Origin of: "plain jane"

[a***@gmail.com]

I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

[Derek Turner]

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

Nice idea but the phrase was in use in 1844, three years before it was
published.

[Jen Hewitt]

Post by Derek Turner

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

Nice idea but the phrase was in use in 1844, three years before it was
published.

Do you perhaps have a source for it appearing in print prior to Jane Eyre? Thanks.
Jen

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Jen Hewitt

Post by Derek Turner

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

Nice idea but the phrase was in use in 1844, three years before it was
published.

Do you perhaps have a source for it appearing in print prior to Jane Eyre? Thanks.
Jen

I can't find Fr. Derek's 1844 citation, and he may not be around, but a
racehorse of that name ran in April, 1846.

https://books.google.com/books?id=n-sNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA107

By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

abe "dug it up" in January, after which there were six postings, all the
same day, and then Jen "dug it up" today.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher.

Commented on elsewhere

Post by Peter Moylan
One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

Since this Jen asked a question, I'd expect her to be watching /something/
to see if there is an answer to her query.

/dps

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

Well, I was hoping that since Jen asked a question, she'd be be back for
the answer, but it certainly doesn't look that way.

I wonder whether people think GG will give them e-mail notification of
a response, as happens at other forums.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:58:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

Well, I was hoping that since Jen asked a question, she'd be be back for
the answer, but it certainly doesn't look that way.

If it's the Jen (or was it "Jenn"?) that was here a year or so ago,
why would you hope she'd be back?

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:58:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

Well, I was hoping that since Jen asked a question, she'd be be back for
the answer, but it certainly doesn't look that way.

If it's the Jen (or was it "Jenn"?) that was here a year or so ago,
why would you hope she'd be back?

That's a big if. The name doesn't match (except for the first 3 letters),
and the way the question was asked doesn't match.

The J-of-a-year-ago didn't seem like someone who would change their handle
to evade kill files. She revisited several times without a name change.

But I don't know what Jerry would answer if
the Jen of this thread was the Jenn-of-a-year-ago.

/dps

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:58:47 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive old
threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post from
Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this thread
and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a smartphone,
etc.) and software you used?

I'd love to see this question answered, too, but I don't think you'll
get an answer. It wasn't Jen Hewitt who dug up the ancient thread, but
abe.fletcher. One other characteristic of people who do this is that
they are always drive-by posters who never participate in the subsequent
discussion, and are possibly unaware that there was a subsequent discussion.

Well, I was hoping that since Jen asked a question, she'd be be back for
the answer, but it certainly doesn't look that way.

If it's the Jen (or was it "Jenn"?) that was here a year or so ago,
why would you hope she'd be back?

That's a big if. The name doesn't match (except for the first 3 letters),
and the way the question was asked doesn't match.
The J-of-a-year-ago didn't seem like someone who would change their handle
to evade kill files. She revisited several times without a name change.
But I don't know what Jerry would answer if
the Jen of this thread was the Jenn-of-a-year-ago.

If she were that Jenn, I wouldn't hope she'd be back. But I doubt she is.

[Default User]

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in Groups
just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up threads of
interest that are easily "revived".


Brian

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in Groups
just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up threads of
interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were replying
to would be automatically quoted at the top of their message. I suppose
_some_ who do it might choose to select and delete it, but _every single user_?

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in Groups
just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up threads of
interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were replying
to would be automatically quoted at the top of their message. I suppose
_some_ who do it might choose to select and delete it, but _every single user_?

Hence the question about mobile apps.

/dps

[musika]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in Groups
just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up threads of
interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were replying
to would be automatically quoted at the top of their message. I suppose
_some_ who do it might choose to select and delete it, but _every single user_?

We *know* they are using GG because the user agent appears in the headers.
Jen's message did quote.

[Default User]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were
replying to would be automatically quoted at the top of their
message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete
it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
look at the user agent line. For GG, you should see something like:

User-Agent: G2/1.0

I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.


Brian

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Default User

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were
replying to would be automatically quoted at the top of their
message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete
it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
User-Agent: G2/1.0
I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.

I regularly check revivals of ancient threads, and there has only ever
been one that didn't come from GG. That one was from Steve Hayes, who
did it deliberately.

I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Default User

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were
replying to would be automatically quoted at the top of their
message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete
it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
User-Agent: G2/1.0
I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.

I regularly check revivals of ancient threads, and there has only ever
been one that didn't come from GG. That one was from Steve Hayes, who
did it deliberately.
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

If we really wanted to know, we could e-mail the revivers.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Default User

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were
replying to would be automatically quoted at the top of their
message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete
it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
User-Agent: G2/1.0
I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.

I regularly check revivals of ancient threads, and there has only ever
been one that didn't come from GG. That one was from Steve Hayes, who
did it deliberately.
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

If we really wanted to know, we could e-mail the revivers.

I've tried that already. No response. That was only one attempt, though.

[Default User]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Default User
I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least
came from GG.

I regularly check revivals of ancient threads, and there has only ever
been one that didn't come from GG. That one was from Steve Hayes, who
did it deliberately.
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

Intriguing. I'm not sure what form that would take if it seems to be
particular to Android systems. I suppose there could be some sort of
aggregation that made it seem like blog messages with an option to
reply (apparently without quoting) or something like that.


Brian

[GordonD]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Default User

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were
replying to would be automatically quoted at the top of their
message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete
it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
User-Agent: G2/1.0
I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.

I regularly check revivals of ancient threads, and there has only ever
been one that didn't come from GG. That one was from Steve Hayes, who
did it deliberately.
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

Maybe they'll respond in ten years' time.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter Moylan
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

Now if I read that in a SF novel...

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter Moylan
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

Now if I read that in a SF novel...

This entire newsgroup is an SF novel, but most of the characters haven't
realised it yet.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Peter Moylan
I still think they're coming from Android systems, but as Jerry has
discovered it's impossible to get answers from the people who do it.

Now if I read that in a SF novel...

This entire newsgroup is an SF novel, but most of the characters haven't
realised it yet.

I love conspiracy theories.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Default User

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

If the revivers were using GG, then the antique message they were
replying to would be automatically quoted at the top of their
message. I suppose some who do it might choose to select and delete
it, but _every single user_?

If you're questioning whether they are using Google Groups to post,
then that is relatively easy to check. Examine the full headers and
User-Agent: G2/1.0
I checked Jen's message, and it does have that, so hers at least came
from GG.

But it must be that it doesn't look to a reviver like a GG post, or at least
some, probably most, would have the previous message quoted.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in Groups
just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up threads of
interest that are easily "revived".

But why always or almost always gmail?

[Default User]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who
revive old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses
and post from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came
across this thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a
computer, a smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

But why always or almost always gmail?

I guess I'm not sure of the question. Do you think this is something
Gmail is doing? It seems unlikely that someone would be replying to a
usenet thread from Google Groups without realizing it.

What is the sample size here that exhibits the GG + Gmail + old threads?


Brian

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who
revive old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses
and post from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came
across this thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a
computer, a smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

It's relatively easy to search for a specific word or phrase in
Groups just as one would a typical Google search. This will turn up
threads of interest that are easily "revived".

But why always or almost always gmail?

I guess I'm not sure of the question. Do you think this is something
Gmail is doing? It seems unlikely that someone would be replying to a
usenet thread from Google Groups without realizing it.
What is the sample size here that exhibits the GG + Gmail + old threads?

Maybe about 20 in the past year or so using GG. I think there was one
that wasn't gmail.

[Default User]

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

I have often maintained that Google had two criteria for the people
assigned the Google Groups project:

1. Be poor software developers.
2. Be largely unfamiliar with usenet.


Brian

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Default User
I have often maintained that Google had two criteria for the people
1. Be poor software developers.
2. Be largely unfamiliar with usenet.

We are occasionally told that Google has many projects going on at any
given time -- some of which are clearly intellectually challenging --
and that there is little or no interaction between sections. Perhaps the
poor performers are moved into low-priority projects where they can do
less damage. It's clear, certainly, that Google Groups is a low-priority
project, and that they're getting no help from the people who know how
to design search engines.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Default User
I have often maintained that Google had two criteria for the people
1. Be poor software developers.
2. Be largely unfamiliar with usenet.

We are occasionally told that Google has many projects going on at any
given time -- some of which are clearly intellectually challenging --
and that there is little or no interaction between sections. Perhaps the
poor performers are moved into low-priority projects where they can do
less damage. It's clear, certainly, that Google Groups is a low-priority
project, and that they're getting no help from the people who know how
to design search engines.

On a recent tour of Google HQ, I managed to slip away from the tour
group at one point and peeked behind a closed door marked "Google Groups
Development"....

Typewriters...rows and rows of typewriters...with a monkey at each one....r

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

[Janet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

nono. Anybody with a proper newsreader can see that information in
the headers of the post (where it originated, when, and author).

Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

nono. Anybody with a proper newsreader can see that information in
the headers of the post (where it originated, when, and author).

Then why do all the users of supposed "proper newsreaders" react as if the
revived threads have come out of the middle of nowhere, unaware that they
may be 20 years old?

[Janet]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman
By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

nono. Anybody with a proper newsreader can see that information in
the headers of the post (where it originated, when, and author).

Then why do all the users of supposed "proper newsreaders" react as if the
revived threads have come out of the middle of nowhere, unaware that they
may be 20 years old?

ALL of them? I don't.

maybe some don't read headers; just like some people don't read
attributions.

Janet

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman

On Thursday, January 15, 2015 at 12:43:45 PM UTC, Derek Turner

By the way, people here are curious about why the people who revive
old threads always (almost always?) have gmail addresses and post
from Google Groups. Would you mind saying how you came across this
thread and what hardware (at least whether it was a computer, a
smartphone, etc.) and software you used?

Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out the
new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying to very
old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that there was a
limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see that Jen's
message was almost a year after the previous one. I thought the limit
was less than that, along the lines of six months, but I could be
mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

nono. Anybody with a proper newsreader can see that information in
the headers of the post (where it originated, when, and author).

Then why do all the users of supposed "proper newsreaders" react as if the
revived threads have come out of the middle of nowhere, unaware that they
may be 20 years old?

ALL of them? I don't.
maybe some don't read headers; just like some people don't read
attributions.

That suggests that you do not use a supposed proper newsreader, but an actual
proper newsreader.

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Janet

Post by Peter T. Daniels
nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any non-GGers
here don't know that, because their systems have thrown away all the older
stuff.

nono. Anybody with a proper newsreader can see that information in
the headers of the post (where it originated, when, and author).

Then why do all the users of supposed "proper newsreaders" react as if the
revived threads have come out of the middle of nowhere, unaware that they
may be 20 years old?

ALL of them? I don't.
maybe some don't read headers; just like some people don't read
attributions.

Jen Hewitt's messages does indeed have a references line that tells you
what message she is replying too, but without any quoting you don't have
anything in Jen's message that tells you how old the replied-too message,
or anything about its original threading.

Jen, however, did quote, so we see 2 posts back, to the original revival
at the beginning of the year.

/dps

[Default User]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User
Upon further reflection, I recall that back when Google rolled out
the new Groups interface that there was a rash of people replying
to very old threads. I thought that they then changed it so that
there was a limit to how old of a thread could be "revived". I see
that Jen's message was almost a year after the previous one. I
thought the limit was less than that, along the lines of six
months, but I could be mistaken.

nono -- most of the revivals tend to come from the 1990s. And any
non-GGers here don't know that, because their systems have thrown
away all the older stuff.

Interesting. It's possible that GG changed the way things worked or
that there is indeed another mechanism for replying to usenet
particular to certain users that bypass certain features of the usual
interface. I could also be wrong about the way it worked.

I would be happy to look at it through my GG account and see if reply
is possible to very old posts. I might look into that when I get a
chance.


Brian

[j***@imperus.com]

I found this thread just typing "origin of Plain Jane" in Google.

[Peter Young]

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

I imagine it was just because it rhymes.

Peter.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

I don't know. The phrase is in the OED but there is no suggestion of its
origin. The earliest quotation is:

1912 C. Mackenzie Carnival ii. 14 She sha'n't be a Plain Jane
and No Nonsense, with her hair screwed back like a broom, but she
shall be Jenny, sweet and handsome, with lips made for kissing and
eyes that will sparkle and shine.

[Guy Barry]

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

It's a girl's name and it rhymes. No other explanation needed.

[John Ritson]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by a***@gmail.com
I think it is from jane eyre. Jane was supposed to be plain looking.

It's a girl's name and it rhymes. No other explanation needed.

As with "Sweaty Betty".

[Derek Turner]

Post by John Ritson
As with "Sweaty Betty".

Sticky Vicky and Tacky Jacqui, for views of UK television :)

There is a boat in our harbour called Betty Swallocks. Again, probably
only funny to the Brits and Australians.

[m***@gmail.com]

It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure, plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

Murty Calla
***@gmail.Com

[HVS]

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure, plain
and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's opinion of
herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was published in
1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane" dates to 1912 (which
does surprise me).

I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal name, as
in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

[James Hogg]

Post by HVS

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.

Google finds an example from the Tatler 1803:

"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by James Hogg

Post by HVS

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In that, "plain" seems to refer to the mode of address and reference. It
is the name that is plain rather than the person.

Here in AUE we might word the Tatler quotation as:

"Let every common maid-servant be plain 'Jane', 'Doll' or 'Sue', and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by 'Mrs. Patience',
'Mrs. Prue', or 'Mrs. Abigail'."

[James Hogg]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by James Hogg

Post by HVS

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In that, "plain" seems to refer to the mode of address and reference. It
is the name that is plain rather than the person.
"Let every common maid-servant be plain 'Jane', 'Doll' or 'Sue', and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by 'Mrs. Patience',
'Mrs. Prue', or 'Mrs. Abigail'."

Another 19th-century example, this time Joel Chandler Harris describing
"Sister Jane":

"Verging on years of age my sister was still plain Jane Wornum."

This means that she was still unmarried, not that she was unattractive.

[RH Draney]

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

[Katy Jennison]

Post by RH Draney

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

I remember a story by someone, Saki I wouldn't be surprised, in which a
rather pretentious lady is telling an acquaintance that in order not to
bother to learn her maids' names she calls them all Jane; the
acquaintance observes with some asperity that Jane is in fact her own name.

[Lewis]

Post by RH Draney

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
position currently.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by RH Draney

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
position currently.

Also noted that in Downton Abbey that there are two women addressed as
"Mrs" who have never been married. Well, one is now married.

Certain positions were always held by women addressed as "Mrs (name)"
even though they were unmarried.

[Cheryl]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by RH Draney

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
position currently.

Also noted that in Downton Abbey that there are two women addressed as
"Mrs" who have never been married. Well, one is now married.
Certain positions were always held by women addressed as "Mrs (name)"
even though they were unmarried.

I think that's a hangover from the days all women, or at least those who
get a title other than Lady So and so, were Mrs (name). 'Miss' came later.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by RH Draney

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
position currently.

Also noted that in Downton Abbey that there are two women addressed as
"Mrs" who have never been married. Well, one is now married.
Certain positions were always held by women addressed as "Mrs (name)"
even though they were unmarried.

I think that's a hangover from the days all women, or at least those who
get a title other than Lady So and so, were Mrs (name). 'Miss' came later.

The (unmarried) cook is Mrs Patmore, but the kitchen maid is Daisy.

Miss Daisy came along later. Someone drove her.

[GordonD]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Cheryl

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 19:08:02 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by RH Draney

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

In the first episode of Comedy Central's series "Another Period" (a sort
of "Downton Abbey" meets the Kardsashians), the new servant has her name
changed from "Celine" to something the rich folks decide is more
befitting her menial status: "Chair"....r

This is amusing, but also rooted in truth. AIUI it was not uncommon for
the lesser maids (like the scullery maids) to simply be called by a
single name, regardless of the name of the girl actually in that
position currently.

Also noted that in Downton Abbey that there are two women addressed as
"Mrs" who have never been married. Well, one is now married.
Certain positions were always held by women addressed as "Mrs (name)"
even though they were unmarried.

I think that's a hangover from the days all women, or at least those who
get a title other than Lady So and so, were Mrs (name). 'Miss' came later.

The (unmarried) cook is Mrs Patmore, but the kitchen maid is Daisy.
Miss Daisy came along later. Someone drove her.

Did the original one come on a tandem?

[Lewis]

Post by James Hogg

Post by HVS

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.

The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

[Percival P. Cassidy]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

I commented on this to the nurse who prepped me for a procedure
recently: The surgeon and anesthetist were both Dr. LastName, whereas
the nurses were all FirstName RN.

Perce

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 15:37:21 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

I commented on this to the nurse who prepped me for a procedure
recently: The surgeon and anesthetist were both Dr. LastName, whereas
the nurses were all FirstName RN.

Many females do not want their last name on their name badge. Not
just nurses.

[GordonD]

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

I commented on this to the nurse who prepped me for a procedure
recently: The surgeon and anesthetist were both Dr. LastName, whereas
the nurses were all FirstName RN.

In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

And if your nurse was Albert RN you were in real trouble.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by GordonD

Post by Percival P. Cassidy

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

I commented on this to the nurse who prepped me for a procedure
recently: The surgeon and anesthetist were both Dr. LastName, whereas
the nurses were all FirstName RN.

In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.
And if your nurse was Albert RN you were in real trouble.

Albert RN might be able to perform a rough-and-ready amputation, aka
(crossthread alert) truncation.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by GordonD
In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

[Peter Young]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by GordonD
In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

Until, they want their car serviced, or their boiler fixed, when they
miraculously become "Dr".

Peter.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by GordonD
In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

Until, they want their car serviced, or their boiler fixed, when they
miraculously become "Dr".
Peter.

I don't doubt it. I had a university coworker with a non-medical
doctorate. He was happy to be addressed as "Mr" in normal life but there
was at least one occasion when he found it beneficial to mention that he
was "a doctor".

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by GordonD
In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

Until, they want their car serviced, or their boiler fixed, when they
miraculously become "Dr".
Peter.

I don't doubt it. I had a university coworker with a non-medical
doctorate. He was happy to be addressed as "Mr" in normal life but there
was at least one occasion when he found it beneficial to mention that he
was "a doctor".

Moving about in the business world I found using my PhD overtly
was overkill. So I only owned up to club someone objectionable.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Peter Young

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by GordonD
In the UK the surgeon would be *Mr.* Lastname.

Or Miss/Ms/Mrs Lastname.

Until, they want their car serviced, or their boiler fixed, when they
miraculously become "Dr".
Peter.

I don't doubt it. I had a university coworker with a non-medical
doctorate. He was happy to be addressed as "Mr" in normal life but there
was at least one occasion when he found it beneficial to mention that he
was "a doctor".

About half a year after I got my PhD I wanted a telephone installed in
the house. It's likely that the title cut three weeks off the delivery time.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Actually, the employee is Simpson. I don't think Mr. Burns or Smithers has
ever addressed the other guys at the plant, but if they did, we'd know their
last names.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer

Actually, the employee is Simpson. I don't think Mr. Burns or Smithers has
ever addressed the other guys at the plant, but if they did, we'd know their
last names.

In the case of Homer's close friends Lenny and Carl, it doesn't much
matter whether you first- or last-name them....r

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Actually, the employee is Simpson. I don't think Mr. Burns or Smithers has
ever addressed the other guys at the plant, but if they did, we'd know their
last names.

We do know the names of Lenny and Carl, sort of.

Lenny Leonard and Carl Carlson, although Lenny's name has been given two
or three variations.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John

I resemble that remark!

Post by David Kleinecke
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Around here, it seems most people think that way. I'm starting to give
up on getting my students to call me Jerry. Of course, the more gray
hair I have, the harder it is for them.

[Default User]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids
shoudl only be referred to by their plain first names, and the
elite referred to by their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John

I resemble that remark!

Post by David Kleinecke
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Around here, it seems most people think that way. I'm starting to
give up on getting my students to call me Jerry. Of course, the more
gray hair I have, the harder it is for them.

When I became a graduate student back in the long-ago, it was a bit of
an odd transistion as I had done my undergraduate work at the same
school. One still called the professors "Dr." in class, but outside of
it was now first names.


Brian

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids
shoudl only be referred to by their plain first names, and the
elite referred to by their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John

I resemble that remark!

Post by David Kleinecke
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Around here, it seems most people think that way. I'm starting to
give up on getting my students to call me Jerry. Of course, the more
gray hair I have, the harder it is for them.

When I became a graduate student back in the long-ago, it was a bit of
an odd transistion as I had done my undergraduate work at the same
school. One still called the professors "Dr." in class, but outside of
it was now first names.

At the University of Chicago Linguistics Department's new students orientation
meeting, Jim McCawley wrote (slowly) on the board the following lines:

*Professor McCawley
*Dr. McCawley
*Mr. McCawley
Jim

(The U of C in general had a "reverse snobbism" policy and the members of
the teaching staff were never called by title or "Dr." Mr./Miss/Mrs. was
usual, but first-naming was also popular, especially for younger ones.)

[James Hogg]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids
shoudl only be referred to by their plain first names, and the
elite referred to by their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John

I resemble that remark!

Post by David Kleinecke
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Around here, it seems most people think that way. I'm starting to
give up on getting my students to call me Jerry. Of course, the more
gray hair I have, the harder it is for them.

When I became a graduate student back in the long-ago, it was a bit of
an odd transistion as I had done my undergraduate work at the same
school. One still called the professors "Dr." in class, but outside of
it was now first names.

At the University of Chicago Linguistics Department's new students orientation
*Professor McCawley
*Dr. McCawley
*Mr. McCawley
Jim

Quang Phúc Đông

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by James Hogg

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids
shoudl only be referred to by their plain first names, and the
elite referred to by their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John

I resemble that remark!

Post by David Kleinecke
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer
... ad nauseam

Around here, it seems most people think that way. I'm starting to
give up on getting my students to call me Jerry. Of course, the more
gray hair I have, the harder it is for them.

When I became a graduate student back in the long-ago, it was a bit of
an odd transistion as I had done my undergraduate work at the same
school. One still called the professors "Dr." in class, but outside of
it was now first names.

At the University of Chicago Linguistics Department's new students orientation
*Professor McCawley
*Dr. McCawley
*Mr. McCawley
Jim

Quang Phúc Đông

That was a North Vietnamese syntactician of English who specialized in
the study of off-color expressions that a respectable Professor of Linguistics
would never have committed to paper. Jim served as his amanuensis in
bringing his work to the attention of American Generative Semanticists.
the study of

[Default User]

Post by David Kleinecke

Post by Lewis
That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.

There are people who still think that way.
The MD is Dr. House - the nurse is Nancy.
The teacher is Mr. Pedant - the pupil is John
The boss is Mr. Burns - the employee is Homer

When I started working as an engineer, I was surprised to find out that
it was expected that everyone would be on a first-name basis. That was
all the way up to the CEO should happen to run into him. The only one
that was ever called "Mr." was the founder, and that was more of a
nickname. He had died by the time I started, so it wasn't a concern for
me.


Brian

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

[RH Draney]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

In myE, "plain" is the opposite of "peanut"....r

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.

I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.

I don't think it means "unattractive", just, if you will, "plain" with
no beauty. Nothing to make her unattractive. Even so, a makeover show
will have us believe that a plain woman can be made to look attractive,
and I daresay they're right if she wants to make the effort.

Post by Tony Cooper
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

Oh, well, you should have said before I typed.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.

I seem to be the only one here who thinks that "plain" can refer to
things other than physical appearance.

But then I'm not a literary expert; I'm just a plain engineer.

[David Kleinecke]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.

I seem to be the only one here who thinks that "plain" can refer to
things other than physical appearance.
But then I'm not a literary expert; I'm just a plain engineer.

I'm with you.

But the whole discussion seemed too biased to meddle with.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.

I seem to be the only one here who thinks that "plain" can refer to
things other than physical appearance.
But then I'm not a literary expert; I'm just a plain engineer.

Oh, no. I fully agree that the original "plain Jane" meant "Jane without
a Mrs or Miss or any other title.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:06:56 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.

In college, when someone tried to fix you up with a blind date, and
you asked what she looked like, if the answer was "She has a good
sense of humor and she's a lot of fun", you knew she'd never meet the
minimum "attractive" level.

One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".

Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating for
quite some time, though.

Does "fix up" travel across the pond? I suppose the meaning is
obvious from context.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Tony Cooper
In college, when someone tried to fix you up with a blind date, and
you asked what she looked like, if the answer was "She has a good
sense of humor and she's a lot of fun", you knew she'd never meet the
minimum "attractive" level.
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green.

But was that one any less beautiful?

[RH Draney]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green.

But was that one any less beautiful?

There was nothing unattractive about Colleen Moore, even when the role
required her to dress like a drudge:

....r

[Richard Bollard]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Tony Cooper
In college, when someone tried to fix you up with a blind date, and
you asked what she looked like, if the answer was "She has a good
sense of humor and she's a lot of fun", you knew she'd never meet the
minimum "attractive" level.
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green.

But was that one any less beautiful?

So what you're telling me, Percy, is that something you have never
seen is slightly less blue than something else you have never seen.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating for
quite some time, though.

Would bicolor eyes be considered an attraciveness defect? Why?

[Reinhold {Rey} Aman]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Would bicolor eyes be considered an attraciveness defect? Why?

Isn't PeteY a delightfully inquisitive little bugger?

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:48:02 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating for
quite some time, though.

Would bicolor eyes be considered an attraciveness defect? Why?

She was an attractive girl. Not beautiful or drop-dead gorgeous, but
attractive. She was also quite pleasant and fun to be around. The
eye difference was just something one couldn't help but notice.

The "a beautiful blue eye" was just a joking description. The other
eye was a rather muddy green. She'd use the line, too.

[Default User]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating
for quite some time, though.

Would bicolor eyes be considered an attraciveness defect? Why?

At a biological level, symmetry is greatly prized.


Brian

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Default User

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating
for quite some time, though.

Would bicolor eyes be considered an attractiveness defect? Why?

At a biological level, symmetry is greatly prized.

As with the heart and the stomach and the vermiform appendix and the liver
and the spleen?

You probably didn't mean "biological."

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating
for quite some time, though.

Would bicolor eyes be considered an attractiveness defect? Why?

At a biological level, symmetry is greatly prized.

As with the heart and the stomach and the vermiform appendix and the liver
and the spleen?

I realise that things may be different in America, but here we do not
generally inspect the vermiform appendix when selecting a
boy/girlfriend.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
You probably didn't mean "biological."

I think the meaning was clear from the context.

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Default User

Post by Tony Cooper
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating
for quite some time, though.

Would bicolor eyes be considered an attractiveness defect? Why?

At a biological level, symmetry is greatly prized.

As with the heart and the stomach and the vermiform appendix and the liver
and the spleen?

I realise that things may be different in America, but here we do not
generally inspect the vermiform appendix when selecting a
boy/girlfriend.

You consider that a "biological" process? All "biology" wants is a mate of a
sex suitable for reproduction.

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
You probably didn't mean "biological."

I think the meaning was clear from the context.

I think Default User Brian can speak for himself.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 08:06:56 +0800, Robert Bannister

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 15:05:32 -0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let
the better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs.
Patience, Mrs. Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl
only be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite
referred to by their last names.
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

Does it really mean that? In my mind "plain Jane" means "ordinary Jane",
and does not imply that Jane is unattractive.

It certainly meant unattractive. And, for the record, most women would
consider "ordinary" looking to be an insult.

I think the term most definitely implies that the woman is
unattractive. It does not mean that, but it implies that.
I'd pause over "unattractive", though. "Unattractive" implies ugly. A
plain Jane may not be ugly, but I would expect her to not be
particularly attractive.

I'm with Lewis. If you are speaking to a woman, "attractive" is the
lowest you go.

In college, when someone tried to fix you up with a blind date, and
you asked what she looked like, if the answer was "She has a good
sense of humor and she's a lot of fun", you knew she'd never meet the
minimum "attractive" level.
One of my friends was asking about a girl that someone wanted to fix
him up with and was told "She has a beautiful blue eye".
Turns out she did. The other eye was green. They ended up dating for
quite some time, though.
Does "fix up" travel across the pond? I suppose the meaning is
obvious from context.

"fix up with" most certain does.

[Katy Jennison]

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

Not the 'elite' as such, simply the upper servants (cook, housekeeper, etc).

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Lewis

Post by James Hogg

Post by HVS

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

A reasonable surmise, but it seems unlikely -- Jane Eyre was
published in 1847, while the OED's earliest example for "plain Jane"
dates to 1912 (which does surprise me).
I wonder if it's just a case of rhyming an adjective with a personal
name, as in "Steady Eddie" or "Juicy Lucy".

Can we be sure that the original reference is to the woman's looks? It
could just as easily be a reference to the commonplace name Jane.
"Let every common maid-servant be plain Jane, Doll or Sue, and let the
better-born and higher-placed be distinguished by Mrs. Patience, Mrs.
Prue, or Mrs. Abigail.".

That is not the same at all; it is simply saying that maids shoudl only
be referred to by their plain first names, and the elite referred to by
their last names.

First names for the elite servants too, right?

Post by Lewis
This has no similarity to the phrase plain jane which means either
unattractive or unadorned.

[Lewis]

Post by m***@gmail.com
It perhaps came into vogue with Jane Eyre, who was "poor, obscure,
plain and little". The overwhelming impression I get of Jane Eyre's
opinion of herself is, especially, her plainness.

Supposition without evidence?

Pretty sure it is a 20th century phrase that has nothing at all to do
with Jane Eyre.