The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

searched flour Options
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:33:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
The Art of French Cookery, by Antoine B. Beauvilliers

Quote:
add the weight of five eggs of searched flour, stirring it lightly in till it is well mixed;

Couldn't find any meaning that would fit here. :(
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:50:17 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 15,257
I think the author used the wrong vocabulary. I think the correct one is “sifted”.
Interestingly, one of the synonyms of “sifted” is “searched”. But it is so when the “sift” means “look thoroughly” or “look for information”.
What I think has happened is the author used his/her bilingual dictionary-his or her native language to English-wrong.
Sarrriesfan
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 12:52:06 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/30/2016
Posts: 1,869
Neurons: 11,975
Location: Luton, England, United Kingdom
I think it's a scanning error, and it should be sifted flour not searched flour.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sift

When you sift flour you pass it through a sieve, which takes out coarse lumps and adds air to it which makes it lighter and finer for cooking.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:17:52 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Sarrriesfan wrote:
I think it's a scanning error, and it should be sifted flour not searched flour.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sift

It can not be scanning - we have the image not digital text. Wonder if this was meant:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/searce
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 2:36:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 15,257
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
Sarrriesfan wrote:
I think it's a scanning error, and it should be sifted flour not searched flour.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sift

It can not be scanning - we have the image not digital text. Wonder if this was meant:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/searce
'

Hello xa,

I think you are absolutely right.
I did not know the word searce before and I am quite transfixed at the fact it can be “search” as well.
In the link provided, the word is entered only as a noun but I have checked in other dictionary it could be a verb as well.
You are very good,aren’t you?
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:00:36 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
I did not know the word searce before and I am quite transfixed at its past form being either searched or searced now.
In the link provided, the word is entered only as a noun but I have checked in other dictionary it could be a verb as well.

Yes, in Merriam-Webster's the search option is not given as a verb. Thanks for confirming its use in another dictionary.

Meanwhile I found it used as a verb in another book:

The Life and Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York ..., by Daniel Defoe

Quote:
My next difficulty was to make a sieve, or search, to dress my meal, and to part it from the bran and the husk, without which I did not see it possible I could have any bread. This was a most difficult thing, so much as but to think on, for to be sure I had nothing like the necessary thing to make it; I mean fine thin canvas or stuff, to search the meal through.

And it indeed was searce in earlier editions.

FROSTY X RIME wrote:
You are very good,aren’t you?

Scouring online dictionaries and Google is my only business. :)

thar
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:01:40 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,203
Neurons: 90,043
Possibly because it is obsolete?
(MW says archaic)
Edit -
Here is an alternative version of the same words...:

E
Quote:
Noun
searce (plural searces)

(obsolete) A sieve; a strainer.
1603, John Florio, transl.; Michel de Montaigne, Essayes, London: Edward Blount, OCLC 946730821:
, II.12:
Yet will our selfe overweening sift his divinitie through our searce [transl. estamine]: whence are engendred all the vanities and errours wherewith the world is so full-fraught […].
Verb Edit
searce (third-person singular simple present searces, present participle searcing, simple past and past participle searced)

(obsolete) To sift; to bolt.
1719 April 25, [Daniel Defoe], The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who Lived Eight and Twenty Years, All Alone in an Un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River Oroonoque; having been Cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein All the Men Perished but Himself. With an Account how He was at Last as Strangely Deliver’d by Pyrates, London: Printed by W[illiam] Taylor at the Ship in Pater-Noster-Row, OCLC 15864594; 3rd edition, London: Printed by W[illiam] Taylor at the Ship in Pater-Noster-Row, 1719, OCLC 838630407, page 144:

My next Difficulty was to make a Sieve, or Searſe, to dreſs my meal, and to part it from the Bran and the Huſk, without which I did not ſee it poſſible I could have any Bread. […] I had nothing like the neceſſary Things to make it with—I mean fine thin Canvas, or Stuff, to ſearſe the Meal through.


Yeah, anything where the most recent quote uses a different alphabet - probably not in common usage! Whistle
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:07:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 15,257
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
I did not know the word searce before and I am quite transfixed at its past form being either searched or searced now.
In the link provided, the word is entered only as a noun but I have checked in other dictionary it could be a verb as well.

Yes, in Merriam-Webster's the search option is not given as a verb. Thanks for confirming its use in another dictionary.

Meanwhile I found it used as a verb in another book:

The Life and Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York ..., by Daniel Defoe

Quote:
My next difficulty was to make a sieve, or search, to dress my meal, and to part it from the bran and the husk, without which I did not see it possible I could have any bread. This was a most difficult thing, so much as but to think on, for to be sure I had nothing like the necessary thing to make it; I mean fine thin canvas or stuff, to search the meal through.

And it indeed was searce in earlier editions.

FROSTY X RIME wrote:
You are very good,aren’t you?

Scouring online dictionaries and Google is my only business. :)



I read the book but I was not aware of it. I must have skipped it or forgotten it.

Oh by the way, I was wrong about the word searce having been entered as a noun only in the link provided. I scrolled it down further just now and found its usage as a verb.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:12:22 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
Oh by the way, I was wrong about the word searce having been entered as a noun only in the link provided. I scrolled it down further just now and found its usage as a verb.

The word searce is given as a verb in Merriam-Webster's but the search alternative is stated only as a noun.
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:24:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 15,257
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
FROSTY X RIME wrote:
Oh by the way, I was wrong about the word searce having been entered as a noun only in the link provided. I scrolled it down further just now and found its usage as a verb.

The word searce is given as a verb in Merriam-Webster's but the search alternative is stated only as a noun.


Yes, I noticed it,too and worried slightly but brushed it off, thinking that the word search as a verb form is just omitted because it was already mentioned in the noun section in the link. And in some other dictionary, I do not know why it is not there, though.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Saturday, February 17, 2018 3:27:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
thar wrote:

Quote:
Verb
searce (third-person singular simple present searces, present participle searcing, simple past and past participle searced)

(obsolete) To sift; to bolt.
1719 April 25, [Daniel Defoe], The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, of York, Mariner: Who Lived Eight and Twenty Years, All Alone in an Un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River Oroonoque; having been Cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein All the Men Perished but Himself. With an Account how He was at Last as Strangely Deliver’d by Pyrates, London: Printed by W[illiam] Taylor at the Ship in Pater-Noster-Row, OCLC 15864594; 3rd edition, London: Printed by W[illiam] Taylor at the Ship in Pater-Noster-Row, 1719, OCLC 838630407, page 144:

My next Difficulty was to make a Sieve, or Searſe, to dreſs my meal, and to part it from the Bran and the Huſk, without which I did not ſee it poſſible I could have any Bread. […] I had nothing like the neceſſary Things to make it with—I mean fine thin Canvas, or Stuff, to ſearſe the Meal through.


Yeah, anything where the most recent quote uses a different alphabet - probably not in common usage! Whistle

Ok. I thought of a good book to read and I know which I'm going to:

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/d/defoe/daniel/d31r/index.html

Luckily I did not read it as a child, only saw a film:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TihIJTZBXUY&t=2m10s
Romany
Posted: Sunday, February 18, 2018 6:22:57 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,259
Neurons: 55,377
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom

Guys (Frosty, Xap), this time I have a question to you: -

Why do you read old books, written in old forms of English, and full of obsolete words, to improve your English? This was a very interesting thread.But its a thread about an ancient word you'll never come across again and that the average English speaker would think was incorrect because in 2018 the word is unknown.

If you were to read contemporary books you'd learn how English is used today; how the average person expresses themselves, what conversations in English really sound like; and the culture which produces the language. Not to mention that a thread about a word that IS used it will benefit your English. Old, obsolete vocabulary doesn't help advance knowledge of English for any practical purpose.

This is not a critical comment - I'm genuinely curious. I think of you worrying and being confused over vocab. and syntax, and spending so much time trying to understand old forms of English that are no longer used - and it seems such a waste of time. Wouldn't it be a much better plan, if you're putting so much hard work into it, to learn contemporary English? There are millions of great books around and fabulous mastery of English from modern writers.And it wouldn't be so difficult to find out what characters mean.
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Sunday, February 18, 2018 7:49:52 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Romany wrote:
Guys (Frosty, Xap), this time I have a question to you: -

Why do you read old books, written in old forms of English, and full of obsolete words, to improve your English?

Personally, I do not read to improve my English - just to learn it and especially to enhance my vocabulary.
To improve my English I'm going to ask Drag0nspeaker to give me a month's drill. I'm willing to pay for it but not very much and somewhere in December. :)

Now that I have already read the 1st chapter I can say I love Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe.

Besides there's that question of money. For contemporary books you have to pay a quid while older books are out of copyright. I am sort of a miser and only pay once in a while. This is the latest book I paid for:

http://www.flynnberry.com
Code:
http://www.flynnberry.com

Now being a misogynist for me it was a deed. But the scene is laid in a London suburb and I thought it would be good British English:



Recently I discovered that she is American. I'm going to claim my money back. :)
Romany
Posted: Sunday, February 18, 2018 1:02:39 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,259
Neurons: 55,377
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Thanks, Xap, as I said, I was just curious.

Dunno if knowing a bit about it helps? But when it was published it was the *first "novel" to be published to a much-expanded reading public. i.e. it was fiction. Thus it was widely believed that it was a true account. It *was* loosely-based on various contemporary stranded-sailor stories; but mainly it was satirical. It's a social commentary. Of the way things were at that time, of course: you might like to skim over a bit of background of the 18thC...or at least make those your go-to pages if you are puzzled - rather than general info. sites.


* And because I'm *not* a misogynist I have to add that actually the first "novel" came out more than a century before, and the second, about fifty years after that. However, as they were both written by women they were called "phantasies". The reading world had to wait a long time for male-authored "fiction"!
Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, February 19, 2018 1:41:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,066
Neurons: 222,283
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
To improve my English I'm going to ask Drag0nspeaker to give me a month's drill. I'm willing to pay for it . . .

£50 per hour with a special discount for every tenth hour . . .Whistle

Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1 wrote:
This is the latest book I paid for: . . .
Recently I discovered that she is American. I'm going to claim my money back. :)

I don't blame you.

I mean . . . the sentences are 'OK' - they are not individually ungrammatical (except that there is no antecedent of "him") - but the style . . .

The sentences in one paragraph do not fit together. The tenses are all screwed up.

<shudder>
Харбин Хэйлунцзян 1
Posted: Monday, February 19, 2018 3:10:59 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/13/2015
Posts: 1,356
Neurons: 500,500
Location: Dzerzhinskiy, Moskovskaya, Russia
Drag0nspeaker wrote:
£50 per hour with a special discount for every tenth hour . . .Whistle

:) £50 is the max in Moscow:



I perfectly understand that you stand above the rabble but I do not live in Moscow. Neither you reside in London. :)
£1000 for 30 days which includes 1 hour over Skype and feedback for 2 essays of 400 words each every day.

Seriously. I'm currently engaged in a project. I'm not sure if we will be able to carry it through but if we do we will then need to confirm our expertise in English. I will have to take the CPE:

http://www.cambridgeenglish.org/exams-and-tests/proficiency/exam-format/

Drag0nspeaker wrote:
I mean . . . the sentences are 'OK' - they are not individually ungrammatical (except that there is no antecedent of "him") - but the style . . .

The sentences in one paragraph do not fit together. The tenses are all screwed up.

He is someone who assaulted her sister long ago and whose name they do not know but her sister lives in perpetual fear of meeting him again. And the style is intentionally uneven to resemble those patches of thoughts in her mind.

First I came across the book in this discussion:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/343469/whats-the-meaning-of-decoy-in-the-context-below

Then I thought why not read it? But when I looked at Google Books the price was exorbitant. It was available at a reasonable price at Amazon but I do not have a Kindle and did not want to pay for shipping. Two months ago I learnt that you do not need the gadget to read Kindle books - the app for PC is available for free. And I bought it.

For someone who just started writing she is unbelievably popular. This book is already available in Russian:

https://www.labirint.ru/books/611632/

Drag0nspeaker
Posted: Monday, February 19, 2018 4:56:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,066
Neurons: 222,283
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
I find that too staccato and 'jarring' to read comfortably, I'm afraid.

The £50 per hour was a joke - I have no professional qualifications in English, so really couldn't ethically charge. (My own personal code).
My training up to BSC was in electronics, though it's now forty years out-of-date.

I'm willing to help as I can here, but my schedule (you probably noticed) is not consistent. No promises - even for money.
I can put you in touch with a friend who is a professional, if you want (send me a pm if yes).

****************
I've never heard "search" used to mean "sieve" or "sift" in a physical sense - either as a noun or a verb.

I have heard "sift" and "sift through" used to mean the verb "search", with the idea of looking minutely at every detail of something to find something. Metaphorically putting data through a sieve to find something.

The police sifted through the evidence to find any leads to follow.
thar
Posted: Monday, February 19, 2018 6:03:03 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,203
Neurons: 90,043
If it s 'searced' as seems the most reasonable explanation, it has nothing to do with 'search' - how that got there is another matter. Possibly related to French-sounding author.

'Searse' or 'searce' is from the cloth used to sift the flour -
Quote:
From Old French saas, from Late Latin *saetāceus (pannus) (“(cloth) made of bristles”), from Latin saeta (“bristle”).

FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 12:05:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 15,257
Romany wrote:

Guys (Frosty, Xap), this time I have a question to you: -

Why do you read old books, written in old forms of English, and full of obsolete words, to improve your English? This was a very interesting thread.But its a thread about an ancient word you'll never come across again and that the average English speaker would think was incorrect because in 2018 the word is unknown.

If you were to read contemporary books you'd learn how English is used today; how the average person expresses themselves, what conversations in English really sound like; and the culture which produces the language. Not to mention that a thread about a word that IS used it will benefit your English. Old, obsolete vocabulary doesn't help advance knowledge of English for any practical purpose.

This is not a critical comment - I'm genuinely curious. I think of you worrying and being confused over vocab. and syntax, and spending so much time trying to understand old forms of English that are no longer used - and it seems such a waste of time. Wouldn't it be a much better plan, if you're putting so much hard work into it, to learn contemporary English? There are millions of great books around and fabulous mastery of English from modern writers.And it wouldn't be so difficult to find out what characters mean.


Romany, reading your comments is a waste of time, not reading old books.
FounDit
Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 3:30:27 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 13,887
Neurons: 66,304
There was no need for that, Frosty. She had a legitimate curiosity and question, so your comment was ill-mannered and unnecessary.
FROSTY X RIME
Posted: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 3:38:47 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/20/2015
Posts: 1,769
Neurons: 15,257
FounDit wrote:
There was no need for that, Frosty. She had a legitimate curiosity and question, so your comment was ill-mannered and unnecessary.


You didn't see her ill-manner, did you?
Why is her curiosity legitimate and my response is ill-mannered and unnecessary?
What is necessary and what is not necessary?
What entitled you to take up a place to judge which is ill-mannered and unnecessary and what is legitimate?
I find your stepping-in ill-mannered and unnecessary because you have a problem with reading. You cannot read between lines.


Do you know the meaning of "mind your business"?
That is what I want to say to you and Romany.
That's the only legitimate way for you to behave.

Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.