The following word, of course, was not  suggested by me, but rather chosen by Dr Language as WotD some three weeks ago. For some reason it was never forwarded to the Agora for discussion….

Today’s Word:
Cow (Noun)
Pronunciation: [kæw]
Definition 1: (1) A female bovine animal raised for meat and milk around the world. (2) Coalition of the Willing. (3) Cost of war.
Usage 1: An interesting note on the original "cow" is that its plural used to be "kine," with the same [n] sound marking plural that we have in "oxen" and "children" today. It was replaced by "cows" in the 17th century. But we have selected this word as our Word of the Day because of two topical acronyms orthographically identical with it.
Suggested usage: The two twin acronyms creeping out of Washington these days are COW and COW: Coalition of the Willing and cost of the war. The two meanings are related in an interesting way: part of the cost of the war is the foreign aid packages that will go to many of the smaller participants of the Coalition of the Willing, who may see the Coalition as a cash cow. (Does this mean we will be paying for this war until the COWs come home?)
Etymology: Did you know that "cow," "beef," and "butter" all come from the same word? That word was Proto-Indo-European *gwou- "cow, bull," spoken 6,000 years ago. In the Germanic languages, the [w] dropped out and the [g] became closely related [k]: German "Kuh," Icelandic "kýr," and English "cow." The PIE root remained all but unchanged in Sanskrit "gauh," currently "gAya" in Hindi. "Gauh" is found in goraksah "cowherd," the word the British borrowed as "Gurkha." In Latin and Greek, however, the combination [gw] converted to [ b] at the beginning of a word, so we find Latin bos, bovis "ox, cow" and Greek bous "ox, cow." Latin "bovis" became "boeuf" in French, whence we borrowed it as "beef," the meat of the cow. (Until then, we ate cow.) "Butter?" It came to us via Latin from Greek bous "cow" + turos "cheese."
[center]—Dr. Language, yourDictionary.com[/center]

Actually, I am more interested another word, i e, a verb, which, while spelled and pronounced like the above noun, seems etymologically and otherwise to be unrelated to the latter, at least in the first, primary sense

cow[sup]2[/sup]
[ ... ] (kou)
tr.v. cowed, cow·ing, cows
To frighten with threats or a show of force. See Synonyms at intimidate.

[ Probably of Scandinavian origin.]

cowed·ly

(-d-l) adv.

The presumed Scandinavian origin mentioned above probably refers to an old Norse verb «kúga» (modern Swedish «kuva, Danish/Norwegian «kue»), thought to be related to a nominalised form «kuv», i e, «oppression». Those who find a relation between this word and Dr Language’s definition 2, above, must bear responsibility for their temerity in drawing unauthorised conclusions….

Henri

Henri-

Those who find a relation between this word and Dr Language’s definition
     2, above, must bear responsibility for their temerity in drawing unauthorised conclusions….
     

Too funny, Henri!  See, all your subtleties are lost on me!

Sitran

all your subtleties are lost on me

I, too, had to read Henri’s backhander a couple of times before I got it. I suppose (and here comes an alarming return to topic) we’ll simply have to kowtow to Henri’s superior wit  ;D

- PW

Is the verb related to the noun ‘coward’, being one who is easily cowed?

~Silver

Henri is quite right.

probably refers to an old Norse verb «kúga» (modern Swedish «kuva

Swedish "kuvad" is an exact translation of "cowed". It’s a common word in Swedish. What that says about the state of matrimonial relations in that country, I’ll leave the reader to speculate.  ;D

- PW
who is neither cowed nor bulled

afraid of the answer

Don’t be. I’ll be very honest.

I’ve been married three times. Once to a Swede, once to a Finn, once to a Texan.

In the first "familial relationship", there was so-called equality.

In the second "familial relationship", there was understanding.

In the third "familial relationship", there was huge, unconditional love.

It’s just a Texas thing.

- PW

[quote author=Palewriter link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=0#7 date=04/30/03 at 00:36:30] . . . I’ve been married three times. Once to a Swede, once to a Finn, once to a Texan.
. . . In the third "familial relationship", there was huge, unconditional love.

It’s just a Texas thing.

- PW

YEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAA!

[quote author=KatyBr link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=0#3 date=04/29/03 at 22:58:48]I’ll attribute this to Henri as he doesn’t attribute the quote [i e, the above definition of «cow» as a verb] to anyone.

Sorry, Katy, I should have named my source, which was—hold your hats, if you have any !—AHD, via ydc....

Henri

[quote author=M._Henri_Day link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=0#0 date=04/29/03 at 07:52:07] . . . The presumed Scandinavian origin mentioned above probably refers to an old Norse verb «kúga» (modern Swedish «kuva, Danish/Norwegian «kue»), thought to be related to a nominalised form «kuv», i e, «oppression». Those who find a relation between this word and Dr Language’s definition 2, above, must bear responsibility for their temerity in drawing unauthorised conclusions….

Henri

[READY]
It’s rather obvious that the COW cannot be cowed, diplomatically or otherwise,
[/READY]

[AIM]
even if certain international organizations can be
[/AIM]

[FIRE]
by various and sundry third-rate first-world nations.  Sometimes one must do what one believes is right, even over the objections of others.  (Luke 10:29-37)
[/FIRE]

[quote author=Silver Han link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=0#4 date=04/29/03 at 23:24:58]Is the verb related to the noun ‘coward’, being one who is easily cowed?

For the curious:

coward - c.1225, from O.Fr. coart, from coe "tail," from L. coda, dialectal variant of cauda "tail," of uncertain origin + -ard, an agent noun suffix (denoting "one who does"). The word probably reflects an animal metaphoric sense still found in expressions like turning tail and tail between legs. Coart was the name of the hare in O.Fr. versions of "Reynard the Fox." As a surname (attested from 1255) it represents O.E. cuhyrde "cow-herd."

For the additionally curious:

cower - c.1300, probably from M.L.G. *kuren "lie in wait," or similar Scand. words meaning "to squat" and "to doze." Thus unrelated to coward.

I always thought they were related, but I guess I was wrong!

Also, I would think it just as likely that the noun coward would be related to the noun cow-herd (as in a herd of cattle) in the same way that the surname is attested to be.

Another point to ponder: the term cowardly functions gramatically as an adjective, rather than an adverb, although endowed with the -ly suffix.  I find that fascinating!

-Tim

Thanks Tim!

I may have lost the coward/cowed connection, but got coward/coda* instead. Yay!

~Silver

*(Clearly indicating that composers should have the nerve to write their music in the order that it should be played!)

[quote author=Stargzer link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=0#10 date=05/02/03 at 19:27:18][center]...[/center] Sometimes one must do what one believes is right, even over the objections of others. ...

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, just whom does this procedure empower ?...

Henri

whom does this procedure empower

I hear your agenda, Henri.

If history has taught us anything at all, it’s that power is not given, but taken.

I understand perfectly well that this is counter to the entire left-wing Scandinavian sensibility (which likes to pretend that power is something that can be handed out like candy).

Stargazer is quite right. If you truly believe in something, it’s your duty to defend it. Otherwise there’s little point in believing in it in the first place.

The "right thing" is very subjective, of course. But isn’t that the whole point?

Would anyone like to stand up and say that the regime of Saddam should have been defended? A documented murderer/torturerer?

Don’t divert me with tales of Chile or Indonesia. I personally received refugees from the torture chambers of Santiago back in 1973. I know the horror stories; I’ve seen the awful results. I don’t defend the dreadful actions of the CIA. Shame on them. But the fact is, Saddam Hussein was a murderous as*shole. Much better gone than still here.

You don’t need to vote for George Bush next election. Oh…I guess you don’t get to vote in that election at all.  ;)

- PW

[quote author=KatyBr link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=15#17 date=05/06/03 at 13:09:10]
I had sort of wished we could have explored the many finer aspects of cows and cow behavior on this thread, sigh. ;D ;D ;D

That would have been udderly delightful.

DJ

[quote author=Palewriter link=board=todays;num=1051617127;start=15#16 date=05/05/03 at 23:58:07][center] ...[/center]If history has taught us anything at all, it’s that power is not given, but taken.

I believe this was Adolf Hitler’s point—and that of the other so-called Social Darwinists who constituted, contrary to what most of us were taught, the intellectual orthodoxy of the time : History is written by the victors, and only the «strong» deserve to survive. Thus Hitler wasted no sympathies on the Germans—in losing the war, they had proven themselves inferior and deserved the destruction which he was certain would be meted out to them by the victors. Fortunately, other counsels prevailed, and, as I have noted on another thread, the descendents of the Germans are still around to make their contributions to humanity.

I understand perfectly well that this is counter to the entire left-wing Scandinavian sensibility (which likes to pretend that power is something that can be handed out like candy).

I think you misread Scandinavian sensibilities, left-wing or otherwise. To my mind these have been rather clear about the nature of power and of those who possess it. For this reason Scandinavian—but, of course, not only Scandinavian—political and social theorists have been concerned with the framework under which political power is exercised on a global scale. Thus the strong Scandinavian interest for such organisations as the League of Nations and the UNO. Of course, had Scandinavia been a great power during this period, it is not improbable that mainstream Scandinavian theorists would have been more concerned with demonstrating why power must be used, untrammeled by considerations of legality ; Gustav II Adolf, for example, was, as we know quite willing to engage in questionable military activities on the continent of Europe without concerning himself with external «mandates»....

Stargazer is quite right. If you truly believe in something, it’s your duty to defend it. Otherwise there’s little point in believing in it in the first place.  

The "right thing" is very subjective, of course. But isn’t that the whole point?

You don’t address the modest query I posed to Stargzer

The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, just whom does this procedure empower ?...

Is the fervour with which beliefs are held to be the measure of their correctness ? Personally, I hold more with those who realise that for us humans, knowlegde is always tentative or as Paulus put it

nunc videmus in speculum ænigmaticum.

This being the case, should we be so ready to «defend»—«defend» is of course a buzz word here ; even you must admit that the late war in Iraq was a war of aggression on the part of the United States, not a war of defence—our beliefs by carrying war to and slaughtering others ?

Would anyone like to stand up and say that the regime of Saddam should have been defended? A documented murderer/torturerer?

I agree with your description of Saddam, but fail to understand the basis for your complaint. Surely Saddam was/is a man who fully understood the dictum you profess to admire, and which I cited at the beginning of this letter

If history has taught us anything at all, it’s that power is not given, but taken.

Don’t divert me with tales of Chile or Indonesia. I personally received refugees from the torture chambers of Santiago back in 1973. I know the horror stories; I’ve seen the awful results. I don’t defend the dreadful actions of the CIA. Shame on them. But the fact is, Saddam Hussein was a murderous as*shole. Much better gone than still here.

I share your disdain for both the CIA (and those who direct the agency) and for Saddam. But do you feel that the dreadful and shameful actions of the CIA—not only, as you know, in Latin America—would have justified a war on the US by a superpower which itself had not been the target of those actions ? Would regime change to remove from power those who connived at the horrors you mention, been worth the price of tens of thousands of American lives («collateral damage») ?
 

You don’t need to vote for George Bush next election. Oh…I guess you don’t get to vote in that election at all.  ;)

I can’t—and it will come as no surprise to you to learn that I shouldn’t if I could. But here we touch upon another, to my mind vital problem—what Mr Bush and his administration do affects me and thousands of millions others with me profoundly, yet we had no say in his Machtübernnahme and have none in the manner in which he uses his power. This, not left-wing Scandinavian naiveté, is one of the reasons why the power of any state must be limited through international mechanisms—untrammeled power inevitably becomes tyranny. It was to free themselves of such tyranny that the American colonists revolted against the English monarchy ; in case you need a reminder here’s a link to Thomas Jefferson’s synopsis....

Henri

I believe this was Adolf Hitler’s point

I don’t think the fact that Hitler may have subscribed to a particular theory necessarly invalidates it. After all, I daresay
he also believed in gravity and the fact that the Earth is round.

Is the fervour with which beliefs are held to be the measure of their correctness?

The fact that we’re dicussing beliefs here, not empirical facts, surely make the use of terms like "correct" or "incorrect" somewhat inappropriate. I’m perfectly OK with someone believing they have the right to harm me. By the same token, however, they have to respect my right to defend myself. Preemptively if necessary. Who’s correct? Well, of course, I believe I am.   ;D

Surely Saddam was/is a man who fully understood the dictum you profess to admire

Again, it’s not a matter of admiration or the lack of it. I’m merely expressing an opinion based on my observation of history. I can’t think of any examples at all of real power being given. One way or another, it’s always taken.

In some blue-eyed, innocent way, I supposed the League of Nations thought it was doing the world a favor when it allowed Hitler to re-occupy the Ruhr. And I’m sure Agoraphile will testify to the fabulous job they did back in the Thirties of sorting out the matter of Palestine once and for all.

Believe me, I’ve nothing against the UNO. Indeed, my late mother worked there for some 30 years. However, I don’t think that  even the UN is able to change the fundamental nature of political power. But do correct me if I’m wrong. ;D

- PW