[Dixonary] Round 1617 HAKSPEK - Defs up!

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi all,

Here they are: a collection of 21 definitions for HAKSPEK. One of them is actually from a dictionary, but the others are SO much better!

Please pick your two favorites and vote, by replying in this thread (on tapcis.com), or replying to this message (if using e-mail). The deadline for voting is about 24 1/2 hours from now: June 13 2005, 10:00 in the Netherlands (also known as June 13 2005, 8:00 GMT/UTC or June 13 2005, 4:00 AM EDT).

Explanation of the rules for newcomers:
1. DO NOT LOOK UP THE WORD!!
2. Read the definitions, pick the two that you find the most believable
3. Cast your votes. Do it BEFORE the deadline (see above).
4. If you already know the word, you can't vote. Do tell me (if you haven't already done so during the defs stage), so your score gets registered as DQ instead of No Vote.
5. If you didn't submit a definition, you can still vote. You won't get points from others voting for your def, but you can still earn two points if you pick the correct definition.

And now, without further ado, on to the list of definitions. Let's make a new dealer!

Best, Hugo


1: A curse.

2: Dried eel (Norse).

3: Defensive port in a castlement.

4: Specialized tool for micro-surgery,

5: A circle of stones used in witchcraft.

6: [obs.] Pitch used to attach heels to shoes.

7: Mediaeval low german slangword for high german.

8: A land measure in S. Africa, 1/3 to 2/3 of an acre.

9: Fine powder spread on writing paper to keep ink from running.

10: A spiced drink of hot sweetened milk curdled with wine or ale.

11: [Norw.] An official announcement, especially one issued by a court.

12: Traditional Turkish unleavened bread made from wheat and sesame seed.

13: A Middle Eastern dish made of bulgur, parsley, garlic, currants, nuts, and lemon.

14: A _lingua franca_ of Scandinavia, understood by most speakers of Nordic languages.

15: A mountaineer's hammer used for setting pitons, chipping handholds, and defacing trail signs.

16: A shorthand method of spelling found on many British academic bulletin boards and chat systems.

17: _EME rare._ The mark of Cain (Gen 4:15) [Northumb. gloss, fm OE _hæc_ grating + _specca_ speck, spot]

18: A regional dialect of Dutch which sounds to a foreigner as though the speaker is constantly clearing his throat.

19: O|\|L!|\|3 5l@|\|g |\| wh!ch w0rd5 R $h0r+3|\|D & ch@r@c+3r5 r3pL@c3D w!th |\|u|V|b3r5 & pu|\|c+ua+!0|\|, c0|V||V|0|\| |\| H@K3R ch@t r0O|V|$.

20: A dialect of Dutch French characterized by nonstandard pronunciations and grammar, and the presence of English loanwords and syntactic patterns.

21: [Swedish] An athletic training technique, used especially in running, in which periods of intense effort alternate with periods of less strenuous effort in a continuous workout.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Daniel B. Widdis]

17 and 18, please

[Tim Lodge]

8 and 11 please.

Tim L

[Dave Cunningham]

I like 7 and 20 today ... 7 has to have been written by a German, and since I never heard of "Dutch French" 20 sorta makes sense ...

Dave

[Judy Madnick]

<< 5: A circle of stones used in witchcraft.
<< 20: A dialect of Dutch French characterized by nonstandard pronunciations and
<< grammar, and the presence of English loanwords and syntactic patterns.

[franellewetz]

I'm still not sure I know how to reply, but here goes.

#1 and #10, please

Frances Wetzstein

[Bill Hirst]

5 and 8, but I don't beleve any of them.

-Bill Hirst

[Barbara Kryvko]

9 and 10

[Guerri Stevens]

I vote for 11 and 14.

Why is number 17 underlined? Is that a trick to make it stand out so
people will vote for it??? (just kidding)

Number 19 is, as Dodi points out, gobbledegook. You may have to repost.

--
Guerri

[Daniel B. Widdis]

On 6/12/05, Guerri Stevens wrote:
> Number 19 is, as Dodi points out, gobbledegook. You may have to repost.

Reads just fine to me. It says "Online slang in which words are
shortened and characters replaced with numbers and punctuation, common
in hacker chat rooms."

Of course it says it in a way that I hope never to see again. :)

Dan

[Chris Carson]

Dan,

Brilliant! Now why didn't I see that? Once you know what to look for it
pops right out.

Chris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel B. Widdis" <widdis (AT) gmail (DOT) com>
To: <coryphaeus (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2005 2:45 PM
Subject: [Dixonary] Re: Round 1617 HAKSPEK - Defs up!


> On 6/12/05, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>> Number 19 is, as Dodi points out, gobbledegook. You may have to repost.
>
> Reads just fine to me. It says "Online slang in which words are
> shortened and characters replaced with numbers and punctuation, common
> in hacker chat rooms."
>
> Of course it says it in a way that I hope never to see again. :)
>
> Dan
>

[Dick Toll]

I'll take 8 and 11.

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Guerri,

>Why is number 17 underlined?

It's not underlined in the copy I kept of my outgoing mail, not in the copy
I received by mail from the Cory group, nor is it underlined when I check
the message online at either
http://www.tapcis.com/forums/showthread.php?t=366 or
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/coryphaeus/message/1083.

I think your mail reader misinterprets part of definition 17. It has three
parts enclosed by underscores - obviously, your mail program thinks that
this is meant to denote underlining. I'll repost the definition, but replace
the underscores with caret signs (and I hope your mail clients doesn't do
any fancy stuff on carets! <g>):

17: ^EME rare.^ The mark of Cain (Gen 4:15) [Northumb. gloss, fm OE ^hæc^
grating + ^specca^ speck, spot]

Best, Hugo

[Chris Carson]

Hugo,

I'll tumble for the eel and the pitch - 2 and 6.

Chris

[Guerri Stevens]

Chris Carson wrote:
> Brilliant! Now why didn't I see that? Once you know what to look for it
> pops right out.

I feel confident that a dictionary would not show it that way <g>. Then
again, one doesn't know *what* dictionary might have been chosen.

--
Guerri

[Guerri Stevens]

Hugo Kornelis wrote:
>
> 17: ^EME rare.^ The mark of Cain (Gen 4:15) [Northumb. gloss, fm OE ^hæc^
> grating + ^specca^ speck, spot]
>

Now it looks OK, i.e. the carets show. As I read it with Thunderbird,
the whole thing was underlined.

Should I try to figure out why it was underlined when I read it? I.e.
should I contact the Thunderbird folks somehow?

--
Guerri

[Tony Abell]

I'm going to go on the dangerous assumption that all the dialect and
hacker-related defs are red herrings and choose 10 and 17.

(Tony Abell)

[nshepherdson]

I'll have 3 and 8, please.

Nancy

[Wayne Scott]

7 and 11 because I like to shoot craps.

Wayne

[Paul Keating]

When I read it in Thunderbird, it isn't underlined. I believe that you
have checked View | Message body as | Plain text.

That setting has an obviously very poorly tested feature that underlines
everything between the first and last underscore in a paragraph.

You can make the problem go away by checking View | Message body as |
Original (or Simple) HTML.

Guerri Stevens wrote:

> Now it looks OK, i.e. the carets show. As I read it with Thunderbird,
> the whole thing was underlined.

--

Paul Keating
The Hague
52N02 4E19



--
This message was checked before sending and is believed to be virus-free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 2005-06-11

[Guerri Stevens]

Paul Keating wrote:
> When I read it in Thunderbird, it isn't underlined. I believe that you
> have checked View | Message body as | Plain text.
>
> That setting has an obviously very poorly tested feature that underlines
> everything between the first and last underscore in a paragraph.
>
> You can make the problem go away by checking View | Message body as |
> Original (or Simple) HTML.
>

Actually I have my setting as Original HTML, not text. I haven't touched
the setting, in fact. Maybe I should try plain text and see what
happens. Hmm, all of the settings display the text as underlined, and in
exactly the same way.

In the Coryphaeus group, I have my settings as "do not convert to HTML".
Perhaps that makes a difference.

What about definition 14? Is I see it, "lingua franca" and the preceding
and following spaces are underlined. How was it supposed to look?

--
Guerri

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Guerri,

> What about definition 14? Is I see it, "lingua franca" and the preceding
> and following spaces are underlined. How was it supposed to look?

In my message, the character before "lingua" and the character after
"franca" are underscore characters, but "lingua franca" itself is not
underlined.

This does make more sense than the underlining of the complete definition
#17, though. Before HTML and other fancy stuff became commonplace, enclosing
a part of text in underscore characters was considered the usual way to
depict _underlining_, just as enclosing text in asterisks was used to denot
*italics* and all caps for BOLD FACE (or SHOUTING). Some mail and news
reader have options to automatically interpret these unofficial standards
and show the text as intended.

Best, Hugo

[Paul Keating]

Guerri Stevens wrote:

>
> In the Coryphaeus group, I have my settings as "do not convert to HTML".
> Perhaps that makes a difference.

I've changed mine to match. I'll let you know.

>
> What about definition 14? Is I see it, "lingua franca" and the preceding
> and following spaces are underlined. How was it supposed to look?
>
On my screen (with View|Message body as|Plain text), the underscores
fore and aft are still visible, and the whole thing is underlined,
underscore to underscore. It may be the font I'm using (Georgia) that
allows me to see underlined underscores differently from underlined
spaces. The underline and the underscore are much the same thickness,
but the underscore sits exactly on top of the underline and so looks
very black.

I wonder if this is a version issue? My T-B is version 1.0.2 (20050317).

--
Paul Keating
The Hague
52N02 4E19



--
This message was checked before sending and is believed to be virus-free.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.6.9 - Release Date: 2005-06-11

[Guerri Stevens]

Paul Keating wrote:

> I wonder if this is a version issue? My T-B is version 1.0.2 (20050317).

My version is identical to yours. I suppose that in the case of lingua
franca I might have been seeing an underscore at the beginning and end
with just the phrase itself being underlined.

I don't know whether I have any (or much) control over the font of
messages that I receive. My options say Fonts for: Western. then I
have Proportional: Serif
Serif: Times New Roman
Sans-serif: Arial
Monospace: Courier New.

Allow messages to use other fonts is checked.

Outgoing and Incoming charcter encodings are both Western (ISO-8859-1).
I didn't check either the "Apply default" or "Always use the default" items.

Seems to me we had fewer problems with good ole DOS!

--
Guerri

[Marijke van Gans]

Hugo Kornelis said on 05-06-14 09:27 in this group:

> Before HTML and other fancy stuff became commonplace, enclosing
> a part of text in underscore characters was considered the usual way to
> depict _underlining_, just as enclosing text in asterisks was used to denot
> *italics*

I always took the asterisks to stand for *bold*, and Thunderbird
displays it as such. I think it started because in (e.g. DOS) terminal
fonts a * had more black than most other characters -- or perhaps i
should say white. Or green <g>.

The convention for /italics/ was slashes (used much less though).

--
Regards, marijke [52½°N 2°W]
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/marijke/

[Marijke van Gans]

Paul Keating said on 05-06-14 16:52 in this group:

> I wonder if this is a version issue? My T-B is version 1.0.2 (20050317).

version 0.7.3 (20040803) here <g>.

--
Regards, marijke [52½°N 2°W]
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/marijke/

[Daniel B. Widdis]

On 6/14/05, Marijke van Gans wrote:
> I always took the asterisks to stand for *bold*, and Thunderbird
> displays it as such.

Worse, Tbird will convert "bold" to add the asterisks if you tell it
to send a message as text.

A few rounds back in this game, I went to an online dictionary to pull
a def from a random word to submit. I used "horny" as the search
word, which made it highlighted in the text that I cut-and-pasted into
my email. When I sent it to the dealer, I sent it as plain text, so
of course the "sent" mail ended up showing up with *horny* bordered by
asterisks.

I think I only got one vote. I wonder if leaving the asterisks in
would have garnered more.

Dan

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Marijke,

> I always took the asterisks to stand for *bold*, and Thunderbird
> displays it as such.
(snip)
> The convention for /italics/ was slashes (used much less though).

You're probably right. I was sure about the underscores, but had to dig in
my memory for the rest. And my memory is not as good as it used to be (or as
I /think/ it used to be...)

Best, Hugo

[Marijke van Gans]

Hugo Kornelis said on 05-06-15 07:06 GMT:
> Hi Marijke,
> > The convention for /italics/ was slashes (used much less though).
>
> You're probably right.

I just looked at my message as it came back from the list, and the
/word/ between slashes got typeset in italics by Thunderbird!

Just as it typesets an asterisk-flanked *word* in bold, and a _word_
between underscores as underlined.

Wonder if it will do -strikeout- (singularly useless feature that) or
=double underline= or even TeX style $math$. And what about /*bold
italic*/ or _/underlined italic/_ or _*underlined bold*_ ...or even
_/*all three*/_ ? Bet it can't do \backward slanting\ though <g>.

--
Regards, marijke [52½°N 2°W]
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/marijke/

[Daniel B. Widdis]

Marijke,

I can't wait to get back home to see how your message looks to me in Tbird. :)


--
Dan Widdis
on the road (or at sea) using Gmail on the web

[Guerri Stevens]

You'd think that if Thunderbird was going to be smart enough to
interpret something surrounded by asterisks as bold, and the other codes
likewise, it would simply make the text bold, or italic, etc. and drop
the code characters.

--
Guerri

[Marijke van Gans]

Guerri Stevens said on 05-06-16 01:16 GMT:

> You'd think that if Thunderbird was going to be smart enough to
> interpret something surrounded by asterisks as bold, and the other codes
> likewise, it would simply make the text bold, or italic, etc. and drop
> the code characters.

I thought that at first. But on reflexion, i'm glad it doesn't. I just
want to see every character somebody wrote, the less my software messes
around with it the better. I can live with the bold, but i want to be
able to see how they wrote it.

The author might not see the bold themselves. Only the asterisks.
Deleting them makes for surreal conversations -- "that bold word you
typed" -- "what bold??? do you mean the stars?" -- "what stars?". I've
been accused once of putting silly yellow smiley blobs in my posts,
turned out the receiver's software changed my :) to a graphic. I never
saw them. But they didn't *know* it was their software, they thought i
did it...

--
Regards, marijke [52½°N 2°W]
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/marijke/

[Guerri Stevens]

Marijke van Gans wrote:
> The author might not see the bold themselves. Only the asterisks.
> Deleting them makes for surreal conversations -- "that bold word you
> typed" -- "what bold??? do you mean the stars?" -- "what stars?". I've
> been accused once of putting silly yellow smiley blobs in my posts,
> turned out the receiver's software changed my :) to a graphic. I never
> saw them. But they didn't *know* it was their software, they thought i
> did it...
>

Well, T-bird changed your smiley (colon followed by right parenthesis)
to a graphic yellow smiley blob <g>. Well, to be accurate, SOMETHING
made that change. I can't prove it was T-bird.

--
Guerri

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi Guerri,

> Well, T-bird changed your smiley (colon followed by right parenthesis)
> to a graphic yellow smiley blob <g>. Well, to be accurate, SOMETHING
> made that change. I can't prove it was T-bird.

But even if it's not T-bird, it has to be SOMETHING on *your* computer. The
colon and right parenthesis were not unmodified into anything else when I
got the mail (using Outlook Express).

Best, Hugo

[Marijke van Gans]

Guerri Stevens said on 05-06-17 01:30 GMT:
> Marijke van Gans wrote:
>> I've been accused once of putting silly yellow smiley blobs in my
>> posts, turned out the receiver's software changed my :) to a
>> graphic.
>
> Well, T-bird changed your smiley (colon followed by right parenthesis)
> to a graphic yellow smiley blob <g>.

LOL!

(and hoping *that* didn't get converted to a wav or mp3...)

--
Regards, marijke [52½°N 2°W]
http://web.mat.bham.ac.uk/marijke/