Since I NEVER look anything up, I'll just hazard a guess (and there's a phrase you can look up too!)
"To coin" means to manufacture money, so coining a phrase is making a phrase that didn't exist in that form previously - or at least not in your own lexicon. There, is that what you mint?
Well, for heaven's sake bring her aboard then! Tell her it's a "package deal"...you and wordcraft. After all, there is a precedent for a husband/wife combo here. I will say, though, that it is hard to share family secrets when your spouse posts here! I have deleted a post or two after a bit of reflection!
We appear to have interpreted Asa's post (sic) in substantially different ways.
Okay, I get it now. It's that blankety blank literalism of mine! That's twice in one night! (And I don't mean that the way all of you here are taking it!)
quote:Originally posted by Kalleh: We appear to have interpreted Asa's post (sic) in substantially different ways.
Okay, I get it now. It's that blankety blank literalism of mine! That's twice in one night! (And I don't mean that the way all of you here are taking it!)
Oh, dear, whatever were you all thinking! I've only sent Sue, my fiancee, one funny letter via the post office, hence her giggling at my post! Otherwise it's been e-mails and phone calls! My, how you all DO carry on!
quote:Originally posted by KHC: Asa, That southern accent is showing... "you all DO carry on"...
I grew up in Wisconsin and most of what I've seen of the south has been through an airplane window, but I wholeheartedly endorse the use of "you all", or as I prefer it, "y'all", because English needs a second person plural.
Why don't we say triple entendre or multi-tendre or something?
Jo's post: You can't axe that man anything. Wooden you know he wood be the one to log on with a post like that.
Interesting question, CW. Would Jo's great post (I loved it too, Jo! ) be a quintuple entendre? Or would each of the parts of the post ("axe," "wooden," "wood," "log," and "post") be "double entendres?" I think it is probably 5 double entendres in one phrase.
Can anyone come up with some triple or more entendres? If so, it might be a great thread!
BTW, I love "y'all" too, but I don't use it because to me it sounds fake for a northerner to say it. It would be similar to my spelling "humor" with an "our." However, it's my experience that anything goes with a Californian's speech.
quote:BTW, I love "y'all" too, but I don't use it because to me it sounds fake for a northerner to say it. It would be similar to my spelling "humor" with an "our." However, it's my experience that anything goes with a Californian's speech.
Just take the plunge, K. It's better than "you guys" or, as Ross Perot found after addressing the NAACP, "you people".
Quote, "...wholeheartedly endorse the use of "you all", or as I prefer it, "y'all", because English needs a second person plural. ..."
English already has a second person plural - it's "you".
What we possibly need is a second person singular now that "thou" has now fallen from favour except in poetical and religious works. But if we really need it I would prefer to see "thou" come back rather than create a new plural from a contraction of "you all" so that "you" can become a singular only.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
Well, neveu, since you are from Wisconsin (as am I), maybe I will take the plunge. However, CW, I can tell you that I would never feel comfortable with "y'uns!"
"you people".
That reminds me of a terrible mistake I almost made recently in a letter asking for contributions for the National Organization of Nurses with Disabilities (NOND), where I am on the Board of Directors. I was to write this letter that was to go out to lots of people. The President, thankfully, thought she should proof it before I sent it out. The President is disabled, and I am not, so she is more sensitive than I to the wording of such documents. Still, I can't believe I missed this one...I had been talking about the nurses with disabilities, and I said, "These people..." Ummm...not quite, shall we say, politically correct!
Jerry, I think the concern was that "these people" meant that I was separating them from "the normal people," at least that was my understanding. Of course, I wasn't, but our President explained to me that was how it would be taken. We changed it from:
"With your help NOND can supply these people with mentors, resources, information about the American Disabilities Act, and support."
to:
"With your help NOND can supply nurses with disabilities with mentors, resources, information about the American Disabilities Act, and support."
Before that sentence we had described the some of the problems that nurses with disabilities had encountered, so the "these people" fit for me. However, I completely understand the discomfort with it now.
Quote, "...Jerry, I think the concern was that "these people" meant that I was separating them from "the normal people," at least that was my understanding..."
But you were separating them from "normal" people - and rightly so. They are people, of course, but they are people with various special needs and these special needs you are describing here what you can do to meet these needs.
I can't see that, by substituting the term "These people" for the full description of the people subject to mention demeans or otherwise insults them in any way. It simply identifies them as being a group that needs special attention.
I suspect this is simply another case of excessive political correctness as could be seen were the example of the separate group being, say, foreigners who didn't speak English. You could have said, quite reasonably, "...we will supply these people with interpreters..." and nobody would have suggested that the phrase was in the least demeaning.
Richard English
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK
I will say, though, that it is hard to share family secrets when your spouse posts here! I have deleted a post or two after a bit of reflection! 
