|
|
Post by ncsonde on Jan 23, 2014 4:44:59 GMT
Aren't you going to post a link to the OED citation you claim you quoted, Jean? Where you claim you learned your sniping expertise? You will have been taught to cite your sources, and ascribe them accurately, I'm sure - in such a department of renowned scholarship?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 23, 2014 8:29:42 GMT
I can't post a link - you have to log in yourself. Try your library card number.
I quote the relevant extracts:
snipe, v.
Etymology: < snipe n. 1.
1. trans. To shoot or fire at (men, etc.), one at a time, usu. from cover and at long range; to pick off (a person) in this manner. Also fig.
Under snipe, n. we find:
1. One or other of the limicoline birds of the genus Gallinago (formerly included in the Linnæan genus Scolopax), characterized by having a long straight bill, and by frequenting marshy places; esp. G. cœlestis or media, the common English species.
I am sorry you feel picked off. I can't help that, I'm afraid - it's your perception rather than any sort of objective fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 28, 2014 16:04:21 GMT
Well, here's how the discussion went on the Science board. I thought it best to have it all together in one place, in case anyone should claim at some future date that things were said that weren't. Or weren't said that were. Just as I thought. You either don't know how to read a dictionary, which is quite hard to credit; or, doing you more justice, you're hoping that no one else knows how to read one, and you're trying to deceive everybody that this "extract" says what you claimed it said: that to snipe derives from the bird. Obviously, it says no such thing. Nick. Please.He wouldn't listen, though.  Jeez - you really don't know when to stop, do you? Okay - it's your contention then that the OED asserts that to snipe derives from the noun for the bird, snipe, is it? And you're seriously asserting that this is what the extract you've just quoted says, are you? Of course it is, I told him. But still he persisted! In that case you're totally incompetent at reading a dictionary. Or you're a liar. I actually think in this instance it's the former - I can't imagine why else you'd try to "teach" Jonjel your mistake. I don't know what to suggest. Maybe - a visit to your public library? Ask someone on the desk how you do it? FGS Stop Digging Nick! I can't stop you making a fool of yourself - only you can do that. It got worse. Begorrah, you're a fool, woman. Look, your entry for the bird is a separate meaning to the word, not a derivation! A six-year old could tell you that, for crissakes! I see you somehow missed I didn't miss it, I just don't believe it. I think it's another of your adulterations. And if on the other hand this is merely a misprint, that's all it is, as anyone with an ounce of sense could tell you. But I don't believe the OED gives the primary meaning of snipe as the bird, sorry. The meaning of snipe, the bird, derives from a completely different source to the meaning of the verb, to snipe, as any dictionary will tell you. I haven't looked, but I don't need to. The meaning of snipe, the bird, derives from a completely different source to the meaning of the verb, to snipe, as any dictionary will tell you. I haven't looked, but I don't need to.Oh I think you do. No I don't. I'd lay a hundred quid that the verb to snipe - both to criticise and to take shots at - derives from the same source as snip: to make short sharp cuts. This has no relevance to the bird, snipe, which derives from another root altogether. Obviously. I had to remind him how it had gone: and he searched vainly for an adequate reply: I think you have adulterated your quote. What's the bit in the middle you've left out? I'd like to have been able to link to the page, but the OED site won't let you do that - you have to have a subscription to consult it online. I can do it by virtue of my local authority library service subscribing. You might find you can do the same, if you log in with your library card number. You can do it here: www.oed.com/loginpageI have not adulterated my quote in any way though, except to miss out the illustrative examples. They have nothing to do with the etymology of the word, which I include in my quote. Here's a link to some definitions from other dictionaries: www.thefreedictionary.com/snipeAs you see, no source is given for any meaning of the verb other than the noun referring to the bird. When do I get my £100? It can all be found here. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 29, 2014 23:16:46 GMT
You might have thought that was the end of it, but no. Then I can only reiterate, you're a gullible automaton with a servile credulity to "authorities" you've been taught to believe without thinking for yourself. Latin was your ideal subject. It certainly wasn't ornithology! As anyone who has the slightest familiarity with the snipe could have told you, or the OED, if they have made such a comical error - which I still very much doubt. As for your online source... You really have no clue, do you, even about something you claim is your own area of expertise. Right - I see I shall have to consult my own dictionary, generally acknowledged to be the most academically authoritative in the world for its time. As I thought, the root given by Funk & Wagnalls is the old dutch snippen, a short quick cutting movement. The root of the gamebird is given as the Icelandic snipa, a light hunt. Now, no doubt that derives from the original germanic snippen, too; but to reverse the precedence in such an obvious way is nothing but perverse. Right - I see I shall have to consult my own dictionary, generally acknowledged to be the most academically authoritative in the world for its time. As I thought, the root given by Funk & Wagnalls is the old dutch snippen, a short quick cutting movement... Yes, that's the root of the verb to snip. No problem there. Yes, that's the noun snipe. No disagreement there with the OED, either. Now all you have to do is look up the verb to snipe, which it seems you have not yet done. If your edition of the dictionary was published before 1782 you won't find it, because that's the date of the first example the OED has got: 1782 G. Selwyn Let. in 15th Rep. Royal Comm. Hist. MSS (1899) App. VI. 621 Now people have been shot by platoons and in corps, the individual will be popped at or sniped, as they call it, from time to time.I'm given to understand that snipe are shot one by one, from cover and at long range. Have I been misinformed? (I am not really clear why relying on the OED in matters of etymology makes me a gullible automaton with a servile credulity to "authorities" , while relying on the authority of Funk & Wagnell is a sign of original thought on your part.) This may be helpful, though it's only wiki: A sniper is a highly trained marksman who operates alone, in a pair, or with a sniper team to maintain close visual contact with the enemy and engage targets from concealed positions or distances exceeding the detection capabilities of enemy personnel. These sniper teams operate independently, with little combat asset support from their parent units. Snipers typically have highly selective and specialized training and use high-precision/special application rifles and optics, and often have sophisticated communication assets to feed valuable combat information back to their units.
In addition to marksmanship, military snipers are trained in camouflage, field craft, infiltration, special reconnaissance and observation, surveillance and target acquisition. Snipers are especially effective when deployed within the terrain of urban warfare, or jungle warfare.
Etymology
The verb "to snipe" originated in the 1770s among soldiers in British India where a hunter skilled enough to kill the elusive snipe was dubbed a "sniper". The term sniper was first attested in 1824 in the sense of the word "sharpshooter".
Another term, "sharp shooter" was in use in British newspapers as early as 1801. In the Edinburgh Advertiser, 23 June 1801, can be found the following quote in a piece about the North British Militia; "This Regiment has several Field Pieces, and two companies of Sharp Shooters, which are very necessary in the modern Stile of War". The term appears even earlier, around 1781, in Continental Europe.Now something very strange seems to happen, but it's hard to reproduce because the quotes are such a mess. Now all you have to do is look up the verb to snipe, which it seems you have not yet done. That's what I'm talking about. They share the same root - obviously. And it ain't the bird! Obviously. It's either the hunt, or far more likely the sharp cut - given that scissors are a bronze age invention at the very least. But the hunt derives from the bird, doesn't it? And the army snipers derive from the hunters. Are we to suppose that with the army-sniper meaning well established, the figurative use that appeared at the beginning of the twentieth century was actually from the verb to snip instead? If snip really were the origin, wouldn't people have simply used snip without modification, rather than changing the spelling and pronunciation to to snipe? The Bronze Age origin of scissors seems to be neither here nor there. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jan 29, 2014 23:50:38 GMT
And here's the original thread from MCL. in which the origins of to snipe were first mentioned: pinkmelon.proboards.com/thread/8548/credible?page=3I see it was actually quite good-natured. And there it might have rested, but for this, out of the blue on a recent thread here about something else entirely: Do I detect some hint of scepticism here? From the oft self-proclaimed expert on etymology who tells people with all the authority she deserves that to snipe derives from the bird? closely followed by this: ...your "dispute" was with Jonjel, or so I'm informed, not me - and he, sensibly, probably out of gentlemanly embarrassment for you, chose not to dispute your ludicrous claim at all. Secondly, you cited no "authority" but your own - for the reason no doubt that no real "authority" would make such an obvious and foolish mistake. Would they? Speak up, miss. He didn't even take part in the discussion! He wasn't even lurking - someone informed him about it! I wonder who that was? I let the shot bounce off me then, but the sniping continued: Aren't you going to post a link to the OED citation you claim you quoted, Jean? Where you claim you learned your sniping expertise? You will have been taught to cite your sources, and ascribe them accurately, I'm sure - in such a department of renowned scholarship? I regret to say that terminally irritated by being targeted in this way, I responded on the Science board, as you see. I don't keep these things going - you do. No. I merely respond to you. Slip out from cover, fire a few shots and scuttle back again, more like. More fool me for attempting any sort of rational argument in response. |
|
|
|
Post by NapoleonComplex on Jan 30, 2014 18:25:13 GMT
Such a pig about it though. And because he's not very tall? WTF???
|
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Apr 24, 2014 23:45:15 GMT
I thought I'd look in here just to see if anything other then the usual bitchy gay backbiting is going on.
I'm sort of gratified this board has evidently died. With Jean and the gay gnat in charge it's what anyone could expect. Unusually, what was deserved is what's actually happened. The truth shall prevail.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Apr 24, 2014 23:45:45 GMT
I thought I'd look in here just to see if anything other then the usual bitchy gay backbiting is going on.
I'm sort of gratified this board has evidently died. With Jean and the gay gnat in charge it's what anyone could expect. Unusually, what was deserved is what's actually happened. The truth shall prevail.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chalfont Sizelove on Apr 25, 2014 11:08:12 GMT
I thought I'd look in here just to see if anything other then the usual bitchy gay backbiting is going on. I'm sort of gratified this board has evidently died. With Jean and the gay gnat in charge it's what anyone could expect. Unusually, what was deserved is what's actually happened. The truth shall prevail. |
|
aviatrix
WH Member
I wish I was good looking enough for people to think I was stupid
Posts: 39
|
Post by aviatrix on Apr 26, 2014 9:25:43 GMT
jeez.......what did the gays ever do to shorty?
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Apr 27, 2014 17:35:27 GMT
...I'm sort of gratified this board has evidently died... It was doomed from the moment you and cleefy, and the marchesa of course, started to make use of it as somewhere to parade your obsessions. Even your attempts to provoke a response from me on some long-forgotten topic from somewhere else (see the first post on this page) backfired spectacularly. Don't you mean prevails? |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on May 7, 2014 0:34:44 GMT
Too tense for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jonjel on May 13, 2014 10:35:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by tempus fugit on May 15, 2014 8:32:58 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by BENYandtheJETS on Jun 3, 2014 13:04:58 GMT
As far as I know jean has not been banned from the Science Board for years! Has she tried signing in in the last few years? HAHAHA!!!ASFARASYOUKNOW!!!LMFAO! "JOANNE" will have told you by "telepathy" that the ban was lifted but Did Ms.Byers give any clue as to why the change of heart?Do try and remember |
|
Jeez - you really don't know when to stop, do you? Okay - it's your contention then that the OED asserts that to snipe derives from the noun for the bird, snipe, is it? And you're seriously asserting that this is what the extract you've just quoted says, are you? 
