And what's more interesting is that in Old Norse, the word "blathra"
not only means "blather" but also "bladder," which takes us right back
to pipe bags!!
Alec
In a message dated 1/27/2010 2:27:28 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
..and isn't the language fascinating in its own right. "To blether
on" in my
experience is to talk at length/nonsense, such as you might expect
from a
wind-bag....
I'd presumed it came from the same root as bladder, but Chambers
just goes
back to Old Norse blathra - talk foolishly, which is where I come
in....
Oxter is also given as a verb, to take under the arm. I had only
heard the
noun usage before.
Tim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Robb" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>; "Francis Wood" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Nsplist NPS" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:46 AM
Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape
>
> What a fascinating thread!
> The problem I see with an inverted bag is getting the chanter
stock
> airtight in what amounts to a ridgy hole. It's bad enough with a
nice
> soft bag with the seam on the outside and the usual leather
wedges.
> I hate to admit it but the slightly deeper, shorter Northumbrian
style
> bag is far less comfortable the GHB style. The narrower profile
and
> sloped front of the latter makes hardly any left arm contact
with seam
> (which is what used to cause me discomfort).
> Barry's comment that the majority of his forearm is not in bag
contact
> at all makes me puzzled. I suppose if the bag neck was long
enough the
> forearm could be well below the bag and not in contact but
adopting
> such a position would surely make the wrists bend in two planes
at
> once. Is this not tiring after a while?
> Barry's other comment about getting the bag well up towards the
armpit
> is good advice but not a new idea. There is even a dialect
saying for
> this process, "oxter yor blether" (oxter being armpit and
blether
> being bag)!
> All perhaps another example of Bill Hedworth's gem , "Each has
to find
> their own salvation with this instrument!"
> --- On Wed, 27/1/10, Francis Wood <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> From: Francis Wood <[email protected]>
>
> Hello Alex and all,
> You seem to suggest that turning the bag inside out is unlikely.
> I have two reasons for disagreeing, firstly because I have done
so
> myself and secondly because I have seen many early bags
constructed in
> this way. You will find that this was the usual method if you
look at
> the available iconography or examine old examples. There has to
be a
> good reason why this was adopted for many different kinds of
pipes in
> different centuries and different countries.
>
> --
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
--
