Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ptsfa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!dual!ptsfa!rob
From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Newsgroups: net.nlang
Subject: Re: English Horns
Message-ID: <611@ptsfa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-May-85 22:36:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: ptsfa.611
Posted: Wed May  1 22:36:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 6-May-85 01:18:14 EDT
References: <1946@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo)
Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco
Lines: 28

In article <1946@decwrl.UUCP> callas@eris.DEC (The tea leaves never lie) writes:
>        ...  Your etymology is
>        correct, but your analysis isn't. Both the oboe and the english
>        horn are woodwind instruments. The term "horn" refers to brass
>        instruments.
>
In this case, it doesn't. Neither in the case of calling a saxophone a "horn."
I think what you meant to say it that in current usage among [classical?]
musicians and musicologists, the word "horn" is limited to brass instruments.
But when talking about the etymology of a word, one must keep in mind
different meanings of words to different groups of people in different
geographic and sociological and chronological situations.


-- 


Rob Bernardo, San Francisco, California
{nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob

	    	       _^__
	     	     ~/ \_.\
        _           ~/    \_\
      ~/ \_________~/   
     ~/  /\       /\ 
       _/  \     /  \
     _/      \ _/    \ 
              \      /