Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Language/2024 May 15
| Language desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < May 14 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | Current desk > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
May 15
[edit]Talk the hind legs off a donkey
[edit]From where does this saying originate? Is it only British? 205.239.40.3 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- talk the hind leg off a donkey: talk incessantly. British informal. In 1808 talking a horse's hind leg off was described as an 'old vulgar hyperbole' in Cobbett's Weekly Political Register, but the version with donkey was current by the mid 19th century. In 1879 Anthony Trollope mentioned talk the hind leg off a dog as an Australian variant.
- English Idioms (p. 286) by Matthew Evanoff. Alansplodge (talk) 10:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source at Cultural references to donkeys (Davis, Graeme (2007). Dictionary of Surrey English. Peter Lang. p. 174. ISBN 978-3-03911-081-0.) also has horses and dogs. It says that the idea is to talk a donkey into sitting down, which would require exception skills, as a donkey does not sit. So the other variants seem to miss the point. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although the recorded use of horses predates donkeys by at least half a century, so that seems a bit speculative. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. And his suggestion that "dog" is a "Surrey substitution" equally so. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- That Evanoff source might be better one for Cultural references to donkeys? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it's "independently published" which WP doesn't like much. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- You could use an identically-worded definition from John Ayto, ed. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms (Third ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 347. ISBN 978-0-19-954378-6. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- So done; many thanks. Alansplodge (talk) 10:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- You could use an identically-worded definition from John Ayto, ed. (2010). Oxford Dictionary of English Idioms (Third ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 347. ISBN 978-0-19-954378-6. DuncanHill (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it's "independently published" which WP doesn't like much. Alansplodge (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- That Evanoff source might be better one for Cultural references to donkeys? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. And his suggestion that "dog" is a "Surrey substitution" equally so. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Although the recorded use of horses predates donkeys by at least half a century, so that seems a bit speculative. Alansplodge (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source at Cultural references to donkeys (Davis, Graeme (2007). Dictionary of Surrey English. Peter Lang. p. 174. ISBN 978-3-03911-081-0.) also has horses and dogs. It says that the idea is to talk a donkey into sitting down, which would require exception skills, as a donkey does not sit. So the other variants seem to miss the point. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
"accidents and conveniences"
[edit]The article on Erik Sparre mentions "accidents and conveniences" based on "Sparre argued that the dukes had only a dominium utile in their duchies: their claim to enjoy their rights 'as freely as the king does in his dominions' applied therefore only to the 'accidents and conveniences' (tilhörigheter och nyttigheter), and by no means implied a sovereign authority."[1] A longer quote is " med alla deras tillhörigheter och nyttigheter lika som vi dem på kronans vägnar själva innehaft " [with all their belongings and benefits just as we ourselves held them on behalf of the crown - via Google translate].[2]
What is meant by "accidents" and "conveniences" and is it possible to translate the phrase into more modern English? I found the same phrase here from 1868. TSventon (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Legalese terms can generally not be translated by some snappy "modern English" term. In the Google translation you supplied of the longer quote, tillhörigheter och nyttigheter is translated though as "belongings and benefits", which roughly covers the idea and is understandable modern English. The sense of "accident" is sense 5 given at the entry for this word on Wiktionary:
- Any property, fact, or relation that is the result of chance or is nonessential or nonsubstantive.
- So this includes, for example, farms that happen to be on the land of the duchy. A legal term one might use is appurtenances, but that term may not be commonly understood. The nyttigheter comprise anything that is of use; the right to such use is also called "usufruct". --Lambiam 05:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Roberts, Michael (1968). The Early Vasas: A History of Sweden, 1523–1611. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 304. ISBN 978-0-521-06930-4. SBN 521069300.
- ^ Lagerroth, Fredrik (1915). Frihetstidens författning. A. Bonnier. p. 65.