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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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
      \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    • wodeford
      ... up on ... Take off, eh? Jehanne de McKenzie
      Message 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.