More "divided by a common language" stuff

Socializing and general posts on wide-ranging topics. Remember, it's Poststructural!
Post Reply
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

benhall.1 wrote:You picked up that when DrPhill said, "the adult version of ...," he meant you to substitute an i for the o?
DrPhill wrote:Maybe I was too cryptic.
Hey, when I see a link I expect it to be a link, not an ontologically mutative uncertainty intended to actualize one's innate, primordial fiddle-aboutness.
benhall.1 wrote:The quantum soup is calling to you via four-dimensional superstructures. Can you hear it?
DrPhill wrote:The goal of sonar energy is to plant the seeds of spacetime rather than ego.
Argledy bargledy beejee-dee boo. So there.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

ytliek wrote:I will concede to the ref poppycock with the origin including 'dung'. :shock:
Yeah, don't eat that.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
User avatar
DrPhill
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:58 am
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
Location: None

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by DrPhill »

Nanohedron wrote:
ytliek wrote:I will concede to the ref poppycock with the origin including 'dung'. :shock:
Yeah, don't eat that.
I would not eat the other either. What is it with this 'cover everything in sugar' theme? They look like nice ingredients until the 'candy coating' - then the two definitions got a lot closer.
Phill

One does not equal two. Not even for very large values of one.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

DrPhill wrote:Just like the lion in the serengeti, if you take the 'pants' from the USA word-horde and put it in the UK word-horde it is no longer the same beast.
And thanks a million to you lot across the Pond for that bit of knowledge. Ever since C&F, I can't hear the word "pants" any more without trying not to giggle. Do you have a different meaning for "undies"?
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
User avatar
ytliek
Posts: 2739
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:51 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
Location: Seashore

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by ytliek »

DrPhill wrote:
Nanohedron wrote:
ytliek wrote:I will concede to the ref poppycock with the origin including 'dung'. :shock:
Yeah, don't eat that.
I would not eat the other either. What is it with this 'cover everything in sugar' theme? They look like nice ingredients until the 'candy coating' - then the two definitions got a lot closer.
It flies off the shelves around here and often one would have to ask if any more is stored away. Poppycock seems to appear just prior to mass media sports events and awards shows, seasonal offerings as well. For the football Superbowl (US) the media in these parts have hyped the shortage of avocados. No guacamole! :tomato:
User avatar
DrPhill
Posts: 1610
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 11:58 am
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 10
Location: None

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by DrPhill »

Nanohedron wrote:Poppycock seems to appear just prior to mass media sports events and awards shows, seasonal offerings as well
Yep it does over here too. Assuming meaning #1.
Phill

One does not equal two. Not even for very large values of one.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

DrPhill wrote:I would not eat the other either. What is it with this 'cover everything in sugar' theme? They look like nice ingredients until the 'candy coating'...
We don't cover everything in sugar; that would be ridiculous. But I'm sure we've tried. It's been said that the US propensity for sweetening things (if it's really all that true) can be traced to settler contact with northeast woodland tribes who widely eschewed salt: they deemed it bitter and even poisonous, using maple sugar instead as a seasoning. The idea caught on, and Boston Baked Beans is without a doubt a direct inheritance of that exchange. To be fair, one of my favorite pork roasts involves apples and sweet-and-sour sauce, with a hint of garlic - pork has an affinity for sweetness and for fruits like apples, plums, pears and peaches - but I wouldn't dream of doing that with beef.

But on a practical level alone it takes sugar if you want those nice clumpy nuggets. In the US, candied popcorn itself probably started in the early 19th century. The commercial popcorn-and-peanuts product Cracker Jack is the classic, emerging at the end of the 1800s. It was the dominant - perhaps the only - brand of its kind for a long time, and it's still around; I knew it well as a kid, back when the Earth's crust was cooling. Unless they've changed the recipe, Cracker Jack is less sweet, more molasses-flavored. At home we would make popcorn balls on special occasions, and these were held together with a slightly sticky but light candying. Those and Cracker Jack were considered mainly kids' fare (with every box of Cracker Jack you got a free toy!), and they were pretty much the whole game for candied popcorn, so far as I was aware; otherwise popcorn was, and typically still is, simply eaten buttered. Then in the 60s came Screaming Yellow Zonkers, which heralded the downfall of the counterculture by monetizing it as pop fashion: its marketing themes were inspired by shades of Sgt. Pepper, Peter Max, and all that - "Psychedelic Lite", if you like. I myself never encountered the brand until the early 70s, I think. Anyway, the product inside the box changed the commercial game not only in confining itself to refined sugar - quite the change from the venerable and molasses-driven Cracker Jack - but also in having a distinctly buttery thing going on as well. It was an unusual flavor combination for the time and very addictive, and since the general concept was now acceptable adult fare, with that the floodgates were opened, and the variety of commercial offerings has increased ever since. Again, though, it's not all sugar-coated; there are plenty of savory-flavored commercial products as well, but in that case of course the popcorn is dry and loose. My personal preference would be for the savory, but I'm not much of a snacker.

It just occurred to me that Screaming Yellow Zonkers was very probably an insidious backlash aimed at those of us discovering brown rice, granola and miso for the first time. As someone once snapped at me, "I'm not paranoid; I'm simply in possession of the facts." :wink:
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
User avatar
benhall.1
Moderator
Posts: 14797
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 5:21 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: I'm a fiddler and, latterly, a fluter. I love the flute. I wish I'd always played it. I love the whistle as well. I'm blessed in having really lovely instruments for all of my musical interests.
Location: Unimportant island off the great mainland of Europe

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by benhall.1 »

Nanohedron wrote:
DrPhill wrote:Just like the lion in the serengeti, if you take the 'pants' from the USA word-horde and put it in the UK word-horde it is no longer the same beast.
And thanks a million to you lot across the Pond for that bit of knowledge. Ever since C&F, I can't hear the word "pants" any more without trying not to giggle. Do you have a different meaning for "undies"?
No. And "undies" sounds quite English to my ears. But undies, in the UK, covers a few different items of clothing - for instance, pants, bras, long johns, petticoats (maybe) etc.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

benhall.1 wrote:But undies, in the UK, covers a few different items of clothing - for instance, pants, bras, long johns, petticoats (maybe) etc.
Pretty much the same here. Pants (à la UK) first and foremost, with the rest as might apply.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
busterbill
Posts: 731
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 8:06 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by busterbill »

Nanohedron wrote:
DrPhill wrote:I would not eat the other either. What is it with this 'cover everything in sugar' theme? They look like nice ingredients until the 'candy coating'...
We don't cover everything in sugar; that would be ridiculous. But I'm sure we've tried. It's been said that the US propensity for sweetening things (if it's really all that true) can be traced to settler contact with northeast woodland tribes who widely eschewed salt: they deemed it bitter and even poisonous, using maple sugar instead as a seasoning. The idea caught on, and Boston Baked Beans is without a doubt a direct inheritance of that exchange. To be fair, one of my favorite pork roasts involves apples and sweet-and-sour sauce, with a hint of garlic - pork has an affinity for sweetness and for fruits like apples, plums, pears and peaches - but I wouldn't dream of doing that with beef.

But on a practical level alone it takes sugar if you want those nice clumpy nuggets. In the US, candied popcorn itself probably started in the early 19th century. The commercial popcorn-and-peanuts product Cracker Jack is the classic, emerging at the end of the 1800s. It was the dominant - perhaps the only - brand of its kind for a long time, and it's still around; I knew it well as a kid, back when the Earth's crust was cooling. Unless they've changed the recipe, Cracker Jack is less sweet, more molasses-flavored. At home we would make popcorn balls on special occasions, and these were held together with a slightly sticky but light candying. Those and Cracker Jack were considered mainly kids' fare (with every box of Cracker Jack you got a free toy!), and they were pretty much the whole game for candied popcorn, so far as I was aware; otherwise popcorn was, and typically still is, simply eaten buttered. Then in the 60s came Screaming Yellow Zonkers, which heralded the downfall of the counterculture by monetizing it as pop fashion: its marketing themes were inspired by shades of Sgt. Pepper, Peter Max, and all that - "Psychedelic Lite", if you like. I myself never encountered the brand until the early 70s, I think. Anyway, the product inside the box changed the commercial game not only in confining itself to refined sugar - quite the change from the venerable and molasses-driven Cracker Jack - but also in having a distinctly buttery thing going on as well. It was an unusual flavor combination for the time and very addictive, and since the general concept was now acceptable adult fare, with that the floodgates were opened, and the variety of commercial offerings has increased ever since. Again, though, it's not all sugar-coated; there are plenty of savory-flavored commercial products as well, but in that case of course the popcorn is dry and loose. My personal preference would be for the savory, but I'm not much of a snacker.

It just occurred to me that Screaming Yellow Zonkers was very probably an insidious backlash aimed at those of us discovering brown rice, granola and miso for the first time. As someone once snapped at me, "I'm not paranoid; I'm simply in possession of the facts." :wink:

In the midwest commercial snack producers have made an insidious mix of popped caramel corn and cheese covered popcorn called Chicago Mix. It is quite bad for me on all accounts: salt, sugar and fat in a concentrated package. I haven't eaten it in a couple of years but it is that mix of sweet and savory that could find me consuming a whole family sized bag without a second thought. Now that I have switched my diet to eating food, rather than stuff made out of things that are made out of food. It is off my list. But it was one of my favorites.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

For a while in the late 70s/early 80s I was tossing Parmesan cheese in my popcorn instead of butter. This was that ersatz Parm-in-a-box such as you find in a common pizza joint, not authentic Parmigiano Reggiano (which was hard to get at the time); but it was still very enjoyable, for what it was. Then I thought to up the game with Romano-in-a-box, but for some reason, on popcorn it smelled distressingly like vomit. Never again.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
david_h
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:04 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Mercia

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by david_h »

Sorry for the regression, but the overall ‘progress’ of the discussion, whilst educational, has kept it in mind.

I can’t work out if it is that everyone here knows the expression “like shovelling smoke” or that no-one knows it. And so if the ‘mixed common simile’ is being found amusing or not being recognized as such.

I just asked two English medical doctors about ‘micturate’ and they understood it in the way in which it was first used here.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

david_h wrote:I can’t work out if it is that everyone here knows the expression “like shovelling smoke” or that no-one knows it.
Not sure where you're going with this, sorry. By "here", I'm assuming you mean C&F. But why everyone as opposed to no one? Couldn't some know it, and some not?

I've heard "like shoveling smoke" maybe one or two times before; at any rate, not often, and I couldn't tell you where, although a session vaguely comes to mind. I found it easy enough to understand. I haven't used it myself.
david_h wrote:And so if the ‘mixed common simile’ is being found amusing or not being recognized as such.
Again, I'm not connecting with what your drift might be. What prompts your question?

Taking a stab in the dark at it, I think we're looking a number of issues, here: first, how people interpret content (as illustrated by the "peeing on someone's roses" metaphor, which obviously had mixed success, to put it mildly), and second, the eye of the beholder: what might amuse you might bore someone else. "Like shoveling cats" was a big hit with me, but I have no idea how anyone else in this thread liked it, not that I need to know; but the proverbial lead balloon seems like a fitting analogy. And then, some people are only confused by mixed images.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
david_h
Posts: 1735
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:04 am
Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
Location: Mercia

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by david_h »

I thought it odd, given the trend in this discussion to examine detail, that “like shoveling cats” raised mention of “like herding cats” but not “like shoveling smoke”. I hear those often enough for me to have interpreted “shoveling cats” as being a deliberate mixing of two expressions that might have been applied. I couldn’t work out if that was not mentioned here because it was too obvious or because it was not recognised. If the latter I am making a late contribution, if the former I am indicating inadequate clarity for a reader such as myself.
User avatar
Nanohedron
Moderatorer
Posts: 38211
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 6:00 pm
antispam: No
Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
Tell us something.: Been a fluter, citternist, and uilleann piper; committed now to the way of the harp.

Oh, yeah: also a mod here, not a spammer. A matter of opinion, perhaps.
Location: Lefse country

Re: More "divided by a common language" stuff

Post by Nanohedron »

No worries. :)

I didn't mention the "shoveling smoke" simile simply because I'd forgotten it altogether until you reminded me; it's been a long while since I last heard it, and it's not common in my area, so it didn't stick with me. "Like herding cats" is a lot more likely, locally. For me their meanings are very close in the sense of getting little to nothing done, but with some subtly different shadings, so I would use them in characterizing different circumstances. "Shoveling smoke", especially as a metaphor, mainly means to me work or make-work where nothing really gets done, possibly even by plan; but the meaning may depend on who's talking, so context will be important. When something's "like herding cats", however, you are actively trying to accomplish something, but repeatedly intervening and usually living factors (excited children, someone's attention span) make success difficult if not impossible. When you're shoveling smoke you're not necessarily up against it, but with herding cats, you are. At least that's how I think of it. :)

There's a possibility the fellow on TV might have known both and deliberately kludged them together, but I wouldn't venture to guess without asking him, and that opportunity's not likely.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Tribal musician
Post Reply