Keyboard burning through batteries

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I, too, don't usually point out obvious typos - as you say, one can
easily be hoised by one's own petard; however, it is an accepted
convention that typos in pedantry must be seized upon (-:. [And also
that the seizing itself will then be found to have one or more errors in
it. (Hoised isn't one.)]

It isn't? As far as I know, the correct quotation is "hoist..."

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

I, too, don't usually point out obvious typos - as you say, one can
easily be hoised by one's own petard; however, it is an accepted
convention that typos in pedantry must be seized upon (-:. [And also
that the seizing itself will then be found to have one or more errors in
it. (Hoised isn't one.)]

It isn't? As far as I know, the correct quotation is "hoist..."

OK, here goes ... I'm glad someone took the bait!

The expression is usually used these days to mean caught out by your own
trap.

The original means blown up by your own bomb: a petard is a small bomb
or grenade, as might be used by an assassin or terrorist. (Originally a
French word, I think.) If he didn't throw it hard/far enough, or
sheltered behind an insufficiently strong wall or whatever, it would get
him too.

Granted, "hoised" is probably obsolete too, and I'm sure by simple
(mis)usage, the expression _is_ shown in most dictionaries nowadays as
hoist. But to me hoist (which in normal modern English would be hoisted
anyway, I think) suggests being lifted, usually by a rope or similar -
which is not the same as being blown up.

Hope folk found that interesting (-:!

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I, too, don't usually point out obvious typos - as you say, one can
easily be hoised by one's own petard; however, it is an accepted
convention that typos in pedantry must be seized upon (-:. [And also
that the seizing itself will then be found to have one or more errors in
it. (Hoised isn't one.)]

It isn't? As far as I know, the correct quotation is "hoist..."

OK, here goes ... I'm glad someone took the bait!

The expression is usually used these days to mean caught out by your own
trap.

The original means blown up by your own bomb: a petard is a small bomb
or grenade, as might be used by an assassin or terrorist. (Originally a
French word, I think.) If he didn't throw it hard/far enough, or
sheltered behind an insufficiently strong wall or whatever, it would get
him too.

Granted, "hoised" is probably obsolete too, and I'm sure by simple
(mis)usage, the expression _is_ shown in most dictionaries nowadays as
hoist. But to me hoist (which in normal modern English would be hoisted
anyway, I think) suggests being lifted, usually by a rope or similar -
which is not the same as being blown up.

Yes, I know all of the above. But I still say that Shakespeare wrote
"hoist" not "hoised." You got me to do some research, and I just found
this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard, where it says "William
Shakespeare used 'hoist with his own petard' in Hamlet, in which the
word 'hoist' is the (now archaic) past participle of the earlier form
'hoise' for the verb 'hoist'. "

 

[Buffalo]

"Bob F" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

Really? But I never said anything of the sort.

Sorry, I confused your post with being from Todd.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,

Yes, I know all of the above. But I still say that Shakespeare wrote
"hoist" not "hoised." You got me to do some research, and I just found
this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard, where it says "William
Shakespeare used 'hoist with his own petard' in Hamlet, in which the
word 'hoist' is the (now archaic) past participle of the earlier form
'hoise' for the verb 'hoist'. "

OK, you're probably right (-:! I still don't feel comfortable using a
word which to me means "yanked up by a rope" for this situation where it
isn't the meaning required.

I'll probably try to avoid the expression completely - and use "caught
by xx own trap" instead!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Everyone looks sun-kissed and beautiful and as you watch it ["Bondi Rescue"],
pale and flabby on your sofa, you find yourself wondering if your life could
ever be that exotic. (It couldn't. You're British.) - Russell Howard, in
Radio Times, 20-26 April 2013

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,


OK, you're probably right (-:! I still don't feel comfortable using a
word which to me means "yanked up by a rope" for this situation where it
isn't the meaning required.

Then what do you do if you want to quote Juliet saying "Romeo, Romeo,
wherefore art thou Romeo"?

The enormous majority of people think that means she wants to know
where he is. But it doesn't.

 

[Todd]

Sorry, I confused your post with being from Todd.

If I have told you once, I have told you a THOUSAND
TIMES! Todd is the GOOD LOOKING ONE!

 

[Buffalo]

"Todd" wrote in message news:[email protected]...

If I have told you once, I have told you a THOUSAND
TIMES! Todd is the GOOD LOOKING ONE!

 

[Buffalo]

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

Then what do you do if you want to quote Juliet saying "Romeo, Romeo,
wherefore art thou Romeo"?

The enormous majority of people think that means she wants to know
where he is. But it doesn't.

I knew there was a reason to be in this ng.
Never knew that so now I will sleep easier tonight.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message

On Sun, 13 Oct 2013 19:47:40 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

In message <[email protected]>, "Ken Blake,
[]
Yes, I know all of the above. But I still say that Shakespeare wrote
"hoist" not "hoised." You got me to do some research, and I just found
this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard, where it says "William
Shakespeare used 'hoist with his own petard' in Hamlet, in which the
word 'hoist' is the (now archaic) past participle of the earlier form
'hoise' for the verb 'hoist'. "

OK, you're probably right (-:! I still don't feel comfortable using a
word which to me means "yanked up by a rope" for this situation where it
isn't the meaning required.


Then what do you do if you want to quote Juliet saying "Romeo, Romeo,
wherefore art thou Romeo"?

The enormous majority of people think that means she wants to know
where he is. But it doesn't.

It doesn't, at least in some sense? (I mean I know she knows he's dead,
but that's beside the point). Or maybe my memory is off again.

[]
No; it means "why". It's also sloppy writing on Shakespeare's part; it
would have made better sense if she'd used his surname instead of his
forename at the end of the line. He's not dead at that point: she's
saying, basically, why did you have to belong to the family with which
my family has a feud.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

TV and radio presenters are just like many people, except they tend to wear
make-up all the time. Especially the radio presenters. - Eddie Mair, in Radio
Times 25-31 August 2012

 

[Tim Slattery]

But reading it as written, how do you come up with that? Has our language
changed that much, or am I still missing something hidden and trying to take
it too literally (as written above)?

Sure it's changed over 450 years. But look in your dictionary for
"wherefore". "Wherefore" has *never* meant "where".

The OED has a whole list of meanings, all variations of "why". Nowhere
do they mention that it has ever meant "where".

 

[Todd]

OK, I never would have guessed that. I guess this gets back to my assuming
too much.

You two should love this. Shakespeare spoken in its
original language. A lot of the puns are completely
missed in modern English:

 

[Andy]

You two should love this. Shakespeare spoken in its

original language. A lot of the puns are completely

missed in modern English:

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped

in a couple slices of baloney

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Consider if you may, the basics.

Who made us ?

Take care.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

You two should love this. Shakespeare spoken in its
original language. A lot of the puns are completely
missed in modern English:

Very interesting! Thanks very much.