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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.