35 replies to this topic

[Stephen Chambers]

Here Here.... or is it 'Hear Hear?'

Depends what you mean, since they're pretty much opposites...

(Here, here could be construed as disagreement/a protest, whilst Hear, hear signifies complete agreement/a form of cheering.)

Edited by Stephen Chambers, 27 June 2009 - 05:03 PM.

[Patrick King]

Here Here.... or is it 'Hear Hear?'

Depends what you mean, since they're pretty much opposites...

(Here, here could be construed as disagreement/a protest, whilst Hear, hear signifies complete agreement/a form of cheering.)

Alright; thanks.

It's 'Hear Hear'

[tallship]

Here Here.... or is it 'Hear Hear?'

[pedant] No, actually it's Hear, here (as in hear what is said in this place)[/pedant]

[Stephen Chambers]

Here Here.... or is it 'Hear Hear?'

[pedant] No, actually it's Hear, here (as in hear what is said in this place)[/pedant]

[pedant alert]Point of order, Mr. Speaker! - The phrase "Hear him, hear him!" was used in Parliament since the late 17th century, and had been reduced to "Hear!" or "Hear, hear!" by the late 18th. "Hear" had earlier been used in the King James Bible as a command for others to listen.[/pedant alert]

Edited by Stephen Chambers, 27 June 2009 - 11:03 PM.

[Daniel Hersh]

[librarian alert] I see that no source was cited for this. It could have been this Wikipedia article which in turn cites this item from Random House. [/librarian alert]

Here Here.... or is it 'Hear Hear?'

[pedant] No, actually it's Hear, here (as in hear what is said in this place)[/pedant]

[pedant alert]Point of order, Mr. Speaker! - The phrase "Hear him, hear him!" was used in Parliament since the late 17th century, and had been reduced to "Hear!" or "Hear, hear!" by the late 18th. "Hear" had earlier been used in the King James Bible as a command for others to listen.[/pedant alert]

[JimLucas]

Here Here.... or is it 'Hear Hear?'

[pedant] No, actually it's Hear, here (as in hear what is said in this place)[/pedant]

[pedant alert]Point of order, Mr. Speaker! - The phrase "Hear him, hear him!" was used in Parliament since the late 17th century, and had been reduced to "Hear!" or "Hear, hear!" by the late 18th. "Hear" had earlier been used in the King James Bible as a command for others to listen.[/pedant alert]

[librarian alert] I see that no source was cited for this. It could have been this Wikipedia article which in turn cites this item from Random House. [/librarian alert]

Just another Random fact, eh?

[Patrick King]

I'm an opened-minded person; so don't get anything wrong; that's why I rather hearing the truth about a fact, instead of hearing a normal day in the Australian House of Representatives with the opposition party always opposing things and lying.

But there's 1 thing I know for certain on this subject: Both ways of writing it are pronounced the same way.

Cheers,
Patrick

[Chris Timson]

But there's 1 thing I know for certain on this subject: Both ways of writing it are pronounced the same way.

Heer, heer ...

[Stephen Chambers]

But there's 1 thing I know for certain on this subject: Both ways of writing it are pronounced the same way.

Heer, heer ...

I'd say pronounced, but not spoken in the same way.

"Here, here" would be said in a tone that suggests disagreement, argument even, whilst "Hear, hear" would be spoken in agreement, or as a cheer.

Not sure about "Heer, heer" though...

[Leo]

But there's 1 thing I know for certain on this subject: Both ways of writing it are pronounced the same way.

Heer, heer ...

I'd say pronounced, but not spoken in the same way.

"Here, here" would be said in a tone that suggests disagreement, argument even, whilst "Hear, hear" would be spoken in agreement, or as a cheer.

Not sure about "Heer, heer" though...

and the addition of one consonant to, there there,alters the meaning yet again.

This year I fear we need beer here dear jeered the seer as he would leer in the ear of his peer with a tear near the rear of the pier. Clear?

Cheer
Leo

[Patrick King]

But there's 1 thing I know for certain on this subject: Both ways of writing it are pronounced the same way.

Heer, heer ...

I'd say pronounced, but not spoken in the same way.

"Here, here" would be said in a tone that suggests disagreement, argument even, whilst "Hear, hear" would be spoken in agreement, or as a cheer.

Not sure about "Heer, heer" though...

and the addition of one consonant to, there there,alters the meaning yet again.

This year I fear we need beer here dear jeered the seer as he would leer in the ear of his peer with a tear near the rear of the pier. Clear?

Cheer
Leo

Just about.
I thought SCHone did moan about the tone of the bone.

Groan,
Roan

[Patrick King]

But there's 1 thing I know for certain on this subject: Both ways of writing it are pronounced the same way.

Heer, heer ...

I'd say pronounced, but not spoken in the same way.

"Here, here" would be said in a tone that suggests disagreement, argument even, whilst "Hear, hear" would be spoken in agreement, or as a cheer.

Not sure about "Heer, heer" though...

and the addition of one consonant to, there there,alters the meaning yet again.

This year I fear we need beer here dear jeered the seer as he would leer in the ear of his peer with a tear near the rear of the pier. Clear?

Cheer
Leo

Just about.
I thought SCHone did moan about the tone of the bone.

Groan,
Roan

[drbones]

Should we start on the word "redundant" now?

Is it me or has this thread taken a wild tangent?

You know me, I have to put in my 2 cents.
Apologies..

If you listen here you’ll hear they’re here.
If you listen there, you’ll hear they’re there.
Where does a tailor wear his wares?
To me it’s neither here nor there.
as long as he wears clean underwear.
So why not ask someone who cares?

[JimLucas]

Should we start on the word "redundant" now?

A strange word, that.

How can something be "re-dundant" if it's never been "dundant"?

[drbones]

Should we start on the word "redundant" now?

A strange word, that.

How can something be "re-dundant" if it's never been "dundant"?

Valid point. I tried looking up "Dundant" and it seems the word doesn't exist. So, how is it a prefix like "re" can be placed with a non-existant word and give it meaning?
I also split off the suffix "ant" which left "dund" which is also not a word. The suffix "ant" changes a verb to an adjective. Still nonsense.

I finally came up with this:

“Red” is a color, “und” is German for “and”, and “ant” is a small colonizing insect.
So, “red", "and", "ant” equates to “red ant” which, when in a colony, are abundant and therefore redundant.

[david_boveri]

who else never noticed there was a limit on pm's? i never send a lot of them. usually i include my email to use that. i am fine with any measures needed to keep a limit on spammers. sorry that the original poster got an inaccurate message and spent 3 days writing three messages! personally, i would have tried again, cuz i dont like being told what to do...

Should we start on the word "redundant" now?

A strange word, that.

How can something be "re-dundant" if it's never been "dundant"?

Valid point. I tried looking up "Dundant" and it seems the word doesn't exist. So, how is it a prefix like "re" can be placed with a non-existant word and give it meaning?
I also split off the suffix "ant" which left "dund" which is also not a word. The suffix "ant" changes a verb to an adjective. Still nonsense.

I finally came up with this:

“Red” is a color, “und” is German for “and”, and “ant” is a small colonizing insect.
So, “red", "and", "ant” equates to “red ant” which, when in a colony, are abundant and therefore redundant.

well, if you look at latin instead of german, und- means wave. red- is in fact the same as re-... i believe it is different to counteract the fact that the word starts with a vowel. think of redact and redargue--dact is not a word, nor is dargue, but act and argue are words.

so, you could translate redundant as "re-waving," or "re-flowing." to redound (which is a word) is to return (to flow back), so to be redundant is to flow back characterized as flowing back to the same subject. or, if we are to take some artistic license, as there is no word "ound" from redound, we could say say it is to re-wound, and to be redundant is to wound again! but in all serious, if you want to have that sort of connotation, you could coin a neo-latinate word and say that c-net forum members like to be "revulnant." i just searched revulnant, and it seems i have coined a word which does not exist in google, and thus i include has never been uttered. all 4 "links" are actually google misreading typeface for the latin words repugnant and repugnantes.

[JimLucas]

so, you could translate redundant as "re-waving," or "re-flowing." to redound (which is a word) is to return (to flow back), so to be redundant is to flow back characterized as flowing back to the same subject. or, if we are to take some artistic license, as there is no word "ound" from redound, we could say say it is to re-wound, and to be redundant is to wound again! but in all serious, if you want to have that sort of connotation, you could coin a neo-latinate word and say that c-net forum members like to be "revulnant." i just searched revulnant, and it seems i have coined a word which does not exist in google, and thus i include has never been uttered. all 4 "links" are actually google misreading typeface for the latin words repugnant and repugnantes.

That argument contains some pretty fancy footwork.

Ped-antic, I'd call it.

[david_boveri]

That argument contains some pretty fancy footwork.

Ped-antic, I'd call it.

haha, what can i say, i have two left brains.