Leaderboard

12 old words that survived by getting fossilized in idioms By Arika Okrent | The Week – Fri, Jun 14, 2013 "Sleight of hand" (not "slight of hand" as it's often misspelled) helped the Middle English word "sleight" survive obsolescence English has changed a lot in the last several hundred years, and there are many words once used that we would no longer recognize today. For whatever reason, we started pronouncing them differently, or stopped using them entirely, and they became obsolete. There are some old words, however, that are nearly obsolete, but we still recognize because they were lucky enough to get stuck in set phrases that have lasted across the centuries. Here are 12 of those lucky words: 1. Wend You rarely see a "wend" without a "way." You can wend your way through a crowd or down a hill, but no one wends to bed or to school. However, there was a time when English speakers would wend to all kinds of places. "Wend" was just another word for "go" in Old English. The past tense of "wend" was "went" and the past tense of "go" was "gaed." People used both until the 15th century, when "go" became the preferred verb, except in the past tense where "went" hung on, leaving us with an outrageously irregular verb. 2. Deserts The "desert" from the phrase "just deserts" is not the dry and sandy kind, nor the sweet post-dinner kind. It comes from an Old French word for "deserve," and it was used in English from the 13th century to mean "that which is deserved." When you get your just deserts, you get your due. In some cases, that may mean you also get dessert, a word that comes from a later French borrowing. 3. Eke If we see "eke" at all these days, it's when we "eke out" a living, but it comes from an old verb meaning to add, supplement, or grow. It's the same word that gave us "eke-name" for "additional name," which later, through misanalysis of "an eke-name" became "nickname." 4. Sleight "Sleight of hand" is one tricky phrase. "Sleight" is often miswritten as "slight" and for good reason. Not only does the expression convey an image of light, nimble fingers, which fits well with the smallness implied by "slight," but an alternate expression for the concept is "legerdemain," from the French léger de main," literally, "light of hand." "Sleight" comes from a different source, a Middle English word meaning "cunning" or "trickery." It's a wily little word that lives up to its name. 5. Dint "Dint" comes from the oldest of Old English where it originally referred to a blow struck with a sword or other weapon. It came to stand for the whole idea of subduing by force, and is now fossilized in our expression "by dint of X" where X can stand for your charisma, hard work, smarts, or anything you can use to accomplish something else. 6. Roughshod Nowadays we see this word in the expression "to run/ride roughshod" over somebody or something, meaning to tyrannize or treat harshly. It came about as a way to describe the 17th century version of snow tires. A "rough-shod" horse had its shoes attached with protruding nail heads in order to get a better grip on slippery roads. It was great for keeping the horse on its feet, but not so great for anyone the horse might step on. 7. Fro The "fro" in "to and fro" is a fossilized remnant of a Northern English or Scottish way of pronouncing "from." It was also part of other expressions that didn't stick around, like "fro and till," "to do fro" (to remove), and "of or fro" (for or against). 8. Hue The "hue" of "hue and cry," the expression for the noisy clamor of a crowd, is not the same "hue" as the term we use for color. The color one comes from the Old English word híew, for "appearance." This hue comes from the Old French hu or heu, which was basically an onomatopoeia, like "hoot." 9. Kith The "kith" part of "kith and kin" came from an Old English word referring to knowledge or acquaintance. It also stood for native land or country, the place you were most familiar with. The expression "kith and kin" originally meant your country and your family, but later came to have the wider sense of friends and family. 10. Lurch When you leave someone "in the lurch," you leave them in a jam, in a difficult position. But while getting left in the lurch may leave you staggering around and feeling off-balance, the "lurch" in this expression has a different origin than the staggery one. The balance-related lurch comes from nautical vocabulary, while the lurch you get left in comes from an old French backgammon-style game calledlourche. Lurch became a general term for the situation of beating your opponent by a huge score. By extension it came to stand for the state of getting the better of someone or cheating them. 11. Umbrage "Umbrage" comes from the Old French ombrage (shade, shadow), and it was once used to talk about actual shade from the sun. It took on various figurative meanings having to do with doubt and suspicion or the giving and taking of offense. To give umbrage was to offend someone, to "throw shade." However, these days when we see the term "umbrage" at all, it is more likely to be because someone is taking, rather than giving it. 12. Shrift We might not know what a shrift is anymore, but we know we don't want to get a short one. "Shrift" was a word for a confession, something it seems we might want to keep short, or a penance imposed by a priest, something we would definitely want to keep short. But the phrase "short shrift" came from the practice of allowing a little time for the condemned to make a confession before being executed. So in that context, shorter was not better. View this article on TheWeek.com Get 4 Free Issues of The Week

Non-alcoholic cocktails are like a vibrator without the batteries... It fills you up, but lacks the buzz...!

But hito, my dear, you know what they say abut OLD people......they SMELL !

I received this email about 3 hours ago from the US Consulate. The U.S. Embassy in Brasilia alerts U.S. citizens traveling to and residing in Brazil to continued protests in several cities throughout the country including Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, Recife, Belo Horizonte, Porto Alegre, Fortaleza, Salvador, and Manaus. Protests have occurred throughout Brazil in the past week and more are planned for June 26. There have also been calls on social media for a series of strikes and protests throughout Brazil, which could potentially occur in the next week. U.S. citizens should avoid the protests and areas where large gatherings may occur. Even demonstrations or events intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and possibly escalate into violence. U.S. citizens in Brazil are urged to continue to monitor local news reports and to plan their activities accordingly. I can only report that in the central area of Rio things were very calm. The corner newstands on the sidewalks were getting ready to close at 5PM. Most por quilos shut early anyway as they are normally luncheon spots. The banks are still almost totally boarded up except for a single entryway which is opened and closed for business hours only. No problem getting money(saque) just need to do it before 4PM or 5PM, depending on when the last employee leaves and the security guards fasten down the metal doors and/or plywood barriers. In different spots around the city there were groups of 10-12 military police from the states of Rio de Janeiro with kevlar vests, guns, some with semis and batons. Different from the Municipal Guard/Guarda Municipal who only carry batons and the BOPE and the mounted police who have helmets and heavier-duty "stuff. These really are demonstrations over sundry complaints and not riots, per se. Yesterday, while walking to Meio Mundo, I passed a group of 10-11 retirees from VARIG complaining that they were missing their pensions. They had their handmade signs scrawled on posterboard. Feeble graphics. The Banco Brasil Cultural Center was closed, but there they were standing in front on the stops smiling for a couple of photographers. Part of the lawlessness, are people taking advantage and looting and destroying whatever. Tonight in the Complexo Mare, which is on the other side of the highway from the hospital near the airport Galeao, part of UFRJ University, 9 people were killed in drug violence, and a news helicopter from RECORD for Cidade Alerta show youths running wild in the narrow streets, marauders as it were, stealing women's purses and even running into and out of restaurants stealing shopping bags as well. One woman ran into a restaurant/bar for protection and still a couple adolescents follewed her inside to rob her and you could see them exiting with her bags. Lawlessness. There was video of police apprehending some - the total reported was 16.

Fr Hans Kung on 'the paradox of Pope Francis': http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/paradox-pope-francis

I drink reds almost exclusively anymore. I always favored them by a large margin but I did drink whites much more twenty years ago. Today one is much more likely to stumble across a modestly priced decent red than white IMO, even though there are a few exceptions, almost by accident it seems. Most modest-priced whites are fit only for marinating goat and treating sink clogs, again IMO. The taste on the tongue is likened to fingernails on a chalk board -- good for waking one from a semicomatose slumber like a smack upon the face, or... for clearing the sink drain. 'My white' is aged in oak to impart hints of vanilla and a buttery, chewy style with a strong backbone and lower notes with lingering after-notes that continue to charm the tongue. Most of what is produced today is thin textured pineappley higher notes. One of the differences is the amount of time spent in oak barrels. That costs money and takes more time which also costs money. That is not to say that there are not good examples out there of the new style but be prepared to leave a limb behind at your wine store because most vintners price the better whites as if they are extremely proud of them, and frankly, they are a big gamble to the buyer. I receive no satisfaction from paying big for a bad wine, whatever the label.

I haven't read the article and I have my own experience to go on. I suspect that many people may not be able to discern the flavors and aromas in wines. Many people do not even like dry wines and can't get past that. What I do know from experience is that I have tasted the following notes in many many (grape) dry wines that I have consumed over 40+ years -- not all in the same wine by any means and not every wine had least one. Some wines can portray little more than wetness and a mysterious taste if any, but those are mostly restricted the very low priced bins usually -- not to damn all low priced wines. choclolate cherry blackberry leather tobacco tar oak vanilla butter pineapple grape juice (rarely) pear gravel grass vinegar I have had wines with various floral and fruity bouquets, as well as oak, leather, tobacco and even barnyard bouquets. I demurred on the barnyard offering. Probably just a very bad cork and mold rather than a non-fruit fortification. (yikes) I have had others share these experiences as I often do not drink these types of wine alone but with a meal and family or friends. I'm not a wine snob as my usual fare is Paisano, a cheap delicious California jug wine that serves my everyday purposes. But in the past I have cellared as many as a dozen cases of wines at a time from around the world, more than a few rated 90+ (too often disappointing on maturity for such ratings). I have no doubt that some cannot discern these wine qualities and that they convince themselves they do. I also expect that even so-called experts may disagree on some wines. As for me, I've been drinking wine so long and from so many sources with so many disappointments that I have few expectations upon opening a wine, especially in the last ten years, especially based on price. One wine that surprised me just recently, enough to make me shell out for half a case, which I rarely do in retirement, is: Four Vines, Old Vine Cuvee, 2009, Zinfandel, California $12 - $14 dollars most places. If I were still drawing a regular paycheck I would have purchased at least two cases for the cellar. I'll let those who have an opportunity to try it determine for themselves the tastes and aromas this beauty offers. One more point, as far as telling plonk from grand cru, I do not disagree with that in general, but from the point of view that in many cases little separates the quality of wines. There are many formerly great vineyards trafficking on their reputation that just no longer deserve it. Definitely true in France and also true in California, Washington State and Australia, as some former greats have become so-so, but try to demand the money they got in the past. That is the nature of wine as a business, and distributors and many retailers aide and abet it because money is money. Finally, I expect the same type of article could be written for coffee or vodka or myriad of other products that rely on the senses to evaluate. Those article would be just as true and just as false as I suspect this one is. I know I said finally above but... I don't knock studies in general and I don't know anything about this study to knock it other than I don't share it's sweeping conclusion on the face of it. However, all studies are subject to some level of corruption no matter how much care is take to not corrupt the study. It all comes down to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, the very act of trying to measure something or observe a process effects the outcome producing some difference from that which takes place without measurement or observation. Take for example these experts who differ on their analysis. Putting them under a microscope induces a psychological stress which may even produce physical stress that might alter the sensitivity of their senses. They are putting their 'rep', their knowledge and expertise, on the line publicly for people to scrutinize. Most sports and entertainment stars, even business stars usually have to have their 'head in the zone' to succeed at the levels in which they compete. If they don't have their head in it, well... Just look at women's gymnastics as an example. As for me, I'm under no pressure when I drink wine. I have nothing on the line, no stress to send cortisol flowing through my system. I sit and drink and notice whatever my tongue and nose detect. I'm in a relaxed state. My results are unbiased by outside forces or measures. No one else told me what to expect or quizes me as to whether I pass or fail. I just taste what I taste, real or not. That leads to the question of what is reality where I will not go. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is very real. We have to live with that and do the best we can because observations and measurements are very necessary. Just be aware that interpreting results may not always be as straightforward as it seems or should be.

I cannot make such a claim. But, I have tried very hard to be circumspect in this regard for many years now. I may not always succeed but I do try. No one alive is perfect and what may have happened many years ago should be taken with a grain of salt, at least. I do not blame MS. Deen for making remarks. I do blame her for atrocious recipes and "hiding her diabetes" from her loyal and not so loyal public. I hope I am never in such as situation but that is very unlikely. I do not appear on TV. And, hope I never do. Best regards, RA1

Fervently to be hoped... Supreme Court On Gay Marriage: 'Sure, Who Cares' News • supreme court • News • ISSUE 49•13 • Mar 26, 2013 WASHINGTON—Ten minutes into oral arguments over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry one another, a visibly confounded Supreme Court stopped legal proceedings Tuesday and ruled that gay marriage was “perfectly fine” and that the court could “care less who marries whom.” “Yeah, of course gay men and women can get married. Who gives a shit?” said Chief Justice John Roberts, who interrupted attorney Charles Cooper’s opening statement defending Proposition 8, which rescinded same-sex couples’ right to marry in California. “Why are we even seriously discussing this?” “Does anyone else up here care about this?” Roberts added as his eight colleagues began shaking their heads and saying, “No,” “Nah,” and “I also don’t care about about this.” “Great. Same-sex marriage is legal in the United States of America. Do we have anything of actual import on the docket, or are we done for the day?” Before Roberts officially ended proceedings, sources confirmed that all nine justices were reportedly dumbfounded, asking why the case was even coming before them and wondering aloud if some sort of mistake had been made. Calling marriage equality a “no-brainer,” members of the High Court appeared not just confused but irritated when Proposition 8 defenders argued that gay marriage was not a national issue but a state matter. Moreover, when Attorney Cooper said that gay marriage could harm the moral fabric of the country and hurt the institution of marriage, Associate Justice Sotomayor asked, “What are you even talking about?” while Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly muttered, “You got to be fucking kidding me,” under his breath. “I have to interject, Mr. Cooper,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said as the attorney argued that the government has legitimate reasons to discourage same-sex couples from getting married. “Do you honestly care this much about this issue? Because if you do, you’re a real goddamn idiot. Actually, you sound as dumb as dog shit, and you are wasting our time.” “Should gay marriage be legal?” Ginsburg continued. “Yes. Done. Case closed. Goodbye. Christ, were we seriously scheduled to spend the next few months debating this?” Even the typically conservative wing of the court maintained that, despite their personal views, it would be “downright silly” for them to rule that same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. “I’m a strict Originalist, Mr. Cooper, and I’m looking at a 14th Amendment that forbids any state from denying any person equal protection of the law,” Associate Justice Antonin Scalia said. “So, unless we are the most uncivilized society on the face of God’s green earth, I think we can all agree that a gay person is in fact a person. So what I’m saying is, who the fuck are we to tell a person who he or she can get married to? This is dumb. Can we talk about a real case now, please?” Before adjourning the court, Roberts said there would be no official opinion on the case because it’s just “common goddamn sense,” and then addressed gay men and women directly. “Get married, don’t get married, do whatever you want,” Roberts said. “It’s the opinion of this court that we don’t give two shits what you do.” “C’mon, let’s go get some food,” added Roberts, as the eight other justices followed him out the door. http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-on-gay-marriage-sure-who-cares,31812/

I Get To Determine Whether Gay People Can Marry Commentary • Opinion • ISSUE 48•49 • Dec 11, 2012 By Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Last week, the Supreme Court decided to take up a pair of cases related to gay marriage, cases that will for the first time determine the constitutionality of laws denying marriage rights to same-sex couples. As a member of the nation’s highest court for the past 21 years, I can remember few rulings of such consequence as these two, which will affect the lives of so many people. So as the time approaches, I ask all Americans to think long and hard on what these decisions will mean for the future of our nation, and also think long and hard about the fact that I, Clarence Thomas, will get to determine whether gay people can marry each other. That’s right, me: an embarrassingly undistinguished justice with a history of ethical misconduct who hasn’t spoken during an oral argument in almost seven years. I get to rule on whether gay people should have basic human rights. Pretty crazy, right? I’m one of only nine Americans in a position to decide, in a matter of months, whether our democracy values the right of a group of human beings to get married. Now, if you’re having a hard time wrapping your head around that one, you’re not alone. If you had told me in 1991 that I would one day have the power to decide the basic rights of millions of people, I would have laughed in your face. Back then, I was a 43-year-old appeals court judge with a flimsy record on civil rights and abortion who thought affirmative action was a form of “social engineering”—not exactly the kinds of views you’d expect in a jurist destined for the Supreme Court. Yet lo and behold, that same year, despite accusations that I sexually harassed attorney Anita Hill, my appointment to replace retired justice Thurgood Marshall was confirmed. Soon enough, I was abstaining from oral arguments for years at a time and failing to disclose my wife’s sources of income. I’ve spoken maybe two times in the past decade, for Christ’s sake. Think about that. That’s hundreds and hundreds of cases during which I’ve sat silently and twiddled my thumbs as my colleagues actively interrogated lawyers and posed tough questions about the scope and applications of laws—cases to which I barely paid attention, sometimes appearing to nap on the bench. And I get to have a say in deciding on a constitutional level whether or not all adult members of the human race have the right to recognize their unions? That historic judgment falls on my shoulders? I’m not trying to belabor the point here. I just want you all to be fully aware that the future of gay and lesbian citizens in this country comes down to the opinion of nine people, one of whom—me—fell asleep during the inauguration of the first black president and believes states have the right to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant. Speaking of, here are some other things I believe: felons have the right to bear arms unless the state explicitly forbids it, Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned, corporations and unions should be permitted to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, and those campaigns should not be required to disclose donors. Oh, and in 2003 I dissented in the court’s decision to strike down a Texas law prohibiting homosexual acts. Yet in six months, in the year 2013, I’ll have the opportunity to decide whether hospitals can legally bar gay people from visiting their loved ones. Take a second and think about the gay people in your life. Your best friend, your mom, your dad, your teacher, your coworker, your partner, you. I get to decide whether these people face institutional discrimination. The same goes for bisexual people, transgender people, and anyone else whose right to marry may be prohibited at the state or federal level. They are all searching for happiness, and their happiness all depends on the opinion of a man who once asked if someone put pubic hair on his Coke. You want to hear something even weirder? Antonin Scalia gets to decide all this too. So before these two judicial decisions are upon us, take a moment to reflect on what they mean for the future of our nation. As the tide of history turns and decisions of tremendous importance reach the highest court in the land, I will be there to judge them. Now, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life. http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-get-to-determine-whether-gay-people-can-marry,30684/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default