Pub Quiz thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
oldfrenchhorn said:
I am off to hit the hay shortly, so will give a clue. Theo or Yorkie should know and anyone who teaches English might. <whistle>
Click to expand...

Something to do with writing then...and since it sounds as though the derivation relates to a persistent unpleasant condition, I'd guess it was either an obsessive compulsion to write or some kind of unsatisfactory writing. Actually I've no idea but, for someone like me who loves words, you've no idea how hard it is to resist looking it up. If the answer's not here in the morning I'll be reaching for several dictionaries :emoticon-0138-think
 
This was on the BBC website. It is an overuse of exclamation marks. I hate it when people use more than one, but I'm an old pedantic fuddy-duddy!!!!!!!!
 
We have a Dutch couple living here and the lady who comes from the north of that country talks about West Frisian and how close to English it is. Don't know if that might be the answer.
 
I would guess at Plattdeutsch (Or lower German) - spoken in many parts of Schleswig Holstein and East Friesland and some older people in Hamburg - it is recognized as a language distinct from German.
 
oldfrenchhorn said:
We have a Dutch couple living here and the lady who comes from the north of that country talks about West Frisian and how close to English it is. Don't know if that might be the answer.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the answer. Apparently, whilst the spelling is different the sounds of the words are similar.
 
Pretty close Barry. Right person but the club asked him to resign as honorary vice-president over the issue of ID cards for fans. He was in favour of it, while the club wasn't.

Your turn.
 
There was an item awarded to Jersey and resides in the States Chamber. What is it and why does Jersey have one but Guernsey doesn't?

Clue: the item is hundreds of years old.
 
Is this the deeds to a piece of land later called New Jersey in America, awarded by Charles the second to the then governor of the island (Apparently in thanks for either the island's loyalty to him or the governors loyalty) ? The only thing I can think of at the moment.
 
As I'm shortly to catch the red-eye to Gatwick, I'll give you the answer. It is a staff or mace (can't remember which jerzeypie said it was - he told me this after a school visit to the States Chamber) and it was awarded to Jersey by King Charles II as a thank you. During the English Civil War, members of the Royal Family tried to escape to the Channel Islands - Jersey agreed to let them move to the island, whereas Guernsey didn't.
 
Does this mean that I'm on ?
Imagine the scene: a painter signs his painting with the words 'I (the name of the painter) was here ' very prominently on the canvass. In the background of his painting is a mirror where the painter is portrayed at work. It is thought to be the first case of a painter and his painting acting as a legal witness to something, and therefore could, at that time be used for legal purposes. Who was the painter and what was the event he was legally recording ?

The concept of the painting as a legal record or certificate is accepted by most art historians and is unique in this sense. Whether it actually had much legal validity is uncertain.
 
Spot on Theo ! In Flanders at that time (15th Century) it was common for members of the higher social circles to marry at home. All you needed was a Priest and 2 witnesses and one of those witnesses was Van Eyck himself and his signature as witness is on the painting itself. This being legally valid at the time. Having said this not all art historians are convinced by this argument as the 2 were already married at the time of the painting - the alternative is that Van Eyck was bearing witness to another transaction, possibly a property transfer. Over to you !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back