Which Joe gave his name to ‘sloppy joes’? We look at five interesting sandwiches and their lexical origins.
- ‘The question of rightful ownership of coat armor does not pertain in this country, for the very nature of the settlement and development of America makes it unlikely that any more that a few families have legitimate claim to specific insignia.’
- ‘With these growing intricacies, coat armour, to a large extent, was losing its original beauty of distinction and advertisement.’
- ‘Cheshire and Lancashire families made similar additions of crests to the plain prescriptive coat armor which they had previously used from time immemorial.’
- ‘They also have the care of pedigrees and the bearing of coat armour.’
- ‘The devices were painted on their shields and coat armour, the protective coat worn over the amour; for this reason the devices came to be called ‘coats of arms’, or simply ‘arms.’’
- ‘Secondly, it assumes coat armour to be hereditary in the male lines of a family, with differences to distinguish cadet branches.’
- ‘Thus, to establish the right under English (or German, French, Swiss, etc.) law to a coat of arms, it is necessary to prove your uninterrupted male line descent from someone who is legally entitled to use this coat armor.’
- ‘That good deeds will give great joy, and will proclaim the worth of noble men of coat armor.’
- ‘The coat armour (cloak worn over the armour) was a visual identification of the bearer, someone who was worthy and was recognized in battle.’
- ‘There is no American law by which you can obtain a coat of arms, as our government has not ever recognized coat armor.’
We take a look at several popular, though confusing, punctuation marks.
From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, discover surprising and intriguing language facts from around the globe.
The definitions of ‘buddy’ and ‘bro’ in the OED have recently been revised. We explore their history and increase in popularity.