It means cunning, Old English, Irish.

Aww, now I'm all hurt because some prick with a high opinion of himself doesn't want to talk to me anymore... /sadface

re: the "private" comment, you don't get to write the rules when you decide to take your snipes out of public view. I never agreed to keep confidences for you, and you're even more of a fool than I had you pegged for, and that's saying something, if you thought I would.

By the way, it's "your", not "you're". One would have thought an English master such as yourself would get that. They probably should have double checked those test results.

And the icing on the cake:

Sook: English from 14thC, Scottish from 19thC. From Old English sūcan ‎(“to suck”). See suck.

sook ‎(plural sooks)

(Scotland, rare) Familiar name for a calf.
(US dialectal) Familiar name for a cow.
(Newfoundland) A cow or sheep.
(Australia, New Zealand) A poddy calf.

So yeah, it's English, and you sure do suck... = D

It's been fun, toodles!

I spend a not inconsiderable amount of time trying to convince people to pronounce my name "Raif" instead of "Ralf" (Spelt Ralph...). It's made worse because I have never been able to find an explanation as to why there is an old English tradition of pronouncing it this way. The etymology of the name is no help, I can only assume that somebody mistook an l for i at some point and it stuck. Which is stupid. Not as stupid as "Ralf" sounds to me though, even if it makes more sense.

only 400 years out from being old English

perhaps we need to value the "efficiency" of language?

...there is a good reason why we don't use old english anymore.

23, a number bustling with synchronicity! Is that goon next to him this Joe Biden tool I've been jeering so much about?

Two lawyers (from the Old English "lēogere" or liar) front-and-center serving-up a double-dose of "Hi, How do you do?!"

Liar sounds like lawyah, anyhow, insert your own etymology research there ,Linguistos'!

@gorillaman, yeah, woman is longer than the word girl.

It is also a conjunction -- wife of man. From the on-line dictionary: late O.E. wimman (pl. wimmen), lit. "woman-man," alteration of wifman (pl. wifmen), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Cf. Du. vrouwmens "wife," lit. "woman-man."

It does kind of get in the way, doesn't it? That extra syllable and that clunky hidden contraction.

I still think it is mostly about power, though, and your example of "grown man" kind of proves it to me. Why couldn't you say "grown boy"? If boy is the same as man, just as girl is the same as woman? A grown boy is indeed a man, yes? It actually is more accurate than "grown man."

Maybe the experiment should be simplified.... instead of doing the woman for girl substitution, simplify it to changing every "man" to "boy." Since the words are interchangeable, right? No particular meaning? Both are one syllable so no big whoop if you change them out. If girl and woman are interchangeable, meaning-wise, doesn't logic dictate that boy and man are interchangeable?

So can we change the experiment? Forget girl and woman, just change the word "man" to "boy." I know the word "man" shows up all the time. So there should be plenty of data.

"I'm a Woman. W. O. M. A. N." There's a song lyric for you. I suggest to you that the meaning would be very different if it were "I'm a Girl. G. I. R. L." Certainly the melodies are wildly different for those two songs!

I love that you call women women, by the way. Even though it takes the extra effort. Some of the women you talk to appreciate it, I'm sure.

Just for a laugh, I did this search: http://videosift.com/search?q=girl&t=v&u=&s[]=s&o=&vmin=&vmax=&sh=&l=&n=&b=&submit=Search

Scanned for how "girl" shows up on videos. On the first page, there were a deeply satisfying number of vids that were truly about girls under age 20. I was pleasantly surprised! There were also quite a few of almost naked women labeled as "girls". Which also proves my point about it being about power -- a naked girl is very different from a naked woman, yes?

Being an Englishman living in America, man did I get funny looks from my colleagues when I used the phrase "cock up" in a training seminar. Everyone thought I'd said the rudest thing in the history of mankind, while I was all, "what?">> ^Quboid:

>> ^spoco2:
Ahh, "It'll be alright on the night", that was a great show that I remember from my childhood.
On the topic of the particular video though... how could they not have actually demonstrated to him how he was supposed to use the carton before going on tv to demonstrate? Ineptitude

This was great stuff. Especially pleasing to hear crusty old English gentlemen say "cock up". That's a phrase that needs to come back.

>> ^spoco2:

Ahh, "It'll be alright on the night", that was a great show that I remember from my childhood.
On the topic of the particular video though... how could they not have actually demonstrated to him how he was supposed to use the carton before going on tv to demonstrate? Ineptitude


This was great stuff. Especially pleasing to hear crusty old English gentlemen say "cock up". That's a phrase that needs to come back.

I'm guessing that there was some previous animosity between the two. Or maybe the old English Footballers go on this ego trip and wants to show Hollywood stars how tough they are.

Thanks, AC!
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
My daughter does a really great impression of Joby's owner, considering she's a 13 year old English lass, but my god it's getting old. Both of my kids quote parts of that video at least once a day, it seems there is always room for, "whatcha doin' dawg?" or "that's the nastiest thaaaang". They even sing the autotuned version, which drives me up the wall! But it's still hilarious and this is brilliant and deserves a *promote

My daughter does a really great impression of Joby's owner, considering she's a 13 year old English lass, but my god it's getting old. Both of my kids quote parts of that video at least once a day, it seems there is always room for, "whatcha doin' dawg?" or "that's the nastiest thaaaang". They even sing the autotuned version, which drives me up the wall! But it's still hilarious and this is brilliant and deserves a *promote

it's a particular style of music, and it's not too popular today. there are insane composers out there, but composing for an orchestra is a difficult thing.... for starters, most composers don't have an orchestra. secondly, there is very little funk in an orchestra, and that rules out a great many talents.

but really, it's kind of like saying "there haven't been any shakespeare's lately." which is a sorta-truth. there are incredible writers everywhere, but very few are writing sonnets in old english.

>> ^RadHazG:

I've always wondered why Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, and all the rest came around so long ago and are still considered some of the greatest, but for some reason since then nobody has come along to challenge them. Suppose we have a contender.

So in short, QM, I think you're not always wrong as I tend to agree with some of your posts, but you're not always right either. Neither am I. The truth is somewhere in between.

As my old English teacher used to say, the best argument is the one that sits on the fence...


I appreciate the work that went into your response and I read all of it. "Leaderless" movement? Don't believe it.

I would like a true accounting as much as the next guy. I want to know where the failout money went, every last penny. I want arguments with real facts and figures, and we don't have them. (Example: Outsourcing. Is it really a problem? How many jobs were actually outsourced? In what fields)?

Everything is political. Everything. When the cleverer politicos "respond" to these mobs, the "solutions" will be far worse than the original problems. That's government in action.



>> ^MonkeySpank:

QM,
There is no need to put labels on these people. Labels are a sign of weakness in any argument. The OWS have repeatedly stated that they are not affiliated with any party.. >>

QM,
There is no need to put labels on these people. Labels are a sign of weakness in any argument. The OWS have repeatedly stated that they are not affiliated with any party. They are mad at the current state of our government; they are not promoting a political agenda - I didn't see a single banner promoting somebody's name on it. I think you, and many others, keep missing the fundamental point that these people are attacking lobbyism and backroom deals that happen in Washington - most of which are triggered by the oil industry, big pharma, and the financial sector. The focal point of their day-to-day transactions is indeed Wall St.

Why not Washington you say? People are mad at the economy (outsourced jobs, bailouts, foreclosures) and the pulse of our economy is measured in Wall St. Why is this a surprise? The medial keeps trying to funnel the OWS people into a political agenda, which in fact, is non-existent. As LaGreca stated so eloquently, this is a "general assembly vs. top-heavy town hall" issue; I think people from all parts of the political should agree with that, regardless of their affiliation. The assumption that people are going to come with a list of demands is based on the fact that this is a political movement with a leadership. Many people at OWS have different conflicting concerns, and there is nothing wrong with that. That's how democracy works. One thing they all agree on is that change is needed (and by change I don't mean replace President A with President B).

I know you are going to attack Obama and Liberals (I despise Obama btw), but you have to understand that this collapsed economy was created by Bush and happened on his watch - the house has been under republican control for quite some time now and the senate has 13 centrist democrats that lean toward republican ideology and vote against their own party consistently. You just can't blame one man or one party. The whole system is rigged. When it comes to the economic policies, it's not who's playing the game that's the problem, it's the rules of the game itself.

So in short, QM, I think you're not always wrong as I tend to agree with some of your posts, but you're not always right either. Neither am I. The truth is somewhere in between.

As my old English teacher used to say, the best argument is the one that sits on the fence...

>> ^quantumushroom:

Ah, I see what you attempted, so let me elaborate.
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government, but he's still forgotten more than will ever be known by the self-anointed liberal intelligentsia, whose theories and follies he pays for every day.
>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^quantumushroom:
The average oh-so-lovable working class stiff is chock-full of wrongful assumptions about business, law and government.
Tell me about it.