Meant to post this a day ago. From the OED (SE)
Drumstick
Drumstick
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2004
- Messages
- 34,334
> It was staring at me
Snakes have eyes on either side of its head. Hence, it does not "stare" at you.
> I had to have a cup of tea to calm down
Tea is a stimulant with caffeine and would wind her up.
> its little tongue was poking in and out.
A tongue would poke out but be pulled in. One does not "poke in" one's tongue.
> "I took out the bag and put it on my kitchen worktop while I untied it"
She lives on a space station, and you can't put things on other things with no gravity.
Ririon
Cool cat
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2005
- Messages
- 2,059
They most definitely can stare at you. It would be hard to judge the distance for striking without both eyes looking forward for a stereoscopic effect.
NotJesus
Unsaviory
So, you're saying a leg's not a leg then, huh? Crazy.
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
That's just such a lovely sentence I wanted to say it again.
I think I've got some drama students using it for vocal warm-ups....
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
That's a sentence?! ¿Dónde está el verbo?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
It's implied!
Shrike
Warning: May Contain Nuts
That's Aston Martin [/pedantic git]
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
It's like they say, that point has no stilt-sandpipers to stand on.
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
Well, someone might be less of a terminal knob that way, or perhaps it could help with a padded head.
delphi_ote
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 5,994
It implied. That interesting. I good writer now. Verbs for losers.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
To paraphrase a great American writer and humourist (with apologies):
Arguing with Claus Larsen on anything is like trying to teach a pig to sing...
J. Arthur Hastur
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 495
How could she HAVE tea to calm herself down when the snake interrupted preparation of it!
Who has broccoli with tea?
JLam
Proud Skepkid Parent
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,149
This is, without a doubt, the funniest thread I've ever read on the JREF. I can't believe I haven't been following it. This is better entertainment than anything on television.
Thank you folks. I haven't laughed like this in a while.
This thread HAS to be put in the Forum Spotlight. It's soooooo good.
(BTW, Claus, I love ya man, especially recently when you've been handing it to the Loose Change folks. But I do believe that on this thread you've had your drumsticks cut out from under you.)
Thank you folks. I haven't laughed like this in a while.
This thread HAS to be put in the Forum Spotlight. It's soooooo good.
(BTW, Claus, I love ya man, especially recently when you've been handing it to the Loose Change folks. But I do believe that on this thread you've had your drumsticks cut out from under you.)
Rolfe
Adult human female
Sigh.
I gave up on this sterile bickering because I had to go to Scotland to see to my sick mother. With anyone else I'd just drop it. But when Claus prides himself in being so tenacious in the pursuit of people he sees as having failed to answer questions, and yet he's still failing to answer perfectly sensible questions in this thread, somehow it still seems relevant. Oh yes, and I do love some of the responses that were posted during my absence!
In another thread, Claus once more found himself accused of bullying, and retorted by boasting about his harrassment techniques. I reminded him of this unfinished business, asking yet again for the name and publication details of the dictionary he was using to support the disputed remark,
The reply as posted was:
Obviously, we haven't progressed any, and the 100% tally of native English speakers ranked against him hasn't made Claus think even a tiny bit.
English is a language with words of varying specificity, which are used in the appropriate context depending on the specificity of the reference. I would assume Danish is similar. Claus, I will repeat once again the explanation.
"Drumstick" is a very specific word for a dismembered part of the leg of a cooked fowl. It would only be used in this very specific context. It would never be used to describe the leg of a human being (as it appeared from the wording of the question was what you were asking), but even when you finally revealed to us that in your idiosyncratic vocabulary the word "you" includes the Christmas turkey, no, a live fowl does not "walk" on drumsticks either. It only becomes a drumstick when it is cooked and butchered and served up on a plate.
You then appeared to be suggesting (in the most oblique way possible, the sort of obfuscation you deplore in your opponents) that you had in fact meant to ask, "which word might one use to describe the pelvic limb of a bipedal animal or bird?" (No, you can't blame the deficiencies of English for your being unable to frame the question understandably, I'm afraid you can only blame your own poor choice of wording.)
This seems to get us into the question of hierarchical sets. "Leg" describes the whole of the ambulatory limb (pelvic or pectoral), from the hip joint or shoulder to the ground. If that is what one is referring to, that is the word which would be used. A more specific word (such as "drumstick") would only be used in the specific situation where it was appropriate (in that case a particular serving of cooked poultry). "Member" is in fact a less specific word, in that it refers to all the limbs and indeed the male sexual organ as well - probably including wings, in appropriate species. So again, if one specifically meant an ambulatory limb, not an arm or a penis, one would choose the word "leg" as appropriate.
The lesson of this seems to be that when dealing with a hierarchy of specificity, one will chose the word which is most specific to the actual item being described, whether it is a whole leg or a part of a leg, or body proturberances in general.
Do you get that, Claus? Do you understand that retorts such as "When a leg is not a leg (only it is, when it isn't, and then again...)" to dismiss this explanation only serve to make you look evasive at best, and quite stupid at worst?
The question as posed ("What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.") seems so extraordinary in this context that I still require Claus to reveal the name and publication details of the dictionary he was using to support this assertion, and to quote the entry or entries. Come on, Claus, you said "All are allowed by the dictionary", so you must be able to tell us which dictionary, and what it actually says.
Even so, I still despair of understanding what relevance this spectacular red herring actually had to the question of whether the brille of a snake may be described as eyelids. Therefore, could you also please explain that, Claus? How were you intending to use the answer to that question (whatever it might have been) to support your contention that brille come within the category of "eyelid"?
Rolfe.
I gave up on this sterile bickering because I had to go to Scotland to see to my sick mother. With anyone else I'd just drop it. But when Claus prides himself in being so tenacious in the pursuit of people he sees as having failed to answer questions, and yet he's still failing to answer perfectly sensible questions in this thread, somehow it still seems relevant. Oh yes, and I do love some of the responses that were posted during my absence!
In another thread, Claus once more found himself accused of bullying, and retorted by boasting about his harrassment techniques. I reminded him of this unfinished business, asking yet again for the name and publication details of the dictionary he was using to support the disputed remark,
I also asked him again to explain what relevance that question had to the matter at hand, which was whether or not it was reasonable to describe the brille of a snake as "eyelids".
The reply as posted was:
Claus, meet Mr. Straw Man. Mr. Straw Man, meet Claus.
Obviously, we haven't progressed any, and the 100% tally of native English speakers ranked against him hasn't made Claus think even a tiny bit.
English is a language with words of varying specificity, which are used in the appropriate context depending on the specificity of the reference. I would assume Danish is similar. Claus, I will repeat once again the explanation.
"Drumstick" is a very specific word for a dismembered part of the leg of a cooked fowl. It would only be used in this very specific context. It would never be used to describe the leg of a human being (as it appeared from the wording of the question was what you were asking), but even when you finally revealed to us that in your idiosyncratic vocabulary the word "you" includes the Christmas turkey, no, a live fowl does not "walk" on drumsticks either. It only becomes a drumstick when it is cooked and butchered and served up on a plate.
You then appeared to be suggesting (in the most oblique way possible, the sort of obfuscation you deplore in your opponents) that you had in fact meant to ask, "which word might one use to describe the pelvic limb of a bipedal animal or bird?" (No, you can't blame the deficiencies of English for your being unable to frame the question understandably, I'm afraid you can only blame your own poor choice of wording.)
This seems to get us into the question of hierarchical sets. "Leg" describes the whole of the ambulatory limb (pelvic or pectoral), from the hip joint or shoulder to the ground. If that is what one is referring to, that is the word which would be used. A more specific word (such as "drumstick") would only be used in the specific situation where it was appropriate (in that case a particular serving of cooked poultry). "Member" is in fact a less specific word, in that it refers to all the limbs and indeed the male sexual organ as well - probably including wings, in appropriate species. So again, if one specifically meant an ambulatory limb, not an arm or a penis, one would choose the word "leg" as appropriate.
The lesson of this seems to be that when dealing with a hierarchy of specificity, one will chose the word which is most specific to the actual item being described, whether it is a whole leg or a part of a leg, or body proturberances in general.
Do you get that, Claus? Do you understand that retorts such as "When a leg is not a leg (only it is, when it isn't, and then again...)" to dismiss this explanation only serve to make you look evasive at best, and quite stupid at worst?
The question as posed ("What do you call the two protruding extremities that you walk on? "Legs" or "drumsticks" or "members"? All are allowed by the dictionary.") seems so extraordinary in this context that I still require Claus to reveal the name and publication details of the dictionary he was using to support this assertion, and to quote the entry or entries. Come on, Claus, you said "All are allowed by the dictionary", so you must be able to tell us which dictionary, and what it actually says.
Even so, I still despair of understanding what relevance this spectacular red herring actually had to the question of whether the brille of a snake may be described as eyelids. Therefore, could you also please explain that, Claus? How were you intending to use the answer to that question (whatever it might have been) to support your contention that brille come within the category of "eyelid"?
Rolfe.