Comments for Sesquiotica

Comment on carnage by Wilson Fowlie

Wilson Fowlie — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:45:39 +0000

And of course, for fans of the movie Babe, there’s Ferdinand the duck’s immortal chain of association:

Christmas! Christmas dinner, yeah. Dinner means death. Death means carnage! Christmas means carnage!

Comment on willy-nilly by sesquiotic

sesquiotic — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:25:07 +0000

Thanks!

Comment on Why “fetuses”? by sesquiotic

sesquiotic — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:59:06 +0000

I don’t even have that many. (I suspect you don’t either, but that’s just a guess on the basis of “Chuk.”)

But a gynecologist may nonetheless wish to speak in the plural about the day’s examinations, I suppose. Other available terms may seem insufficiently clinical.

“Uterus” always makes me think of a city near Schenectady.

Comment on willy-nilly by MartinHatter

MartinHatter — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:22:36 +0000

Superb. These sort of terms are formed very naturally, aren’t they? Especially when talking to children.
I have to say that this looks like a fantastic website. I’m going to enjoy spending time here. I only came across it during a Google search for something I’ve posted on my blog, which now looks a bit amateurish, by comparison, when it comes to etymology.

Comment on Why “fetuses”? by Chuk

Chuk — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:30:43 +0000

Most people only have one uterus.

Comment on Why “fetuses”? by Wilson Fowlie

Wilson Fowlie — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:29:17 +0000

Good timing on this one for me; a friend was just asking what the plural of ‘uterus’ is. (She wrote ‘uterus-es’, with the hyphen. ) Wikipedia says both ‘uteruses’ and ‘uteri’ are correct, though the former is a little more common.

Comment on collyrium by sesquiotic

sesquiotic — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 19:40:31 +0000

Here is the Baha’i quote:

‘Abdu’l-Baha, Secret of Divine Civilization:

“It is essential that scholars and the spiritually learned should undertake in all sincerity and purity of intent and for the sake of God alone, to counsel and exhort and masses and clarify their vision with that collyrium which is knowledge.”

Comment on myriad by sesquiotic

sesquiotic — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:41:54 +0000

This has some extra personal connections for me hidden in it: One of my great theatrical memories was doing, in a postmodern production of Prometheus Bound, Io’s great entry speech in Classical Greek (complete with Classical Greek theatre costume and mask); I am a member of a group called the Prometheus Society (though I think there’s more than one group called that); and I share a birthday with Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

Comment on scrimp by Wilson

Wilson — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:37:40 +0000

Yes, it could be an oxymoron, it just usually isn’t.

And I totally hear you about the rolling eyes; I get them too.

Comment on scrimp by sesquiotic

sesquiotic — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:47:48 +0000

True — a point I have actually occasionally made in the past, for which I have been rewarded with rolling eyes — but since “shrimp” was first of all a word for a small thing, and then after that specifically for that small thing, there is still a sense of smallness to it (as witness its persistent use for referring to small people etc.). Size is relative, of course; one may speak of a large atom. But still and all, there is an unavoidable sense of contrast in “jumbo shrimp,” wouldn’t you say?