Author Topic: The random etymology of the day (Read 222437 times)

Jonathon · « **Reply #1475 on:** November 11, 2011, 12:40:35 PM »

I think that statement is often taken to mean that Joseph Smith had a vision of Paul, but that's not necessarily true. The only source for Joseph's description of Paul is secondhand. And Joseph might have simply been relying on apocryphal descriptions of Paul.

Quote

A cursory reading of the Prophet’s statement might lead to the conclusion that his knowledge of Paul’s physical characteristics could have been learned only by means of a vision. However, the Prophet’s description actually resembles depictions of Paul found in familiar apocryphal writings. Thus, while Joseph may have received an actual vision of Paul, he possibly gained his understanding of the ancient Apostle’s appearance from the traditional Christian literature of the day and accepted it as accurate.

link

The Genuine · « **Reply #1476 on:** November 11, 2011, 01:51:59 PM »

Quote from: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=less

O.E. læs (adv.), læssa (adj.), comp. of læs "small;" from P.Gmc. *laisiz "smaller," from PIE base *loiso- "small" (cf. Lith. liesas "thin"). Formerly also "younger," as a translation of L. minor, a sense now obsolete except in James the Less. Used as a comparative of little, but not related to it. Lesser (mid-15c.) is a double comparative, "a barbarous corruption of less, formed by the vulgar from the habit of terminating comparatives in -er." [Johnson].

Does this mean I can get away with using less wherever I would normally use lesser, as in "the less of two evils" ?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1477 on:** November 11, 2011, 03:10:10 PM »

Only if you're living before the mid-15th century.

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #1478 on:** November 11, 2011, 03:53:44 PM »

Is that why they changed his name? Poor guy.

Porter · « **Reply #1479 on:** November 12, 2011, 12:44:08 PM »

With a big nose.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1480 on:** December 15, 2011, 10:49:26 AM »

Why is "viper" a word, and not "vipe"? I'd think that viping would be what a viper does.

I prefer "adder" to "viper", anyway, because everyone knows that adders add. If a viper doesn't vipe, then what is it good for?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1481 on:** December 15, 2011, 10:51:14 AM »

Are you sure you didn't mean to post in the spurious etymology thread?

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1482 on:** December 15, 2011, 10:52:30 AM »

Sometimes I get frustrated in Scrabble that my made-up words are not acceptable.

Jonathon · « **Reply #1483 on:** December 15, 2011, 10:56:30 AM »

True. They include so many obviously made-up words—why not allow yours too?

Marianne Dashwood · « **Reply #1484 on:** December 15, 2011, 02:22:03 PM »

You better watch out, I'ma vipe you.

BlackBlade · « **Reply #1485 on:** December 15, 2011, 02:47:42 PM »

Not if I mamba out of the way.

The Genuine · « **Reply #1486 on:** December 15, 2011, 07:16:37 PM »

Hiss off. The admin already told us this was the wrong thread.

Brinestone · « **Reply #1487 on:** December 16, 2011, 08:15:00 AM »

This'll really rattle his chains.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1488 on:** February 21, 2012, 01:56:14 PM »

I was looking through a catalogue that came in the mail, and my son saw a seersucker suit and commented that it was a remarkably ugly suit. I told him it was seersucker, and it was supposed to look that way.

He double-taked (took?). "Seersucker? What's a seer and who would want to suck it?"

I have no idea. What is a seer, and why do those suits suck it?

Porter · « **Reply #1489 on:** February 21, 2012, 02:50:54 PM »

Quote

a seersucker suit

Did you just make that up?

rivka · « **Reply #1490 on:** February 21, 2012, 03:05:06 PM »

You've never heard of a seersucker suit?

rivka · « **Reply #1491 on:** February 21, 2012, 03:06:32 PM »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seersucker
Google Shopping search for seersucker

Porter · « **Reply #1492 on:** February 21, 2012, 04:18:21 PM »

Quote

You've never heard of a seersucker suit?

Nope.

Jonathon · « **Reply #1493 on:** February 21, 2012, 04:42:44 PM »

Quote from: Tante Shvester on February 21, 2012, 01:56:14 PM

I was looking through a catalogue that came in the mail, and my son saw a seersucker suit and commented that it was a remarkably ugly suit. I told him it was seersucker, and it was supposed to look that way.

He double-taked (took?). "Seersucker? What's a seer and who would want to suck it?"

I have no idea. What is a seer, and why do those suits suck it?

From the Wikipedia article:

Quote

The word came into English from Hindustani (Urdu and Hindi), which originates from the Persian words "shir o shakkar", meaning "milk and sugar", probably from the resemblance of its smooth and rough stripes to the smooth texture of milk and the bumpy texture of sugar.

The Genuine · « **Reply #1494 on:** February 21, 2012, 04:44:56 PM »

Are you sure it doesn't have to do with a prognosticatory lollipop?

Jonathon · « **Reply #1495 on:** February 21, 2012, 04:49:17 PM »

Pretty sure, yes.

pooka · « **Reply #1496 on:** February 21, 2012, 07:06:06 PM »

While I have not seen one in quite some time, the expression "seersucker suit" is fairly well established. I think it's used to describe travelling salesmen (Which I have also not personally seen in quite some time.) The Music Man may have worn a seersucker suit, if I'm not mistaken. Well, I can't find proof of that.

rivka · « **Reply #1497 on:** February 21, 2012, 07:13:50 PM »

I don't think so.

Tante Shvester · « **Reply #1498 on:** February 22, 2012, 02:36:49 AM »

He had a lot of suits in that suitcase.

There is a seersucker suit in the Lands End catalogue we got in yesterday's mail.

My high school put on a production of The Music Man; the lead actor may have worn seersucker. Then again, like pooka, I can't find proof of that.

pooka · « **Reply #1499 on:** February 22, 2012, 07:34:23 AM »

Maybe the anvil salesman wore one.