Signs

[Rocky]

I would like to start a new thread about humorous signs that you have encountered. I refer to signs that give information, instructions or warnings that are misstated although we know what was intended. Here are a couple examples I have seen:

1. I was entering a large car wash facility in Rochester, NY that had two tracks through the equipment. The sign read, "Use Both Lanes" when what was intended was, "Use Either Lane."
2. Many of us have seen the sign on a door that reads, "Fire Door. Always Keep Closed" when what is really meant is "Fire Door. Do Not Leave Open." If the door should always be closed, there is no need of a door.
3. Many times on a three lane highway that is narrowing to two lanes, I have seen the sign, "Right (or Left) Lane Ends." As I travel on and the road narrows, there is still a right and left land so what really ended was the center lane.
4. Another door instruction reads "Not an Exit." Well, sure it is under certain circumstances such as the building is on fire.

I once read and I am re-reading a book by Edwin Newman entitled, "Strictly Speaking" sub-titled "Will America be the Death of English?" If you are somewhat anal-retentive (as I am) and are looking for some humorous, light reading, I highly recommend it.

 

[BernardSmith]

Signs, like the old chestnut - Danger: men at work?

 

[Rocky]

Good one, Bernard.

Recall the old IBM sign, "Plan ahead." Is there another way to plan?
I have seen and heard many people say "prior planning." Again, is there another way?
A phrase I have never understood is "each and every." I don't understand what the difference is between "each" and "every" so why be redundant?

 

[sour_grapes]

Ha! I hadn't read this when I posted this just moments ago: https://www.winemakingtalk.com/thre...wine-cost-under-3-a-bottle.70320/#post-738422

 

[BernardSmith]

Good one, Bernard.

Recall the old IBM sign, "Plan ahead." Is there another way to plan?
I have seen and heard many people say "prior planning." Again, is there another way?
A phrase I have never understood is "each and every." I don't understand what the difference is between "each" and "every" so why be redundant?

Thanks Rocky. That said, I am not sure that those phrases are in fact redundant. I work as "director of academic review" for a college within the State University of New York where "each and every" student (adult learners) designs their own curriculum (we call this their degree plan). We require that they plan their degree and then submit this plan for faculty approval and when their plan is formally approved they then execute the plan and (hopefully) complete it and graduate. But some students complete their "plan" and then seek approval.. That is not "planning ahead". So, "plan ahead" means - Seek approval and then execute what has been approved and not, execute a plan and then seek approval.

Each and every specifies that every single member of a set of people (or animals) will undergo the same process. No exceptions. And "no exceptions" is something that the speaker or writer may want to state explicitly or as in this case, imply.

 

[Rocky]

Bernard, I am not sure that I completely grasp your discussion of "plan ahead" but I think somewhere in it is the confusion of "plan" the verb and "plan" the noun. The IBM slogan used "plan" as a verb.

Regarding "each and every" and assuming our set consists of "all 1st grade students entering XYZ Elementary School in 2020," what would be the difference between an instruction which read, "Each student must have a small pox vaccination" and "Every student must have a small pox vaccination?" To me, they mean the same thing although the use of "each" would be preferable because it is a finite and well defined set.

Personally, I think phrases like "each and every" are wordy and are used by writers who feel that using more compels the reader.

 

[sour_grapes]

I agree with Rocky's analysis. I believe the repetition in "each and every" is simply used as an intensifier. Sometimes you have to use repetition for effect. Period. Full stop. End of story.

 

[jgmann67]

Driving through the North Hills of Pittsburgh, there’s a business that offers tutoring services. Their sign:

“Just Math... and More”

All I can think is “Certainly not English.”

 

[Rocky]

Good one, Jim.

Reminds me of many commercials I hear or see on TV that offer savings of "up to 30% and more!" or words to that effect. If it is "up to 30%" how can it be more than 30%?

 

[BernardSmith]

Bernard, I am not sure that I completely grasp your discussion of "plan ahead" but I think somewhere in it is the confusion of "plan" the verb and "plan" the noun. The IBM slogan used "plan" as a verb.

Regarding "each and every" and assuming our set consists of "all 1st grade students entering XYZ Elementary School in 2020," what would be the difference between an instruction which read, "Each student must have a small pox vaccination" and "Every student must have a small pox vaccination?" To me, they mean the same thing although the use of "each" would be preferable because it is a finite and well defined set.

Personally, I think phrases like "each and every" are wordy and are used by writers who feel that using more compels the reader.

To be serious, Was there not a time when lawyers were paid by the word so that legal documents might use 500 words when most other people might say the same thing using 50. In those days (and even today) those documents could be used in place of sleeping potions. Back then, sleeping elixirs might kill you but the legal document might only result in your bankruptcy.

 

[sour_grapes]

To be serious, Was there not a time when lawyers were paid by the word so that legal documents might use 500 words when most other people might say the same thing using 50. In those days (and even today) those documents could be used in place of sleeping potions. Back then, sleeping elixirs might kill you but the legal document might only result in your bankruptcy.

Since you brought up lawyers, there is also the legacy of the Norman French invasion on lawyerly English. IANAL, but as I understand it, there are a suite of legal terms that seem to be reduplicative. Things like "aid and abet," "part and parcel," or "free and clear." One word is Germanic, and the other is Latinate. Quoting from "The Source of All Knowledge" (TM):

A legal doublet is a standardized phrase used frequently in English legal language consisting of two or more words that are near synonyms. The origin of the doubling—and sometimes even tripling—often lies in the transition from use of one language for legal purposes to use of another for the same purposes, as from a Germanic ([Anglo-]Saxon or Old English) term to a Romance (Latin or Law French) term or, within the Romance subfamily, from a Latin term to a Law French term. To ensure understanding, words of Germanic origin were often paired with words having equivalent or near-equivalent meanings in Latin (reflecting the interactions between Germanic and Roman law following the decline of the Roman Empire) or, later, Law French (reflecting the influence of the Norman Conquest), and words of Latin origin were often paired with their Law French cognates or outright descendants. Such phrases can often be pleonasms[1] and Siamese twins. In other cases, the two components did not arise through such synonym annotation but rather referred to two differentiable ideas whose differentiation is subtle, appreciable only to lawyers, long since obsolete, or a combination of those. For example, ways and means, referring to methods and resources respectively,[2] are differentiable, in the same way that tools and materials, or equipment and funds, are differentiable—but the difference between them is often practically irrelevant to the contexts in which the Siamese twin ways and means is used today in non-legal contexts as a mere cliché where one word would do (for example, "methods"), and because each of the words can practically mean "methods", the second can seem redundant in the clichéd, non-legal instances.

Here is a list (from that same Wiki article) of such doublets:

List of common legal doublets

• aid and abet[1]
• all and sundry[3]
• acknowledge and confess
• alter or change[1]
• appropriate and proper[1]
• art and part
• bind and obligate[1]
• breaking and entering
• by and between[4]
• care and attention
• cease and desist[1]
• covenant and agree[1]
• deem and consider[1]
• demise and lease[1]
• depose and say
• due and payable[1]
• facts and circumstances
• final and conclusive[1]
• fit and proper
• free and clear
• from now and henceforth
• full faith and credit[1]
• furnish and supply[1]
• goods and chattels
• have and hold[1]
• heirs and successors
• hue and cry
• indemnify and hold harmless[1]
• infangthief and outfangthief
• keep and perform[1]
• kind and nature[1]
• law and order
• legal and valid[1]
• let or hindrance
• lewd and lascivious conduct
• liens and encumbrances[1]
• make and enter into[1]
• mind and memory[5]
• null and void[1]
• over and above[1]
• part and parcel[1]
• perform and discharge[1]
• power and authority[1]
• sac and soc
• sale or transfer[1]
• sole and exclusive[1]
• successor and assigns[1]
• terms and conditions[1]
• then and in that event[1]
• toll and team
• true and correct[1]
• ways and means
• will and testament

 

[Rocky]

True, Bernard. I think some documents I read before I retired were paid for by the pound. As the Bard of Avon wrote, "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Lastly, I am fortunate in that I never needed a sleeping elixir. Thermodynamics by Enrico Fermi always put me to sleep before I got through "enthalpy."

 

[sour_grapes]

Lastly, I am fortunate in that I never needed a sleeping elixir. Thermodynamics by Enrico Fermi always put me to sleep before I got through "enthalpy."

Enrico Fermi was a great man. He was the last human to have been a great theorist AND a great experimentalist in Physics. Probably won't be another one.

That having been said, like you, I am STILL not a fan of thermodynamics!

 

[Rocky]

Very interesting, Paul. Thank you.

Enrico Fermi was a great man. He was the last human to have been a great theorist AND a great experimentalist in Physics. Probably won't be another one.

No doubt about that, Paul. For some reason, Thermo was my bugaboo even though I minored in Physics. I think I got a "gentleman C" in it and was happy for that.

 

[BernardSmith]

Since you brought up lawyers, there is also the legacy of the Norman French invasion on lawyerly English. IANAL, but as I understand it, there are a suite of legal terms that seem to be reduplicative. Things like "aid and abet," "part and parcel," or "free and clear." One word is Germanic, and the other is Latinate. Quoting from "The Source of All Knowledge" (TM):



Here is a list (from that same Wiki article) of such doublets:

I don't know.. Why would there be a legalistic reason to parse ideas in both germanic and romance terms. Certainly in Britain from 1066 we understood both languages (seat or chair? ).. and no-one took any offense if you used only French roots or Germanic (Sidebar: Tolkein wrote his works using only Germanic roots)
Methinks, if you got paid a penny for a word, then you got threepence for three and if you could fill a page with threepenny words you would have to work far less to say the same while making far more...

 

[Rocky]

Bernard, shouldn't that be "I thinks?" (Woody Boyd on "Cheers" responding when Diane said, "Methinks he doth protest too much" about Sam)

 

[cmason1957]

Enrico Fermi was a great man. He was the last human to have been a great theorist AND a great experimentalist in Physics. Probably won't be another one.

That having been said, like you, I am STILL not a fan of thermodynamics!

Nobody is a fan of thermodynamics, that is why the oldest professors often teach it and almost always very early in the morning. At least that was the case when I was in College.

 

[sour_grapes]

I don't know.. Why would there be a legalistic reason to parse ideas in both germanic and romance terms.

Uhh, perhaps because the citizenry spoke a Germanic language, and the conquerers/nobility (who enforced the law) spoke a Latinate language? Similar reason we have (in a different context) pig/pork, cow/beef, etc.? This is not an original idea of mine. I didn't write that Wiki article!

And, certainly, in 1066, the citizenry in Britain did NOT understand both languages. In, say, 1120 or so, maybe, but surely not in 1066.

 

[sour_grapes]

Uhh, perhaps because the citizenry spoke a Germanic language, and the conquerers/nobility (who enforced the law) spoke a Latinate language? Similar reason we have (in a different context) pig/pork, cow/beef, etc.? This is not an original idea of mine. I didn't write that Wiki article!

And, certainly, in 1066, the citizenry in Britain did NOT understand both languages. In, say, 1120 or so, maybe, but surely not in 1066.

You know, I was thinking about this this morning, and had a couple of thoughts. One is that, I realized that I am so fortunate as to have lived in a democratic society my whole life, and so I used the term "citizenry" to mean the "common people." In this context, I was clearly wrong. I doubt the people conquered and subjugated by the Normans were considered "citizens." But I am kinda glad to have made the error, as it made me realize and appreciate once again my good fortune.

Also, I realize that I could be making too strong a claim that the common people could not ken both languages in 1066. I admit that I don't know about this. Perhaps there was enough trade and cultural interchange between Normandy and SE England so as to promote understanding between the groups? I really don't know. But I again realize that my perspective was colored, this time unfortunately, by my nearly monoglot existence.

I continue to think, however, that the legal doublets cited above are a hangover from Law French.

 

[cmason1957]

You are probably correct that both groups of people knew (at least to some level) both languages, but I doubt that the common folk could read either. I did try to find some literature to back up that assertion, but it was a very muddy area. The numbers just aren't clear, but most places suspect that about 20-30% (at the high end) of all people could read and write in 1533.