Posted by Jon on January 05, 2001 at 15:23:30 from 199.158.80.11:
In Reply to: COOT CLUB - observations, part FOUR posted by Ed Kiser on January 05, 2001 at 06:39:18:
>P231, chapter 19
>"He'll ferget the salt else, the gormless old lummocks!"
>
>The word, "lummocks", is unfamiliar, but I assume it has derogatory
>connotation, such as "idiot". The word, "gormless" leaves me totally
See also "lummox", a possibly more familiar American spelling.
>wondering as to its meaning. Just what is a "gorm" that old Simon
>doesn't have any of? Is this word local dialect?
>- - - -
>P232 chapter 19
>"He set the potatoes on the little stove,
>altered the draught of it, and put more coal on, until Jim bent
>down and told him it was a good thing they had a black sail
>with all the smoke he was making."
>
>Old Simon was preparing to cook on the wherry, Sir Garnet. Consider
>how you would feel, if today, you went below on a sailing craft the
>size of that wherry, to see cooking being done on a COAL fueled stove.
>Now, I am not at all familiar with the cooking procedures on sail
>powered craft today, so I may be wrong, but it seems that using COAL
>in such a situation would be remarkable unusual TODAY. There is the
>inherent danger of FIRE, of the general dirtyness of simply
>transporting the coal to be available for fuel, and the soot and smoke
>produced by burning it.
>
Remember, sources of liquid fuels were much less common then. A solid-fuel stove could burn coal, wood, or peat, depending on what was available, thus minimizing chances of being caught without fuel. Actually, I'd consider coal somewhat safer than white spirits or kerosene, since if it did get out of control, it could be extinguished with water. In L. Francis Herreshoff's The Compleat Cruiser, written in the '50s IIRC, the stoves are generally coal-burning.
>P245 chapter 20
>"That's the New Cut," said the Admiral. "Between the
>two rivers, so that people can go from one to the other
>without having to go down to Breydon, or under St. Olave's
>Bridge. That one opens."
>"Why is it called 'New'?" asked Dick.
>"I suppose they called it 'New' when it was new, a
>hundred years ago."
>
>This was written some 60 years ago. Just wondering, is that connecting
>canal STILL called the "New Cut"? Now, it would have that name for
>some 160 years; it is hardly "new".
. . . nor is "New College" Oxford, founded in 1379. Us Yanks just need to get used to a different time scale.
> - - -
>250 chapter 21
>The Come Along passed the first bridge, and a goods engine
>went slowly across it just above their heads."
>
>what is a "goods engine"?
>
Freight engine, or freight train (hauling "goods").
>P296 chapter 25
>"We'd better keep the tongue to eat on the voyage," said
>Dorothea. "It's only a very little one anyway."
>
>TONGUE! Somehow, the thought of that as a "meat" just sounds a bit
>gross. I suppose if one considers what is really in a HOT DOG, that
>would probably sound even more gross, but if you don't know, don't ask.
>But TONGUE - such a prospect of that as an item to be eaten seems
>to come in the same category as, "we've having lungs and brains for
>dinner..." No wonder, during my very brief business trip to London,
>I went looking for MacDonald's to get something recognisable. (I only
>went to Micky D's that one time, so don't beat on me...)
>
A beef tongue is actually quite a large piece of relatively fat and gristle-free meat. Personally, I'd rather eat "tongue" than "liver" or "kidneys"
>P300 chapter 25
>The "water-jar" seems to change its composition:
>
>"Port and Dick between them gave him the big earthenware water-jar.
>Dorothea handed down milk-can and egg-basket."
>
>Yet, on page 307, chapter 26, the water-jar is now different:
>
"stoneware" or "earthenware" may both refer to crockery.
>"He made fast her painter round the top of an old pile, and went up
>the bank to the inn, taking with him basket, milk-can and stone
>water-jar."
>