In an very nice article about grammar that I will post about elsewhere, the author mentioned Jeffrey Kacirk's "The Word Museum" book (Touchstone, 2000). Here are a number of words that once were frequently used, but now are only found in antique dictionaries. I need to get that book and read about others because I love some of these:

Glox - the sound of liquids when shaken in a barrel.

Fribbler - a trifler

Flamfloo - a gaudily dressed female, one whos chief pleasure consists of dress (we have one of those in my office!)

Thrunched - very angry, displeased

Quanked - overpowered by fatigue

Cramble - to walk ill, as with corns on the feet; to hobble

Some of those are wonderful! I had on some fashionable shoes the other day and was definitely crambling. I have to say, though, I am rather thrunched that "epicaricacy" isn't there!

Quanked sounds like one of those words that whould be dirty, but isn't. Or maybe that fatigue is a special sort . . ..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalleh: Glox - the sound of liquids when shaken in a barrel.

---

To RE and BobH: my beery wish to you is, "A glox in both your houses."

(You too, cat and arnie.)

We have a marvelous show over here called 'Call My Bluff' where each team of three (there are 2 teams) provides three different definitions to an obscure English word and the other team have to decide which one is true. Is this where your bluffing game comes from?

AT BLOODY LAST!!!!!

At last I've been able to get rid of that very annoying 'junior' title on this site. I've been posting on and off all day in an attempt to lose it. Now I feel more like one of you.

Hee hee. It's great when that happens, isn't it, Doad?

Next milestone is the 100th post...

Does anything change when I hit 100? I'm just glad I don't have to be 'junior' that long. Perhaps it's just me but I can't tell you how irritating and annoying I found being called 'junior'. At least it encouraged me to post more, perhaps that's why they chose it.

No, nothing changes - it's just one of those ends-in-a-zero milestones. Kind of makes you feel like you've ARRIVED. Well, did me .

Congratulations, Doad!

We could change the software and have other designations, but I might become a little embarrassed!

Yes, Kalleh? Embarrassed? What would the designation be for over 7500? Prolific? Exhuberant? Verbose? Well-travelled?

You know - this could become it's own thread . . . what other titles could posters have . . .

0-20 Junior
21-100 Tolerable
101-200 Experienced

etc?

Many sites have "grades" based on number of posts, but I don't think it's a very good idea, as it encourages posting for the sake of it. It can be exasperating sometimes to scroll down a page that is mainly composed of messages saying, in effect, "Me too".

It can also be intimidating in some cases for a less prolific poster to reply to a post by a more "senior" member.

Personally, I think that the current system works quite well; the "junior" tag helps to remind us that the poster is new to the board, and may not be completely familiar with our little ways. The "member" tag applied to everyone else is egalitarian, reflecting the equality of us all.

Oh yes, I agree with you, Arnie. I just think it might be fun to try out some other words . . . descriptors, if you will. Just because it's fun, but not because I think we need labels.

It would be a relatively simple task to create new levels based on the number of posts; it is available as an option in the forum software. Although, as I said, I am not personally in favour of a change, if enough people wanted it I am sure wordcrafter would agree.

Does anyone else have any views?

Call me shallow, but to be honest I never stopped to think about why the title junior was required, I just knew I hated it. I agree that too many level descriptions wouldn't work and would lead to pointless postings. I also accept the point that the title 'junior' may highlight a members inexperience and certainly I have been very touched by the warm welcome everyone has given me. However, as the number of posts you've made is always displayed anyway, why do we need (notice it is 'we' now that I am a full member) a special title? Surely the level of inexperience is obvious in the number of postings made and if we (I love that) do need an additional marker, could it not be something more subtle?

We certainly are glad to have you here as one of us, Doad!

I'm not very adept at subtle so I'll let those of you who are good at it talk about what would work. Perhaps the junior title is all that's needed.

I'm honestly not suggesting any change to the options, arnie.

I can understand why you didn't like the "junior" soubriquet, Doad. Perhaps "New Member" might be a better title? On the other hand, we have several people who only post infrequently and so might take a year or so before reaching the dizzy heights of full "Member". They might object to being called "new".

Has anyone any other suggestions?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Caterwauller:

I'm not very adept at subtle


You amaze me!!!

I do seem to have opened up a can of worms here! I would like to assure you all that I am not normally such a pain. My thesaurus lists alternatives to 'junior' as 'subordinate, lesser, lower, minor, secondary, inferior.' I think that is a fair summary of why I didn't like it!

I also tried to think of alternative words and the best I could come up with was either 'novice member' or my preferred one, 'neophyte member'. It seemed to me that 'neophyte' was a suitably ambitious word to reflect the nature of the group as well as having a long history behind it. My treasured dictionary dates it from 1599 and defines it as 'One who is newly initiated into anything; a novice.'

By subtle, I was only thinking of either a small symbol next to the name or perhaps the name being in a different colour.

I will try not to post on this topic again, lol.

quote:

I am not normally such a pain.

Prove it!

I know you only said that to goad me into posting again on this thread when I said I wouldn't! Like Oscar Wilde I can resist everything except temptation, nevertheless;

I promise to be less controversial and disruptive in the future and I apologise in advance for the many times I know I will probably fail to keep that promise.

Can Tree Member
Doan Tree Member
Curmudgeon
Persnickety
Nit Picker
Senior Member

JT? What about
Olf Art

Believe me, I wouldn't go for Senior Member! I would take another name and become a Junior again!

"Junior" to me means youthful or a novice. Your perception of the word, Doad, is interesting. I don't think of "junior" as negative at all. Oh...to be a junior again!

I agree with arnie about not having more designations. However, if others perceive "junior" in the same way that Doad does, we could change it. Another site I know has a "newby" designation, and I like that. We could change "junior" to "newby."

Interesting. I've never seen it spelt that way. If I were to spell it (unlikely) I'd write "newbie". To my mind it has very negative connotations; more so perhaps than "junior". Newbies are seen by others as clueless people blundering about where they don't understand. The general perception of newbies is rather similar to the way newsgroup users reacted to the influx of posters from AOL ten years or so ago.

quote:

I would take another name and become a Junior again! ... Oh...to be a junior again!

If only it were so easy as simply changing one's name in real life!

Hmm... I have no real objection to the 'junior' title, but I absolutely love Doad's suggestion of 'neophyte'!

Symbolic to the linguaphile theme of the board, something that most educated people would be able to take a guess at if they didn't know the meaning (just from the 'neo' part) - and, most importantly, tongue in cheek of course!

The only potential problem is that some people might not get the joke and think we're all up ourselves, instead of seeing it as a bit of fun.

quote:

If I were to spell it (unlikely) I'd write "newbie". To my mind it has very negative connotations; more so perhaps than "junior". Newbies are seen by others as clueless people blundering about where they don't understand.

Your perception is interesting, arnie. I had always liked the word. Oh, and your spelling of it is correct, "newbie." I just misspelled it.

"Neophyte" would be fine with me. I don't see a problem with that word at all, Cat. It has no negative connotations at all to me. I would think of a "neophyte" as one who is new to the board. It probably is more descriptive in that way than "junior" is.

There is one advantage of "junior," though, if you think about it. Look at what it made Doad do. He quickly posted a lot to get rid of the "junior" label!

I always suspected that there was an ulterior motive behind 'junior' although I would argue in my defence that I would have posted in that volume even if I'd been a 'neophyte'. Cat is perfectly correct that as well as being a good, descriptive and academic word for the group it also appealed to my sense of humour.

I think I might just start calling Doad "Junior" now, for the fun of it (and because he's always going on about me being older . . . those 5 months really make a difference, apparently!).

Thanks for joining the board, Junior!

Don't you dare start that old timer!

Eh? Can't hear ya! Let me find my hearing aids and stronger spectacles, Sonny.

Another word question -
what is a whippersnapper?

Why do we have to bow to dang-blasted political correctness? Can't we just call a junior member a junior member and be done with it? I was a junior member in my day, and nary a peep did you hear out of me. I say: "poppycock, balderdash, and faerie dust!" Now, where'd I put my hot water bottle? Cough.

quote:

what is a whippersnapper?

The term dates from 1674 and is a jingling extension of 'whip-snapper' to describe a cracker of whips. As this is not a particularly senior position to have it has come to mean 'a diminutive or insignificant person, especially a sprightly or impertinent young fellow'.

In case anyone's interested, 'Poppycock' is American slang dating from 1863, meaning nonsense or rubbish. 'Balderdash' has a rather longer history. It is first recorded as 1596 but the meaning at that time doesn't appear to be known, though in 1599 it is known to refer to 'froth'. In 1674 it was used to also refer to 'a senseless jumble of words' and I have found a reference to it in 1693 to refer to 'a jumbled mixture of liquors'. Of course, if you jumble your liquor that much you're bound to end up talking 'a senseless jumble of words!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Doad,

LOL @ jheem!

Those histories are great, Doad! Thanks!