From a book I've just been reading:

"The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."

This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?

[1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first published in
1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial
from September 1932 to February 1933.

For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by Philip
Wylie & Edwin Balmer.

In another thread we've mentioned scientific plausibility in SF. This
one scores well for its era. I do have my doubts about the dynamics. It
is possible, I suppose, that an external body could collide with earth's
moon as it came in, and then hit the earth after rounding the sun, but
it would take a major coincidence. Also, it seems unlikely to me that
astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
that would result after the first collision.

One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an atomic-powered
rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of beryllium.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:54:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
> From a book I've just been reading:
>
> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."
>
> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=everyone%2C+every+one&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=0

tinyurl.com/wm26s45m

> [1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first published in
> 1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial
> from September 1932 to February 1933.
>
> For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by Philip
> Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
>
> In another thread we've mentioned scientific plausibility in SF. This
> one scores well for its era. I do have my doubts about the dynamics. It
> is possible, I suppose, that an external body could collide with earth's
> moon as it came in, and then hit the earth after rounding the sun, but
> it would take a major coincidence.

Pool sharks can be very impressive.

> Also, it seems unlikely to me that
> astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
> that would result after the first collision.

Yes, that seems a bit much.

> One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an atomic-powered
> rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of beryllium.

The process is actually exothermic.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

--
Jerry Friedman

On 25/12/22 10:11, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:54:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan
> wrote:

>> One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an
>> atomic-powered rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of
>> beryllium.
>
> The process is actually exothermic.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

Thanks.
>
I've learnt something new. I don't see beryllium on that graph,
but I take your point that there is a zigzag on the graph.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Saturday, Jerry Friedman queried:
> On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:54:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> Also, it seems unlikely to me that
>> astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
>> that would result after the first collision.
>
> Yes, that seems a bit much.

They underestimated the orbital change of Dimorphus from something much
smaller than a moon, even with better calculating machines.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

On 24/12/2022 23:54, Peter Moylan wrote:
> From a book I've just been reading:
>
> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."
>
> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?

I feel the premise of your question presumes 'everyone' is the same as
'every one'. It isn't for me.

If it were so, the two terms would be swappable. Counter example:

"Every one of the samples was contaminated."

"Is everyone present?"

I have no problem substituting 'everyone' with 'every one' (at a wince).
However, the other way around does not work for me.

>
> [1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first published in
> 1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial
> from September 1932 to February 1933.
>
> For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by Philip
> Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
>
> In another thread we've mentioned scientific plausibility in SF. This
> one scores well for its era. I do have my doubts about the dynamics. It
> is possible, I suppose, that an external body could collide with earth's
> moon as it came in, and then hit the earth after rounding the sun, but
> it would take a major coincidence. Also, it seems unlikely to me that
> astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
> that would result after the first collision.
>
> One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an atomic-powered
> rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of beryllium.
>

On 25/12/22 20:07, occam wrote:
> On 24/12/2022 23:54, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> From a book I've just been reading:
>>
>> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."
>>
>> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
>> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?
>
>
> I feel the premise of your question presumes 'everyone' is the same as
> 'every one'. It isn't for me.
>
> If it were so, the two terms would be swappable. Counter example:
>
> "Every one of the samples was contaminated."
>
> "Is everyone present?"
>
> I have no problem substituting 'everyone' with 'every one' (at a wince).
> However, the other way around does not work for me.

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. In the sentence I quoted, it was
clear from context that the intended meaning was the one that we now
write as "everyone".

In today's English we distinguish between the two, writing "everyone"
for one meaning and "every one" for the other. There was, however, a
time when "every one", with a space, was used for both meanings. What I
don't know is when the change happened, and how abruptly or gradually it
happened.

Jerry's ngram does not entirely help here, because the counts for "every
one" would include both meanings. I can't think of any easy way to
filter out phrases like your "every one of the samples".

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, Jerry Friedman queried:
> > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:54:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >> Also, it seems unlikely to me that
> >> astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
> >> that would result after the first collision.
> >
> > Yes, that seems a bit much.
>
> They underestimated the orbital change of Dimorphus from something much
> smaller than a moon, even with better calculating machines.

Deliberately I guess, for the sake of a triumphant claim
of 'much larger than expected'. It's NASA, remember?

Jan

Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> From a book I've just been reading:
>
> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."
>
> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?
>
> [1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first published in
> 1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial
> from September 1932 to February 1933.
>
> For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by Philip
> Wylie & Edwin Balmer.

Why would you want to reread crap like that?

> In another thread we've mentioned scientific plausibility in SF. This
> one scores well for its era. I do have my doubts about the dynamics. It
> is possible, I suppose, that an external body could collide with earth's
> moon as it came in, and then hit the earth after rounding the sun, but
> it would take a major coincidence. Also, it seems unlikely to me that
> astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
> that would result after the first collision.
>
> One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an atomic-powered
> rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of beryllium.

Here it is:
====
The breech of each of these little tubes,"-at that point Hendron turned
a wheel with a handle on it, and the rear of one of the tubes slowly
opened,-"is provided with the tubes which generate the rays that split
atoms of beryllium into their protons and nuclei.
====

One wonders what nuclei are left after the protons have been removed.
Pure Neutronium, I guess,

Jan

Den 25.12.2022 kl. 12.45 skrev Peter Moylan:

> Jerry's ngram does not entirely help here, because the counts for "every
> one" would include both meanings. I can't think of any easy way to
> filter out phrases like your "every one of the samples".

Would "everyone of,every one of" work?

--
Bertel

On 12/24/2022 5:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> From a book I've just been reading:

> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to
> work."

> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?

Surely before 1932.

They use the same form again, on a page Gooboo won't identify: "It would
have been a terrible period for every one".

> [1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first published
> in 1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly
> serial from September 1932 to February 1933.

> For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by
> Philip Wylie & Edwin Balmer.

> In another thread we've mentioned scientific plausibility in SF.
> This one scores well for its era. I do have my doubts about the
> dynamics. It is possible, I suppose, that an external body could
> collide with earth's moon as it came in, and then hit the earth after
> rounding the sun, but it would take a major coincidence. Also, it
> seems unlikely to me that astronomers could accurately predict the
> trajectory, well ahead of time, that would result after the first
> collision.

> One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an
> atomic-powered rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of
> beryllium.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 6:24:56 AM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 25.12.2022 kl. 12.45 skrev Peter Moylan:
>
> > Jerry's ngram does not entirely help here, because the counts for "every
> > one" would include both meanings. I can't think of any easy way to
> > filter out phrases like your "every one of the samples".

> Would "everyone of,every one of" work?

It's a good idea, but I don't think it would work as stated, since then
you're seeing just a small minority of the hits on "everyone" (mostly
"everyone, of course", I imagine--ngram search ignores commas).
You could try comparing "everyone" to "every one - every one of".

Another method is to assume that the tail of the "every one" graph
in modern times consists almost entirely of examples of "every one"
that don't mean "everyone", and mentally subtract a rough average
value of the tail from the "every one" curve. There might even be a
way to get the software to subtract it. Hm...looks as if that might be
hard or impossible.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:02:35 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, Jerry Friedman queried:
> > > On Saturday, December 24, 2022 at 3:54:45 PM UTC-7, Peter Moylan wrote:

> > >> Also, it seems unlikely to me that
> > >> astronomers could accurately predict the trajectory, well ahead of time,
> > >> that would result after the first collision.
> > > Yes, that seems a bit much.
> > They underestimated the orbital change of Dimorphus from something much
> > smaller than a moon, even with better calculating machines.
>
> Deliberately I guess, for the sake of a triumphant claim
> of 'much larger than expected'. It's NASA, remember?

Not in 1932, it isn't.

You even invent nonsense to say something nasty about America.

On 25/12/2022 12:45, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 25/12/22 20:07, occam wrote:
>> On 24/12/2022 23:54, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>  From a book I've just been reading:
>>>
>>> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."
>>>
>>> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
>>> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?
>>
>>
>> I feel the premise of your question presumes 'everyone' is the same as
>> 'every one'. It isn't for me.
>>
>> If it were so, the two terms would be swappable. Counter example:
>>
>> "Every one of the samples was contaminated."
>>
>> "Is everyone present?"
>>
>> I have no problem substituting 'everyone' with 'every one' (at a wince).
>> However, the other way around does not work for me.
>
> Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. In the sentence I quoted, it was
> clear from context that the intended meaning was the one that we now
> write as "everyone".
>
> In today's English we distinguish between the two, writing "everyone"
> for one meaning and "every one" for the other. There was, however, a
> time when "every one", with a space, was used for both meanings. What I
> don't know is when the change happened, and how abruptly or gradually it
> happened.

>
> Jerry's ngram does not entirely help here, because the counts for "every
> one" would include both meanings. I can't think of any easy way to
> filter out phrases like your "every one of the samples".

Perhaps this variation of Jerry's ngram helps:

https://tinyurl.com/2necer9d

* The ratio of the use of 'everyone' v. 'every one' is pretty level
until 1860.

Between 1860 and 1927 (Jerry's ngram) https://tinyurl.com/wm26s45m

* The rate of decrease of 'every one' is matched by the rate of increase
of 'everyone', until 1927 (the cross-over point).

My conclusion: "Everyone"s gain is "every one"s loss. The start point
of the shift is 1860, or thereabouts.

>

Den 25.12.2022 kl. 15.51 skrev Jerry Friedman:

> "everyone, of course", I imagine--ngram search ignores commas).

It doesn't. The comma separates the search parameters. "A B" gives you
one curve. "A,B" gives you two.

(as you probably actually knew)

--
Bertel

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 12:14:08 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> Den 25.12.2022 kl. 15.51 skrev Jerry Friedman:
>
> > "everyone, of course", I imagine--ngram search ignores commas).
> It doesn't. The comma separates the search parameters. "A B" gives you
> one curve. "A,B" gives you two.
>
> (as you probably actually knew)

Yes, I meant that it ignores commas in the books, so a search for
"everyone of" will get hits on "everyone, of course".

--
Jerry Friedman

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 3:21:48 PM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 12:14:08 PM UTC-7, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
> > Den 25.12.2022 kl. 15.51 skrev Jerry Friedman:

> > > "everyone, of course", I imagine--ngram search ignores commas).
> > It doesn't. The comma separates the search parameters. "A B" gives you
> > one curve. "A,B" gives you two.
> > (as you probably actually knew)
>
> Yes, I meant that it ignores commas in the books, so a search for
> "everyone of" will get hits on "everyone, of course".

Would there be many confounding examples along the lines of "everyone
of a certain persuasion ..."?

On 25/12/22 23:02, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>> From a book I've just been reading:
>>
>> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to
>> work."
>>
>> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or
>> any one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?
>>
>> [1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first
>> published in 1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a
>> monthly serial from September 1932 to February 1933.
>>
>> For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by
>> Philip Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
>
> Why would you want to reread crap like that?

Most SF of that era is crap, but that particular book is well written.
The main part I found hard to stomach was the social assumptions. It was
taken for granted that a sample of the upper classes should be saved,
but I think the only lower-class person to be rescued was the
stock-broker's "Jap servant".

A more serious answer to your question is that most of my fiction
reading these days is from my own bookshelves, and it's a good idea to
pick the books that I read so long ago that I've forgotten the content.

>> One detail that sticks out like a sore thumb is that an atomic-powered
>> rocket ship is powered by splitting atoms of beryllium.
>
> Here it is:
> ====
> The breech of each of these little tubes,"-at that point Hendron turned
> a wheel with a handle on it, and the rear of one of the tubes slowly
> opened,-"is provided with the tubes which generate the rays that split
> atoms of beryllium into their protons and nuclei.
> ====
>
> One wonders what nuclei are left after the protons have been removed.
> Pure Neutronium, I guess,

I did notice that, but I passed it over as a simple slip. It's very easy
to think "neutrons" and have your fingers write "nuclei".

As for the actual nature of the split: fission was very poorly
understood at that date.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Le 24/12/2022 à 22:54, Peter Moylan a écrit :
> From a book I've just been reading:
>
> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to work."
>
> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any
> one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word? [...]

The OED's earliest examples are joined, including this one dating back
to 1250: "Muchel neod is ðet /euerichon/ holde mid oðer. mid bisie
bonen" (my emphasis), so rather before 1932. Its early examples of
'everybody', on the other hand, are split.

On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 25/12/22 23:02, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> >> From a book I've just been reading:
> >> "The President requested that on the morrow every one return to
> >> work."
> >> This is a book published in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or
> >> any one) have a feel for when "everyone" became s single word?
> >> [1] At least, my copy says 1932. Google says it was first
> >> published in 1933. Ah, wait. Wikipaedia says it was published as a
> >> monthly serial from September 1932 to February 1933.
> >> For those who want to check my source. /When Worlds Collide/, by
> >> Philip Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
> > Why would you want to reread crap like that?
>
> Most SF of that era is crap, but that particular book is well written.
> The main part I found hard to stomach was the social assumptions. It was
> taken for granted that a sample of the upper classes should be saved,
> but I think the only lower-class person to be rescued was the
> stock-broker's "Jap servant".
>
> A more serious answer to your question is that most of my fiction
> reading these days is from my own bookshelves, and it's a good idea to
> pick the books that I read so long ago that I've forgotten the content.

My local library had an enormous hardcover of both *When Worlds
Collide* and *After Worlds Collide*. I think I had to renew it at least
once. I remember absolutely nothing about the content.

In article <99cc038f-712e-4f8a-864f-a058b0dfa4efn@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 25/12/22 23:02, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> > >> From a book I've just been reading: "The President requested that
> > >> on the morrow every one return to work." This is a book published
> > >> in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any one) have a feel for
> > >> when "everyone" became s single word? [1] At least, my copy says
> > >> 1932. Google says it was first published in 1933. Ah, wait.
> > >> Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial from September
> > >> 1932 to February 1933. For those who want to check my source. /When
> > >> Worlds Collide/, by Philip Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
> > > Why would you want to reread crap like that?
> >
> > Most SF of that era is crap, but that particular book is well written.
> > The main part I found hard to stomach was the social assumptions. It
> > was taken for granted that a sample of the upper classes should be
> > saved, but I think the only lower-class person to be rescued was the
> > stock-broker's "Jap servant".
> >
> > A more serious answer to your question is that most of my fiction
> > reading these days is from my own bookshelves, and it's a good idea to
> > pick the books that I read so long ago that I've forgotten the content.

> My local library had an enormous hardcover of both *When Worlds Collide*
> and *After Worlds Collide*. I think I had to renew it at least once. I
> remember absolutely nothing about the content.

by Velikovski?

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 2022-12-26 16:14:06 +0000, charles said:

> In article <99cc038f-712e-4f8a-864f-a058b0dfa4efn@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 25/12/22 23:02, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>>> From a book I've just been reading: "The President requested that
>>>>> on the morrow every one return to work." This is a book published
>>>>> in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any one) have a feel for
>>>>> when "everyone" became s single word? [1] At least, my copy says
>>>>> 1932. Google says it was first published in 1933. Ah, wait.
>>>>> Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial from September
>>>>> 1932 to February 1933. For those who want to check my source. /When
>>>>> Worlds Collide/, by Philip Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
>>>> Why would you want to reread crap like that?
>>>
>>> Most SF of that era is crap, but that particular book is well written.
>>> The main part I found hard to stomach was the social assumptions. It
>>> was taken for granted that a sample of the upper classes should be
>>> saved, but I think the only lower-class person to be rescued was the
>>> stock-broker's "Jap servant".
>>>
>>> A more serious answer to your question is that most of my fiction
>>> reading these days is from my own bookshelves, and it's a good idea to
>>> pick the books that I read so long ago that I've forgotten the content.
>
>> My local library had an enormous hardcover of both *When Worlds Collide*
>> and *After Worlds Collide*. I think I had to renew it at least once. I
>> remember absolutely nothing about the content.
>
> by Velikovski?

Velikovsky wanted to be thought of as writing non-fiction.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36+ years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On Monday, December 26, 2022 at 12:15:10 PM UTC-5, charles wrote:
> In article <99cc038f-712e-4f8a...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 25, 2022 at 7:07:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > > On 25/12/22 23:02, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> > > >> From a book I've just been reading: "The President requested that
> > > >> on the morrow every one return to work." This is a book published
> > > >> in the USA in 1932 [1]. Does anyone (or any one) have a feel for
> > > >> when "everyone" became s single word? [1] At least, my copy says
> > > >> 1932. Google says it was first published in 1933. Ah, wait.
> > > >> Wikipaedia says it was published as a monthly serial from September
> > > >> 1932 to February 1933. For those who want to check my source. /When
> > > >> Worlds Collide/, by Philip Wylie & Edwin Balmer.
> > > > Why would you want to reread crap like that?
> > > Most SF of that era is crap, but that particular book is well written.
> > > The main part I found hard to stomach was the social assumptions. It
> > > was taken for granted that a sample of the upper classes should be
> > > saved, but I think the only lower-class person to be rescued was the
> > > stock-broker's "Jap servant".
> > > A more serious answer to your question is that most of my fiction
> > > reading these days is from my own bookshelves, and it's a good idea to
> > > pick the books that I read so long ago that I've forgotten the content.
> > My local library had an enormous hardcover of both *When Worlds Collide*
> > and *After Worlds Collide*. I think I had to renew it at least once. I
> > remember absolutely nothing about the content.
>
> by Velikovski?

Not quite the same title.