From: roger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Less versus Fewer: Toeing Victory!
Date: 23 Aug 92 05:14:09 GMT
Distribution: all
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug22.204040.3700@desire.wright.edu> thayes@desire.wright.edu writes:
>Roger> You asserted that I make _prima facie_
>> rejections of authorities I don't like.  In the stuff you qoute below, I
>> cite two authorities, but I don't reject anything, whether out of hand
>Roger> or otherwise.

>I recall that you did this.  I believe that I am correct.  Regardless, you end
>up doing it anyway below!

Like, chill out, dude!  I merely asked some questions.  I haven't made
any final statement about this issue, though someone else (Gabe, I
believe) posted an informative, credible entry in Partridge that was at
variance with my sources.  I already noted in my reply that I found that
convincing.

>Roger> "toe the mark" or "toe the line" refers to the runner's adherence to the
>> rules at the start of the race.
>Roger> SOURCES:  AHD, Evans and Evans.

>TH>I learned the phrase "toe the line" as a description of what happened in 
>>Parliament.  That is, one would "toe the line" -- anybody know whether there
>>is a physical line involved? -- of one's political party to identify oneself
>TH>with the party's views, etc.  

>Roger> Right; that's called the party line.  (So is a phone with extensions in
>> several homes; I wonder which came first.  Don't have an OED around.)
>> But which came first?  Did "Toe the (party) line" derive metaphorically
>> from "toe the (starting) line"?  Or punningly, as the case may be? I bet
>> it is, because there's no reason for MP's to put their toes on anything
>Roger> in particular, is there?

>I don't know whether toeing the starting line gave rise to toeing the party
>line.  I don't recall the OED saying anything on the issue.  But so what?  They 
>could be equally valid and completely unrelated (except by virtue of describing
>the actual motor movement).  

Occam's razor suggests that we consider that possibility second, don't
you think?

>The party telephone line, again, is likely to be
>completely unrelated because there is no motor movement involved --
>having several people on the line at once is a party! (unless you're paying
>$.95/minute for it)

Huh?  I was only connecting the two "party lines."  Nothing to do with
toeing -- and you can have a party line without anyone toeing it, too!
Either kind.

[deletion]
>TH>For Roger's benefit, here are my "authorities": OED mentions both 
>>the racer and politico connotations, while the *Oxford dictionary of 
>TH>current idiomatic English* mentions only the political toeing.

>Roger> Right, because racers now put their hands behind the line, or at least
>> the sprinters do.  But which came first, I wonder?  The OED might have
>Roger> an early citation.  Is it running or voting?

>SO WHAT? 

So what what?  The OED will tell us which usage came first, that's all.
They're good at  that.  Devote their lives to it.

> Here's where your expert envy shines through, Roger.  These lines
>could be *COMPLETELY UNRELATED*, AND RUNNING/POLITICS could BOTH give rise to
>the same idiom. 

And one of them could actually be the anagram of something obscene.  But
that's pretty unlikely, don't you think?  That the same idiom arises
twice, *without* the two geneses (Cream ale for me, please) being
related?

> As I mentioned, the second source I cited had only the
>political source listed.  I think the OED has the running cite first, but also
>has a distinct list of political usages.  Plus I still don't know if there was
>an actual line involved in the Parliamentary etymology.  BUT a dear friend, a
>historian now, once told me there was, so there.

Fascinating.  I'm glad to know.  

If the two idioms arose separately, it would be a real language event,
believe me.  

>(can't get to the library right now, so no dates from the OED, OK?)

>So now are you going to tell me that the idiomatic dictionary example is
>inferior?  It's an expert source, a very fine one too, and it doesn't list the
>racing example, BUT why is this expert suspect? 

Like, dude, chill out totally!

Nobody's suspect.  I just wanted to know more.  And I apologize for
being vague there; I wasn't rejecting any dates out of hand, merely
excusing my failure to post them myself.

>Plus, since most uses of toe
>the line occur in the sense of "follow the party platform" and not "move now to
>the same starting point as everyone else," I SAY that toe the line is best --
>but not exclusively -- understood in the Parliamentary interpretation.  

Around here we understand it in the more general sense of enforced
discipline, which could come from either one, don't you think?

>And I have an expert source too!

Good for you.  Gabe has one I really like, because it's thorough, or
seems to be.

>What about your expert sources (evans & evans, AHD)?  Roger, we can respect
>them, we can even collaborate their sources -- vide OED -- 

or collate them, which would work better...

>but we can say that
>they are not 100% correct (see "my" expert source) except in narrow
>circumstances and we'll be right 95% of the time with our interpretation. 

Huh?  

>Which is better than being right 5% of the time with the AHD's call on this.

Double huh?

>At other times we may cede to the expertise of the AHD etc., but not today.  
>And that's OK.

What's this "cede" stuff?  You use expert sources to make *yourself*
expert.  You read what others say, consider their reasoning and
evidence, and then make up your own mind.  

Or don't they do things like that where you come from?

>Roger> At any rate, it's nothing to do with barges.

>Roger> 8-) yerself!

>Now *there's* a polite motto for this group!

Use it in good health...

Roger