BS: Old expressions explained

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 17 Aug 05 - 07:59 PM

Hi Amos, see my reference to ready use lockers where small amounts of powder would be kept, small quantities of round shot would also be kept available. I agree the gunners would try and keep their iron shot in good condition and free of rust which has a blistering effect on cast iron.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: HuwG
Date: 17 Aug 05 - 10:16 PM

Amos, Shanghaiceltic et al.

I believe that warships of Nelson's day and thereabouts, held at least some of the shot for their cannon in "garlands". These were flat wooden racks recessed into the decks along the centreline of the ship. When not in action or at exercise, wooden lids covered the garlands. The garlands plus lids stood only a few inches proud of the decks themselves, allowing sailors to stand or walk on them, sling hammocks over them etc.

At a guess, ten or perhaps twelve rounds per gun could be carried in the garlands. Don't forget that shot is quite heavy. When clearing for action in a hurry, you would not want sailors staggering up the ladders each carrying a twenty-four or thirty-two pound lump of metal. No doubt more shot would be carried in the holds, but it is reasonable to suppose that after twelve broadsides, the battle would be won or lost.

I believe the concept of "ready-use" lockers came later in Queen Victoria's time, with brass cartridges and QF ("quick-firing") guns which could get through ammunition faster than the hoists could fetch it from the magazines. The ready-use locker could allow the guns to indulge in a minute's rapid fire in case of emergency.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic
Date: 17 Aug 05 - 11:12 PM

HuwG you are correct, I used the term RUL as that was a term I was used to when I was in the RN.

Having shot and more importantly even small quanitities of powder on the gundecks was the reason why most sailors were only allowed to chew tobacco.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Guy Wolff
Date: 17 Aug 05 - 11:31 PM

certain expressions need no explanation.
P G Woodhouse (sp?) had a few I have always loved.
A " Vapid Waistrill " comes to mind

as dose making a social blunder or a " Floater " . Gosh I wonder what that comes from ??

More soon , Guy

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 05 - 11:21 AM

In Adelaide, they sell a 'Meat Pie Floater' - which is a meat pie served in a large bowl of pea soup.

On Naval Gins (sorry Guns!!!!) I remember a story in a collection of volumes (The Golden Pathway) produced in the 1920's or thereabouts which was about a gun that broke loose and the resultant efforts to tame it like a wild beast.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Aug 05 - 05:20 PM

Blue bloods : Is a verified medical condition that results from inbreeding. It was true of very few Europeon royals but predominant for the highest class (Brahmans) in India going back several hundred years ago. You will note that not just ancient Indian artists painted Brahmans blue.
The condition was associated with hemophelia bruises but that is not always the case.
There were some cases known among the very poor in Appalachia but it is not politically correct to stereotypically inflict this fact upon West Virginians today.

.................


"Shit fire and save matches"

I suppose if one did shit fire they could conceivably save on matches or any other such lighter device.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 18 Aug 05 - 06:00 PM

Whaaaat?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 18 Aug 05 - 06:40 PM

A Cacadragon?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 05:25 AM

"Shit fire and save matches"

Corruption of saftey matches????

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Torctgyd
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 05:47 AM

As a kid in nw London we used to play the game of knocking on a front door or ringing the bell and then running away (oh what fun we had!). We called it Knock Down Ginger. This seems to have been a fairly local expression; any ideas where it came from?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Raedwulf
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:28 PM

Speaking as an active re-enactor, may I clear up the armour nonsense?

Full harness of around the 15thC weighs something around/over 100 lbs. A mate of mine regularly represents himself as Edward IV (including at Tewkesbury, one of the biggest UK re-enactments). I can't provide you with independent verification, but he has told me that his harness is made as closely as possible to match Eddie IV's armour (can't remember what the 'model' is...) & weighs around 140 lb. This is heavier than most re-enactors wear (98-112lb is a typical figure), but Simon has also spoken slightly disparagingly of 'lightweights' wearing slightly cut down (this normally means not bothering with some of the chain mail that is still part of harness at this period) kit!

Full harness is still very mobile. It is well articulated, the weight well distributed, & most importantly, the knight was a highly trained martial artist used to wearing the bloody stuff! The notion that you needed a crane to get on horseback is yet another Victorian distortion. There was a notorious attempt on the part of a Victorian blue blood (dare I say "effete"?) to stage a medieval tourney. Neither he nor his friends had any training, the weather mostly washed it out, & he (Viscount Edington, Edginton? Something like that...) just about bankrupted himself, silly bleeder.

Although Robin is half right. Armour strictly-for-tourney was thicker & less flexible than that for regular warfare (in particular, helms for tourney developed a very distinctive shape (thicker & shaped to deflect at the front), & were heavy!). Not to the extent of needing a crane if you were properly trained, though! In any case, tourneys were usually illegal...

There is a lengthy passage from a medieval treatise that includes the quote above about being able to vault onto horseback without using the stirrup (personally I suspect they still used the saddle for leverage!). It is accurate. Unfortunately, I can neither remember the title of the treatise, nor the full quote, but the "vault" is more or less the last in a lenghty list of accomplishments that, yes, includes acrobatics, handstands & such like. This is not at all unreasonable if you realise that these guys trained with the same dedication as any full time soldier, martial artist, or Shao-Lin monk!

HuwG - Whilst I wouldn't quibble with your naval opinions (generally, I'd agree) your medieval musings smack more of guesswork than research. Horse armour was "barding", not a tabard, which is a sleeveless, sideless, cloth over-vestment typically worn by heralds! You don't seem to be able to decide just what you think medieval armour weighs. Etcetera. And your explanation of "high horse" I'm highly dubious of too! I very much doubt it dates back to medieval times. It might, again, represent a Victorian misunderstanding of earlier history.

Palfrey can be literally translated as "light horse", but the corollary is not "high horse". Knight's mounts were not "carthorses", which generally don't gallop very well, not being bred for that sort of activity. Destrier (probably the premier re-enactors of jousting in the UK, whose MC/spielman is a good mate of mine) use more or less normal horses (insofar as my inexpert eye is a judge of horseflesh - Shires & Clydesdales they are not!) & still wear full harness.

Admittedly, modern horses are certainly larger than their medieval predecessors. I have heard it reckoned that the medieval warhorse was probably about the size of a polo pony, or a little larger. But certainly medieval warhorses were not 'carthorses'. Destrier as a word, according to the OED, stems from Latin dextra "right hand", which refers to the fact that the squires would lead the horse with their right hand. Again nothing about 'high'. Many other professions use 'horses' of some description that are not necessarily equine (carpenters, frex). Virtually any bench that you sit astride whilst working has been termed a horse, & your explanation very much smacks (like all the acronymic origins) of a modern back-formation. And since horsehair was often used as a cushioning material, I would be inclined to wonder whether "on your high horse" (which in my experience tends to have a judgemental, rather than confrontational, context) has a legal origin.

Moreover, whilst the notion of knights as being wealthy & upper class is very de rigeur & romatic, the reality is that most of them were about what the modern view of a country esquire is. Working middle class on the make, if you see what I mean. How many could afford a second riding horse, after having equipped themselves & their retinue appropriately, is open to debate. Most of the time armour would not be worn. The 'honourable' preliminaries would allow more than ample time for a knight to get armoured, & if there was not felt to be any imminent threat they would not have been wearing full harness (it takes 5-10 minutes to don, with a competent squire - like modern warfare, medieval war was 98% standing around bored, punctuated by occasional 'brown' moments of frantic activity!). No great impediment, then, to riding your warhorse at the walking pace that allows the archers, men-at-arms, & baggage train to keep up... I'm less than convinced, sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Curator
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:37 PM

I have often heard it said that when Oliver Cromwell was at his work in Ireland he ran into a bit of opposition and had to to rethink his sea landings on the southern bays of Ireland. To this he said he will reach shore BY HOOK OR BY CROOK which he did, two bays on the southern shoreline. Anyone else ever hear that one ?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Raedwulf
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 04:39 PM

Guest, Know all - perhaps you should rename yourself "Know nothing" Hangers on? What rubbish! Hanging was hardly a standard method of execution in the 16th & 17th centuries, no matter how much lynching might be beloved of spaghetti western directors. It would certainly not have engendered the modern phrase you attempt to explain.

Without bothering to research at all, I would suggest, purely from my knowledge of history, that "hanging-on" is more likely to derive from the practice of a servant "hanging on" to his master's stirrup (even the horses tail in some tales!) as an aid to keeping up with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:02 PM

Hanging has always been pretty standard.

Cromwell might have said by hook or crook, but certainly didn't originate it. However, this sounds like a legend.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 06:04 PM

I have seen several references that say "by hook or by crook" comes from the old English forest laws. Pesants were not permitted to cut firewood but were allowed whatever they could pull down by hook or by crook.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 08:27 PM

If you want to see what a medieval Destrier was capable of, look at the white Lippen... (spelling!) Stallions. Most of their moves are claimed by their trainers to date back to natural horse movements that Destriers were trained to perform on command (and sometimes of their own free will) in combat. Biting, kicking, etc - the horse was about as destructive as a tank, and well capable of taking out lightly armed foot-soldiers before those damned 20 foot pikes became all the rage!

I have seen a clip of an old B&W movie (it was inserted in something else - I suspect it may have been originally from that Russian epic silent movie about the history of German Invasions) in which the fully kitted up horses and riders are lashing out at foot-soldiers around them - sweeping thru them like a scythe - freaky shot and one wonders just how many extras were hurt for real.

I have seen 16-18 hand high Shire Horses at the gallop - a hundred of them coming at you fully armed would definitely be brown pants stuff, and would seem like an earth quake - and if just 4 pulling a waggon at a fast trot could shake the ground under my feet that much... definitely a terror weapon!

A hand is 4 inches so 64 inches at the shoulder is BIG... the neck towers above you when they are on all fours - wouldn't like one to rear and lash its front feet at me - tin hat or not!

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: mack/misophist
Date: 19 Aug 05 - 09:43 PM

Foolstroupe:

The breed of horse sounds like Lippizaners, except that the dictionary says they're 'compact'.

The movie sounds like Sergei Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky, if I remember the name correctly. Except that the Teutonic Knights were done in when the ice they charged across broke.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:09 AM

War horses have always been trained to kick and bite, they are just plain nasty during a fight. Marbot, for example, rode a a very bad-tempered mare called Lissete that bit the face off a Russian soldier at Eylau.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 20 Aug 05 - 10:40 AM

Alexander Nevasky it could be. It's not silent, but it is in Russian, and Prokoveief's soundtrack for it might have been a bit out of place in the programme..

Quite alot of the acronym explanations do see to be good examples of contrived ridiculous acronym phenonoma Or crap.....

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 12:21 AM

Yes I had thought it might be "Sergei Eisenstein's Alexander Nevsky", but Briz31 showed it awhile ago. I don't remember seeing the particular fighting sequence I mentioned, but then I don't remember if I manged to stay awake for the umpteen hours either... :-)


"Lippizaners" that's the one - they may not be big, but they are nice horses. I'm not sure that a war horse had to be huge, the heavy cavalry of medieval times didn't tromp around at full speed for hours like light cavalry (as was discovered in the C13 in the middle east!!!), but were solid boned and hardy.

There was a story that some of the original horses were rescued during the end of WWII - read it in the Reader's Digest, so it must be true!

The Lippizaners are only claimed to be doing many of the original moves, not even descended from them. We had a troupe of them on the Gold Coast a while ago, but I think the owner went bankrupt some years ago. I think the horses are still doing their act around Australia somewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 09:15 AM

Raedwolf. I have to agree with the guest on this one as there was a recent programme on the TV in the UK which explained the use of 'Hangers on' at hangings and how the person being hanged would sign over his worldly goods to those of his family who hung on his legs to make his death much swifter than if he/she were left to choke to death slowly.
Perhaps a little research may have been good for you to do after all.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:12 PM

I once heard that 'time immemorial' was legally defined as being a certain date, before which no-one could be expected to know exactly when some thing happened. The date was some time in the Middle Ages, but I can't remember when it was. Does some one know?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:37 PM

Isn't it more likely to have ment simply 'since goodness knows when'?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: GUEST, topsie
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 03:45 PM

Well, that's what it generally does mean; but I heard somewhere that a date had been set as a legal definition, and I thought someone might either know, or be able to find it.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 21 Aug 05 - 05:27 PM

Time immemmorial is a time before anyone living can remember...ie no-one has a memory of that time.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:02 PM

O.K question for you...where did the expression "Hoisted by his own petard" come from?. No prizes but who knows?
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:19 PM

shakespeare, of course...

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: beardedbruce
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 01:57 PM

PETARD
A small bomb used to blow in a door or gate.
If it wasn't for its appearance in Shakespeare's Hamlet: "For 'tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his owne petar" and its fossil survival in the rather more modern spelling to be hoist with one's own petard, this term of warfare would have gone the way of the halberd, brattice and culverin.
A petard was a bell-shaped metal grenade typically filled with five or six pounds of gunpowder and set off by a fuse. Sappers dug a tunnel or covered trench up to a building and fixed the device to a door, barricade, drawbridge or the like to break it open. The bomb was held in place with a heavy beam called a madrier.
Unfortunately, the devices were unreliable and often went off unexpectedly. Hence the expression, where hoist meant to be lifted up, an understated description of the result of being blown up by your own bomb. The name of the device came from the Latin petar, to break wind, perhaps a sarcastic comment about the thin noise of a muffled explosion at the far end of an excavation.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 03:18 PM

Thanks Beardedbruce....Tony Robinson gave us the answer in his series of programmes on the worst jobs ever which is being repeated on UK TV at present. Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 Aug 05 - 06:43 PM

Time immemorial is more or less what's meant by the old expression, "A long time ago, the memory of the oldest inhabitant runneth not to the contrary". Or something close to that.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:12 AM

When references to "brass monkeys" started appearing in print in the mid-19th century, they did not always mention balls or cold temperatures. It was sometimes cold enough to freeze the ears, tail, nose, or whiskers off a brass monkey. Likewise, it was sometimes hot enough to "scald the throat" or "singe the hair" of a brass monkey. These usages are inconsistent with the putative origins offered here.


It would have been difficult the refer to monkey's naughty bits in print in the 19th century, when the dialogue of villains was rendered as "---- your eyes! Take THAT, you d------!"

However, some facts. Let's assume a cannonball is 10cm in diameter. The differential temperature coefficient of expansivity between cast iron and brass is about 7 micrometres per metre per degree. Also assume that the balls were stacked in the tropics, near Brighton, at a temperature of 45C, and that they have reached the bloody cold waters of the north east Scottish coast, and the air is at -20C.

That's 65 degrees change, so the differential contraction between the monkey and the balls is 65x7x.05 micrometres per ball, or approximately a thousandth of an inch. Each ball has changed by about one-and-a-half thousandths in diameter.

If balls were to need to be so accurately aligned to remain stable, I don't think they'd last long in a swell.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: GUEST, Jos
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:21 AM

On 'time immemorial'

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/time_immemorial

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 04:37 AM

Swearing WAS different then, Paul. Nowadays it's about sex or bodily functions, but in Victorian times (and earlier) blasphemy was it. Damn was very bad, that's why Sam Hall was so shocking!!

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Paul Burke
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:39 AM

Nowadays it's about sex or bodily functions, but in Victorian times (and earlier) blasphemy was it

They spell Sunt with a C, which is damnable. I think that's 17th century. It's not that they didn't use sex and bodily fuctions- it's just that the blasphemy got printed, but by God and Mary, it's lost its power now, the very Devil it has!

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 09:33 AM

Blasphemy was considered worse, much worse, I didn't say they never used sex and stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 23 Aug 05 - 05:27 PM

Degeneration I call it...pure degeneration.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Raedwulf
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 04:47 PM

GS - I consider myself thoroughly told off. It was on TV! It must be true! And you even (fail entirely) to name the program that said so!

{rollseyes}

Now try producing some real evidence. Because, of my own curiousity & volition, I went looking for a source. The only thing I could find outside of a bare defintion, is that Partridge's Slang dictionary says it is first recorded in the 16/17thC. I cannot find any explanation of the the origin of the phrase.

Not your assertion, not my supposition, not anything. So produce some genuine attributable evidence. I only suggested that "know-nothing"'s explanation was unsupported rubbish. MY theory is only an educated guess. Where's YOUR evidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 07:26 PM

Oh Raedwolf..I have so failed...to name the programme. Please trust that I actually did see the programme but fail in remembering the name of it. Perhaps some other helpful catter in the UK can remember it for me. I don't consider that I was thoroughly telling you off either..merely supporting something from my own framework and suggesting a little research.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Walrus
Date: 24 Aug 05 - 08:42 PM

I haven't read most of the rest of this thread, but, has anyone dealt with 'Bombing Along' for moving at a good speed?
The version of the story, as I understand it.
In the early stages of the Great War, the method of trench clearing involved riflemen and 'bayoneteers', each bay having to be cleared by fire power and by use of the bayonet (or less regular improvised weapons) when fighting corps a corps.
With the advent, first of large quantities of smaller grenades (as opposed to the longer and slightly unwealdy Grenade MkI<1>), and later of the Mills type grenade, clearing of fire bays and dugouts became a much quicker affair. The trench clearing parties now consisted of riflemen, bayonet men and bombers.
The use of grenades was known, in the British Army as 'bombing' (There had been some complaint - from certain Regiments with influence - about referring to the bombers as 'grenadiers').

Any other theories?

Walrus

<1> The Mk.I Grenade was originally issued for siege warfare (Royal Engineer issue only), it was in a long cane handle (unwealdy in the confines of the trenches) and were detonated by a percussion system, dangerous when throwing from confined spaces and requiring a good direct strike to detonate.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: kendall
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:24 PM

I've heard many explanations for "OK". One of them is this: President Martin Van Buren came from the town of Old Kinderhook New York. He was said to have signed papers with his nickname, "Old Kinderhook" or OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: beardedbruce
Date: 25 Aug 05 - 09:52 PM

The best explaination of ok I have heard was in science fiction...


Because of the (future ) use of the metric system, the time travelers that went back used the term "0 k" ( zero kilometers) to indicate something that was unused, totally new, or like new. Since the people of the era they visited were using the English system, when they were overheard to say "ok", it was thought to be slang. As the time travelers had set themselves up as upper class ( wealthy) individuals, this soon caught on, and thus...

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: mack/misophist
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 12:46 AM

An official etymology was announced about 10 years ago. One of the various stories was that Andrew Jackson initialed state papers with "OK" for 'Oll Korrekt'. It was a lie. He was quite literate. However... In New York state there was a little town called Knickerbocker where folks from New York city went to escape the summer heat. Even there, the dog days were so bad that people just sat on the porch and drank iced lemonade. The local paper, The Knickerbocker Times, knew this, of course, so during the hottest part of the summer they published many games, puzzels, and humourous essays. They are the ones who started the Andrew Jackson canard. That was the very first print appearance of "OK" in any country.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Paul Burke
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:39 AM

To be at loggerheads with someone...

The battle of Blore Heath, in the Wars of the Roses, was fought in Shropshire in 1459. As usual, Yorkshire won, they won all the battles except the ones that mattered. The outcome was that Richard III became king, but that belongs in the other thread.

Quite near Blore Heath (about 2 miles) is a place called Loggerheads- it's the nearest village, and the Lancastrian army would have marched through it, if not camped there for the night. The area supported the Lancastrians, so would probably have collected feudal levies on the way.

So did the phrase come from the battle?

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: kendall
Date: 26 Aug 05 - 04:56 AM

Many of our expressions come from the sea.
Scuttlebutt. Gossip. A scuttlebutt is a water keg.
By and large refers to the set of the sails.
Sailors refer to the toilet as "the head". In the days of sail, the relief station was located at the bow ,or the head of the ship.
Hold a turn. To belay a sheet or halyard.
By the boards. In the early days a ship was steered by boards which hung over the side. Starboard is a contraction of "steer board"
Larboard is the "Lee board". The left side of the ship was the "Port" side, the side that was up against the wharf or pier.
You sometimes hear people say, up against the dock. No, a dock is a body of water between to piers.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: open mike
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 12:15 AM

i have a book called
heavens to besty
if any0ne wants me to
lok up any thing, let
me know
it is a book about
origins of expressions
and figures of speech

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Leadfingers
Date: 27 Aug 05 - 12:23 PM

My 'Old Expression' is very simply explained !! Its down to my Age !!

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: Schantieman
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 12:48 PM

Tony Robinson's TV programme is called The Worst Jobs in the World and featured the dyer, boiling up crushed woad leaves to make a brilliant blue dye. Smells awful apparently.

HMS Victory does indeed have wooden shot racks on all the gundecks but I suspect they've been put there for effect. It doesn't take a particularly rough sea to get the ship pitching and/or rolling and the damage to feet and bulwarks would have been severe. Shot was stored in the shot locker in the hold where it would be used as ballast. Captains who cared about the sailing performance of their ships (Lord Cochrane, the model for Hornblower, for one) used to get their ships' companies to redistribute the shot to change the trim of the ship. Jack Aubrey did this too, so it must be true ;-)

Larboard originated as 'ladeboard' - the side of the ship (board) over which it was laden and unladen. It had to be done on that side coz on the other - steerboard - side was the steering oar which would've been damaged if ground against the jetty. (Of course, it was on that side coz most of the steersmen were right handed). The term 'Larboard' was replaced by 'Port' in the nineteenth century to avoid occasional confusion with 'starboard'.

I agree with Shanghaiceltic's views on the cat. The prisoner used to have to make his own from a length of rope. Thieves were further punished by having the tails knotted so they'd bite into the flesh more effectively. No-one wanted a thief on board.

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Aug 05 - 07:29 PM

The best 'Old Expression' is a smile - self explanatory.

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:56 AM

Here's an old expression - at least it's been heard around here a few times before...........

Subject: RE: BS: Old expressions explained
From: JennyO
Date: 29 Aug 05 - 09:56 AM

100!