correct+problem

lébed' `swan' [m jo], lébedja [Gens]

ɫabędź `swan' [m jo];

ɫabęć (dial.) `swan' [m jo]

ɫabęć `swan' [m jo];

ɫabęć `swan' [f i]

lȁbūd `swan' [m o];

lȅbūt (arch.) `swan' [m o];

Čak. lȁbūd (Vrgada) `swan' [m o]

labǫ́d `swan' [m o];

lebę́d `swan' [m o];

lobǫ́d `swan' [m o]

IE meaning: swan

Certainty: +

Comments: If the PSl. reconstruction *olb- is correct, the fact that the root shape*lab- occurs outside South Slavic and Central Slovak suggests that we are dealing with an originally acute root (cf. Meillet 1934: 83), which would be in conflict with the traditional etymology that the etymon derives from a root*h₂elbʰ- `white'. Unless one adheres to the view that a lengthened grade yields an acute in Balto-Slavic, a reconstruction *h₂lōbʰ- (with Schwebeablaut) does not solve the problem. Apart from the etymology, the distribution of the reflexes * la- and * lo- needs to be explained. It is possible to argue that the reflex * le- in Ru. lébed' (perhaps from * lo- before a soft labial, cf. tebe < tobě) continues the short reflex of * ol- in the oxytone forms of a mobile paradigm, but there is no such explanation for the West Slavic forms. Kortlandt (2005: 128) makes an attempt to account for the facts while starting from the hypothesis that the etymon originally belonged to AP (a) and only became mobile after the rise of distinctive tone and the South Slavic lengthening of initial vowels before tautosyllabic resonants.

OHG albiz, elbiz `swan';

OE aelbitu, ielfetu `swan' [f];

OIc. elptr, ǫlpt `swan' [f]

Grammatical information: v.

Meaning: `slacken' (Antiph., Phot., AB [= ἐν- δίδωμι]); λαγγάζει ὀκνεῖ, οἱ δε λαγγεῖ; λαγγάσαι περιφυγεῖν H.

Derivatives: Other formations in H.: λαγγεύει φεύγει, λαγγανώμενος περιϊστάμενος, στραγγευόμενος (cf. Schwyzer 700γ), λαγγαρεῖ ἀποδιδράσκει (correct?). - λαγγών ( λάγγων?) ὁ εὑθὺς λανθάνων τοῦ ἀγῶνος καὶ τοῦ φόβου EM 554, 15 (cf. Chantraine Form. 160). - Also with - ο-: λογγάζω, λογγάσαι. s.v.

Origin: PG [a word of Pre-Greek origin]X [probably]

Etymology: Expressive -popular words, which agree formally and semantically to Lat. langueō, - ēre `be faint, slack' (with sec. -u-) and like this can be understood as nasalized present formations to λαγά-σαι ( λαγαίω); cf. Kretschmer Glotta 11, 235 (to Bogiatzides Άρχ. Έφ. 27, 115ff.); partly diff. We must separate several Baltic words with the meaning `rock, sling, vacillate', e. g. Lith. langóti, lingúoti (WP. 2, 436); s. Fraenkel Wb. 331 (s. láigyti); thus Germ., e. g. OHG slinc ' link', Swed. etc. linka, lanka, lunka `limp, go slowly etc.', s. WP. 2, 713, Pok. 959f., W.-Hofmann s. langueō. Same problem as λαγαίω, s.v. Does the form with - ο- point to Pre-Greek?

Page in Frisk: 2,68-69

Grammatical information: n.

Meaning: `ear'; metaph. `handle'(Il.; IA).

Other forms: ὦς (Theoc., hell.). Gen. ὠτός, nom. acc. pl. ὦτα etc. (IA.), οὔατος, - ατα etc., with n. a. sg. οὖας (Simon.); besides ἆτα (cod. ἄτα) ὦτα. Ταραντῖνοι H.; prob. also sg. αὖς (Paul. Fest. 100, 4; Wackernagel IF 45, 312ff. = Kl. Schr. 2, 1252ff.); further details on the inflexion in Schwyzer 520.

Dialectal forms: Myc. anowoto; also anowe like ἀμφ-ώης `with two ears or handles' (Theoc.; ἄμφ-ωτος Od.).

Compounds: Compp., e.g. ὠτ-ακουστέω `to eavesdrop, to listen, to attend' (Hdt., X., D., Plb.), compound of ὠτὶ ἀκουστόν (opposite ἀν-ηκουστέω: οὑκ ἀκουστόν; cf. ἀμνηστέω and Schwyzer 726; not correct Fraenkel Nom. ag. 2, 68), with ὠτακουστής m. `eavesdropper, listener' (Arist.); ἀν-ούατος `without ears, without handles' (Theoc.), ἄ-ωτος `id.' (Philet., Plu.); μυόσ-ωτ-ον ( μύ-ωτον) n., - ίς f. "mouse-ear" (the plant) `madwort, Asperugo', from μυὸς ὦτα `id.' (Dsc.; Strömberg Pfl.namen 42). On λαγώς s. v.

Derivatives: ὠτ-ίον n. `handle, ear' (Theopomp. Com., LXX, NT), - άριον n. `id.' (com. IV^a); οὑατ-όεις `with ears, handles' (Simon., Call.; also in Hom. a. Hes. for ὠτώεις to be reconstructed; Wackernagel Unt. 168f.), ὠτ-ικός `belonging to the ear' (Gal., Dsc.). Also ὠτ-ίς, - ίδος f. `bustard' (X., Arist.; after the cheek-plumes or the tuft?; Thompson Birds s.v.); besides ὦτ-ος m. `eared owl' (Arist.; after the ear-plumes). -- On ἐνῴδιον, ἐνώτιον s. v.

Origin: IE [Indo-European] [785] *h₂(e\/o)us- `ear'.

Etymology: The pair οὖς, ὦς (cf. βοῦς, βῶς) can be derived from IE * ōus; Lat. aur-is, aus-cultō a.o. contain an e-grade (* h₂eus-), which may also be found in ἆτα from *αὔσ-ατα; s. also on ἀάνθα. To be noted old Att. ΟΣ, which seems to point to a contraction; one wanted to construct (since J. Schmidt Pluralbild. 407) a basis * ous-os, for which a support was seen in OCS ucho n. `ear', gen. ušes-e ; but it is also possible to read ὦς (after ὠτός etc.). The other forms can without problem be derived from IE * ōus-n-tos etc. with diff. phonetic developments, s. the extensive treatment in Schwyzer 520 a. 348, WP. 1,18 w. rich lit. The in οὔ-α-τος incorporated n-enlargement is also found in Arm. un-kn (with -kn after akn `eye'; so not comparable with ὠκίδες ἐνώτια H.) and in Germ., e.g. Goth. auso, ausin-s. -- From the further forms are especially notable the old duals Av. uš-i (IE * h₂us-ī, with zero grade); OCS uš-ī (IE * h₂us-ī ). Further details from diff. languages w. rich lit. in WP. (s. ab.), Pok. 785, W.-Hofmann and Ernout-Meillet s. auris, Vasmer s. úcho; older lit. also in Bq. -- (See also παρειαί, παρήϊον; not here ἀκούω, ἀκροάομαι.)

Page in Frisk: 2,448-449

the inability of some computer systems to recognize the year 2000 as a date. The millennium bug arose from the computer programming practice of using two digits to represent a year. It was thought that this could cause great problems when digital clocks turned from 1999 to 2000, because computers would read 00 and cease to function. The millennium bug was thought to affect any business system that used electronically generated date information. Speculation on what would happen sparked fears of global disaster. Much work was conducted in the late 1990s in order to correct the problem and systems that did not have the bug were referred to as Y2K-compliant, Y2K being shorthand for Year 2000. In the event, the anticipated disaster did not occur.

SUBJECT AREA: Chemical technology, Land transport

[br]

[br]

[br]

Goodyear entered his father's country hardware business before setting up his own concern in Philadelphia. While visiting New York, he noticed in the window of the Roxburgh India Rubber Company a rubber life-preserver. Goodyear offered to improve its inflating valve, but the manager, impressed with Goodyear's inventiveness, persuaded him to tackle a more urgent problem, that of seeking a means of preventing rubber from becoming tacky and from melting or decomposing when heated. Goodyear tried treatments with one substance after another, without success. In 1838 he started using Nathaniel M.Hayward's process of spreading sulphur on rubber. He accidentally dropped a mass of rubber and sulphur on to a hot stove and noted that the mixture did not melt: Goodyear had discovered the vulcanization of rubber. More experiments were needed to establish the correct proportions for a uniform mix, and eventually he was granted his celebrated patent no. 3633 of 15 June 1844. Goodyear's researches had been conducted against a background of crippling financial difficulties and he was forced to dispose of licences to vulcanize rubber at less than their real value, in order to pay off his most pressing debts.

Goodyear travelled to Europe in 1851 to extend his patents. To promote his process, he designed a spectacular exhibit for London, consisting of furniture, floor covering, jewellery and other items made of rubber. A similar exhibit in Paris in 1855 won him the Grande Médaille d'honneur and the Croix de la Légion d'honneur from Napoleon III. Patents were granted to him in all countries except England. The improved properties of vulcanized rubber and its stability over a much wider range of temperatures greatly increased its applications; output rose from a meagre 31.5 tonnes a year in 1827 to over 28,000 tonnes by 1900. Even so, Goodyear profited little from his invention, and he bequeathed to his family debts amounting to over $200,000.

[br]

SUBJECT AREA: Textiles

[br]

[br]

[br]

Heathcote was the son of a small farmer who became blind, obliging the family to move to Long Whatton, near Loughborough, c.1790. He was apprenticed to W.Shepherd, a hosiery-machine maker, and became a frame-smith in the hosiery industry. He moved to Nottingham where he entered the employment of an excellent machine maker named Elliott. He later joined William Caldwell of Hathern, whose daughter he had married. The lace-making apparatus they patented jointly in 1804 had already been anticipated, so Heathcote turned to the problem of making pillow lace, a cottage industry in which women made lace by arranging pins stuck in a pillow in the correct pattern and winding around them thread contained on thin bobbins. He began by analysing the complicated hand-woven lace into simple warp and weft threads and found he could dispense with half the bobbins. The first machine he developed and patented, in 1808, made narrow lace an inch or so wide, but the following year he made much broader lace on an improved version. In his second patent, in 1809, he could make a type of net curtain, Brussels lace, without patterns. His machine made bobbin-net by the use of thin brass discs, between which the thread was wound. As they passed through the warp threads, which were arranged vertically, the warp threads were moved to each side in turn, so as to twist the bobbin threads round the warp threads. The bobbins were in two rows to save space, and jogged on carriages in grooves along a bar running the length of the machine. As the strength of this fabric depended upon bringing the bobbin threads diagonally across, in addition to the forward movement, the machine had to provide for a sideways movement of each bobbin every time the lengthwise course was completed. A high standard of accuracy in manufacture was essential for success. Called the "Old Loughborough", it was acknowledged to be the most complicated machine so far produced. In partnership with a man named Charles Lacy, who supplied the necessary capital, a factory was established at Loughborough that proved highly successful; however, their fifty-five frames were destroyed by Luddites in 1816. Heathcote was awarded damages of £10,000 by the county of Nottingham on the condition it was spent locally, but to avoid further interference he decided to transfer not only his machines but his entire workforce elsewhere and refused the money. In a disused woollen factory at Tiverton in Devonshire, powered by the waters of the river Exe, he built 300 frames of greater width and speed. By continually making inventions and improvements until he retired in 1843, his business flourished and he amassed a large fortune. He patented one machine for silk cocoon-reeling and another for plaiting or braiding. In 1825 he brought out two patents for the mechanical ornamentation or figuring of lace. He acquired a sound knowledge of French prior to opening a steam-powered lace factory in France. The factory proved to be a successful venture that lasted many years. In 1832 he patented a monstrous steam plough that is reputed to have cost him over £12,000 and was claimed to be the best in its day. One of its stated aims was "improved methods of draining land", which he hoped would develop agriculture in Ireland. A cable was used to haul the implement across the land. From 1832 to 1859, Heathcote represented Tiverton in Parliament and, among other benefactions, he built a school for his adopted town.

[br]

ἐπιποθέω fut. ἐπιποθήσω; 1 aor. ἐπεπόθησα (ποθέω ‘long for’, s. next entry; Hdt. et al.; LXX, Philo) to have a strong desire for someth., with implication of need, long for, desire τὶ someth. (Pla., Protag. 329d; Plut., Agis 798 [6, 2]; Lucian, D. Deor. 4, 3; Ps 118:131, 174; Tat. 20, 1) γάλα milk 1 Pt 2:2. τινά someone (Hdt. 5, 93; Diod S 17, 101, 6; Epict. 3, 24, 53; Sir 25:21) πάντας ὑμᾶς Phil 1:8; 2:26 (v.l. π. ὑ. ἰδεῖν). ὑμᾶς 2 Cor 9:14. W. inf. foll. (Philo, Abr. 87 ἐ. θεὸν ἀνευρεῖν) τὸ οἰκητήριον ἐπενδύσασθαι 2 Cor 5:2. ἰδεῖν τινα Ro 1:11; 1 Th 3:6; 2 Ti 1:4. πρὸς φθόνον ἐπιποθεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα Js 4:5 is difficult because of the problem posed by uncertainty in the tradition concerning the correct reading of the verb: κατοικίζω text (causative) and κατοικέω v.l. (intr.), but the mng. of the verb is clear; if κατῴκισεν is read, one can render either the spirit that (God) has caused to dwell in us yearns jealously or (God) yearns jealously over the spirit that he has put in us; if κατῴκησεν the spirit that has taken up abode in us yearns jealously. See MDibelius ad loc. (w. lit.). AMeyer, D. Rätsel des Jk 1930, 258f; ASchlatter, D. Brief d. Jak. ’32, 248–53.—CSpicq, RB 64, ’57, 184–95. B. 1162. TW. Spicq. Sv.