Re: A brake question regarding old equipment.

Hi Phil
I'm dyslexic & my spelling really sucks. I never realized after all
these years that Mafic & Mavic were different names. I always thought
they were the same company. Are they different companies? Or what?
Thanks, John

Quoted message said:

I'm dyslexic & my spelling really sucks. I never realized after all
these years that Mafic & Mavic were different names. I always thought
they were the same company. Are they different companies? Or what?

Unrelated acronyms M.A.F.A C. & M. A. V. I. C.
(I've forgotten the origins)

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Unrelated acronyms M.A.F.A C. & M. A. V. I. C.
(I've forgotten the origins)

Manufacture Auvergnoise de Freins et Accessoires pour Cycle

&

Manufacture d'Articles Vélocipédiques Idoux et Chanel (after the
co-founders).

James Thomson

!Jones said:

On 26 Dec 2004 15:42:59 -0800 in
<[email hidden]>
[email hidden] said this:

Quoted message said:

Hi Phil
I'm dyslexic & my spelling really sucks. I never realized after all
these years that Mafic & Mavic were different names. I always thought
they were the same company. Are they different companies? Or what?
Thanks, John

How come "ineffable" is in the dictionary; however, "effable" isn't?
Thanks in advance for helping me to eff that.

Jones

Dear Excitable Jones,

Well, partly because "ineffable" comes to us from Latin, via
Old French to Middle English.

But the real reason is that "ineffable" means much the same
as "unutterable" or "indescribable." The no-prefix opposites
of these words do not exist in normal speech because we
never need to describe anything as "utterable,"
"describable," or "effable"--those are the default
qualities, and only the exceptions require words to describe
them.

We have "flightless birds" like penguins and emus, but we
don't speak of "non-flightless" birds.

We also have "flying boats" in the navy, but no one speaks
of "non-flying" boats.

To drag things back to bicycles, we have "tires" and "flat
tires," but we scarcely ever speak of un-flat or non-flat
tires.

The default condition that requires no description may never
need or enjoy a description of its own.

I hope that this is not an (in)flammable topic (a different
linguistic conundrum).

Carl Fogel

Dough......
Where the hell did the reference to "ineffable" come from? What am I
missing here?
John

On 26 Dec 2004 19:42:03 -0800, [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Dough......
Where the hell did the reference to "ineffable" come from? What am I
missing here?
John

Dear John,

It's ineffable.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Dough......

Do you mean "D'OH!” [1] ?

[1] Exclamation favored by Homer Simpson.

--
Tom Sherman - Near Rock Island

[email hidden] at [email hidden] wrote on 12/26/04 6:10 PM:

Quoted message said:

Well, partly because "ineffable" comes to us from Latin, via
Old French to Middle English.

But the real reason is that "ineffable" means much the same
as "unutterable" or "indescribable." The no-prefix opposites
of these words do not exist in normal speech because we
never need to describe anything as "utterable,"
"describable," or "effable"--those are the default
qualities, and only the exceptions require words to describe
them.

We have "flightless birds" like penguins and emus, but we
don't speak of "non-flightless" birds.

We also have "flying boats" in the navy, but no one speaks
of "non-flying" boats.

To drag things back to bicycles, we have "tires" and "flat
tires," but we scarcely ever speak of un-flat or non-flat
tires.

The default condition that requires no description may never
need or enjoy a description of its own.

That makes me very gruntled.

-- jim

--

CycloFiend

to reply directly, replace the dashes to create the name above

Quoted message said:

!Jones said:

On 26 Dec 2004 15:42:59 -0800 in
<[email hidden]>
[email hidden] said this:

Quoted message said:

Hi Phil
I'm dyslexic & my spelling really sucks. I never realized after all
these years that Mafic & Mavic were different names. I always thought
they were the same company. Are they different companies? Or what?
Thanks, John

How come "ineffable" is in the dictionary; however, "effable" isn't?
Thanks in advance for helping me to eff that.

Jones

Dear Excitable Jones,

Well, partly because "ineffable" comes to us from Latin, via
Old French to Middle English.

But the real reason is that "ineffable" means much the same
as "unutterable" or "indescribable." The no-prefix opposites
of these words do not exist in normal speech because we
never need to describe anything as "utterable,"
"describable," or "effable"--those are the default
qualities, and only the exceptions require words to describe
them.

We have "flightless birds" like penguins and emus, but we
don't speak of "non-flightless" birds.

We also have "flying boats" in the navy, but no one speaks
of "non-flying" boats.

To drag things back to bicycles, we have "tires" and "flat
tires," but we scarcely ever speak of un-flat or non-flat
tires.

The default condition that requires no description may never
need or enjoy a description of its own.

Then there are all those things that now require the modifier themselves since
the modified versions are so common: acoustic guitar, battle rifle, upright
bicycle

Quoted message said:

I hope that this is not an (in)flammable topic (a different
linguistic conundrum).

To know the unknowable, eff the ineffable and scru the inscrutable.

Ron