Seldom Used Words (Cont'd)

Og, thanks for the additional information on necking and that wonderful poem. In the first chapter of my book about 1857, the local men are thrilled when the stars of the story, 13 beautiful women, must lift their skirts to ascend the steps into their wagon. The poem is a wonderful verification that clothes can be sexier than nakedness.

necessitous - vt 1.a. NEEDY, IMPOVERISHED b. STRAITENED 2. URGENT, PRESSING 3. NECESSARY

I was not aware of the first definition, so that is why I posted it.

oggbashan said:

Historical Slang - Neck etc.

Talk through the back of one's neck - to talk extravagently, catachrestically [Og's note = misuse of words or phrases, think Mrs Malaprop, or some of the General Board posters]

Click to expand...

Also known as acyrologia. See the attached discussion of the phenomenon.

Very funny, Carlus, thanks so much for posting the link. Archie Bunker, of All In The Family fame, was an excellent example, as well.

necessitarianism - noun the theory that results follow by invariable sequence from causes

Good morning, posters.

This next word's definition has me confused;

necessary condition - noun a proposition whose invalidity is sufficient evidence that a second is invalid

What kind of second, like in a duel, or in a council meeting? I suppose a duel would be a challenge and not a proposition, so the latter is probably the case.

AllardChardon said:

Good morning, posters.

This next word's definition has me confused;

necessary condition - noun a proposition whose invalidity is sufficient evidence that a second is invalid

What kind of second, like in a duel, or in a council meeting? I suppose a duel would be a challenge and not a proposition, so the latter is probably the case.

Click to expand...

Coroner finds water in lungs (necessary condition) then victim did drown (second condition).

If there is no evidence of liquid in the lungs (liquid being a necessary condition and comes FIRST) the deceased did not drown (second condition).

oggbashan said:

Coroner finds water in lungs (necessary condition) then victim did drown (second condition).

If there is no evidence of liquid in the lungs (liquid being a necessary condition and comes FIRST) the deceased did not drown (second condition).

Click to expand...

Formally, the logic runs the other way. If he drowned, there will be water in his lungs. The word "second" in the definition refers to a second proposition. It may be easier to understand the term when you realize that another way to say the same thing is "If there's no water in his lungs, then he didn't drown." If we are to conclude that he drowned, then we *must* find water in his lungs, more or less as Og's second statement goes.

His first statement isn't right. The water may have entered his lungs without drowning him. Maybe he was submerged too long, but rescued alive. And then shot before he could recover from inhaling some water. Or, maybe, as in The Man Who Never Was, he died of pneumonia. The presence of water in the lungs is necessary to a conclusion that he drowned, but not sufficient.

In logic, if p and q are propositions, and it is known that the compound proposition "If p then q" is true, then the proposition q is said to be a necessary condition for p, while the proposition p is said to be a sufficient condition for q. That is, because the truth of p "forces" that of q, truth of q is needed in order to have truth of p. For the same reason if we know that p is so, that's all we need to know to conclude that q is also: p is sufficient for q.

And, naturally, when p is necessary and sufficient for q, the truth of either is equivalent to the truth of the other.

These terms cause a great deal of trouble for many of those who've just begun a major in mathematics, and so are in the first two or three mathematics courses after the calculus sequence.

Thanks Carlus, for that explanation.

Yes, indeed, thanks Carlus and Og for both definitions. Now, I understand the previous entry I posted.

Here is a nice grouping that I never knew about;

neat(1) - noun the common domestic bovine

neatherd - noun HERDSMAN

neat's-foot oil - noun a pale yellow fatty oil made esp. from the bones of cattle and used chiefly as a leather dressing

CarlusMagnus said:

In logic, if p and q are propositions, and it is known that the compound proposition "If p then q" is true, then the proposition q is said to be a necessary condition for p, while the proposition p is said to be a sufficient condition for q.
That is, because the truth of p "forces" that of q, truth of q is needed in order to have truth of p. For the same reason if we know that p is so, that's all we need to know to conclude that q is also: p is sufficient for q.

And, naturally, when p is necessary and sufficient for q, the truth of either is equivalent to the truth of the other.

These terms cause a great deal of trouble for many of those who've just begun a major in mathematics, and so are in the first two or three mathematics courses after the calculus sequence.

Click to expand...

Forgive me please Allard, but I'm banjaxed.
This so-called logic muddles me.

Perhaps I'm looked through the wrong glasses (tinged with ancient BASIC language), but:-
IF P [ie., it is TRUE]
THEN
Q
END IF

makes logical sense. I don't know enough about English to dispute propositions,
but "if p then q" does not make sense to me.
Q is true BECAUSE P is valid. [and only because P is valid (or TRUE)]

And now, we return you to the Studio.

Handley_Page said:

Perhaps I'm looked through the wrong glasses (tinged with ancient BASIC language), but:-
IF P [ie., it is TRUE]
THEN
Q
END IF

makes logical sense. I don't know enough about English to dispute propositions,
but "if p then q" does not make sense to me.
Q is true BECAUSE P is valid. [and only because P is valid (or TRUE)]

And now, we return you to the Studio.

Click to expand...

The if-then construction is used differently in programming than in logic and mathematics.

In programming, IF P THEN Q ENDIF instructs the computer to test the truth of the condition that P contains. If the condition is found to be true, then the instructions contained in Q are to be executed; if the condition is found ot be false, the instructions contained in Q are to be ignored. The ENDIF statement tells the computer that we've finished specifying the instructions to be executed when the condition is true; what follows ENDIF (in a well-written program) is to be performed in either case.

In logic and mathematics, If p then q, where p and q are propositions, or statements, can be read "the truth of statement p implies the truth of statement q". It states a relationship between the truth values of two statements. For example, let us accept for the purposes of the discussion that an equilateral triangle is any triangle all three of whose sides have the same length, while an isosceles triangle is any triangle which has at least two sides of the same length. Let's say that the proposition p is the statement "Triangle ABC is equilateral," while the proposition q is the statement "Triangle ABC is isosceles". The statement "If p then q" is true, because whenever triangle ABC has three sides of equal length, it certainly has at least two sides of equal length. The statement "If q then p" is false, because there are many triangles that have at least two sides of equal length but are not equilateral. Thus, being isosceles is a necessary condition for a triangle to be equilateral, but not a sufficient condition. However, for a triangle to be isosceles, it is sufficient that it be equilateral.

To logicians and mathematicians, the statement "If p then q" means "If the statement p is true, then the statement q is also true".

Thank you Carlus.

Yes, absolutely, thank you so much, Carlus, for a well-written explanation of a very confusing subject. I have a much clearer understanding of If p then q, than I ever had before.

Nazirite or Nazarite - noun a Jew of biblical times consecrated to God by a vow esp. to avoid drinking wine, cutting the hair, and being defiled by a corpse

The last part really surprised me. Was being defiled by a corpse such an issue in biblical times?

AllardChardon said:

...

The last part really surprised me. Was being defiled by a corpse such an issue in biblical times?

Click to expand...

Yes. Those who dealt with corpses in ancient Israel and in many other societies were 'unclean' because in hot climates corpses could start to decompose very quickly. It was still true in parts of India in the 20th Century, and as far as I know could still apply there.

It is only since the 19th Century that undertakers and funeral directors have become respectable even in the US and Europe.

AllardChardon said:

Yes, absolutely, thank you so much, Carlus, for a well-written explanation of a very confusing subject. I have a much clearer understanding of If p then q, than I ever had before.

Nazirite or Nazarite - noun a Jew of biblical times consecrated to God by a vow esp. to avoid drinking wine, cutting the hair, and being defiled by a corpse

The last part really surprised me. Was being defiled by a corpse such an issue in biblical times?

Click to expand...

PERHAPS THEY KNEW MORE ABOUT ZOMBIES THAN WE DO ?

oggbashan said:

Yes. Those who dealt with corpses in ancient Israel and in many other societies were 'unclean' because in hot climates corpses could start to decompose very quickly. It was still true in parts of India in the 20th Century, and as far as I know could still apply there.

It is only since the 19th Century that undertakers and funeral directors have become respectable even in the US and Europe.

Click to expand...

The Navaho Indians, of the American Southwest, had (and still have) a less well-formed notion of ritual uncleanness. They avoid, not only corpses, but places where people are dying or known to have died and people who have witnessed a death.

I know a woman who worked as a physician in a small hospital on the Navaho Reservation some years ago. Most of the nurses in that hospital were Navaho women, and when someone seemed to be about to die, nurses were almost impossible to find.

Of course, defiled by a corpse, like in the Old Testament, thanks for jogging my memory, Og. I also had zombies on my mind with my first posting of the word, Handley. Carlus, thanks for adding the bit about the Navaho nurses, I am always interested in American Indians of all types.

nay(1) - adv 1. NO 2. not merely this but also: not only so but [the letter made him happy, ~, ecstatic]

Hello, everyone.

navvy - noun Brit an unskilled laborer

AllardChardon said:

Hello, everyone.

navvy - noun Brit an unskilled laborer

Click to expand...

Ouch!

Navvy is the short form of Navigator from those who built England's canals.

Although technically 'unskilled' they were expert in moving vast quantities of soil in the times before mechanical diggers. They built the canals and railways of Britain. Those who could move most soil, or could lay stone and bricks, were paid well for the time.

The infrastructure of the United Kingdom owes a great debt to the navvies and the engineers who directed them.

They were rough, tough, rowdy and a menace to local communities but they soon moved on.

AllardChardon

navvy - noun, Brit an unskilled laborer

Madam, I fear your source is in gross error.

oggbashan said:

Ouch!

Navvy is the short form of Navigator from those who built England's canals.

Although technically 'unskilled' they were expert in moving vast quantities of soil in the times before mechanical diggers. They built the canals and railways of Britain. Those who could move most soil, or could lay stone and bricks, were paid well for the time.

The infrastructure of the United Kingdom owes a great debt to the navvies and the engineers who directed them.

They were rough, tough, rowdy and a menace to local communities but they soon moved on.

Click to expand...

Gordon Lightfoot recorded a great song a decade or two ago called "The great Canadian Railroad Trilogy" which refers to the Navvy as the ones who pushed the road onwards so the track can be laid.

Handley_Page said:

AllardChardon

navvy - noun, Brit an unskilled laborer

Madam, I fear your source is in gross error.




Gordon Lightfoot recorded a great song a decade or two ago called "The great Canadian Railroad Trilogy" which refers to the Navvy as the ones who pushed the road onwards so the track can be laid.

Click to expand...

If her source is wrong, then so are most. I've looked in four different sources, including an ancient (1936) Webster's Collegiate, the compact edition of the OED, the edition of the New Oxford American that came on my Mac, and the American Heritage. All give navvy as a laborer, especially one involved with excavation. The AHD does mention the source of the word, giving much the same story as Og.

CarlusMagnus said:

...All give navvy as a laborer, especially one involved with excavation. ...

Click to expand...

The quibble isn't with "labourer," it's with "unskilled."

un•skilled (ʌnˈskɪld)

adj.
1. of or pertaining to workers who lack technical training or skill.
2. not demanding special training or skill: unskilled jobs.
3. showing a lack of skill or competence: an unskilled painting.
4. not skilled or expert.

Click to expand...

It might not seem obvious that wielding a shovel or pushing a wheelbarrow requires a certain amount of skill if one is to survive doing it for any extended period of time, anyone who has dug a ditch or hole can tell you there has to be a trick to surviving over the long term.

Weird Harold said:

The quibble isn't with "labourer," it's with "unskilled."

It might not seem obvious that wielding a shovel or pushing a wheelbarrow requires a certain amount of skill if one is to survive doing it for any extended period of time, anyone who has dug a ditch or hole can tell you there has to be a trick to surviving over the long term.

Click to expand...

The navigators moved tonnes of soil every shift, every day. That takes strength and skill. Digging one hole or a short length of ditch doesn't compare with a navvy's work. An unskilled labourer couldn't do in a day what a navvy could do in a couple of hours.

It is still true today of the navvies who work on roads. They may technically be unskilled, but they have to know exactly what they are doing and how to work with heavy machinery around them with fast traffic passing feet away. An unskilled navvy wouldn't last long as an employee or he would have to learn fast.

oggbashan said:

Digging one hole or a short length of ditch doesn't compare with a navvy's work.

Click to expand...

Digging a ditch thirty yards long by five foot deep doesn't compare with a navvy's work, but that wasn't the point. Digging that thirty yard by five foot ditch is more than the typical unskilled excavator can comfortably survive; how skilled must navvies be to dig a hundred miles fifty feet deep -- and a hundred times as wide to boot -- to survive?

Nice discussion, gentlemen. Maybe the "unskilled" part of the definition has to do with the fact that ditch diggers were not apprentices, journeymen, or masters in their craft, and did not attend any schools to learn their difficult jobs, but excelled through "on the job training".

My late husband had to dig a long ditch (50 feet long, 8 feet deep and 4 feet wide) to connect the house we were living in to the city sewer, and off the septic tank, during the summer. It took two month to complete, after work and on weekends, and was an experience my college-graduated husband never wanted to repeat. We did receive two months free rent for his effort, which was not enough to compensate him for his hard work, honestly.

nave(1) - noun the hub of a wheel

nave(2) - noun the main part of the interior of a church; esp: the long narrow central hall in a cruciform church that rises higher than the aisles flanking it to form a clerestory

AllardChardon said:

nave(2) - noun the main part of the interior of a church; esp: the long narrow central hall in a cruciform church that rises higher than the aisles flanking it to form a clerestory

Click to expand...

In this meaning, the word nave derives from the Latin word navis, meaning ship. (Hence, also, the related word navigate.) It comes from the fancy that the Christian Church is in the world, but not of the world—just as a ship is in the sea, but not of the sea.

The symbol of the ship endures in Christian iconography. Even to this day, one often sees ships, frequently storm-tossed ships, in the stained-glass windows of (relatively) new churches. (I leave it to my readers to figure out the significance of the "storm-tossed" part.) My father was a clergyman, and the last church he served full-time was housed in a building, constructed in the late '50s, that has such an image in one of its windows.