Date:    Tue, 3 Mar 1998 08:31:38 -0500
<br>From:    Patrick Courts  courts[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]AIT.FREDONIA.EDU 
<br>Subject: Re: Semantic distinc. betw. "crick" and "creek"?
<br>
<br>Greg, I didn't misunderstand you and didn't think you were suggesting only
<br>poorly educated people would make the distinction.  But let me describe
<br>where I hear the distinction explained.  In a class I teach on Language and
<br>literacy, one section of the course deals with dialect.  When students are
<br>talking about differences they have noted in their own experience, someone
<br>inevitably brings up the pronunciation of creek/crick.  When I ask if there
<br>is any difference between the meaning of the 2 pronunciations, about 1/3 of
<br>the class, normally those who come from rural areas, not the difference in
<br>size between the larger creek and smaller crick.  They normally not the
<br>difference with surprise that everyone doesn't know it.
<br>
<br>At 11:43 PM 3/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
<br> At 03:26 PM 3/2/98 -0500, "Patrick L. Courts"  courts[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]AIT.FREDONIA.EDU 
<br>wrote:
<br>  Greg, Most of the people whom I know to distinguish between "crick" and
<br>  "creek" are actually quite well educated.
<br>  
<br> 
<br> So gosh, if the distinction is well established, how did DARE miss it? The
<br> original posting said DARE and Joan Hall have no documentation on the
<br> distinction. If your sense is that well educated folks make the distinction,
<br> and it doesn't seem to show up in the historical record (DARE, OED), could
<br> it be a case of just the kind of "folk semantics" (i.e., the rationalizing
<br> creation of distinctions between two o
<br>======================================================================
<br>
<br>From: Automatic digest processor (3/3/98)
<br>To: Recipients of ADS-L digests
<br>
<br>         ADS-L Digest - 1 Mar 1998 to 2 Mar 1998               98-03-03 00:01:11
<br>This message contains more text than QuickMail can display. The entire message
<br> has been enclosed as a file.
<br>
<br>There are 18 messages totalling 583 lines in this issue.
<br>
<br>Topics of the day:
<br>
<br>  1. Zori redux [long] (2)
<br>  2. Semantic distinc. betw. "crick" and "creek"? (9)
<br>  3. Dialect Films Request
<br>  4. Spelling Bee (minor correction)
<br>  5. Mellon Grant (2)
<br>  6. A new use of Ms? (2)
<br>  7. Welp vs. Well
<br>
<br>----------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>
<br>Date:    Mon, 2 Mar 1998 08:26:10 -0500
<br>From:    Gregory {Greg} Downing  downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]IS2.NYU.EDU 
<br>Subject: Re: Zori redux [long]
<br>
<br>At 11:23 AM 3/1/98 -1000, Norman Roberts  nroberts[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]HAWAII.EDU  wrote:
<br> About the spring of 1961 I first heard the term "go aheads" applied. The
<br> term made wonderful sense, but I never used it.  "Flip flops" came much
<br> later, probably during the seventies.
<br> 
<br>
<br>Living in southern Michigan as a child till I moved out of the US in Dec.
<br>1971, I can attest to "thong sandals" and "flip-flops" as the only terms I
<br>heard used in that locale for the beach/poolside footwear in question. I'm
<br>not sure how far back those terms go before 1971 in that part of the
<br>country, but they certainly go back to at least the late 60s. "Zoris" or
<br>"Go-aheads"? -- As they say in New York: Fuhgedduhboudit. Never heard those
<br>terms till this discussion, though I must admit to not hanging out on
<br>beaches much since the early 70s, certainly not with beach-specific apparel.
<br>
<br>Greg Downing/NYU, at greg.downing[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]nyu.edu or downingg[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]is2.nyu.edu
<br>