Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: What's the singular of hose?

Expand Messages
  • GR Auklandus
    ... Nope. You say pants leg. ... Again, no. In the King James Version of the Bible, when Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego are thrown in the fire, when then
    Message 1 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Ii Saburou <logan@...> wrote:
      > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Sarah Michele Ford wrote:
      >
      > > Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
      > > actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
      > > pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
      > > there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
      > > pair of hose.
      >
      > But you do say 'a pant leg', right? So there IS a singular, just not
      > often used.
      Nope. You say "pants leg."

      > Also, I've heard 'hosen'--is that just the German plural?
      >
      > -Ii
      Again, no.

      In the King James Version of the Bible, when Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego are thrown
      in the fire, when then clothes they are wearing is referred to, their "hosen" are
      mentioned.

      Gaius
      Who doesn't know why he remembers this...


      __________________________________________________
      Do you Yahoo!?
      HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
      http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
    • Ii Saburou
      ... But you do say a pant leg , right? So there IS a singular, just not often used. Also, I ve heard hosen --is that just the German plural? -Ii
      Message 2 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Sarah Michele Ford wrote:

        > Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
        > actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
        > pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
        > there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
        > pair of hose.

        But you do say 'a pant leg', right? So there IS a singular, just not
        often used.

        Also, I've heard 'hosen'--is that just the German plural?

        -Ii
      • Ii Saburou
        ... Okay, actually looked it up somewhere (www.dictionary.com, to be precise): hosen Ho sen , n. pl. See Hose. [Archaic] Source: Webster s Revised Unabridged
        Message 3 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, GR Auklandus wrote:

          > > Also, I've heard 'hosen'--is that just the German plural?
          > >
          > > -Ii
          > Again, no.
          >
          > In the King James Version of the Bible, when Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego are thrown
          > in the fire, when then clothes they are wearing is referred to, their "hosen" are
          > mentioned.

          Okay, actually looked it up somewhere (www.dictionary.com, to be precise):

          hosen

          \Ho"sen\, n. pl. See Hose. [Archaic]
          Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


          --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Hose \Hose\ (h[=o]z), n.; pl. Hose, formerly Hosen (h[=o]"z'n). [AS. hose;
          akin to D. hoos, G. hose breeches, OHG. hosa, Icel. hosa stocking, gather,
          Dan. hose stocking; cf. Russ. koshulia a fur jacket.] 1. Close-fitting
          trousers or breeches, as formerly worn, reaching to the knee.

          These men were bound in their coats, their hosen, and their hats, and
          their other garments. --Dan. iii. 21.

          His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank.
          --Shak.
        • Jenn Ridley
          On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:37:13 -0600 (CST), Sarah Michele Ford ... Kind of. QPB/BOMC has an agreement with the online OED which allows members to access the
          Message 4 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:37:13 -0600 (CST), Sarah Michele Ford
            <sarah@...> wrote:

            >On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Lena Strid wrote:
            >
            >> Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
            >> singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.
            >
            >No clue. See above for my anglo-centric theory. Anyone got the OED lying
            >around handy?

            Kind of. QPB/BOMC has an agreement with the online OED which allows
            members to access the online OED at no charge.

            I. 1. a. An article of clothing for the leg; sometimes reaching
            down only to the ankle as a legging or gaiter, sometimes also covering
            the foot like a long stocking. (a) sing. Obs.

            (b) pl. hosen, arch. or dial.; hoses, obs. Sense as in (c).

            (c) collect. pl. hose. In mod. use = Stockings reaching to the knee.
            half-hose, short stockings or socks.
            From hose (as if = hoes), a false sing. ho, stocking, is found in
            Sc.

            2. Sometimes an article of clothing for the legs and loins, =
            breeches, drawers; esp. in phrase DOUBLET and hose, as the typical
            male apparel. a. Usually in pl., hosen, hoses, hose, also (with
            reference to its original divided state) a pair of hose.

            I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
            would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
            to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
            considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
            plural.

            jenn
            --
            Jenn Ridley
            jridley@...
          • Sarah Michele Ford
            ... Listen here, you... don t make me come down to your Barony and whup up on your fencers for that... (see you tomorrow!) Alianor Sarah Michele Ford
            Message 5 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Steven Proctor wrote:

              > ...if she's making hose, does that make her a hoser...?

              Listen here, you... don't make me come down to your Barony and whup up on
              your fencers for that...

              (see you tomorrow!)

              Alianor

              Sarah Michele Ford
              /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
              Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
              reality is but an exception.
              --Jean Baudrillard
              \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
            • Ii Saburou
              ... Obsolete or archaic? Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, or med-i-ae-val ;) -Ii
              Message 6 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Jenn Ridley wrote:

                > I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                > would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                > to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                > considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                > plural.

                Obsolete or archaic?

                Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, or
                med-i-ae-val ;)

                -Ii
              • wodeford
                ... up on ... Take off, eh? Jehanne de McKenzie
                Message 7 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In Authentic_SCA@y..., Sarah Michele Ford <sarah@s...> wrote:
                  > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Steven Proctor wrote:
                  >
                  > > ...if she's making hose, does that make her a hoser...?
                  >
                  > Listen here, you... don't make me come down to your Barony and whup
                  up on
                  > your fencers for that...

                  Take off, eh?

                  Jehanne de McKenzie
                • Lena Strid
                  ... would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is considered
                  Message 8 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Jenn wrote:

                    > I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                    would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                    to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                    considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                    plural.

                    Well, that would explain it. I do recall to have heard hosen somewhere, but could not
                    place it. (And hoses just sounds too wierd...)

                    Thanks!

                    Lena


                    Bättre börda på vägen man ej bär än mycket mannavett.
                    - Nä, men lite guld, silver, smaragder, vita särkar, öl, vin och en och annan galt är inte
                    heller så dumt!

                    --
                    __________________________________________________________
                    Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
                    http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
                  • Jenn Ridley
                    On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:51:05 -0900 (AKST), Ii Saburou ... yes. Under one sub-definition, hose as singular is labeled obs, while under the other, hosen as
                    Message 9 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:51:05 -0900 (AKST), Ii Saburou
                      <logan@...> wrote:

                      >On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Jenn Ridley wrote:
                      >
                      >> I left out the literary references (there's a bunch of 'em, and it
                      >> would make this much too long). From what I can figure out, hose used
                      >> to be singular, with hosen is the plural, but that particular usage is
                      >> considered obsolete, and in current usage hose is both singular and
                      >> plural.
                      >
                      >Obsolete or archaic?
                      yes.

                      Under one sub-definition, 'hose' as singular is labeled obs, while
                      under the other, 'hosen' as plural is labeled arch Take your pick....


                      >Sounds like it could get into whether you say mid-e-vil, med-i-e-val, or
                      >med-i-ae-val ;)
                      There's probably a difference in terminology between obsolete and
                      archaic, but I don't feel like digging through the Guide to the OED to
                      figure it out....

                      jenn
                      --
                      Jenn Ridley
                      jridley@...
                    • Carolle M Cox
                      In German, Hosen is plural, Hose is singular. Now, remember pronunciation Hoe-sen, and Hoe-suh (roughly). : P Gerita ... From: Sarah Michele Ford
                      Message 10 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        In German, Hosen is plural, Hose is singular. Now, remember pronunciation"
                        Hoe-sen, and Hoe-suh (roughly). :>P

                        Gerita


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: "Sarah Michele Ford" <sarah@...>
                        To: <Authentic_SCA@yahoogroups.com>
                        Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 10:37 AM
                        Subject: Re: [Authentic_SCA] Re: What's the singular of hose?


                        > On Fri, 1 Nov 2002, Lena Strid wrote:
                        >
                        > > Sarah wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > I'm going with "ho" just because it's funny. And that's what I've
                        got -
                        > > half of a pair of hose.
                        > >
                        > > I always assumed that hose was the singular (and plural unknown).
                        > > Perhaps that's because I think in swedish terms: singular: hosa,
                        > > plural: hosor.
                        >
                        > Without knowing the etymology of either, and when I'm not being silly, I
                        > actually categorize "hose" with "pants" - things that always come in
                        > pairs. ;^) Just like there's not an English singular of "pants" I'd say
                        > there's not really one of "hose" either. What I really have is half of a
                        > pair of hose.
                        >
                        > > Does anyone here have a clue whether hose is the plural or the
                        > > singular? And also, what the singular/plural then would be.
                        >
                        > No clue. See above for my anglo-centric theory. Anyone got the OED lying
                        > around handy?
                        >
                        > Alianor, who didn't really mean to start a linguistic discussion but isn't
                        > complaining
                        >
                        > Sarah Michele Ford
                        > /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
                        > Illusion is the general rule of the universe;
                        > reality is but an exception.
                        > --Jean Baudrillard
                        > \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
                        >
                        >
                        > ----------------------------------------------------
                        > This is the Authentic SCA eGroup
                        > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        > authentic_SCA-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        >
                        >
                      • Kirrily Robert
                        ... I think archaic means old-fashioned whereas obsolete means not used anymore . So an archaic term can be used, though it would sound funny to most
                        Message 11 of 16 , Nov 1, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jenn wrote:
                          > There's probably a difference in terminology between obsolete and
                          > archaic, but I don't feel like digging through the Guide to the OED to
                          > figure it out....

                          I think "archaic" means "old-fashioned" whereas "obsolete" means "not
                          used anymore". So an archaic term can be used, though it would sound
                          funny to most people, whereas an obsolete word is no longer part of the
                          language.

                          Yours,

                          Katherine

                          --
                          Lady Katherine Rowberd (mka Kirrily "Skud" Robert)
                          katherine@... http://infotrope.net/sca/
                          Caldrithig, Skraeling Althing, Ealdormere
                          "The rose is red, the leaves are grene, God save Elizabeth our Queene"
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.