We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Samizdata quote of the day God’s light, these villains will make the word as odious as the word ‘occupy;’ which was an excellent good word before it was ill sorted
– Henry IV Part II, Act III Scene 4. (In past centuries “occupy”, used as a transitive verb, had an additional meaning.)
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Brilliant!
Well spotted!
Samizdata is getting more upmarket!
The link on “additional meaning” doesn’t take you anywhere useful. While I can infer what I suspect you mean, would you care to post that “additional meaning” here? (Or provide a better link to a definition?)
Laird, The additional link takes you to a google books image of page 640 of the “Routledge Dictionary of Historical Slang” – and on the right hand column, third item down you will find the alternative definition of “occupy”.
It’s more fun if you read it in situ. Especially the last 2 words.
PS. Thanks Natalie, I’m going to have fun applying the Shakespeare version – especially to OWS & hangers on who really are a pack of “occupiers” 🙂
By my trowth, good Laird, the link takes you to the relevant page of the Routledge Dictionary of Historical slang, wherein you can look it up in the old fashioned way.
(update – Hmm had already said much the same as I did here, but had been trapped in Smiteland.)
There is something very funny about the educated shamelessness of dictionary entries…
“cf. L. occupare amplexu and see FUCK.”
Educated shamelessness is the best kind…:-)
Sorry, guys, but on my computer that link only takes me to the sale page for that book, showing just the front cover (not page 640). Perhaps it’s because I’m in the US and the link is to Google’s UK website. Anyway, the definition simply isn’t there. I’m repasting what I see here; does it take anyone else to page 640?
Yes, I see page 640 when I click your link, i.e. the same result as my original link.
‘Fraid I’m not the person to ask for an explanation of why that should be so when you see only the cover.
As you guessed, the definition given is “to cohabit (with); lie with” then a list of sources, then “In consequence of its vulgar use in this sense, this verb was little used in literature in the 17th and 18th century”. Then the Shakespeare quote and onto occupare amplexu.
Did you know that the English word “amplexus” describes the pseudocopulative embrace of frogs?
So when a frog and a frogette kiss (pseudocopulatively, of course), they both turn into a prince and a princess?
I have the same problem Laird has. Thank you, Natalie.
Alisa,
Of course – unless otherwise occupied.
Ya, I only see the cover of the book too. *Sigh* This sort of “show different things to different people, with the same URL” bit really does violence to the nature of the web.
It’s as if you were arguing some over some bit of politco-economic stupidity with a bunch of friends at a bar, and you top off the argument with “…And I think *this* proves my point”, producing a newspaper clipping concerning some current event that does, indeed, prove your point mightily. However unbeknownst to you, some fell magic has made it such that, to a third of your audience, the clipping appears to be an article concerning the pet-keeping of amazonian tree-frogs. At which point, two thirds of the audience are nodding sagely, acknowledging your eminent wisdom, whilst the the final third are nodding sagely and slowly scooting towards the nearest exit, harboring grave doubts about your sanity.
Monsyne Dragon.
Yes, this sort of discrepancy between what different observers see on a web page is downright worrying. Although in this case all it did was slightly spoil my joke by obliging me to spell out the punch line (the idea was, as Hmm said, that “It’s more fun if you read it in situ. Especially the last 2 words”), there are times when such a discrepancy could cause accusations of bad faith and all sorts of other more serious problems.
It’s not so bad when there is a big sign saying “This YouTube clip is not available in the UK”. At least then you know what is happening.
But who do you complain to? And how reasonable is it to complain?
I suppose one should also remember that it’s a wonderful thing that Google Books and the like is available at all – scholars of the olden days would have sold their souls for this.
Thanks for the definition, Natalie; it’s about what I expected. And it’s a bit of a relief to know that others had the same problem I did. I’m enough of a technological illiterate to worry that the problem was with me, not the internet.
It does give a somewhat different perspective on the phrase “occupied territories”, though, doesn’t it?
Oh, and although my vocabulary is reasonably good I wasn’t even aware that there was an English word “amplexus”, let alone its meaning. Sort of the reptilian version of a clocal kiss, I gather. Thank you for sharing that; I shall endeavor to work it into conversation. Once can never tell when it will come in handy.
Laird, it should be ‘cloacal’, no?
Nice post.
In both the old and the new senses of the word “nice”.
Yes, Alisa. Good catch.
Google is my friend.
Smited? All I said was that google was my friend…