On 6 Jul 2001 16:58:01 -0700, jack@kanji.org (Jack Halpern) wrote:
>“Eenwielfiets” is what I learned from the Abrahams too, but then I think >someone told me it is incorrect and that “eenwieler” is the standard >term. I hope someone can clear this up.
I have tried to clear that up that up in a reply in the original thread.
Today I asked my unicycling daughters (aged 10 and 12) about synonyms, and
they came up with just two: WIELER (wheeler) used consistently by one girl
in her class. RARE FIETS (odd cycle) used rarely, for want of a more
specific term in ones vocabulary.
Because of the remarks stated, I would call none of these two a synonym.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked
automagically from a database:” “Pretty Good Privacy, espionage, cocaine”
> >I find myself frequently using terms like “cycling” rather than
“unicycling” > > >Likewise. I’ve ridden to work most of this week, and found that I just
tell >people I’ve “cycled”
Another ditto here. Sometimes it’s just much simpler that way.
P.S. I’m enjoying the lexicographical thread, but I must admit I’m more
interested in genuine terms inc. some misnomers, than “That
crazy/wobbly thing” (sic) (not worthy of the “list of terms”, IMO).
I have found that Monocycle is v. common (in English) even though its
origins are from other languages. No-one is really going to be erudite
enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction in usage between
a one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside.
On 8 Jul 2001 08:47:13 -0700, jack@kanji.org (Jack Halpern) wrote:
>around… I don’t have a copy of OED around (Webster’s Third doesn’t have >the etymology), but instinctively I would say that MONOCYCLE entered >English from Latin through French… if anyone of you does have OED, >please let me know (you cannot use the online version without >subscribing) the etymologies of both UNICYCLE and MONOCYCLE.
AAA. My copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary on PowerCD has the
following two entries:
==============
mon o cy cle
n.UNICYCLE
u ni cy cle
o.a one-wheeled vehicle straddled by the rider who pushes its pedals
u’ni cy’clist
p.
Etymology [[UNI- + (BI)CYCLE]]
I miss a few characters for syllabisation (SP?) and emphasis. Not very
informative but all I have. Interesting that monocycle and unicycle
are equated.
BBB. Google is my favorite too. Searching on “unicycle etymology” turned
up some old saved messages to a posting list by a chap called Jack
Halpern, as well as a.o. this (on The American Heritage® Dictionary of the
English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000):
SYLLABICATION: u·ni·cy·cle
NOUN : A vehicle consisting of a frame mounted over a single wheel and
usually propelled by pedals.
ETYMOLOGY: uni- + -cycle. perhaps on the model of bicycle
So the two sources agree in that the term derives from (the model of)
bicycle. Tell me if you are interested in what they have to say about the
etymology of bicycle.
Klaas Bil
“To trigger/fool/saturate/overload Echelon, the following has been picked
automagically from a database:” “Zyklon B, XTC, Peter Earnest”
dude wrote… >> >I find myself frequently using terms like “cycling” rather than >“unicycling” >> > >>Likewise. I’ve ridden to work most of this week, and found that I just >tell >>people I’ve “cycled”
>Another ditto here. Sometimes it’s just much simpler that way. > >P.S. I’m enjoying the lexicographical thread, but I must admit I’m more > interested in genuine terms inc. some misnomers, than "That > crazy/wobbly thing" (sic) (not worthy of the “list of terms”, IMO).
I can probably write a couple of pages on the theory of how to distinguish
what you call a genuine term from a description, but I will spare you the
pain (or joy). Worry not, the latter will not have the same status in the
database – in fact they won’t even be headwords. To rephrase in
lexicographic mumbo-jumbo – they won’t be lemmatized if they are
unlexicalized hapax legomenon (yes, that IS English). Don’t ask me to
explain this on the unicycling mailing list
>I have found that Monocycle is v. common (in English) even though its >origins are from other languages. No-one is really going to be erudite
I wonder how you know that it is from other languages. It may be the other
way around… I don’t have a copy of OED around (Webster’s Third doesn’t
have the etymology), but instinctively I would say that MONOCYCLE entered
English from Latin through French… if anyone of you does have OED,
please let me know (you cannot use the online version without subscribing)
the etymologies of both UNICYCLE and MONOCYCLE.
>enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction in usage >between a one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside.
I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be
attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE BOOK,
and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle. Speaking of
being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above the wheel
Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
>> In current English that is true. But I understand that sometime >> before the >fall of the >> Roman Empire the standard term in British English used to be >MONOCYCLE. >> I still hear it once in a while, but not from unicyclists. I wonder if >anyone knows when >> MONOCYCLE fell into disuse. By the way, there are many languages >> that use >some >> word similar to MONOCYCLE. Only one that I lknow, Spanish, “uniciclo”, >based on >> unicycle, though “monociclo” is also common, esp.in Spain, I think > >On our recent trip to Mexico, it was always monociclo, never uniciclo. >Can’t speak for Spain though, although I’ll be able to check it out >next year!
Muchas gracias, amigo monociclista! Yo creo que “uniciclo” se usa
solamente en Puerto Rico…
By the way, searching for MONOCYCLE in Google (my favorite, almost only,
search engine) and limiting the search to English gives 1090 hits. For
UNICYCLE, 26,100. For the former, there is some kind of “monocycle
generator”, and unexpectedly some French pages came through…
Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
> >I must admit I’m more interested in genuine terms inc. some > >misnomers, than “That crazy/wobbly thing” (sic) (not worthy of the > >“list of terms”, IMO).
Jack Halpern said:
>I can probably write a couple of pages on the theory of how to >distinguish what you call a genuine term from a description, but I will >spare you the pain (or joy). Worry not, the latter will not have the same >status in the database – in fact they won’t even be headwords.
dude:
Glad to hear it. That sounds ideal to me!
Jack Halpern:
>They won’t be lemmatized if they are unlexicalized hapax legomenon >(yes, that IS English).
Heh heh - I just love it all!
> >I have found that Monocycle is v. common (in English) even though its > >origins are from other languages.
Jack Halpern:
>I wonder how you know that it is from other languages.
My guess was that it was from French (& or other European languages that
are “spiced” with Latin)… this is just based on the sorts of people who
I have heard use the term “monocycle”. They were educated, articulate
folk, many with knowledge of other languages… rather than those groping
for a term and thus “inventing” one.
> >…distinction in usage between one wheel you are above and one wheel > >you are inside.
>Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above >the wheel
I can’t side-ride, but I still manage at times not to be above
the wheel!
Thanks, Jack, for sharing your expertise in such divergent areas!
> Jack Halpern wrote: > >You will probably be amazed to know that “unicycle” has I think more > >than 20 synonyms in English – I could post that list if people are > >interested. >
My son Woody is fairly well known here as a unicycle rider. Our neighbors
have a 3 year old boy named Noland who closely associates Woody with
unicycles. He calls them woodycycles. His mother told me a story where
Noland said he couldn’t wait until he was big enough to take the training
wheels off of his bicycle, and then take the other wheel off too so he
could have a woodycycle. Woody was the subject of a high school video
project that focused on his unicycling and had some really cool shots of
him doing some tricks. The project was very well done and was broadcast to
the entire school. It was very well received. In the piece they referred
to the unicycle as a “woodycycle”. Since then I have had several people,
whom I don’t know, point to my muni while I was out riding and say, “hey
look, a Woodycycle.”
Jack wrote: >Do you mean Rad is a colloquial form of Einrad in German? I am collecting
synonyms >for various languages and would like to hear form the German unicyclists
of what >variants they now for the standard Einrad.
Some german terms:
Einrad … one wheel, one-wheeler Zweirad … two wheeler (human powered +
motor powered) Fahrrad … Einrad + Zweirad + Tandem + … (human powered
only) Rad … wheel, short for Fahrrad
Rad fahren … go by Fahrrad radeln … go by Fahrrad Einrad fahren …
unicycling
I am not aware of any synonyms for “Einrad” in german. Some types of
unicyles do not even have german names (ultimate, impossible)
Very annoying is the fact, that people do not distinguish Hochrad
(Penny-Farthing) and Hoch-Einrad (Giraffe-Unicycle). Both commonly being
named Hochrad.
Riding a panny-farthing makes many people yell “look! a unicycle”
Georg Unicyclist& Penny-Farthing-rider in Vienna, Austria
Georg.Bachl@aral.at wrote… > >Jack wrote: >>Do you mean Rad is a colloquial form of Einrad in German? I am >>collecting >synonyms >>for various languages and would like to hear form the German >>unicyclists >of what >>variants they now for the standard Einrad. > >Some german terms: > >Einrad … one wheel, one-wheeler Zweirad … two wheeler (human powered >+ motor powered) Fahrrad … Einrad + Zweirad + Tandem + … (human >powered only) Rad … wheel, short for Fahrrad
So I guess this is not used as a synonym for Einrahd…
>Rad fahren … go by Fahrrad radeln … go by Fahrrad Einrad fahren … >unicycling
Not einradfahren? Perhaps there is a space in accordance with the new
German orthographic reforms.
> >I am not aware of any synonyms for “Einrad” in german. Some types of >unicyles do not even have german names (ultimate, impossible) > > >Very annoying is the fact, that people do not distinguish Hochrad >(Penny-Farthing) and Hoch-Einrad (Giraffe-Unicycle). Both commonly being >named Hochrad.
Yes, I have heard Hochrad for giraffe (we don’t say giraffe-unicycle) in
Germany. I didn’t know it also referred to a penny-farthing. Danke schoen!
> > >Riding a panny-farthing makes many people yell “look! a unicycle” > >Georg Unicyclist& Penny-Farthing-rider in Vienna, Austria > > >
Regards, Jack Halpern President, The CJK Dictionary Institute, Inc. http://www.cjk.org Phone: +81-48-473-3508
Jack wrote: >Georg.Bachl@aral.at wrote… >> >>Jack wrote: >>>Do you mean Rad is a colloquial form of Einrad in German? I am
collecting >>synonyms >>>for various languages and would like to hear form the German
unicyclists >>of what >>>variants they now for the standard Einrad. >> >>Some german terms: >> >>Einrad … one wheel, one-wheeler Zweirad … two wheeler (human >>powered + motor powered) Fahrrad … Einrad + Zweirad + Tandem + … >>(human powered only) Rad … wheel, short for Fahrrad > >So I guess this is not used as a synonym for Einrahd…
Rad may be used for any type of Fahrrad, but the average person would
assume a human powered bycicle.
>>Einrad fahren … unicycling > >Not einradfahren? Perhaps there is a space in accordance with the new >German orthographic reforms.
Yes. But I have to confess I don’t know which one is old/new orthography.
Some more german terms [off topic]: Radler … Person going by Fahrrad
Radler … Half beer/half lemonade … uaaaaeee
Georg Unicyclist& Penny-Farthing-rider in Vienna, Austria
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
> >enought (or pedantic enough) to really make a distinction > in usage between a > >one wheel you are above and one wheel you are inside. > > I always wondered where that distinction came from and if it can be > attested. The only source I know for it is Jack Wiley’s THE UNICYCLE > BOOK, and I repeated it in my booklet Anyone Can Ride a Unicycle.
Yes, I think any usage among us “organized” unicyclists, in the USA, IUF
and newsgroup, comes from Jack Wiley’s suggestion. Whether he made it up
or picked it up from someplace else I do not know. But I think it’s a fine
distinction for us unicyclists to use amongst ourselves.
An interesting thing about most monocycles I’ve seen is that their
makers/riders/owners are often not connected to the unicycling world. I
think part of this is because most monocycle vehicles do not require the
same level of skill to ride, or at least not the same skillset.
I tried several times to ride the monocycle that was for sale at UNICON X
in China. With more time, I would have figured it out much more easily
than a beginner learning to ride a standard unicycle. Other monocycles
have engines on them which may or may not make them easier to ride, but
certainly makes them more dangerous…
> Speaking of being pedantic, when you are side-riding you are not above > the wheel
Uh oh, Jack has given us a hint that he is not a side-rider Of
course your weight is above the wheel. Otherwise you would fall over.
The wheel is a little crooked, and generally your body is a lot crooked,
but if you’re going in a straight line you have to be above the wheel
for it to work.
