Bill, do you remember Wee Phil's on the drums? www.robmackillop.net
On 9 Apr 2012, at 16:08, William Samson <willsam...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > When I were a lad (Oh no - Here we go again!) we used the contraction > that was pronounced and spelt 'mike' for a microphone. When did this > 'mic' oddity appear in the language? I'm assuming it's still > pronounced 'mike' but maybe it's 'mick'? Perhaps we should be talking > about 'micking'? > > OTOH maybe I'm just taking the mic . . . > > :] > From: William Brohinsky <tiorbin...@gmail.com> > To: lute net <Lute@cs.dartmouth.edu> > Sent: Monday, 9 April 2012, 15:30 > Subject: [LUTE] All about micing...redux > Fellow luters, > may I offer some help in terminology? > First of all, micing does not exist in the language (on either side of > the Atlantic) in a context of microphones. I might have use in terms > of barn cats. > The actual term is, as was originally used, miking. However, there is > a price for using this form, at least for this old geezer, in that > every time I saw the subject line about miking lutes, I wondered, > "geez, can you really get milk out of one of them things?" > For our purposes, and for all that it costs a few extra letters and a > whole space, I highly recommend "using microphones" or if you aren't > capitalizing it, "using mikes." 'Miking' is a concatation (pace Stan > Kelly-Bootle) used in the industry by technicians who are sure they > have less time than they obviously have. Those who feel the aching > need to over-complicate their prose are invited to substitute > "utilize" for "use" with the promise that I, at least, will not feel > the loss at avoiding their posts. > yours with tongue in both cheeks at once, > William > To get on or off this list see list information at > [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > -- > > References > > 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
