Re: "Yer Ugly Mug," etc

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Cowan" <cowan@...>

> Sally Caves scripsit:
> > On another listserv, we are being bombarded with student bloopers.
[...]
> > In a 15th cent. Irish manuscript, I've found et reliqua, for et
> > cetera, which I've used for Teonaht.
> And the rest, and others, what's the difference?  Et reliqua looks like
> good Latin to me, not a blooper of any sort.
I wasn't citing it as a blooper, John!  The excreta excreta excreta was the
blooper.  Then I changed gears and said I found et reliqua in an Irish
manuscript of the fifteenth century.  I suppose that that sounds like I'm
citing it as a blooper given my previous comment, but it's just
impressionistic writing.  I have no idea how common et reliqua is in
comparison to et cetera, but I was refreshed by it, and decided to adopt it
for Teonaht.  Yes, it means just about the same as et cetera.  But it's
prettier.

> My favorite blooper of this type is "doggy-dog world".
I've gotten that.  I've also gotten "for all intensive purposes."  And: "The
fans wanted blood, but he gave them shit."


Sally Caves
scaves@frontiernet.net
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."