[Bell Historians] Re: bells in Canterbury during Chaucer's time?
aaspland at u-C30PhEzoyVJ2L4vaG9Ks2KRD64v2GMKzw1Qxcf3r8OgV9lM7Z8Ee9xKMwjnQK0rESo6m14Ct-fzS8.yahoo.invalid
Sun Jan 28 12:51:41 GMT 2007
No neither am I but in the French "montre" is both the verb "to show" and
the noun "watch". Maybe watch indicates the possibility of seeing the time
rather than the exclusion of striking a bell.
From: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
[mailto:bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of John Camp
Sent: 27 January 2007 19:48
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Re: bells in Canterbury during Chaucer's
At 16:07 on 22 January 2007, Andrew Aspland wrote:
> If you have a dial but no bell so you have to look at it to tell the
> time then you have a "watch".
I'm not wholly convinced by this. From the OED:
1610 SHAKESPEARE. Tempest. II. i. 12 Looke, hee's winding up the watch
of his wit, By and by it will strike.
1625 B. JONSON Staple of News. I. i, (He drawes foorth his watch, and
sets it on the table.) 't strikes! One, two, Three, foure, fiue, six.
Inough, inough, deare watch.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bell-historians