
Title: Query
Post by: rivka on January 27, 2007, 08:28:27 PM
^ Precisely.