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

Re: What's the singular of hose? SILLY

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