jjimm writes:
> He was my uncle.
You have an uncle who was an adult 92 years ago? Excuse my skepticism, but just how old are you? And if you’re not that old, how can you have an uncle born in the nineteenth century?
Not my direct uncle - my great^3 uncle.
O.K., it’s just that in my dialect the term “my uncle” can never mean “my great-great-great-uncle.”
Hmm, I would always use this to mean any number of greats removed. I don’t know if that’s cultural, dialectical, peculiar to my upbringing, or whether it’s unique to me (and that therefore I’m uniquely wrong). Perhaps some UK or Irish dopers could help me find out which is right?
I’m a genealogist, and I’ve no more heard “my uncle” to mean “my great-great-granduncle” than I’ve heard “my father” to mean “my great-great-grandfather”.
No, the incidents you mention were all politically or technologically important. The Titanic story just had a number of elements of melodrama that caught the public’s imagination. That’s pretty much it.
You want to convince me that it had “a far wider effect” on account of being state of the art etc you are going to have to provide cold hard cites
And by that I do not mean cites not written by starry eyed romantics who’ve been caught up in the whole myth.
Actually let me correct myself. I expect the Titanic sinking did have some effect on technology, and its high profile of itself made waves.
But the profile of the mythology is disproportionate to its source.
As Kilt wearin’ Man has outlined.
My family uses it that way. Chicago-based extended family. And an ‘uncle’ is an ‘uncle’ regardless of the number of iterations involved.
Same goes for aunts.
Must be a variant.
It also applies in some Hispanic cultures. “Tio” is any older male relative, except father, grandfather, or brothers. Tio might actually be an uncle, great-uncle, cousin, etc.
Thank you for the link. My god, war is hell. My eyes popped out at this one:
How horrifying and unbearable it must have been for the people on the submarine to find you’ve sunk a ship with thousands of innocent people on board!
This one’s strange to me:
(color theirs) What’s this crap about keeping records sealed for 100 years??
It might just be beauraucracy on that 100-year seal. I mean, there are files from the Lincoln administration that are still classified.
And…no mention of the Sultana?
wow, jjim. i’ve always had a soft spot for mr andrews. he must have felt so very helpless as the ship went down. i’ve always thought that he must have had thousands of ideas running past his brain, trying to buy more time for the ship or ways to get more people off. esp. buy more time.
about the only things i’ve thought of from quite a few years buffer is having a crew of people build rafts from doors or get anything that could float a person up to the boat decks. barrels, bathtubs, anything.
If you read the link paperbackwriter added earlier, their research seems to refute that the red paint smudge really came from the Titanic iceberg. FWIW.
From the catalog of the British National Archives:
Piece #AIR 2/4593
Covering dates: 1940-1942
Scope and content: SHIPS AND SHIPPING: General (Code B, 73/1): Sinking of S.S. LANCASTRIA
Access conditions: Normal Closure 30 [years]
Closure status: Open Document, Open Description
Held at: The National Archives, Kew
Restrictions on use: [None]
Wendell, my grandfather (my mom’s dad) was an adult 92 years ago. And I’m not all that old (51). So an uncle’s easily conceivable.
Eve, I can’t help but think of this as an Eve thread. First respondent you were to a GQ thread, and, no offense meant, this is a choice bit from what I perceive as your chosen era.
Ringo writes:
> Wendell, my grandfather (my mom’s dad) was an adult 92 years ago. And I’m
> not all that old (51). So an uncle’s easily conceivable.
You’re adding a generation. I don’t doubt that someone our age (I’m 52) could easily have a grandparent whose was an adult in 1912. All my grandparents were probably adults in 1912. I believe that they were all about 20 at the time. Not many of us though on the SDMB have an uncle who was an adult in 1912. Although you and I aren’t the oldest people on the board, we’re distinctly older than average for the board. I figured then that it was unlikely that jjimm’s uncle could be an adult in 1912.
Yes, it took making a couple of assumptions, but in this case my guess turned out to be right. jjimm wasn’t talking about his uncle or his great-uncle or even his great-great-uncle, but his great-great-great-uncle. I hadn’t considered the possibility that he might use the term “uncle” to mean “great-great-great-uncle.”
Someone mentioned the first few lifeboats keeping well away from Titanic, for fear of being sucked down by its impending sinking.
Does anyone know just how powerful this suction was? Or was there any at all?
Are we talking about “So strong it could drag down large rowboats?”
As it turned out, there was virtually no vortex created by the final sinking.
Hmmm, might be Irish to play fast and loose with it. There do seem to be a lot of cousins around here who are not actually first cousins so the same might go for uncles and aunts. It might just be though, that this becomes more likely to happen once you actually like the person and therefore want to be associated in that way.
I’m quite impressed with this though, jjimm! I guess it is a bit iffy to bring That Film into it, but I thought he was the most likeable character in the film by a very long margin. Part of this was due to the good acting (and looks) of Victor Garber, but as far as I have looked into (which admittedly isn’t very far) they don’t seem to have taken quite as many liberties with his character than with some of the other historical facts. Though of course you are the expert now, so you may correct me if you feel differently.
They tried to reproduce this effect in Mythbusters and were unsuccesful. As far as I know, it’s an urban legend.