Doctor DeLong has kind of bad handwriting.

And I didn't even have to pay extra for return receipt requested!

You're telling me. I blame it on my kindergarten teachers, who told me that since I seemed to be ambidextrous I should write with my right hand...

Aren't you not supposed to send cash through the mail?

I think an economist knows something about how to transfer wealth. Maybe you have heard of them too. They are called checks.

I thought of that too, actually, but if that's the case then I have to take exception to Armsmasher's having said the envelope was "of money".

I'm not sure what the referent of "them" in your second sentence is, by the way.

Money comes in many forms, it isn't necessarily cash. Though a large stack of $1 bills would be pretty funny.

Envelopes of money only come in one form.

The "envelope of" operator only accepts certain types as its operands.

Man, w-lfs-n's definitely going to get laid tonight.

9: I like this new theory that whenever w-lfs-n says something absurd or pedantic, he gets laid. If only that were how life went!

The "envelope of" operator only accepts certain types as its operands.

Would it apply to an envelope with a single bill in it, or are multiple bills required?

Would it apply to an envelope with a single bill in it, or are multiple bills required?

That depends on whether you're saying the envelope is "full of" or merely "of" money.

I'd say that to qualify as an envelope "of" money, the lone bill in the envelope has to be, at minimum, a twenty. To claim that an envelope with a five, or even more a single, in it is an "envelope of money" strains credibility to its breaking point.

The caption itself says only that it was an "envelope of money". So, the latter.

For instance, suppose you got some correspondence. Would you say that you got "an envelope of correspondence"? No (still less "an envelope of letter", though "letter", being count, isn't a perfect analogy), you would say that you got a letter, or that you received some correspondence, or whatever. (On the other hand, if you received a large envelope containing, say, all your love letters to your now-jilted SO, which s/h is returning to you, you might well call that an envelope (full) of letters.) Similarly when one receives a check in the mail, one receives just that—a check. Monetariliwise, only when one receives cash in the mail does one receive not only the contents but also the carrier: an envelope of money.

Would you say that you got "an envelope of correspondence"?

No, but only because "correspondence" (at least in a non-electronic sense) implies transmission via envelope. Monetary transfers don't have such a connotation.

You're also distinguishing between a check and cash, but as both are mere paper representations of value, without any inherent worth of their own, this doesn't seem totally valid. It is the underlying unit ("dollars" in this case) that is relevant; whether it comes in the form of a $20 bill, twenty $1 bills, or a check for $20, the effect is the same.

10: ben is an animal, it seems.

You're also distinguishing between a check and cash, but as both are mere paper representations of value, without any inherent worth of their own, this doesn't seem totally valid.

I'm willing to bet that you distinguish between checks and cash daily.

I quoted DeLong's construction--don't shoot the messenger.

You'd think an economist would be able to get it right, too. Shame.

I'm willing to bet that you distinguish between checks and cash daily.

In terms of immediate usefulness, sure, but I still consider both to be "money". I similarly distinguish between $100 bills and five $20 bills, because I can't spend the former at the lunch counter across the street from my work.

No, but only because "correspondence" (at least in a non-electronic sense) implies transmission via envelope.

No it doesn't, and whence the sudden non-electronic restriction? Face it, Ficke: you've been defeated.

"$100 bills" s/b "a $100 bill"

21: that's beside the point.

B-Wo: alpha littlebitch.

Revel in your perceived victory, friend; my argument remains sound.

What about USPS money orders, Mr. w-lfs-n?

For a second, I didn't realize that Smasher blurred out our street number and was extremely impressed by the USPS's sleuthing.

and was extremely impressed by the USPS's sleuthing

I had the same thought. Probably because I've heard of letters addressed like that actually being delivered.

A question for Ben: would it be appropriate, when handing a check to a creditor, to say "here's the money I owe you."?

A question for ogged: can you read? This is a dispute about envelopes of money, and what can properly be so called, not about money.

Surely 'envelope ...' tends to imply plural content, so you wouldn't say 'an envelope containing a letter', even if that's exactly what you received. 'Of' also often denotes plurality: 'a field of grass', and when used in this way suggests either a situation where something is not readily countable, or a situation where the count is unimportant: 'a fistful of dollars'. 'Envelope of old correspondence' is imaginable (along the lines of #15). Your mum has just cleared your bedroom, and there were some letters. Which she sent you.

So, 'envelope of money' strongly suggests contents of more than one banknote; probably more than are easily countable. An envelope containing a single hundred dollar bill would be described as 'some money in the mail'. As, I suspect, would an envelope containing five twenties.

You could also think of 'envelope' as synonymous with 'bundle' or 'pile'. The fact of containment is less important than the fact of assembly.

I'll take that as a very defensive "yes."

I'm not defensive, ogged, just exasperated, because your line of questioning, and mattf's of arguing, shows that neither of you is actually addressing my point. Why should I defend against shots that go so wide of their target?

Now that Ben has conceded the main point, that we can call a check "money," the question is why he thinks it's not just unconventional (which I grant) to refer to an envelope containing a check as "an envelope of money," but also improper. I can think of no reasons that don't impugn his upbringing.

Is an envelope with a money order equivalent to an envelope of money? Or is it just a "check?"

The question is why ogged thinks that propriety isn't a matter of convention in many cases.

The question is why ogged thinks that propriety isn't a matter of convention in many cases.

Rather, why Ben is unable to distinguish those cases in which it's not.

Is an envelope with a money order equivalent to an envelope of money? Or is it just a "check?"

B-but couldn't it just be a "money order"? I can't see calling a money order a check, similar though they be. Also: we have not discussed the possibility of its being a cashier's or certified check. Or ingots of precious metals.

Rather, why Ben is unable to distinguish those cases in which it's not.

Announcing your ability to asperse my upbringing does not constitute an argument that I'm wrong to think that in cases of what we call things convention and propriety might coincide.

One could call it a "money order." But if you are going to do that, why not just shorten it to "money."

On a different note, has Mr. w-lfs-n's upbringing even been discussed here? Maybe that would shed light on his, let' say, proclivities.

One could call it a "money order." But if you are going to do that, why not just shorten it to "money."

Probably because that would elide valuable information about the sort of money it is and the steps one would have to take to use it, etc.

Need I remind you that this isn't a conversation, except in the (possibly opium-addled but definitely weak and confused) minds of some who take themselves to be my opponents, about money, but rather about envelopes of money.

neither of you is actually addressing my point.

Sure we are. The question, as you say, is about envelopes of money; thus, the definition of money is quite relevant. The singular/plural issue also needs to be considered. On this, I am simply saying that "a pile of money" and "a pile of bills" are only marginally related concepts.

in cases of what we call things convention and propriety might coincide

He didn't call a car "a bicycle," Ben--that is to say, flouting the convention might be improper if the majority of readers are misled in a significant or material way, but that was clearly not the case here. Furthermore, part of language competence is being able to distinguish the degree of precision appropriate to a situation. The sum of your littlebitchy comments on this blog and others calls into question your mastery of English. Strange, but true.

I've already explained that "envelope of X" is not necessarily to be employed wherever there's a containment relation between an envelope and an instance of X. The question of what is money is only relevant insofar as you can come up with another example of money, aside from cash, which, when contained in an envelope, is such that one can properly speak of an envelope of money. Debates about whether money orders, specie, checks, IOUs from fourth grade, or maps to treasure are money are relevant only insofar as envelopes containing them can or cannot be called envelopes of money.

On this, I am simply saying that "a pile of money" and "a pile of bills" are only marginally related concepts.

Given that "a pile of bills" is, on your own account, an example of "a pile of money", I don't think that you should really call the relation marginal. What could be less marginal a relation than the is-a relation?

'An envelope of money' klingt strangely to me, too. But I found it to be a sweet circumlocution.

That you all are arguing about this... well, it's Unfogged. That ben appears to be losing his temper suggests that he's procrastinating on a paper.

I insist I'm not losing my temper, but I acknowledge that I'm procrastinating (though not on a paper), for which reason I will soon leave, in the hopes that the benighted in the thread will come to sweet reason on their own.

Not grading, I hope.

No, I'm not TAing this quarter. But I did learn the *most* *interesting* *thing* [1] about the classes I want to take next quarter, the class I will be TAing next quarter, and their meeting times...

[1] it's a disadvantage of italics for emphasis that you can't distinguish between adjacent words severally and jointly italicized.

Arg, that's unfortunate. Can you switch teaching assignments?

One can properly consider an envelope of money orders or travelers' checks money precisely because they require cash money to back them up. A check, on the other hand, might just be a piece of paper. In other words, money orders and travelers' checks give one instant purchasing power. In fact, I believe you can sign over a money order or a traveler's check to a third party (non-business entity - a friend who you owe money to, for instance). Thus, one can use travelers' checks and money orders in formal business transactions and personal transactions - exactly like cash.

48: won't your dept. try and shift you to a different course?

I don't have the inclination to participate right now, but I'm really enjoying this thread and request that you continue arguing.

48: won't your dept. try and shift you to a different course?

That's an option, of course, but I really really want to TA this course, not only because I don't care about any of the others, but because it would be a super interesting course to TA (or, for that matter, take).

I'm really leaving now.

I've already explained that "envelope of X" is not necessarily to be employed wherever there's a containment relation between an envelope and an instance of X.

I disagree with you here. The lack of reference to an envelope is simply an elision; one does not wonder, upon being informed of a letter that came in the mail, if the letter also came in an envelope.

What could be less marginal a relation than the is-a relation?

But here I am only saying that the second implies the first; your argument depends on the first implying the second, which is not true.

I believe you can sign over a money order or a traveler's check to a third party

You can do this with personal checks, too.

Not all banks accept third-party checks for obvious reasons.

They prefer obscure reasons. I've noticed this too.

If I recall correctly, it was a check for $59.50, labeled "two years' worth of what would otherwise be TNR subscription fees." I encourage the rest of you to take what would otherwise be your subscription fees to magazines overlong in the tooth and send them to the FAHfUW, to Unf, to w-lfs-n, to me, or whatever...

So, would someone remind me how you sign over a check to a third party?

I believe you write on the back, at the end where you will endorse it, "Pay to the order of" a third party, and then you endorse it below that. See also.

Clearly 'Smasher is planning to forge an endorsement to himself of Mr. Ackerman's check.

Clownæ is guest posting on SB's joke-explaining blog this weekend.

*hangs head*

Oy. I can never remember which of you lives in sin with whom.

It's a sin-free house.

Doesn't the Fed count checks in one of their definitions of money (M1, M2, or M3)? That would settle it.

It's a sin-free house.

What, you have benefit of clergy?

He means they consecrated every room when they moved in.

Is it not obvious that the term "envelope of money" properly describes a banknote or other paper form of legal tender that has been folded and and glued into the shape of a serviceable envelope?