I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
On Monday, 28 August 2006 15:25, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
<snip>
Presumably, they mean "British English" as opposed to "American English". What about other forms of "non-American" English?
cheers Duncan
Duncan Anderson wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2006 15:25, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
<snip>
Presumably, they mean "British English" as opposed to "American English". What about other forms of "non-American" English?
I don't think that was the case here (during FC-5 installation). No other versions of English, such as US-English, were offered; British was the only English-like language on offer.
Incidentally, the whole language-keyboard setting seemed very confusing. I wanted to choose a UK keyboard (as opposed to US) but with the euro in place of the pound. When I chose "Irish" keyboard it assumed I wanted to write in Gaelic.
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:25, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Duncan Anderson wrote:
On Monday, 28 August 2006 15:25, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
<snip>
Presumably, they mean "British English" as opposed to "American English". What about other forms of "non-American" English?
I don't think that was the case here (during FC-5 installation). No other versions of English, such as US-English, were offered; British was the only English-like language on offer.
Incidentally, the whole language-keyboard setting seemed very confusing. I wanted to choose a UK keyboard (as opposed to US) but with the euro in place of the pound. When I chose "Irish" keyboard it assumed I wanted to write in Gaelic.
Timothy: Earlier this evening I was installing Zenwalk as an alternate distribution, and among the multitude of choices for locale was "English locale for Ireland with Euro". Incidentally, the keyboard mapping had already been set. Oh yeah, they referred to all variants of English as "English".
-- cmg
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
Bob Goodwin
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 09:29 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are synonymous.
Only the Americans would think otherwise... ;-) What they think is English (their variant), is definitely "American," not English. >;-)
Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling. In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense". It's not the standard way of spelling the word, but it is a fact that many things we do don't conform to the recognised standard. For instance millions around the world use the $soft .doc format to store office documents. We all know that Open Document Format is the ISO standard but people still choose not to conform.
Dave Fletcher
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Both are correct.
In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense". It's not the standard way of spelling the word, but it is a fact that many things we do don't conform to the recognised standard. For instance millions around the world use the $soft .doc format to store office documents. We all know that Open Document Format is the ISO standard but people still choose not to conform.
There is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" when it comes to comparing "British English" with "American English. Colour=Color. One is the correct spelling in "British English" the other is the correct spelling in "American English".
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
Some folks refer to the box structure that goes up and down on cables within a building as an "elevator". Others call it a "lift". Both are correct.
On 8/28/06, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Both are correct.
In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense". It's not
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
the standard way of spelling the word, but it is a fact that many things we do don't conform to the recognised standard. For instance millions around the world use the $soft .doc format to store office documents. We all know that Open Document Format is the ISO standard but people still choose not to conform.
There is no such thing as "correct" and "incorrect" when it comes to comparing "British English" with "American English. Colour=Color. One is the correct spelling in "British English" the other is the correct spelling in "American English".
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
Some folks refer to the box structure that goes up and down on cables within a building as an "elevator". Others call it a "lift". Both are correct.
-- Coach "Bear" Bryant: "Who in the hell is that?" High School Coach: "That there is Forrest Gump, coach - Just the local idiot"
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guillermo Garron wrote:
On 8/28/06, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct
spelling.
Both are correct.
In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense".
It's not
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US. I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well. The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
I guess if they want to use the term American citizens, they should look at all the Mexicans that want to enter the US and accept them. :)
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:56 am, Robin Laing wrote:
Guillermo Garron wrote:
On 8/28/06, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct
spelling.
Both are correct.
In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense".
It's not
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US. I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well. The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
Down here [Arizona] we call Canadians ..Snowbirds
I guess if they want to use the term American citizens, they should look at all the Mexicans that want to enter the US and accept them. :)
-- Robin Laing
On 8/28/06, Grumpy_Penguin grumpypenguin@qwest.net wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:56 am, Robin Laing wrote:
Guillermo Garron wrote:
On 8/28/06, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct
spelling.
Both are correct.
In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense".
It's not
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US. I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well. The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
Down here [Arizona] we call Canadians ..Snowbirds
Really down here [Bolivia] we call Canadians ... Canadians, and US citizens, gringos :) ... (staying in the funny side of the discussion)
Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:56 am, Robin Laing wrote:
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US. I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well. The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
Down here [Arizona] we call Canadians ..Snowbirds
We call them wimps. They go south to get away from the cold.
Just joking.
Of course when US citizens come across the border on an August weekend when it is 36ºC outside with snow skis on the roof rack looking for the nearest open ski slope it is funny. Yes, I have seen it. We usually point them to Alaska. For some reason they expect the border to make the weather change. That only happens on Google Earth.
Canadians enjoy winter sun on Google Earth http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/25/google_earth_two_seasons/
Robin Laing wrote:
Guillermo Garron wrote:
On 8/28/06, Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the
correct spelling.
Both are correct.
In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense".
It's not
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
I'd like to comment in our defense (with an 's'). My self and family are citizens of the USA as were our forebears for many generations prior so I think I can speak to this as an "American".
This shouldn't be so difficult.
Americans are residents of "the Americas". This includes us all, Robin.
North and South Americans are from their respective continents.
People from the "United States of America" are properly referred to as Americans from the United States of America, or United States Americans. It should be apparent why we shorten the term in common usage amongst ourselves to just "Americans".
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US.
What we don't understand is the peevishness that requires that "dig".
I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well.
As you are.
The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
That is correct. The vast majority of us here live far from either border and we do not seem to misunderstand ourselves; but neither are we so parochial as to exclude other, non United States Americans, from also rightly calling themselves American.
I guess if they want to use the term American citizens, they should look at all the Mexicans that want to enter the US and accept them. :)
That was just a cheap shot.
By the way, the United States is the only country in North or South America that has the word America on its passport so perhaps that entitles us a bit of poetic license (with an 's').
There were my 2 cents. Fun subject, even if Way Off Topic.
Mike Wright
ps. My partner went to school in Canada and I can get by in Spanish.
On 8/28/06, Jim Rice jim@bydesignpublishing.com wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 16:21 -0700, Mike Wright wrote:
ps. My partner went to school in Canada and I can get by in Spanish.
Would that be Spanish or Mexican, eh?
;-)
Yes, WOT.
yeah, that is right, we also in spanish have the same problem, maybe bigger, as I think (and remark I think) that there are more countries spanish speaking than English speaking and they all pronounce different, but at least spell the same :) regards,
Guillermo.
On Monday 28 August 2006 13:56, Robin Laing wrote:
Guillermo Garron wrote:
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
You are right!
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US. I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well. The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
You are right!
It appears that we are rather arrogant in this matter. Everyone living any where in the Americas are indeed Americans.
http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/aug03/america.html
http://history.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/exploration-settlement/how-did...
http://www.4to40.com/QA/index.asp?category=science&counter=187
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
On Monday 28 August 2006 13:56, Robin Laing wrote:
Guillermo Garron wrote:
When you all say American, you mean US and Canada or only US, as lot of US guys "think" that America is from Canada to Mexico (including alaska, Hawaii and others), while actually America is from Alaska to Tierra del fuego in Argentina.
You are right!
This is one of my pet peeves and a way to dig at those from the US. I live in Canada so when someone says American, I say that I am one as well. The US citizens usually mean just themselves.
You are right!
It appears that we are rather arrogant in this matter. Everyone living any where in the Americas are indeed Americans.
http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/aug03/america.html
http://history.enotes.com/history-fact-finder/exploration-settlement/how-did...
http://www.4to40.com/QA/index.asp?category=science&counter=187
Then we can call ourselves US. The rest of all yawl are well all yawl.
{^_-}
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
Then we can call ourselves US. The rest of all yawl are well all yawl.
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
Then we can call ourselves US. The rest of all yawl are well all yawl.
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:23, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
Yup! just ask the locals that are born and educated here that is what they will tell you. "Am fixin to go to Hotlanta y'all."
Matthew, you know all dirt roads lead to Clemson! Just kidding!
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 06:29 am, Jack Gates wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:23, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
Yup! just ask the locals that are born and educated here that is what they will tell you. "Am fixin to go to Hotlanta y'all."
Matthew, you know all dirt roads lead to Clemson! Just kidding!
True and during Football season you can walk down main street with a bottle in one hand and a blonde on your arm yelling F**K Alabama.....and the locals think you are talking about the game ;-)
-- Jack Gates http://www.morningstarcom.net
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Jack Gates wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:23, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
Yup! just ask the locals that are born and educated here that is what they will tell you. "Am fixin to go to Hotlanta y'all."
Matthew, you know all dirt roads lead to Clemson! Just kidding!
That's OK, but the truth is: all roads with orange tiger paws painted on them do, in fact, lead to Clemson.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:23, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
Then we can call ourselves US. The rest of all yawl are well all yawl.
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
Maybe over at Clemson, but that usage hasn't made it to North Central WV yet, Matthew. Even that 'yawl' business was a new one for me. Does that mean we're really really behind the times here?
-- Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences mjs AT clemson DOT edu http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:22, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:23, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
Then we can call ourselves US. The rest of all yawl are well all yawl.
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
Maybe over at Clemson, but that usage hasn't made it to North Central WV yet, Matthew. Even that 'yawl' business was a new one for me. Does that mean we're really really behind the times here?
y'all and all y'all is very common among local born and under educated folk around the upstate of SC.
"Y'all" has always been 2nd person plural to me. "You" is 2nd person singular. So people other than actors with poor examples of southern accents use "y'all" for singlur and "all y'all" for plural? Interesting!
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:23, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 03:29:15AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
Then we can call ourselves US. The rest of all yawl are well all yawl.
Which is usually spelt "y'all". "Yawl" is a two masted fore-and-aft rig sailing vessel. If you ketch the difference.
Of course, "y'all" used to be vernacular plural for "you", but these days, "y'all" seems to be second person singular around here and the new plural form is "all y'all".
Maybe over at Clemson, but that usage hasn't made it to North Central WV yet, Matthew. Even that 'yawl' business was a new one for me. Does that mean we're really really behind the times here?
That was my "ob pun" to keep the thread rich and alive. This is fun learning. {^_-}
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
Depends on context; you'll get a ticket if you atempt to drive on the pavement in England but not in the U.S.. Definitely "wrong" in the point of view of the officer. 8)
As long as the arguments are made in the spirit of fun, which most of it seems to be, I don't see a problem. For the most part, I find the differences in pronounciation, spelling, and usage amusing.
Regards, Mike Klinke
On 8/28/06, Mike Klinke lsomike@futzin.com wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
Depends on context; you'll get a ticket if you atempt to drive on the pavement in England but not in the U.S.. Definitely "wrong" in the point of view of the officer. 8)
As long as the arguments are made in the spirit of fun, which most of it seems to be, I don't see a problem. For the most part, I find the differences in pronounciation, spelling, and usage amusing.
Even in the same country, name it US, Canada, England, (Spanish ones) Argentina, Mexico, Bolivia, they do not pronounce the same and they do not even name some things the same!!, so as far as we can understand each others, i think we can leave the "correct/incorrect" thing to the language professionals, we are at computers :) .
regards,
Mike Klinke wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
Depends on context; you'll get a ticket if you atempt to drive on the pavement in England but not in the U.S.. Definitely "wrong" in the point of view of the officer. 8)
You mean like looking to your right, stepping off the curb, and getting flattened by the car coming from the left? :-)
As long as the arguments are made in the spirit of fun, which most of it seems to be, I don't see a problem. For the most part, I find the differences in pronounciation, spelling, and usage amusing.
And, at times, perplexing.
On Monday 28 August 2006 16:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Both are correct.
So "dephence" would also be correct, would it? As would "Korekt"?
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
The human brain has always been endowed with sufficient intelligence to be capable of making allowances for incorrect spelling, intentional or accidental. It can still dig out the correct meaning even if the text isn't absolutely correct. Fortunately. So it actually doesn't matter a damn if other nations choose to use incorrect spelling. I can tolerate it.
Now, if somebody were to alter some C language keywords in gcc, say change "break" to "exit" and "return" to "sendback" that would really foul things up. So we just don't do it.
Dave F
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:27:35PM +0100, David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 16:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Both are correct.
So "dephence" would also be correct, would it? As would "Korekt"?
"Any man who cannot come up with at least three ways to spell a word is lacking in imagination." -- Mark Twain
(Or words to that effect.)
On Monday 28 August 2006 10:17 am, Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 05:27:35PM +0100, David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 16:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Both are correct.
So "dephence" would also be correct, would it? As would "Korekt"?
"Any man who cannot come up with at least three ways to spell a word is lacking in imagination." -- Mark Twain
(Or words to that effect.)
In this country if we like a word ..we repaint it file the serial numbers off and claim it
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 16:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Both are correct.
So "dephence" would also be correct, would it? As would "Korekt"?
In Malaysia, a former colony of some "English" speaking country, computer is komputer.
Why is it that one side has to be "correct/right" and the other side "incorrect/wrong". I don't get it.
The human brain has always been endowed with sufficient intelligence to be capable of making allowances for incorrect spelling, intentional or accidental. It can still dig out the correct meaning even if the text isn't absolutely correct. Fortunately. So it actually doesn't matter a damn if other nations choose to use incorrect spelling. I can tolerate it.
You mean like when some countries/people spell "Rome" instead of "Roma" or "Florence" instead of "Firenze" or "Taipei" instead of "台北"?
Now, if somebody were to alter some C language keywords in gcc, say change "break" to "exit" and "return" to "sendback" that would really foul things up. So we just don't do it.
Ahh...now I know the true meaning of "Artificial Intelligence". :-)
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote: David Fletcher wrote:
Some folks refer to the box structure that goes up and down on cables within a building as an "elevator". Others call it a "lift". Both are correct.
I thought a lift was what you got when sticking your thumb out for a ride? ;-)
BRUCE STANLEY bruce.stanley@prodigy.net wrote:
Ed Greshko Ed.Greshko@greshko.com wrote: David Fletcher wrote:
Some folks refer to the box structure that goes up and down on cables within a building as an "elevator". Others call it a "lift". Both are correct.
I thought a lift was what you got when sticking your thumb out for a ride? ;-)
David Fletcher wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:02, Ed Greshko wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling.
Unfortunately the parent post contained non-UTF8 characters which do not render without the "irritated irony" regional font installed.
I must confess that while liking Americans I keep my three year old away (I can check the title because I literally hid the video in here) from cultural abominations like this
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0205461/
Bottom 100: #76
''Quotes: [Mr. Conductor and Junior are both out of gold dust] Mr. C. Junior: Hey, it's a beautiful day. I mean, we're down, but we're not out. Mr. Conductor: No, we're *out*, but we're not *down*. (more)''
No thanks.
-Andy
David Fletcher wrote:
They are not the same in the context of language. "English" is a language while (whilst) "British-English" is regional. In "British-English" defense is written "defence".
I think you've got it the wrong way around. "Defence" is the correct spelling. In the American regional variation "defence" is written "defense".
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed. Even the words that are supposed to mark the distinction, like lift vs elevator, are used interchangeably in the UK (I don't know about the US.)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed. Even the words that are supposed to mark the distinction, like lift vs elevator, are used interchangeably in the UK (I don't know about the US.)
I've never heard a USAn refer to a machine as a lift.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed. Even the words that are supposed to mark the distinction, like lift vs elevator, are used interchangeably in the UK (I don't know about the US.)
I've never heard a USAn refer to a machine as a lift.
In construction the machine that runs up and down the side of the building for hosting materials is called a - material lift.
If is can carry people and materials it is called a - man lift.
- --
David
On Monday 28 August 2006 01:54 pm, David Boles wrote:
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed. Even the words that are supposed to mark the distinction, like lift vs elevator, are used interchangeably in the UK (I don't know about the US.)
I've never heard a USAn refer to a machine as a lift.
In construction the machine that runs up and down the side of the building for hosting materials is called a - material lift.
If is can carry people and materials it is called a - man lift.
A freight elevator is sometimes called a lift
--
David
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 01:08, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 01:54 pm, David Boles wrote:
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed. Even the words that are supposed to mark the distinction, like lift vs elevator, are used interchangeably in the UK (I don't know about the US.)
I've never heard a USAn refer to a machine as a lift.
In construction the machine that runs up and down the side of the building for hosting materials is called a - material lift.
If is can carry people and materials it is called a - man lift.
A freight elevator is sometimes called a lift
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Anne
David Boles:
In construction the machine that runs up and down the side of the building for hosting materials is called a - material lift.
If is can carry people and materials it is called a - man lift.
Sounds like some sort of intimate medical aid. ;-\
Anne Wilson:
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Damn, them forks must be big, or there must be a lot of them, to require a truck! ;-)
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Not a fork-lift lory? {O,o}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:43, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Not a fork-lift lory? {O,o}
A truck here is not a lorry :-) Off-hand I can only think of the fork-lift variety, though I have a vague feeling that there may be a railway connection, as well. Possibly a small goods unit?
It's amazing how long some of these OT threads get, but language does fascinate me.
Anne
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 06:56, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:43, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Not a fork-lift lory? {O,o}
A truck here is not a lorry :-) Off-hand I can only think of the fork-lift variety, though I have a vague feeling that there may be a railway connection, as well. Possibly a small goods unit?
Over here, they've long since graduated past the usual palette movers of youre, I just recently saw one sitting in a warehouse here capable of handling a 5 foot high stack of 4x12 plywood, two at a time! 10 or 11 foot forks 2" thick and a foot wide each on a frame that could be spread at least 9 feet. I'd bet money the machine weighed over 45,000 lbs by itself.
But we still call it a fork-lift...
It's amazing how long some of these OT threads get, but language does fascinate me.
Yes, me too.
Anne
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
A truck here is not a lorry :-) Off-hand I can only think of the fork-lift variety, though I have a vague feeling that there may be a railway connection, as well. Possibly a small goods unit?
On a US railway the trucks are the things under the individual train cars that hold the wheels and attach to the chassis, usually through rotary joints.
Trucks on roads are usually vehicles designed with commercial, at some level, cargo hauling in mind. The small passenger vehicles, usually designed for 2 to 6 people, are generally cars. Most other things are busses or trucks.
{^_-}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:28, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
A truck here is not a lorry :-) Off-hand I can only think of the fork-lift variety, though I have a vague feeling that there may be a railway connection, as well. Possibly a small goods unit?
On a US railway the trucks are the things under the individual train cars that hold the wheels and attach to the chassis, usually through rotary joints.
Could be wrong, but I think that's a bogey :-)
Anne
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:28:35 -0700, jdow wrote:
Trucks on roads are usually vehicles designed with commercial, at some level, cargo hauling in mind. The small passenger vehicles, usually designed for 2 to 6 people, are generally cars. Most other things are busses or trucks.
Us rednecks in these hyar parts what owns pickups -- short for 'pickup truck' -- never calls 'em nuthn but "muh truck". (A big truck is a semi, or maybe a particularly large dump truck.)
On Saturday 02 September 2006 10:04 am, Beartooth wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 04:28:35 -0700, jdow wrote:
Trucks on roads are usually vehicles designed with commercial, at some level, cargo hauling in mind. The small passenger vehicles, usually designed for 2 to 6 people, are generally cars. Most other things are busses or trucks.
Us rednecks in these hyar parts what owns pickups -- short for 'pickup truck' -- never calls 'em nuthn but "muh truck". (A big truck is a semi, or maybe a particularly large dump truck.)
Or an 18 wheeler
-- Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, Neo-Redneck Linux Convert What do they know of country, who only country know?
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 03:43 am, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Not a fork-lift lory?
Isn't a Lory a parrot?
{O,o}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 04:06 am, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 03:43 am, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Not a fork-lift lory?
Isn't a Lory a parrot?
Ascent..An aroma.
Brisket..To speed something up.
Castrate..To evaluate all the actors in a movie or play.
Dollop..To dress up attractively.
Exposed..A retired model.
Forthcoming..Three visits weren't enough.
Germination..The birthplace of Beethoven.
Hi-fidelity..A devoted couple.
Institute..A spontaneous session of wind and brass instruments.
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
{O,o}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:58, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Former tree trunk.
Picky picky picky.
Doggoned PC types, their everywhere anymore.. :)
-- Mike hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "it stands to reason that they weren't always called the ancients." -- Daniel Jackson
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:58, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Former tree trunk.
Picky picky picky.
How do you feel about ex-tree-trunk?
Doggoned PC types, their everywhere anymore.. :)
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 01:35, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:58, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Former tree trunk.
Picky picky picky.
How do you feel about ex-tree-trunk?
6 of one, half a dozen of the other... :-)
Doggoned PC types, their everywhere anymore.. :)
-- Mike hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "it stands to reason that they weren't always called the ancients." -- Daniel Jackson
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 01:35, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:58, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Former tree trunk.
Picky picky picky.
How do you feel about ex-tree-trunk?
6 of one, half a dozen of the other... :-)
Terminated (with extreme prejudice) tree trunk?
Doggoned PC types, their everywhere anymore.. :)
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 11:59, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 01:35, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:58, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Former tree trunk.
Picky picky picky.
How do you feel about ex-tree-trunk?
6 of one, half a dozen of the other...
:-)
Terminated (with extreme prejudice) tree trunk?
Whatever, as long as MY chainsaw doesn't get the blame.
Doggoned PC types, their everywhere anymore.. :)
-- Mike hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "it stands to reason that they weren't always called the ancients." -- Daniel Jackson
From: "Michael Hennebry" hennebry@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 01:35, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:58, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Former tree trunk.
Picky picky picky.
How do you feel about ex-tree-trunk?
6 of one, half a dozen of the other... :-)
Terminated (with extreme prejudice) tree trunk?
Oh - you mean a proto-board? {^_^}
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 04:11:46AM -0700, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
Logarithm..Tapping out the beat of a tune on a tree trunk.
Logarithm: French Canadian birth control method.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:11 am, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 01:08, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 01:54 pm, David Boles wrote:
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed. Even the words that are supposed to mark the distinction, like lift vs elevator, are used interchangeably in the UK (I don't know about the US.)
I've never heard a USAn refer to a machine as a lift.
In construction the machine that runs up and down the side of the building for hosting materials is called a - material lift.
If is can carry people and materials it is called a - man lift.
A freight elevator is sometimes called a lift
Then, of course, in a warehouse we have a fork-lift truck
Short people have Lifts in their shoes
Anne
On 8/28/06, Timothy Murphy tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie wrote:
I think the difference between British-English and US-English is exaggerated to an absurd degree. Ask someone whether the novel they just read was published in the UK or the US, and 90% will not have noticed.
I disagree. As a Brit living in the USA for several years it is still painfully obvious to me when the natives "get it wrong". Most of the different spellings stick out like a sore thumb when I read them, and the same goes for my American colleagues when they see my spelling.
Where I would agree with you is with films, but there I have come to the conclusion that the dialog is written in a largely British/American-agnostic fashion. The same goes for some, but not all, TV shows. Watch some American news channels and you'll soon whince at "burglarized" but I'd never heard that term in a film (either in the UK or here).
On Monday 28 August 2006 17:48, gb spam wrote:
As a Brit living in the USA for several years it is still painfully obvious to me when the natives "get it wrong".
No in America if you spell the way the words are spelled in England then it is wrong.
You will also notice that HTML code does not know what colour means but it does know what color means.
Most of the different spellings stick out like a sore thumb when I read them, and the same goes for my American colleagues when they see my spelling.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:29:27AM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
I'm not sure it's capable of clarification, as there is a good 800 years (at least) of history, often bloody, and passions surrounding the terminology. That said...
British, adj: having to do with the island of Britain, which has several countries on it: Scotland, Wales, and England.
English, noun: A language originated in the country England. adj: Having to do with England.
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_%28terminology%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
I agree with Mr. Murphy. I have never heard "British" as the name of a language. I suspect there are some Scots, Welsh and Irish who might take umbrage at the notion.
Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:29:27AM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
I'm not sure it's capable of clarification, as there is a good 800 years (at least) of history, often bloody, and passions surrounding the terminology. That said...
British, adj: having to do with the island of Britain, which has several countries on it: Scotland, Wales, and England.
English, noun: A language originated in the country England. adj: Having to do with England.
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain: England, Scotland and Wales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_%28terminology%29, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom
I agree with Mr. Murphy. I have never heard "British" as the name of a language. I suspect there are some Scots, Welsh and Irish who might take umbrage at the notion.
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from across the pond coming to North America.
Rubber in England is an eraser. Think of asking a girl in a bar for a rubber.
Fag is a cigarette. Could be a quick way for a punch in the face.
There are others but best left off the list. :)
Robin Laing wrote:
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from across the pond coming to North America.
Rubber in England is an eraser. Think of asking a girl in a bar for a rubber.
Fag is a cigarette. Could be a quick way for a punch in the face.
There are others but best left off the list. :)
What can be even funnier is the difference in pronunciation. I remember years ago an Australian came up here to Taiwan to assist in the installation of what was then called a "super computer". The guy was very astute and knew ahead of time that the majority of Taiwanese are taught "American English". So, when he first asked for a tool he made sure he asked the locals for a "wrench" and not a "spanner". They looked at him with blank faces. He repeated his request and each time was met with questioning looks. I turned to them and said, "Lawrie would like a wrench". Their response was immediate. It was at that point Lawrie's face took on the look of puzzlement.
Has anyone been able to get anything installed to be able open WMV files with FC6 test2? If so, what are you using? I tried installing Totem-zine, mplayer, etc but I have run into multiple dependency issues (I know that is to be expected with a test repro).
Thanks!
Arch
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:31:23AM -0400, Arch Willingham wrote:
Has anyone been able to get anything installed to be able open WMV files with FC6 test2? If so, what are you using? I tried installing Totem-zine, mplayer, etc but I have run into multiple dependency issues (I know that is to be expected with a test repro).
You are more likely to get a useful response if you:
* Ask on the appropriate list, which for your question is fedora-testing, and
* Don't hijack threads.
1. I did not know such a place existed....sorry if I offended anyone. 2. What does "hijack a thread" mean?
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Charles Curley Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:42 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: Reading WMV files with FC6 test2
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 11:31:23AM -0400, Arch Willingham wrote:
Has anyone been able to get anything installed to be able open WMV files with FC6 test2? If so, what are you using? I tried installing Totem-zine, mplayer, etc but I have run into multiple dependency issues (I know that is to be expected with a test repro).
You are more likely to get a useful response if you:
* Ask on the appropriate list, which for your question is fedora-testing, and
* Don't hijack threads.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Arch Willingham wrote:
- What does "hijack a thread" mean?
In this case, it's the result of hitting reply to an existing message and changing the subject. Your mail client will include an in-reply-to and/or references header that makes the message appear as part of the thread you replied to, when it should really be a totally new thread.
See the threaded view of the archives for how this appears:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-August/thread.html#03475
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== Oh, I feel so deliciously white trash! Mommy, I want a mullet! -- Stewie Griffin
Oops....I had no idea it would do that. I just did it to prefill the e-mail address and then changed the subject....won't do it again!
Arch
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Todd Zullinger Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:05 PM To: fedora-list@redhat.com Subject: Re: Reading WMV files with FC6 test2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Arch Willingham wrote:
- What does "hijack a thread" mean?
In this case, it's the result of hitting reply to an existing message and changing the subject. Your mail client will include an in-reply-to and/or references header that makes the message appear as part of the thread you replied to, when it should really be a totally new thread.
See the threaded view of the archives for how this appears:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2006-August/thread.html#03475
- -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ====================================================================== Oh, I feel so deliciously white trash! Mommy, I want a mullet! -- Stewie Griffin
On Monday 28 August 2006 18:12, Arch Willingham wrote:
Oops....I had no idea it would do that. I just did it to prefill the e-mail address and then changed the subject....won't do it again!
The easy way to get the To line filled in for a new thread is to click on the email address that appears in the footer of all messages. That starts a new message with the address pre-filled, and without any link to the existing messages.
Anne
Cool...thanks!
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Anne Wilson Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 1:29 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: Reading WMV files with FC6 test2
On Monday 28 August 2006 18:12, Arch Willingham wrote:
Oops....I had no idea it would do that. I just did it to prefill the e-mail address and then changed the subject....won't do it again!
The easy way to get the To line filled in for a new thread is to click on the email address that appears in the footer of all messages. That starts a new message with the address pre-filled, and without any link to the existing messages.
Anne
But to answer the original question: You may be able to get working mplayer from the atrmps.net repository which already has FC6 builds setup (I haven't tried it yet, but plan to soon).
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Ed Greshko wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from across the pond coming to North America.
Rubber in England is an eraser. Think of asking a girl in a bar for a rubber.
Fag is a cigarette. Could be a quick way for a punch in the face.
There are others but best left off the list. :)
What can be even funnier is the difference in pronunciation. I remember years ago an Australian came up here to Taiwan to assist in the installation of what was then called a "super computer". The guy was very astute and knew ahead of time that the majority of Taiwanese are taught "American English". So, when he first asked for a tool he made sure he asked the locals for a "wrench" and not a "spanner". They looked at him with blank faces. He repeated his request and each time was met with questioning looks. I turned to them and said, "Lawrie would like a wrench". Their response was immediate. It was at that point Lawrie's face took on the look of puzzlement.
Asking someone for a lift will give similar responses. (A "lift" in the UK as an elevator.)
On 8/28/06, alan alan@clueserver.org wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Ed Greshko wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from across the pond coming to North America.
Rubber in England is an eraser. Think of asking a girl in a bar for a rubber.
Fag is a cigarette. Could be a quick way for a punch in the face.
There are others but best left off the list. :)
What can be even funnier is the difference in pronunciation. I remember years ago an Australian came up here to Taiwan to assist in the installation of what was then called a "super computer". The guy was very astute and knew ahead of time that the majority of Taiwanese are taught "American English". So, when he first asked for a tool he made sure he asked the locals for a "wrench" and not a "spanner". They looked at him with blank faces. He repeated his request and each time was met with questioning looks. I turned to them and said, "Lawrie would like a wrench". Their response was immediate. It was at that point Lawrie's face took on the look of puzzlement.
Asking someone for a lift will give similar responses. (A "lift" in the UK as an elevator.)
Here in Latin America, we have a good commercial of TACA (an Airline company) wich talk about how they name the same thing in different ways in each latin america country, but in all America "fly is TACA" they say. And that is true, we will always have different ways to call the same thing. We will be more used to it as the global communications grows, and grows. There are even some Spanish words coming into English and a lot of English words coming into all other languages.
maybe and hopefully some day we will have only one language all over the world (maybe Chinese? :) )
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Robin Laing wrote:
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from across the pond coming to North America.
Rubber in England is an eraser. Think of asking a girl in a bar for a rubber.
I have trouble wondering when I would ask a girl in a bar for an erser. Most probably it would be preceeded by "Oops."
Fag is a cigarette. Could be a quick way for a punch in the face.
Yup, ear, fist, face. No brain involved. Yet another reason not to smoke.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:10:46AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:29:27AM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
I would suggest a bugzilla entry to Mr. Murphy. As he appears to be an Irishman, I think it would be forgivable if he didn't proposed that as an alternate term.
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from across the pond coming to North America.
Rubber in England is an eraser. Think of asking a girl in a bar for a rubber.
Fag is a cigarette. Could be a quick way for a punch in the face.
There are others but best left off the list. :)
Underground. Subway.
For more, see H.L. Mencken's The American Language, a delight for logophiles.
Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:10:46AM -0600, Robin Laing wrote:
Charles Curley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 09:29:27AM -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
And to add to this, many British people call it the "Queen's English".
I would suggest a bugzilla entry to Mr. Murphy. As he appears to be an Irishman, I think it would be forgivable if he didn't proposed that as an alternate term.
I will have to look into that.
I learned the term Queens English from British Soldiers I was working with.
Just for some fun.
http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/h--engli.html
:)
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:01, Robin Laing wrote:
I learned the term Queens English from British Soldiers I was working with.
Of course, in the north we look down on the wimps who think Queen's English is correct. <tongue-in-cheek> Queen's English is only about 30% genuine, historic, old English. The further north you get, nearer to the border, the better. Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) is believed to have the most authentic with better than 80% historically correct :-)
Anne
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:01, Robin Laing wrote:
Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) is believed to have the most authentic with better than 80% historically correct :-)
Interesting! I took a class in history where the instructor was talking about the evolution of languages and pronunciations, and he said the closest dialect to the British of the 17th century is the dialect of American English currently spoken in the countryside around Atlanta, Georgia.
-- Michael P Brininstool
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 01:29:25PM -0600, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:01, Robin Laing wrote:
Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) is believed to have the most authentic with better than 80% historically correct :-)
Interesting! I took a class in history where the instructor was talking about the evolution of languages and pronunciations, and he said the closest dialect to the British of the 17th century is the dialect of American English currently spoken in the countryside around Atlanta, Georgia.
"British"? Isn't that where we came in?
If you (or your instructor) meant English, I would ask, which dialect? As for linguistic migration patterns from England to North America, see David Hackett Fischer, Albion's Seed, OUP (I think).
On Monday 28 August 2006 12:29 pm, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:01, Robin Laing wrote:
Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) is believed to have the most authentic with better than 80% historically correct :-)
Interesting! I took a class in history where the instructor was talking about the evolution of languages and pronunciations, and he said the closest dialect to the British of the 17th century is the dialect of American English currently spoken in the countryside around Atlanta, Georgia.
Around there Tallifaro is pronounced Tolliver and Jordan is pronounced Jurden That's correct English?
-- Michael P Brininstool
On Monday 28 August 2006 20:29, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:01, Robin Laing wrote:
Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) is believed to have the most authentic with better than 80% historically correct :-)
Interesting! I took a class in history where the instructor was talking about the evolution of languages and pronunciations, and he said the closest dialect to the British of the 17th century is the dialect of American English currently spoken in the countryside around Atlanta, Georgia.
Certainly I have read that many of the Americanised spellings that we tend to dislike were in fact common here at that time. That's not the same as dialect, though, not that I know anything about the dialect of Atlanta, Georgia.
Anne
Anne Wilson wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:01, Robin Laing wrote:
I learned the term Queens English from British Soldiers I was working with.
Of course, in the north we look down on the wimps who think Queen's English is correct. <tongue-in-cheek> Queen's English is only about 30% genuine, historic, old English. The further north you get, nearer to the border, the better. Geordie dialect (Newcastle area) is believed to have the most authentic with better than 80% historically correct :-)
Anne
Ah, Newcastle brown ale. :) :) ... <hangover>
Robin Laing wrote:
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from
And from which language does allot come? :-)
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from
And from which language does allot come? :-)
My poor spelling from having to learn "both" methods of spelling.
And ignoring the spell checker warnings. :o
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Robin Laing wrote:
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from
And from which language does allot come? :-)
My poor spelling from having to learn "both" methods of spelling.
And ignoring the spell checker warnings. :o
Warnings? Remind me not to use your spell checker...
allot verb (used with object), -lotted, -lotting. 1. to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers. 2. to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park. 3. to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate. [Origin: 1425-75; earlier alot, late ME alotten < MF aloter, equiv. to a- a-5 + lot lot (< Gmc) + -er inf. suffix]
Related forms allottable, adjective allotter, noun
Synonyms 1. See assign.
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 04:45:19PM -0400, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
And ignoring the spell checker warnings. :o
Warnings? Remind me not to use your spell checker...
allot verb (used with object), -lotted, -lotting.
This is a problem with the English language and spellcheckers. In the Future, when computers are Smart, this will be flagged as an error when it is a misspelling and left alone when it's the right word.
Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Robin Laing wrote:
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Robin Laing wrote:
There are allot of terms that can cause embarrassment for those from
And from which language does allot come? :-)
My poor spelling from having to learn "both" methods of spelling.
And ignoring the spell checker warnings. :o
Warnings? Remind me not to use your spell checker...
allot verb (used with object), -lotted, -lotting.
- to divide or distribute by share or portion; distribute or parcel
out; apportion: to allot the available farmland among the settlers. 2. to appropriate for a special purpose: to allot money for a park. 3. to assign as a portion; set apart; dedicate. [Origin: 1425-75; earlier alot, late ME alotten < MF aloter, equiv. to a- a-5 + lot lot (< Gmc) + -er inf. suffix]
Related forms allottable, adjective allotter, noun
Synonyms 1. See assign.
And to read the original question, Allot comes from Old French.
To be honest on this one, I don't even know if the checker even flagged any word. I just meant I was not watching and ignored anything the spell checker stated. And I will say, my nine year old is a much better speller than I ever was or will be. I am better than I was though, she has put me in my place.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 13:35:48 -0600, Robin Laing wrote: [... <snipperoo>]
And I will say, my nine year old is a much better speller than I ever was or will be. I am better than I was though, she has put me in my place.
You have my sympathy. I used to be able to spell down anyone I ever met. (Are there spelling bees outside the US?)
Then I took a job cataloging foreign language materials into the Library of Congress, which collects in 470 if not more. (I did Balto-Fennic, Germanic, and Romance; very rarely anything not in the Roman alphabet.)
Anybody know how many different ways different languages spell just their cognates for "institute"? And that's one among many ... It would confuse a homing pigeon -- or a GPS.
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
I will allot you 25 words or less to explain why you say that.
On Monday 28 August 2006 21:44, Ed Greshko wrote:
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
I will allot you 25 words or less to explain why you say that.
In the context of his sentence it was clearly incorrect.
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 21:44, Ed Greshko wrote:
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
I will allot you 25 words or less to explain why you say that.
In the context of his sentence it was clearly incorrect.
Ahhh...then you should have quoted the context to ensure clarity.
But you have given me a good idea. I'm going to ask my wife and friends here in Taiwan to explain the following:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
On Monday 28 August 2006 22:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
LOL nice play on the words and their meanings in the context.
On Monday 28 August 2006 07:17 pm, Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 22:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
LOL nice play on the words and their meanings in the context.
You know that there are 3 different ways two spell to, and you too can mess it up. ;-)
-- Jack Gates http://www.morningstarcom.net
Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 07:17 pm, Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 22:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
LOL nice play on the words and their meanings in the context.
You know that there are 3 different ways two spell to, and you too can mess it up. ;-)
I could...and I have...when careless...but in this case I don't think I did...
But actually there is only one way to spell 2, as in the number one way to spell too, as in also one way to spell to, as in...well you get it
Each of the spellings have different meanings. Unlike color and colour.
I'm sure there are "technical" terms for all of this. But, I'm not a teacher. I think one of the terms is cinnamon. :-)
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:47 pm, Ed Greshko wrote:
Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 07:17 pm, Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 22:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
LOL nice play on the words and their meanings in the context.
You know that there are 3 different ways two spell to, and you too can mess it up. ;-)
I could...and I have...when careless...but in this case I don't think I did...
But actually there is only one way to spell 2, as in the number one way to spell too, as in also one way to spell to, as in...well you get it
Each of the spellings have different meanings. Unlike color and colour.
I'm sure there are "technical" terms for all of this. But, I'm not a teacher. I think one of the terms is cinnamon. :-)
You might like this ...you verbivore ;-) http://www.verbivore.com/
-- Don't steal... the IRS hates competition!
Jack Gates jlgates@charter.net wrote: On Monday 28 August 2006 22:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
LOL nice play on the words and their meanings in the context.
Hi George;
On Tue, 2006-29-08 at 12:05 -0700, George Arseneault wrote:
If you want some more exemples... a recording or even a transcript of the "Who's on First" skit by Abbot & Costello, or just about any episode of the "Benny Hill Show". Most of the skits and any of his songs are just loaded with such references. (Double meanings, Synonyms, etc.) Though, you might want to screen it first. British shows tend to be more 'adult' than American shows. Just a warning to those who are concerned about such things.
Watching Benny Hill -- hmmmm. Now there is a confusing use of the word 'adult'. ________________________________________________________________________
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 15:27 -0400, William Case wrote:
Watching Benny Hill -- hmmmm. Now there is a confusing use of the word 'adult'.
In this case, it means doing what the children weren't allowed to get away with. ;-)
Somewhere I have an amusing receipt for an "adult video" from a department store that doesn't sell those sort of things. All they were doing was distinguishing it from children's movies.
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 21:44, Ed Greshko wrote:
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
I will allot you 25 words or less to explain why you say that.
In the context of his sentence it was clearly incorrect.
Ahhh...then you should have quoted the context to ensure clarity.
But you have given me a good idea. I'm going to ask my wife and friends here in Taiwan to explain the following:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 06:40, jdow wrote:
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 21:44, Ed Greshko wrote:
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
I will allot you 25 words or less to explain why you say that.
In the context of his sentence it was clearly incorrect.
Ahhh...then you should have quoted the context to ensure clarity.
But you have given me a good idea. I'm going to ask my wife and friends here in Taiwan to explain the following:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
Thats cute Joanne, and I don't mean bow-legged.
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 06:40, jdow wrote:
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 21:44, Ed Greshko wrote:
Jack Gates wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote: > allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
I will allot you 25 words or less to explain why you say that.
In the context of his sentence it was clearly incorrect.
Ahhh...then you should have quoted the context to ensure clarity.
But you have given me a good idea. I'm going to ask my wife and friends here in Taiwan to explain the following:
When my father died I inherited a lot. I thought to myself that it was a lot for one man to own. So, my brothers and sisters drew lots to determine how much of the lot each of us got. I was lucky and alloted most of the lot which is a lot of a lot to have got.
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
Thats cute Joanne, and I don't mean bow-legged.
What's funny is that most English speakers are sloppy enough THEY can't get through the poem, either. When you can say it fast you're almost ready to try out for the local Gilbert and Sullivan troup.
{^_-}
On 2006-08-29 12:40, jdow wrote:
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
Interestingly, this poem was written by a Dutchman, Dr. G. Nolst Trenité, also known as Charivarius. See http://ncf.idallen.com/english.html.
jdow wrote:
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
OK....I'll give it a look-see. Yet, I can't decide if it is better to allow the G&T's to wear off first. Somehow I do better on tongue twisters with a higher alcoholic content.... :-)
Thanks jdow; On Tue, 2006-29-08 at 03:40 -0700, jdow wrote: [snip]
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
Went to the site. Saved and printed the tongue twister. I am a member of a local Toastmaster's club [we practice Public Speaking] and I'll use your Twister to test how many of our members can get through it. It oughtabe fun.
On Tue, 2006-29-08 at 03:40 -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
As a followup question to the list: Do languages other than English have Tongue Twisters or other word games they use? I am sure they must, but I have never heard any.
Although, this thread is way off topic, it is kind of fun to break away from normal work and play with words within a community that stretches around the world. I am old enough that such things like talking casually to people from Britain, Australia and Hong Kong still amazes me.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:17, William Case wrote:
On Tue, 2006-29-08 at 03:40 -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Now as homework, Ed, search the web for "Terpsichore tongue twister". When you can get all the way through that without stumbling you might know something about - I'm not sure what. But it surely is fun to work your way through it.
http://www.betterendings.org/Homeschool/Fun/tongue.htm {^_-}
As a followup question to the list: Do languages other than English have Tongue Twisters or other word games they use? I am sure they must, but I have never heard any.
Although, this thread is way off topic, it is kind of fun to break away from normal work and play with words within a community that stretches around the world. I am old enough that such things like talking casually to people from Britain, Australia and Hong Kong still amazes me.
Me too Bill, for a while, but I've rather gotten to liking it now. One thing is for sure though. To drop into the vernacular, because of this internet thingy, we have a far better understanding of our fellow man than those who are spoon-fed their news by FOX, CNN et all. Its obvious to us that the media has an agenda, and its not ours by any means.
-- Regards Bill
William Case wrote:
As a followup question to the list: Do languages other than English have Tongue Twisters or other word games they use? I am sure they must, but I have never heard any.
Yes. The Chinese certainly do. And due to the nature of their text their puns are much more complex and clever than what English variants produce.
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 05:50 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a followup question to the list: Do languages other than English have Tongue Twisters or other word games they use? I am sure they must, but I have never heard any.
Yes. The Chinese certainly do. And due to the nature of their text their puns are much more complex and clever than what English variants produce.
Actually the Chinese language has a lot more variants than English, and there isn't even a body of water like the Atlantic to create that diversity.
There are two written script systems and one common language -- what you Westerners would call Mandarin -- and many, many dialects. But even with Mandarin, there are many variations in usage and terminology similar to the examples of "lift" and "elevator" given previously. So, even when someone speaks only Mandarin, you can tell where that person is from, based on accent and terminology used -- similar to the Southern term y'all. You can also tell if the person speaking Mandarin is an "overseas Chinese" (someone whose family has lived outside China for generations) or someone from PRC, Taiwan or Hong Kong.
Thanks Pascal;
That's the kind of thing I find fascinating.
On Thu, 2006-31-08 at 10:05 +0800, Chong Yu Meng wrote:
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 05:50 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
[snip]
Actually the Chinese language has a lot more variants than English, and there isn't even a body of water like the Atlantic to create that diversity.
There are two written script systems and one common language -- what you Westerners would call Mandarin -- and many, many dialects. But even with Mandarin, there are many variations in usage and terminology similar to the examples of "lift" and "elevator" given previously. So, even when someone speaks only Mandarin, you can tell where that person is from, based on accent and terminology used -- similar to the Southern term y'all. You can also tell if the person speaking Mandarin is an "overseas Chinese" (someone whose family has lived outside China for generations) or someone from PRC, Taiwan or Hong Kong.
Same skills, same problems, same results no matter what the language. It is nice to know. Can I ask, does Mandarin have the equivalent of Tongue Twisters or other word/language (nonsense) games?
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 04:14 -0400, William Case wrote:
Same skills, same problems, same results no matter what the language. It is nice to know. Can I ask, does Mandarin have the equivalent of Tongue Twisters or other word/language (nonsense) games?
Whoa ! Any comment I make on this will no doubt insult some segment of Chinese people everywhere. I'm going to be very unpopular or be rebutted quite robustly before this thread is ended.
But here goes, anyway... ;)
Well, Mandarin does not lend itself as easily as English to tongue twisters, because, as you are probably aware, Chinese is composed of ideograms, and the pronunciation of each character is very discrete. There is no "liaison" as there is in French, and no concept of syllables. I suppose there are tongue twisters -- I have not heard any, but my grasp of Mandarin is not as good as it should be (my family has been away from the "Old Country" for several generations now).
But Mandarin is the "common language", the ISO standard, if you will. With dialects, things are different: I have heard some tongue twisters and puns and general linguistic cleverness in Hokkien and Cantonese (some of them are unprintable and would not translate well anyway). In fact, the Cantonese are famed for their cleverness in language.
The thing is, dialects are spoken differently, with a loose form of liaison/syllables, so tongue twisters are possible and common in some if not all dialects. I can only speak for Hokkien and Cantonese, though. A friend in Hong Kong tells me that actually there are over a hundred dialects in China itself, so I have only a very small representative sample here.
So that's my 2 cents. Time to put on my asbestos suit and wait for replies ! ;)
Chong Yu Meng wrote:
Whoa ! Any comment I make on this will no doubt insult some segment of Chinese people everywhere. I'm going to be very unpopular or be rebutted quite robustly before this thread is ended.
But here goes, anyway... ;)
Well, Mandarin does not lend itself as easily as English to tongue twisters, because, as you are probably aware, Chinese is composed of ideograms, and the pronunciation of each character is very discrete. There is no "liaison" as there is in French, and no concept of syllables. I suppose there are tongue twisters -- I have not heard any, but my grasp of Mandarin is not as good as it should be (my family has been away from the "Old Country" for several generations now).
Trust me.... I am living here in Taiwan. My wife is "Chinese". Her family is originally from mainland China. My wife was born and raised in Korea so she also speaks/reads Korean as well as Chinese and English. She doesn't speak the local Taiwanese dialect.
I asked her about Tongue Twisters and gave her the example of "She sells sea shells by the sea shore to sea sick sailors and shell shocked solders" and asked about tongue twisters.
She assured me that they also have tongue twisters. If you want, I can have her tell them to me and write them out for you...but they will be in "Chinese" Big5 charset.
But Mandarin is the "common language", the ISO standard, if you will. With dialects, things are different: I have heard some tongue twisters and puns and general linguistic cleverness in Hokkien and Cantonese (some of them are unprintable and would not translate well anyway). In fact, the Cantonese are famed for their cleverness in language.
Ahh...there is so much more to all of this....Mandarin is not an ISO standard....but never mind.
The thing is, dialects are spoken differently, with a loose form of liaison/syllables, so tongue twisters are possible and common in some if not all dialects. I can only speak for Hokkien and Cantonese, though. A friend in Hong Kong tells me that actually there are over a hundred dialects in China itself, so I have only a very small representative sample here.
So that's my 2 cents. Time to put on my asbestos suit and wait for replies ! ;)
No need.... You are really getting into a very complex area. More than mere mortals normally treed.
On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 23:14 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
Trust me.... I am living here in Taiwan. My wife is "Chinese".
So is mine ! You have my sympathies ! (Sleeping in the dog house tonight ...) ;)
I asked her about Tongue Twisters and gave her the example of "She sells sea shells by the sea shore to sea sick sailors and shell shocked solders" and asked about tongue twisters.
She assured me that they also have tongue twisters. If you want, I can have her tell them to me and write them out for you...but they will be in "Chinese" Big5 charset.
That's fine ! I believe you -- and her! As I said previously, my grasp of the language is probably not as good as hers because my family has been in outside the Old Country for a long time now, IIRC since 1750.
But if you could send over an example in Big5, I'd be very happy to read it! Bring me back to my roots, and an excuse to use the Chinese dictionary again...
Ahh...there is so much more to all of this....Mandarin is not an ISO standard....but never mind.
Well, I was using it in the narrow sense that Mandarin is like a common agreed-upon (canonical?) standard. It isn't an ISO standard of course, and definitely there is a lot to the language. The thing is, it's hard to explain the concept of one written script (well, actually two -- Traditional and Simplified), where each character has a different pronunciation depending on the region and dialect. English has many variations, but they are recognizable when spoken (most of the time anyway), whereas Chinese dialects often sound like entirely different languages. IMHO, Cantonese and Hokkien are as similar as French and German.
There is an added wrinkle to the written script, which I am not sure if you are aware of: I had a female Korean colleague whose English was quite poor, but could read Traditional Chinese. I was surprised and asked her where she learned it, and apparently she learned it in school, not as a second language, but because it is a more archaic version of Korean script !
It is easier to change the specification to fit the program than vice versa.
LOL! Very appropriate !
From: "Ed Greshko" Ed.Greshko@greshko.com
Chong Yu Meng wrote:
Whoa ! Any comment I make on this will no doubt insult some segment of Chinese people everywhere. I'm going to be very unpopular or be rebutted quite robustly before this thread is ended.
But here goes, anyway... ;)
Well, Mandarin does not lend itself as easily as English to tongue twisters, because, as you are probably aware, Chinese is composed of ideograms, and the pronunciation of each character is very discrete. There is no "liaison" as there is in French, and no concept of syllables. I suppose there are tongue twisters -- I have not heard any, but my grasp of Mandarin is not as good as it should be (my family has been away from the "Old Country" for several generations now).
Trust me.... I am living here in Taiwan. My wife is "Chinese". Her family is originally from mainland China. My wife was born and raised in Korea so she also speaks/reads Korean as well as Chinese and English. She doesn't speak the local Taiwanese dialect.
I asked her about Tongue Twisters and gave her the example of "She sells sea shells by the sea shore to sea sick sailors and shell shocked solders" and asked about tongue twisters.
She assured me that they also have tongue twisters. If you want, I can have her tell them to me and write them out for you...but they will be in "Chinese" Big5 charset.
But Mandarin is the "common language", the ISO standard, if you will. With dialects, things are different: I have heard some tongue twisters and puns and general linguistic cleverness in Hokkien and Cantonese (some of them are unprintable and would not translate well anyway). In fact, the Cantonese are famed for their cleverness in language.
Ahh...there is so much more to all of this....Mandarin is not an ISO standard....but never mind.
The thing is, dialects are spoken differently, with a loose form of liaison/syllables, so tongue twisters are possible and common in some if not all dialects. I can only speak for Hokkien and Cantonese, though. A friend in Hong Kong tells me that actually there are over a hundred dialects in China itself, so I have only a very small representative sample here.
So that's my 2 cents. Time to put on my asbestos suit and wait for replies ! ;)
No need.... You are really getting into a very complex area. More than mere mortals normally treed.
Thanks both of you. It's fun. And it humanizes people who are somewhat different from me. Humor is a wonderful tool for getting to know people.
{^_^}
From: "Jack Gates" jlgates@charter.net
On Monday 28 August 2006 11:10, Robin Laing wrote:
allot
In the USA the English teacher would give you a failing grade for the above. a lot
As has been pointed out a lot of what the English Teacher would do in assigning the grade would be allotted to the intended word and usage.
{^_-}
At 09:29 AM 28/08/2006, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
Bob Goodwin
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Not quite the same
British English uses Colour while American English uses Color and a number of similar spelling so not quite synonymous.
Cheers Derek
Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2.
==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com
==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html
==== Check out QFHS Marriage Transcription Project page (revised daily) (Quebec Family History Society) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/qfhs.html
Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html
Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html
Check out my web Ramsgate page http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde
Check out the Quebec Family History web page http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.html
There is also the story I heard from the mouth of an Aussie that came to a computer conference I attended in the US and when he got off the plane in San Francisco, he asked "Where can I go to suck down a fag!" The male flight attendant just grinned, at which point the Aussie realized his mistake! There is definitely a difference in the languages. Was it Winston Churchill that said, "The US and UK are two countries separated by a common language"? And yes, I know that Brits and Aussies are not that same thing (theoretically).
I'magin' I am fixin' to get dissed! ;-)
-- Michael P Brininstool
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Derek C Hopkins Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:58 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Cc: For users of Fedora Core releases; tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie Subject: Re: What is the language "British"?
At 09:29 AM 28/08/2006, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are
synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
Bob Goodwin
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Not quite the same
British English uses Colour while American English uses Color and a number of similar spelling so not quite synonymous.
Cheers Derek
Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2.
==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com
==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html
==== Check out QFHS Marriage Transcription Project page (revised daily) (Quebec Family History Society) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/qfhs.html
Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html
Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html
Check out my web Ramsgate page http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde
Check out the Quebec Family History web page http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.html
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Monday 28 August 2006 15:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
There is also the story I heard from the mouth of an Aussie that came to a computer conference I attended in the US and when he got off the plane in San Francisco, he asked "Where can I go to suck down a fag!" The male flight attendant just grinned, at which point the Aussie realized his mistake! There is definitely a difference in the languages. Was it Winston Churchill that said, "The US and UK are two countries separated by a common language"? And yes, I know that Brits and Aussies are not that same thing (theoretically).
Winston was right you know..
I'magin' I am fixin' to get dissed! ;-)
Quite possibly. :)
-- Michael P Brininstool
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Derek C Hopkins Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 12:58 PM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Cc: For users of Fedora Core releases; tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie Subject: Re: What is the language "British"?
At 09:29 AM 28/08/2006, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
To the ignorant masses, myself included, British and English are
synonymous.
Perhaps you can clarify it?
Bob Goodwin
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Not quite the same
British English uses Colour while American English uses Color and a number of similar spelling so not quite synonymous.
Cheers Derek
Derek C Hopkins, Phone +1(450)678-7768 6640, Biarritz, Fax +1(450)678-4252 Brossard, E-Mail derek.hopkins@sympatico.ca QC, Canada, J4Z-2A2.
==== FreeBMD - England and Wales - Birth - Marriage and Death Transcriptions http://FreeBMD.rootsweb.com
==== Check out FreeBMD Scan2 Syndicate page (revised daily) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/scan2.html
==== Check out QFHS Marriage Transcription Project page (revised daily) (Quebec Family History Society) Please bookmark our new home http://www.scan2.org/qfhs.html
Check out my web page (22jan1997) Last Revised 28 May 1998 http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/index.html
Check out Abney Park Indexing Project (revised 14 MAR 2000, 195,000 names) http://www.cam.org/~hopkde/abney.html
Check out my web Ramsgate page http://members.adept.co.uk/hopkde
Check out the Quebec Family History web page http://www.cam.org/~qfhs/index.html
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
What is defined as "English" now should be defined as "American".
The reason there is a difference is due to spelling. (And the English have bigger pints.)
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:20, alan wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
What is defined as "English" now should be defined as "American".
The reason there is a difference is due to spelling. (And the English have bigger pints.)
and gallons.
<Looking over shoulder> I thought it was always the Yanks that have 'bigger'...
Anne
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:20, alan wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not
"English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
What is defined as "English" now should be defined as "American".
The reason there is a difference is due to spelling. (And the English have bigger pints.)
and gallons.
<Looking over shoulder> I thought it was always the Yanks that have 'bigger'...
Usually only the "Texans",....but then in the states we've begun to draw away from Texans....but not nearly fast enough.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, rengland@europa.com wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:20, alan wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not
"English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
What is defined as "English" now should be defined as "American".
The reason there is a difference is due to spelling. (And the English have bigger pints.)
and gallons.
<Looking over shoulder> I thought it was always the Yanks that have 'bigger'...
Usually only the "Texans",....but then in the states we've begun to draw away from Texans....but not nearly fast enough.
I was thinking of "Imperial Pints" as opposed to what they pass off to Americans as pints.
And try to get them to serve cider.
Mmmmm... Blackthorne!
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, alan wrote:
I was thinking of "Imperial Pints" as opposed to what they pass off to Americans as pints.
And try to get them to serve cider.
You can't get scrumble either. It's made from apples. Mostly apples.
On Monday 28 August 2006 16:53, rengland@europa.com wrote:
On Monday 28 August 2006 19:20, alan wrote:
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not
"English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
What is defined as "English" now should be defined as "American".
The reason there is a difference is due to spelling. (And the English have bigger pints.)
and gallons.
<Looking over shoulder> I thought it was always the Yanks that have 'bigger'...
Usually only the "Texans",....but then in the states we've begun to draw away from Texans....but not nearly fast enough.
Amen brother, amen.
Hi All;
As interesting as the discussion is comparing English (UK) and English (USA), the point being made by the original post is, there is no such thing as the "British" language. No one I know of would use the word to describe a language.
Usage rules. That's why there is so many forms of English -- large numbers of people in different countries, in fact use different words or spellings. If its not used (or historical), its not a word.
On Mon, 2006-28-08 at 14:25 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
My Gnome version of the language setup gui gives me the choice of: English (Australia), English (Botswana), English (Canada), English (Denmark -- now the differences in that one would be interesting), English (Great Britain), English (Hong Kong), English (India), English (Ireland), English (New Zealand), English (Philippines), English (Singapore), English (South Africa), English (USA) and English(Zimbabwe). No "British" nowhere.
By the way, in Canada, I can think of five different forms of French that are used regularly.
Some day it would be interesting and fun to get comments on why each of these forms of English is needed in a computer.
On 8/28/06, William Case billlinux@rogers.com wrote:
Hi All;
As interesting as the discussion is comparing English (UK) and English (USA), the point being made by the original post is, there is no such thing as the "British" language. No one I know of would use the word to describe a language.
Usage rules. That's why there is so many forms of English -- large numbers of people in different countries, in fact use different words or spellings. If its not used (or historical), its not a word.
On Mon, 2006-28-08 at 14:25 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
My Gnome version of the language setup gui gives me the choice of: English (Australia), English (Botswana), English (Canada), English (Denmark -- now the differences in that one would be interesting), English (Great Britain), English (Hong Kong), English (India), English (Ireland), English (New Zealand), English (Philippines), English (Singapore), English (South Africa), English (USA) and English(Zimbabwe). No "British" nowhere.
By the way, in Canada, I can think of five different forms of French that are used regularly.
Yes a friend of mine who lives in Quebec (Montreal) told me that when he went to France, it was not easy to understand french people and also the oposite. :) funny.
regards, Guillermo.
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:56 -0400, William Case wrote:
Some day it would be interesting and fun to get comments on why each of these forms of English is needed in a computer.
Because when you use your computer, you want it to use your language, not someone else's. Second to that annoyance, you see kids in your country incorrectly spelling things, because they're using the language of another country, learning it from their computer.
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Hi Mate;
You misunderstand my question.
On Tue, 2006-29-08 at 16:54 +0930, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:56 -0400, William Case wrote:
Some day it would be interesting and fun to get comments on why each of these forms of English is needed in a computer.
Because when you use your computer, you want it to use your language, not someone else's. Second to that annoyance, you see kids in your country incorrectly spelling things, because they're using the language of another country, learning it from their computer.
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling. What I was trying to convey in the rather light vain of this thread, is that we have seen postings about the difference between UK and US English. It would be fun to hear about some of the main differences between and amongst the remaining dozen brands of English.
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 05:54, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I'll second that opinion. It wouldn't be so bad, except when I walk into Staples et all, looking for A4 size paper, they have absolutely no clue that the US seems to be the only user of the 8.5x11 format. And they cannot grok what difference it makes at all. Very very frustrating.
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 05:54, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I'll second that opinion. It wouldn't be so bad, except when I walk into Staples et all, looking for A4 size paper, they have absolutely no clue that the US seems to be the only user of the 8.5x11 format. And they cannot grok what difference it makes at all. Very very frustrating.
Try for Architectural A size. That's even worse to find than Legal size to find. (It's 12 by 9.)
{^_-}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 07:36, jdow wrote:
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 05:54, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I'll second that opinion. It wouldn't be so bad, except when I walk into Staples et all, looking for A4 size paper, they have absolutely no clue that the US seems to be the only user of the 8.5x11 format. And they cannot grok what difference it makes at all. Very very frustrating.
Try for Architectural A size. That's even worse to find than Legal size to find. (It's 12 by 9.)
{^_-}
Its also larger than the average ink squirter printer can do, the carriages seem to be optimized for A4, and making 8.5" wide is stretching them to the limit. For business green bar, I'd have to go out to the storage shed and resurrect an old Xerox 1650ro, which has an 18" wide carriage. Fastest daisy wheel ever made, 40 cps! Also churns your butter while its running, just bungee cord the milk container onto the table and hang on as its 150 millisecond full sweep carriage returns are lethal weapons. :)
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:10, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 05:54, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I'll second that opinion. It wouldn't be so bad, except when I walk into Staples et all, looking for A4 size paper, they have absolutely no clue that the US seems to be the only user of the 8.5x11 format. And they cannot grok what difference it makes at all. Very very frustrating.
-- Cheers, Gene
According to something I found on Google about International paper sizes, Staples, "they say", has now started stocking A4 paper, under item # HAM103036.
I thought that the US letter 8½ x 11 might have tied in with the old UK imperial sizes, but what I used to buy as "Quarto", is only 8 x 10, which ties in with the 8 x 10 photographic printing paper, That I, years ago used to use. There is one listed called "Medium Quarto" which is 8½ x 11, and ties in nicely with US letter.
Ramble over.
Nigel.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 08:49, Nigel Henry wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:10, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 05:54, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I'll second that opinion. It wouldn't be so bad, except when I walk into Staples et all, looking for A4 size paper, they have absolutely no clue that the US seems to be the only user of the 8.5x11 format. And they cannot grok what difference it makes at all. Very very frustrating.
-- Cheers, Gene
According to something I found on Google about International paper sizes, Staples, "they say", has now started stocking A4 paper, under item # HAM103036.
I thought that the US letter 8½ x 11 might have tied in with the old UK imperial sizes, but what I used to buy as "Quarto", is only 8 x 10, which ties in with the 8 x 10 photographic printing paper, That I, years ago used to use. There is one listed called "Medium Quarto" which is 8½ x 11, and ties in nicely with US letter.
Ramble over.
An educational ramble Nigel, thanks. I wonder about its quality. I'm rather partial to the kodak brit-white 24lb stuff as its very low maintainance in the printer.
Nigel.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
Hey Timothy Murphy,
Good Topic. Almost got 100 (3more to go) threads before 24 hrs from it's original post even some replies are not related...including this :)
cheers !!
On 8/29/06, Gene Heskett gene.heskett@verizon.net wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 08:49, Nigel Henry wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:10, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 05:54, Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I'll second that opinion. It wouldn't be so bad, except when I walk into Staples et all, looking for A4 size paper, they have absolutely no clue that the US seems to be the only user of the 8.5x11 format. And they cannot grok what difference it makes at all. Very very frustrating.
-- Cheers, Gene
According to something I found on Google about International paper sizes, Staples, "they say", has now started stocking A4 paper, under item # HAM103036.
I thought that the US letter 8½ x 11 might have tied in with the old UK imperial sizes, but what I used to buy as "Quarto", is only 8 x 10, which ties in with the 8 x 10 photographic printing paper, That I, years ago used to use. There is one listed called "Medium Quarto" which is 8½ x 11, and ties in nicely with US letter.
Ramble over.
An educational ramble Nigel, thanks. I wonder about its quality. I'm rather partial to the kodak brit-white 24lb stuff as its very low maintainance in the printer.
Nigel.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Ed Greshko wrote:
William Case wrote:
As a Canadian, I thoroughly understand what a pain in the ass it is to get stuck with somebody else's spelling.
What is actually a pain is having to get stuck with somebody else's paper size. Worked in the USA for a company with the HQ in London. The USA is standardized on 8.5x11 will the HQ in London uses A4. I think one can imagine the amount of work it can take to reformat product brochures so they can be downloaded and printed by USA based prospects.
The difference between color and colour is nothing compared to that.
I would like to use the "A" sizes as they work so well.
Cut an A3 in half on the short width and you get two A4's.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html
It is also an ISO 216 standard.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 03:24, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:56 -0400, William Case wrote:
Some day it would be interesting and fun to get comments on why each of these forms of English is needed in a computer.
Because when you use your computer, you want it to use your language, not someone else's. Second to that annoyance, you see kids in your country incorrectly spelling things, because they're using the language of another country, learning it from their computer.
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect. We can all argue about color/colour, honor/honour, but we all know those meanings well. Local dialects of a language are ok as long as they don't drift too far and result in errors due to miss-understanding the lexical and pronunciation nuances of the locality.
Winston C. was right, but we shouldn't get so carried away with our so-called local rights as to cause a general deterioration in understanding.
In the above case, I believe there are English(GB) versions of the spell checkers available, so why don't they use them? OTOH, the Aussies do have a vernacular thats uniquely Australion, so maybe it would be best for the GB version of the spell checker to be forked/updated to include commonly used, Aussie unique words and phrases & call it the English(AU) version.
-- (Currently running FC4, occasionally trying FC5.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 03:24, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:56 -0400, William Case wrote:
Some day it would be interesting and fun to get comments on why each of these forms of English is needed in a computer.
Because when you use your computer, you want it to use your language, not someone else's. Second to that annoyance, you see kids in your country incorrectly spelling things, because they're using the language of another country, learning it from their computer.
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect. We can all argue about color/colour, honor/honour, but we all know those meanings well. Local dialects of a language are ok as long as they don't drift too far and result in errors due to miss-understanding the lexical and pronunciation nuances of the locality.
Winston C. was right, but we shouldn't get so carried away with our so-called local rights as to cause a general deterioration in understanding.
In the above case, I believe there are English(GB) versions of the spell checkers available, so why don't they use them? OTOH, the Aussies do have a vernacular thats uniquely Australion, so maybe it would be best for the GB version of the spell checker to be forked/updated to include commonly used, Aussie unique words and phrases & call it the English(AU) version.
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for potato in the US at the time illiterate lefties made it a means of tarring Dan Quayle.
{^_-}
On Tue, August 29, 2006 12:30 pm, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for potato in the US at the time illiterate lefties made it a means of tarring Dan Quayle.
But Dan Quayle was correcting a school child who spelled it "potato", so presumably he is at least as illiterate as your lefties since he didn't know that potato was also correct.
Steve
From: "Steve Searle" steve@stevesearle.com
On Tue, August 29, 2006 12:30 pm, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for potato in the US at the time illiterate lefties made it a means of tarring Dan Quayle.
But Dan Quayle was correcting a school child who spelled it "potato", so presumably he is at least as illiterate as your lefties since he didn't know that potato was also correct.
The card he was handed for the word spelled it potatoe. As it was a spelling test he took the card at its word. He was ambushed.
{^_^}
--- jdow jdow@earthlink.net wrote:
From: "Steve Searle" steve@stevesearle.com
On Tue, August 29, 2006 12:30 pm, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for
potato in the US at the
time illiterate lefties made it a means of
tarring Dan Quayle.
But Dan Quayle was correcting a school child who
spelled it "potato", so
presumably he is at least as illiterate as your
lefties since he didn't
know that potato was also correct.
The card he was handed for the word spelled it potatoe. As it was a spelling test he took the card at its word. He was ambushed.
{^_^}
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
The spelling of "potatoe" changed to "potato" and so Dan Quayle was made fun of, but I guess that's nothing compared to
A friend sent me the following message:
-------------------------------------- Hmmmmmm. . .
Was this a mistake on Google's part?
1- Go to www.Google.com
2- Type in Failure
3- Look at the first listing and see what comes up listed first
Was this done intentionally?
--------------------------------------
I hope no one get's offended, but since this thread lends itself. why not?
Regards,
Antonio
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
From: "Antonio Olivares" olivares14031@yahoo.com
--- jdow jdow@earthlink.net wrote:
From: "Steve Searle" steve@stevesearle.com
On Tue, August 29, 2006 12:30 pm, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for
potato in the US at the
time illiterate lefties made it a means of
tarring Dan Quayle.
But Dan Quayle was correcting a school child who
spelled it "potato", so
presumably he is at least as illiterate as your
lefties since he didn't
know that potato was also correct.
The card he was handed for the word spelled it potatoe. As it was a spelling test he took the card at its word. He was ambushed.
{^_^}
The spelling of "potatoe" changed to "potato" and so Dan Quayle was made fun of, but I guess that's nothing compared to
A friend sent me the following message:
Hmmmmmm. . .
Was this a mistake on Google's part?
1- Go to www.Google.com
2- Type in Failure
3- Look at the first listing and see what comes up listed first
Was this done intentionally?
I hope no one get's offended, but since this thread lends itself. why not?
BAD mistake on their part. It should have brought up NASA.
{^_^}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 20:05, jdow wrote:
From: "Antonio Olivares" olivares14031@yahoo.com
--- jdow jdow@earthlink.net wrote:
From: "Steve Searle" steve@stevesearle.com
On Tue, August 29, 2006 12:30 pm, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for
potato in the US at the
time illiterate lefties made it a means of
tarring Dan Quayle.
But Dan Quayle was correcting a school child who
spelled it "potato", so
presumably he is at least as illiterate as your
lefties since he didn't
know that potato was also correct.
The card he was handed for the word spelled it potatoe. As it was a spelling test he took the card at its word. He was ambushed.
{^_^}
The spelling of "potatoe" changed to "potato" and so Dan Quayle was made fun of, but I guess that's nothing compared to
A friend sent me the following message:
Hmmmmmm. . .
Was this a mistake on Google's part?
1- Go to www.Google.com
2- Type in Failure
3- Look at the first listing and see what comes up listed first
Was this done intentionally?
I hope no one get's offended, but since this thread lends itself. why not?
BAD mistake on their part. It should have brought up NASA.
I *think* its for the most recent instance. Of late, NASA seems to be trying harder. But, one more shuttle blowup and that agency is toast, along with all those fawncy pensions.
{^_^}
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Hmmmmmm. . .
Was this a mistake on Google's part?
1- Go to www.Google.com
2- Type in Failure
3- Look at the first listing and see what comes up listed first
Was this done intentionally?
Looks like it, but not by Google.
Google's explanation is here: http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/googlebombing-failure.html
I hope no one get's offended, but since this thread lends itself. why not?
Regards,
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 19:38, Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- jdow jdow@earthlink.net wrote:
From: "Steve Searle" steve@stevesearle.com
On Tue, August 29, 2006 12:30 pm, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for
potato in the US at the
time illiterate lefties made it a means of
tarring Dan Quayle.
But Dan Quayle was correcting a school child who
spelled it "potato", so
presumably he is at least as illiterate as your
lefties since he didn't
know that potato was also correct.
The card he was handed for the word spelled it potatoe. As it was a spelling test he took the card at its word. He was ambushed.
{^_^}
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
The spelling of "potatoe" changed to "potato" and so Dan Quayle was made fun of, but I guess that's nothing compared to
A friend sent me the following message:
Hmmmmmm. . .
Was this a mistake on Google's part?
1- Go to www.Google.com
2- Type in Failure
3- Look at the first listing and see what comes up listed first
Ohmygawd..
Was this done intentionally?
I dunno, but it sure fits the query.
I hope no one get's offended, but since this thread lends itself. why not?
Why not indeed! :)
Regards,
Antonio
Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 16:38 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
1- Go to www.Google.com 2- Type in Failure 3- Look at the first listing and see what comes up listed first
The first time I saw that, it was as a search for "miserable failure", and there's another one for "French victories" that was rather famous. ;-) It didn't work when I just tried it, but what was more amusing was you got a "none found" page, with no pages (no vaguely related page), and a "did you mean French failures" query (or words to that affect).
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 07:30, jdow wrote:
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 03:24, Tim wrote:
On Mon, 2006-08-28 at 22:56 -0400, William Case wrote:
Some day it would be interesting and fun to get comments on why each of these forms of English is needed in a computer.
Because when you use your computer, you want it to use your language, not someone else's. Second to that annoyance, you see kids in your country incorrectly spelling things, because they're using the language of another country, learning it from their computer.
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect. We can all argue about color/colour, honor/honour, but we all know those meanings well. Local dialects of a language are ok as long as they don't drift too far and result in errors due to miss-understanding the lexical and pronunciation nuances of the locality.
Winston C. was right, but we shouldn't get so carried away with our so-called local rights as to cause a general deterioration in understanding.
In the above case, I believe there are English(GB) versions of the spell checkers available, so why don't they use them? OTOH, the Aussies do have a vernacular thats uniquely Australion, so maybe it would be best for the GB version of the spell checker to be forked/updated to include commonly used, Aussie unique words and phrases & call it the English(AU) version.
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for potato in the US at the time illiterate lefties made it a means of tarring Dan Quayle.
{^_-}
Still is as far as I'm concerned. As for Dan, he should have been feathered too. That spelling bruhaha was just a handy handle to hang something on an arrogant ****.
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
Still is as far as I'm concerned. As for Dan, he should have been feathered too. That spelling bruhaha was just a handy handle to hang something on an arrogant ****.
Off topic but arguably without him the space program might have died. That would have been an extraordinarily bad thing.
{^_^}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 19:36, jdow wrote:
From: "Gene Heskett" gene.heskett@verizon.net
Still is as far as I'm concerned. As for Dan, he should have been feathered too. That spelling bruhaha was just a handy handle to hang something on an arrogant ****.
Off topic but arguably without him the space program might have died. That would have been an extraordinarily bad thing.
Agreed, that would be a bad thing, but somehow I can't seem to convince myself that Danny Boy single-handedly saved their bacon.
{^_^}
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
And potatoe WAS/IS a legitimate spelling for potato in the US at the time illiterate lefties made it a means of tarring Dan Quayle.
{^_-}
Who ever would have guessed today that the victory of illiterate lefties was so complete?
From dictionary.com:
No results found for potatoe.
Did you mean Potator?
Suggestions: Potator potato Portate potatoes potatory Optate potted potatoes' potto pottage potato's
No entries were found in the dictionary. Would you like to search the Web for potatoe?
Tim:
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Gene Heskett:
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect.
Okay, let's see the yanks fall in line with origins of their language, rather than subverting someone else's... ;-)
In the above case, I believe there are English(GB) versions of the spell checkers available, so why don't they use them?
My guess would be along the lines that a dedicated news paper's printing system was a bit more limited in software choices than the average desk top computer word processor. I did say "some time ago", I've no idea what their current excuse is.
For what it's worth, Australian English is distinctly different than other countries. You do need to regionalise such things. Trying to tell another country to spell things in a foreign way is insulting. We'll inventitate our own languages, thank you very much...
How much of the difference is that there were few, if any, standard spellings until after Australia and America had been colonized?
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Tim Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:08 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: What is the language "British"?
Tim:
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Gene Heskett:
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect.
Okay, let's see the yanks fall in line with origins of their language, rather than subverting someone else's... ;-)
In the above case, I believe there are English(GB) versions of the spell checkers available, so why don't they use them?
My guess would be along the lines that a dedicated news paper's printing system was a bit more limited in software choices than the average desk top computer word processor. I did say "some time ago", I've no idea what their current excuse is.
For what it's worth, Australian English is distinctly different than other countries. You do need to regionalise such things. Trying to tell another country to spell things in a foreign way is insulting. We'll inventitate our own languages, thank you very much...
-- (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:27, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
How much of the difference is that there were few, if any, standard spellings until after Australia and America had been colonized?
An Exellent Point. Thanks for bringing it up.
Gutenburg's press wasn't nearly so efficient at promulgating a single way of spelling anything until we were well into the 18th century, because of distribution problems among other things. Hence the historical spellings are bound to be at odds over large geographical distances since they were often 'jelled' into local common usage according to the local printers customary way of spelling something.
Food for thought indeed.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 11:07, Tim wrote:
Tim:
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Gene Heskett:
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect.
Okay, let's see the yanks fall in line with origins of their language, rather than subverting someone else's... ;-)
In our defense, I believe that some of the more technical terms we've bastardized from the kings english (did you ever try to read that?) have been improvements over the original, whose exact meanings seem to have become somewhat foggy with age.
Besides that, we also suffer from the majority rules mentality and there's 220 million of us these days. :)
In the above case, I believe there are English(GB) versions of the spell checkers available, so why don't they use them?
My guess would be along the lines that a dedicated news paper's printing system was a bit more limited in software choices than the average desk top computer word processor. I did say "some time ago", I've no idea what their current excuse is.
I should have pointed that out. When you're running macs because that what all publishers use for composition chores, the choices are going to be somewhat more limited than for x86 platforms.
For what it's worth, Australian English is distinctly different than other countries. You do need to regionalise such things. Trying to tell another country to spell things in a foreign way is insulting. We'll inventitate our own languages, thank you very much...
Ok, start by defineing 'inventitate' so the rest of the world knows what you are saying. Sounds rather like something we came up with in the 60's as a phrase applied to a redesign effort to remove superfulous parts. We called in 'simplicating' at the time. And probably still do in some circles...
-- (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread)
Couldn't prove it one way or the other to me, I'm still on FC2 here at the Heskett Ranchette.
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
Besides that, we also suffer from the majority rules mentality and there's 220 million of us these days. :)
If you are talking about the US population then you are about 80+ million short.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:56, Jack Gates wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 12:38, Gene Heskett wrote:
Besides that, we also suffer from the majority rules mentality and there's 220 million of us these days. :)
If you are talking about the US population then you are about 80+ million short.
I didn't pay that much attention to the last census, it seemed to me they were more intent on cataloging us than counting us. And I detest being put into any one pigeon hole in their grand scheme of things. I'm unique, just as are all the rest of the readers of these mailing lists.
It does tend to point out our favorite pastime though. :)
-- Jack Gates http://www.morningstarcom.net
Tim:
We'll inventitate our own languages, thank you very much...
Gene Heskett:
Ok, start by defineing 'inventitate' so the rest of the world knows what you are saying. Sounds rather like something we came up with in the 60's as a phrase applied to a redesign effort to remove superfulous parts. We called in 'simplicating' at the time. And probably still do in some circles...
'Twas a Bush joke... (The one who looks like a cross between Johny Carson and a monkey, with a reputation for making words up.)
From: "Tim" ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au
Tim:
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Gene Heskett:
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect.
Okay, let's see the yanks fall in line with origins of their language, rather than subverting someone else's... ;-)
Are you sure? Do remember that there was a pocket of hillbillies discovered who were speaking almost pure Elisabethan English. It may be that WE are purer English than the British just like the Quebecois are using purer old French than the French.
For what it's worth, Australian English is distinctly different than other countries. You do need to regionalise such things. Trying to tell another country to spell things in a foreign way is insulting. We'll inventitate our own languages, thank you very much...
Is "inventitate" real Aussie? That's as awful sounding as some of the uglier neologisms here in the States.
While we're on words, it is to be noted that Pluto, the planet, has been downgraded. There is a growing body of dissent over this action by the IAU. It is thought all the planets should be renamed in protest using Disney characters. Henceforth the Earth is to be called by its new proper name, Goofy.
{O,o} <wanders off muttering about the "Green Hills of Goofy">
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 04:51:40PM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Tim" ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au
While we're on words, it is to be noted that Pluto, the planet, has been downgraded. There is a growing body of dissent over this action by the IAU. It is thought all the planets should be renamed in protest using Disney characters. Henceforth the Earth is to be called by its new proper name, Goofy.
{O,o} <wanders off muttering about the "Green Hills of Goofy">
I'm sure Rhysling would approve. Or at least chortle.
But this is incorrect, as Goofy has long been held in reserve should a moon be discovered for Pluto. In that spirit, we should rename Jupiter Donald, and the four Galilean satellites Heuy, Dewey, Louie and Daisy.
And the Sun should be renamed after Karl Barks.
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 04:51:40PM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Tim" ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au
While we're on words, it is to be noted that Pluto, the planet, has been downgraded. There is a growing body of dissent over this action by the IAU. It is thought all the planets should be renamed in protest using Disney characters. Henceforth the Earth is to be called by its new proper name, Goofy.
{O,o} <wanders off muttering about the "Green Hills of Goofy">
I'm sure Rhysling would approve. Or at least chortle.
But this is incorrect, as Goofy has long been held in reserve should a moon be discovered for Pluto. In that spirit, we should rename Jupiter
In addition to the first two?
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 19:51, jdow wrote:
From: "Tim" ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au
Tim:
Some time ago our newspapers started using American spelling, which *is* "incorrect" to do in Australia. One reason given was that it was a complete pain trying to work around the American spell checker.
Gene Heskett:
Humm, if it results in less miss-understandings between the peoples by pushing the people toward a common ground for language usage, I can't see as its an undesirable effect.
Okay, let's see the yanks fall in line with origins of their language, rather than subverting someone else's... ;-)
Are you sure? Do remember that there was a pocket of hillbillies discovered who were speaking almost pure Elisabethan English. It may be that WE are purer English than the British just like the Quebecois are using purer old French than the French.
For what it's worth, Australian English is distinctly different than other countries. You do need to regionalise such things. Trying to tell another country to spell things in a foreign way is insulting. We'll inventitate our own languages, thank you very much...
Is "inventitate" real Aussie? That's as awful sounding as some of the uglier neologisms here in the States.
While we're on words, it is to be noted that Pluto, the planet, has been downgraded. There is a growing body of dissent over this action by the IAU. It is thought all the planets should be renamed in protest using Disney characters. Henceforth the Earth is to be called by its new proper name, Goofy.
{O,o} <wanders off muttering about the "Green Hills of Goofy">
They should have left well enough alone, poor Clyde could be wrapped in copper and hooked up to alleviate our energy shortage with nothing more than his rpms in the grave. And yes, I plagerized and modified that, but forgot where I saw it now. Sorry.
As for renameing the earth Goofy, somehow that fits...
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:51:40 -0700, jdow wrote: [...]
Are you sure? Do remember that there was a pocket of hillbillies discovered who were speaking almost pure Elisabethan English. [...]
Urban legend, unfortunately -- and likely akin to the one about incest, which is equally false and whose origin is known -- but that's another story...
The fact is, Tolkien still has it right : the same tongue, *any* tongue, in places largely or entirely isolated from one another, *will* change in both, just because languages, like other living organisms, do change -- grow or die. All known examples fit. But with nothing to keep them coordinated, they will diverge gradually into two -- such as Sindarin and Quenya, or Platt and Swiss German. It's going on now in the Koreas :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/dialect.php
And for the matter of that, as those of us who live here know perfectly well, Appalachian dialect is *not* Shakespearean, contrary to popular imagination elsewhere.
But it has developed largely apart (largely, not entirely!) from dialects in other parts of the country, and many things have changed in different ways; some have even changed in one stream but not the other.
The idiolect of one lady I know in East Tennessee (and probably of others in her generation who're still around) does not contain the form "isn't." She says "'tis not," always and only. That detail is unchanged from Elizabethan times, yes; but others are as changed as in Maine, or Texas, or Scotland, or Queensland -- or South Africa or India -- some of them even in like ways.
A guy I went to grad school with, who came from Northern Indiana, was (and may still be) studying the German dialect of a little town near the Michigan border. It was known to have been settled by people all from one little town in Northern Germany. So he could compare the way it is now with the way people talk in the German town now. He happened, by accident of birth, to have a head start in a field well known across the continents and the centuries.
On Friday 01 September 2006 05:09 pm, Beartooth wrote:
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 16:51:40 -0700, jdow wrote: [...]
Are you sure? Do remember that there was a pocket of hillbillies discovered who were speaking almost pure Elisabethan English. [...]
Urban legend, unfortunately -- and likely akin to the one about incest, which is equally false and whose origin is known -- but that's another story...
The fact is, Tolkien still has it right : the same tongue, *any* tongue, in places largely or entirely isolated from one another, *will* change in both, just because languages, like other living organisms, do change -- grow or die. All known examples fit. But with nothing to keep them coordinated, they will diverge gradually into two -- such as Sindarin and Quenya, or Platt and Swiss German. It's going on now in the Koreas :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/dialect.phpAnd for the matter of that, as those of us who live here know perfectly well, Appalachian dialect is *not* Shakespearean, contrary to popular imagination elsewhere.
But it has developed largely apart (largely, not entirely!) from dialects in other parts of the country, and many things have changed in different ways; some have even changed in one stream but not the other.
The idiolect of one lady I know in East Tennessee (and probably of others in her generation who're still around) does not contain the form "isn't." She says "'tis not," always and only. That detail is unchanged from Elizabethan times, yes; but others are as changed as in Maine, or Texas, or Scotland, or Queensland -- or South Africa or India -- some of them even in like ways.
A guy I went to grad school with, who came from Northern Indiana, was (and may still be) studying the German dialect of a little town near the Michigan border. It was known to have been settled by people all from one little town in Northern Germany. So he could compare the way it is now with the way people talk in the German town now. He happened, by accident of birth, to have a head start in a field well known across the continents and the centuries.
-- Beartooth Staffwright, PhD, historian of literature and of tongues. Just this once, I happen to be professionally acquainted with what I am talking about.
There used to be a guy on the carnival circuit [about 40 years ago] who could after hearing you speak a few sentences, could tell you where you grew up sometimes right down to the county and sometimes right down to the part of the county [this was in the Southern US]
On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:36:25 -0700, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
There used to be a guy on the carnival circuit [about 40 years ago] who could after hearing you speak a few sentences, could tell you where you grew up sometimes right down to the county and sometimes right down to the part of the county [this was in the Southern US]
It's not just the South. I was married for a while to a native of Columbus, Ohio -- who actually used to maintain, among professional linguists, that she had no "accent," as we call both dialects and foreign pronunciations. Then one day at a party a total stranger, new to town, asked her after five minutes, "Are you from Columbus, Ohio?"
I kept my face straight at the time, but it wasn't easy.
Years later, giving a tour of the Library of Congress to a small group, I told them they were from Newark, Ohio -- but that was dead easy. The pronounced the town "Nurk" -- and were quite aware of it. But they were surprised that I knew it.
On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Beartooth wrote:
She says "'tis not," always and only. That detail is unchanged from
I'm rather fond of "'tisn't", but I don't suppose "Hennebry" is an available choice on either language or localization.
From: "William Case" billlinux@rogers.com
Hi All;
As interesting as the discussion is comparing English (UK) and English (USA), the point being made by the original post is, there is no such thing as the "British" language. No one I know of would use the word to describe a language.
Usage rules. That's why there is so many forms of English -- large numbers of people in different countries, in fact use different words or spellings. If its not used (or historical), its not a word.
On Mon, 2006-28-08 at 14:25 +0100, Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was installing FC-5 yesterday, and I noticed that when asked to choose my language, I was given an extensive list which included "British" but not "English".
I never heard this language described as "British" before.
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
My Gnome version of the language setup gui gives me the choice of: English (Australia), English (Botswana), English (Canada), English (Denmark -- now the differences in that one would be interesting),
And I wonder what my American expat former Buff pilot friend in Denmark would say about it.
{^_^}
William Case wrote:
My Gnome version of the language setup gui gives me the choice of: English (Australia), English (Botswana), English (Canada), English (Denmark -- now the differences in that one would be interesting), English (Great Britain), English (Hong Kong), English (India), English (Ireland), English (New Zealand), English (Philippines), English (Singapore), English (South Africa), English (USA) and English(Zimbabwe). No "British" nowhere.
Hm, tried the English (Denmark) version and there is absolutely no Danish in that and it merely looks like another American English variant.
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Hm, tried the English (Denmark) version and there is absolutely no Danish in that and it merely looks like another American English variant.
I looked at English (Irish) some time ago, and couldn't find any difference from English (UK).
The two differences that are sometimes quoted are "rere" (for the back of a building) and "seperate" for "separate". I've always assumed that the latter stems from some Dan Quayle-like teacher refusing to admit he (or more likely she) was wrong.
But English (Irish) did not actually have either of these.
A lot of these English variants strike me as rather mythical. I guess if you can't think of a topic for a thesis and live on the moon it is quite handy.
(Reminds me - I was taught 60 years ago never to write "lot", "got" or "nice", but that is a hard diet to follow.)
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was taught 60 years ago never to write "lot", "got" or "nice", but that is a hard diet to follow.
But it is very good advice, nevertheless. If more people took greater care with their composition, language would not have deteriorated to the degree to which it has. Another good rule is never to end a sentence with a preposition.
Two things really irritate me about current speech habits:
1. the inability to finish a sentence (or even a thought); people will start a sentence four, five or more times, breaking off half-way through and starting again in different words or on a slightly different tack although, strangely enough, sometimes using exactly the same words all over again - and finally reaching some kind of conclusion, often qualified with "you know"
2. the pernicious abuse of the word 'like', especially prevalent when coupled with some form of the verb to be; "it was like, you know" followed by some facial expression, "she was like, awesome" and its ilk; "I'm er like partied out"
Jonathan
Another good rule is never to end a sentence with a preposition.
From http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=388#put:
"After receiving a Minute issued by a priggish civil servant, objecting to the ending of a sentence with a preposition and the use of a dangling participle in official documents, Churchill red pencilled in the margin: "This is the sort of pedantry up with which I will not put."
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:33, Jonathan Allen wrote:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I was taught 60 years ago never to write "lot", "got" or "nice", but that is a hard diet to follow.
But it is very good advice, nevertheless. If more people took greater care with their composition, language would not have deteriorated to the degree to which it has. Another good rule is never to end a sentence with a preposition.
Two things really irritate me about current speech habits:
the inability to finish a sentence (or even a thought); people will start a sentence four, five or more times, breaking off half-way through and starting again in different words or on a slightly different tack although, strangely enough, sometimes using exactly the same words all over again - and finally reaching some kind of conclusion, often qualified with "you know"
the pernicious abuse of the word 'like', especially prevalent when coupled with some form of the verb to be; "it was like, you know" followed by some facial expression, "she was like, awesome" and its ilk; "I'm er like partied out"
Jonathan
Chuckle, but while its somewhat funny, its also an indication that our educational system is today, a dismal failure when high school graduates have trouble properly using even a 1200 word vocabulary. By the time I was through the 8th grade, I had been tested at about the 3000 mark, and I sincerely hope I have added another 5000 or more, although little used, to my working vocabulary. Its indeed frustrating when I'm trying to explain something to a Joe/Jill Sixpack and get interrupted well before I've laid the foundation of the explanation just because I've used the technically proper word for something, but its not in their mental dictionary.
The biggest mistake (IMNSHO) was dropping phonetics as a study in itself, without that base, a new words meaning is often nearly complete gibberish to later students of the language who do not have that base of how to take word apart to derive its meaning, or to build a new word that better defines a meaning, in their educational background. IMO, the wholesale failures of the educational system of today can largely be laid to the result of dropping phonetics from the curriculum.
I was fortunate in that my grammer school education took place in the State of Iowa, where, back in the 40's, we were extremely proud of being the most literate state in the union with a 99.9% literacy rate. No educational system is doing its students any life favors when the high school graduating class is composed of 20+% functionally illiterate students, but they graduate anyway because of the un-funded no child left behind act.
The financing of those truely exellent Iowa schools then was exclusively from the profits of the state run liquor stores, with the only beer being 3.2% over the counter or in pool halls. Then some damned goody two-shoes got the bright idea that the state really shouldn't be in the business of selling alcoholic beverages and sold all the liquor stores to private enterprise, leaving only a limited state alcohol tax & the rest of the tax base to make up for the losses.
This resulted in a rather severe tightening of educational budgets because the legislature was reluctant to maintain the funding level by loading up more taxes elsewhere, and the result today is as disastrous as it was predictable (by intelligent people) then.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:31, Gene Heskett wrote:
Chuckle, but while its somewhat funny, its also an indication that our educational system is today, a dismal failure when high school graduates have trouble properly using even a 1200 word vocabulary. By the time I was through the 8th grade, I had been tested at about the 3000 mark, and I sincerely hope I have added another 5000 or more, although little used, to my working vocabulary. Its indeed frustrating when I'm trying to explain something to a Joe/Jill Sixpack and get interrupted well before I've laid the foundation of the explanation just because I've used the technically proper word for something, but its not in their mental dictionary.
The biggest mistake (IMNSHO) was dropping phonetics as a study in itself, without that base, a new words meaning is often nearly complete gibberish to later students of the language who do not have that base of how to take word apart to derive its meaning, or to build a new word that better defines a meaning, in their educational background. IMO, the wholesale failures of the educational system of today can largely be laid to the result of dropping phonetics from the curriculum.
I was fortunate in that my grammer school education took place in the State of Iowa, where, back in the 40's, we were extremely proud of being the most literate state in the union with a 99.9% literacy rate. No educational system is doing its students any life favors when the high school graduating class is composed of 20+% functionally illiterate students, but they graduate anyway because of the un-funded no child left behind act.
The financing of those truely exellent Iowa schools then was exclusively from the profits of the state run liquor stores, with the only beer being 3.2% over the counter or in pool halls. Then some damned goody two-shoes got the bright idea that the state really shouldn't be in the business of selling alcoholic beverages and sold all the liquor stores to private enterprise, leaving only a limited state alcohol tax & the rest of the tax base to make up for the losses.
This resulted in a rather severe tightening of educational budgets because the legislature was reluctant to maintain the funding level by loading up more taxes elsewhere, and the result today is as disastrous as it was predictable (by intelligent people) then.
But this was all done by design, by the few elitists that want to control and suck dry the masses.
They deliberately dumbed down the education system through out the country and threw in plenty of issues to keep the masses fighting among themselves so they would not see what was being done to them. This began happening at the moment the government stuck their nose in the education system and started interfering with the established system. Back in the late 1800s an 8th grade student had to pass a test that was ten times harder than what is required of the 12th grade now.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:52, Jack Gates wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:31, Gene Heskett wrote:
[and snipped in the interests of brevity]
But this was all done by design, by the few elitists that want to control and suck dry the masses.
They deliberately dumbed down the education system through out the country and threw in plenty of issues to keep the masses fighting among themselves so they would not see what was being done to them. This began happening at the moment the government stuck their nose in the education system and started interfering with the established system. Back in the late 1800s an 8th grade student had to pass a test that was ten times harder than what is required of the 12th grade now.
Yes, I assume you are referring to the 1895 Salenas KS 8th grade final test thats floating around on the net? It was really based on usefull information that people would need, unlike the faux Kentucky Uni engineering test that asks how big the persimmon branch has to be to support a 10 pound possum, without stateing where on that branch the possum is sitting...
-- Jack Gates http://www.morningstarcom.net
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 02:16:37PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:52, Jack Gates wrote:
Yes, I assume you are referring to the 1895 Salenas KS 8th grade final test thats floating around on the net?
I haven't seen that.
Uncle Milty and Rose Friedman reprinted a March, 1911 Indiana High School entrance exam on page 149 of their Tyranny of the Status Quo (1983). Imagine the concept of a high school entrance exam, for one thing and consider the implicit social policy thereof.
I shan't reprint the whole thing, but it did call on the candidate to write a sentence with its verb in the active voice, and then re-write it with the passive voice. I recently taught a class on technical writing at a local community college. I had to explain to them what passive voice was and why one should avoid it, and some of them never got it. I have not taught there since.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 17:22, Charles Curley wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2006 at 02:16:37PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 13:52, Jack Gates wrote:
Yes, I assume you are referring to the 1895 Salenas KS 8th grade final test thats floating around on the net?
I haven't seen that.
Uncle Milty and Rose Friedman reprinted a March, 1911 Indiana High School entrance exam on page 149 of their Tyranny of the Status Quo (1983). Imagine the concept of a high school entrance exam, for one thing and consider the implicit social policy thereof.
I shan't reprint the whole thing, but it did call on the candidate to write a sentence with its verb in the active voice, and then re-write it with the passive voice. I recently taught a class on technical writing at a local community college. I had to explain to them what passive voice was and why one should avoid it, and some of them never got it. I have not taught there since.
Thats not your fault Charles. That should have been part of the language they got in the 5th grade IIRC.
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 23:05 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
That should have been part of the language they got in the 5th grade IIRC.
That sort of problem was one we continuously encountered at high school. Something should have been taught years ago, by someone else, and nobody will make any attempt to teach it later on, even if they find out you weren't taught it.
It can be quite distressing for some students to find out that they've been shortchanged, and there's no remedy. e.g. English at high school was generally useless writing of book reviews, etc. No actual teaching of using the language. What they taught was useless to the great majority of the population (how many do that as a job?), and if you had any problems with understanding the language, well tough. You weren't going to be taught how to understand or write the language, there.
I stopped working in schools years ago, and I have no real desire to be a part of the current system.
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 00:44, Tim wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 23:05 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
That should have been part of the language they got in the 5th grade IIRC.
That sort of problem was one we continuously encountered at high school. Something should have been taught years ago, by someone else, and nobody will make any attempt to teach it later on, even if they find out you weren't taught it.
It can be quite distressing for some students to find out that they've been shortchanged, and there's no remedy. e.g. English at high school was generally useless writing of book reviews, etc. No actual teaching of using the language. What they taught was useless to the great majority of the population (how many do that as a job?), and if you had any problems with understanding the language, well tough. You weren't going to be taught how to understand or write the language, there.
I stopped working in schools years ago, and I have no real desire to be a part of the current system.
I thought of running for the school board here, but after some conversations with equally frustrated sitting members, came to the conclusion that at the end of the day, I'd have raised my blood pressure past the nose-bleed stage, and not accomplished a thing.
Much of the problem is the federal mandates, often without adequate funding, and all the tax shareing rules that bring in the state and federal monies to run the system. Then finding fuel for the school buses, and repairing or replacing same, personell squabbles etc. Basicly, the weekly, about 4 hour long board meetings are so taken up by what I'd call piddly stuff, that very very little is actually done to see to it the student gets the resources he needs to learn. I've sat in on a couple of meetings over the years here, and not once was a curriculum item mentioned without adding the disclaimer that they had no choice, its a federal mandate. And most of that was 'for the slower students' with no flexibility for the quicker ones ever given consideration. So we waste 50% of our educational dollar on the 5% who can't or won't learn due to one handicap or another, leaving nothing for the gifted student who could graduate with honours if kept challenged, doing 2-3 grades a year when they apply themselves. Truely, schools need the agility to keep the funnel into the top of a childs head full to the brim, but thats not happening, they can't afford to do it.
--- Tim ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au wrote:
It can be quite distressing for some students to find out that they've been shortchanged, and there's no remedy. e.g. English at high school was generally useless writing of book reviews, etc. No actual teaching of using the language. What they taught was useless to the great majority of the population (how many do that as a job?), and if you had any problems with understanding the language, well tough. You weren't going to be taught how to understand or write the language, there.
I stopped working in schools years ago, and I have no real desire to be a part of the current system.
-- (Currently running FC4, in case that's important to the thread)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Nowadays, looks like the same thing is happening. With all that damn testing, and "No Child Left Behind", teachers are just trying to "rat train" students to pass the tests. No life skills are learned. Reality sets in for many of these students when they try to seek higher education. The teaching profession is a hard one and with more and more crap from the government, no wonder many teachers get out and many do not want to come back.
Regards,
Antonio
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi All;
This branch of the "British" language tree is taking the risk of turning a little bit of linguistic fun into a serious political topic. However, .....
On Wed, 2006-30-08 at 05:15 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Nowadays, looks like the same thing is happening. With all that damn testing, and "No Child Left Behind", teachers are just trying to "rat train" students to pass the tests. No life skills are learned. Reality sets in for many of these students when they try to seek higher education. The teaching profession is a hard one and with more and more crap from the government, no wonder many teachers get out and many do not want to come back.
Regards,
Antonio
The problem with schooling which you mention above is not just an American problem and is not therefore the result of any specific American federal or state or local program. We have the same problem in Canada, and I have heard and read about educational problems throughout Europe. In fact, it would be interesting to hear from the rest of the world as well. Betcha, they think they have the same problems.
First, I believe some of the problems with education is and will always be just "old fartism". "Things were better in my day." "I used to walk 3 miles and back to school everyday, barefooted in the snow."
Next, I believe the problems with education, at least for the first 12 or 13 years, comes with the Unionization/Professionalization of teaching. For some reason, in education we, the public, got the worst side of both. I have heard the abusive language used by Teachers Unions during strikes in Toronto, and then a month latter on the news heard the exact same rhetoric in Philadelphia. The Teacher's Unions seem unable to get higher wages for their members (which many teachers deserve), but instead have won 'no work involved' contracts. (As a side bar, Ontario Canada where I live, has the highest teacher salaries in the Western World, but has not eliminated any of its educational problems.)
While the Professionalization of teaching has simply given the Teaching Profession the right to tell parents, students and school boards to "shut up and sit down" -- That, they, the professionals, know whats best for us all.
Meanwhile, when parents demand improvements, immediately the 'left loonies' get into the debate screaming for some new social engineering, and equally as quickly, the 'right-wing wing nuts' start parading for the removal of "Catcher in the Rhye" from school libraries. The parents legitimate concerns get buried and forgotten by the teachers while the bun-fest goes on, nothing gets done, and teachers are never required to thoughtfully reexamine how best to teach. (As another sidebar, any solutions that teachers do develop always seem to involve more pay and less work.)
Programs imposed from politicians on high, is the outcome. Politicians, ie. non teaching professionals, come up with the best response they can think of to the demands of their constituents for improvement. That usually means falling back on what they know -- "Old Fartism".
Now, back to the "British" language.
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 10:11, William Case wrote:
Hi All;
This branch of the "British" language tree is taking the risk of turning a little bit of linguistic fun into a serious political topic. However, .....
On Wed, 2006-30-08 at 05:15 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Nowadays, looks like the same thing is happening. With all that damn testing, and "No Child Left Behind", teachers are just trying to "rat train" students to pass the tests. No life skills are learned. Reality sets in for many of these students when they try to seek higher education. The teaching profession is a hard one and with more and more crap from the government, no wonder many teachers get out and many do not want to come back.
Regards,
Antonio
The problem with schooling which you mention above is not just an American problem and is not therefore the result of any specific American federal or state or local program. We have the same problem in Canada, and I have heard and read about educational problems throughout Europe. In fact, it would be interesting to hear from the rest of the world as well. Betcha, they think they have the same problems.
First, I believe some of the problems with education is and will always be just "old fartism". "Things were better in my day." "I used to walk 3 miles and back to school everyday, barefooted in the snow."
Next, I believe the problems with education, at least for the first 12 or 13 years, comes with the Unionization/Professionalization of teaching. For some reason, in education we, the public, got the worst side of both. I have heard the abusive language used by Teachers Unions during strikes in Toronto, and then a month latter on the news heard the exact same rhetoric in Philadelphia. The Teacher's Unions seem unable to get higher wages for their members (which many teachers deserve), but instead have won 'no work involved' contracts. (As a side bar, Ontario Canada where I live, has the highest teacher salaries in the Western World, but has not eliminated any of its educational problems.)
While the Professionalization of teaching has simply given the Teaching Profession the right to tell parents, students and school boards to "shut up and sit down" -- That, they, the professionals, know whats best for us all.
Meanwhile, when parents demand improvements, immediately the 'left loonies' get into the debate screaming for some new social engineering, and equally as quickly, the 'right-wing wing nuts' start parading for the removal of "Catcher in the Rhye" from school libraries. The parents legitimate concerns get buried and forgotten by the teachers while the bun-fest goes on, nothing gets done, and teachers are never required to thoughtfully reexamine how best to teach. (As another sidebar, any solutions that teachers do develop always seem to involve more pay and less work.)
Programs imposed from politicians on high, is the outcome. Politicians, ie. non teaching professionals, come up with the best response they can think of to the demands of their constituents for improvement. That usually means falling back on what they know -- "Old Fartism".
It sounds like the exact seem thing in Canada as it does in the US. Probably for the same reasons.
Thanks Jack;
On Wed, 2006-30-08 at 21:53 -0400, Jack Gates wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 10:11, William Case wrote:
Hi All;
It sounds like the exact seem thing in Canada as it does in the US. Probably for the same reasons.
-- Jack Gates http://www.morningstarcom.net
But I truly believe that the same educational problems are not just North American. It is probably equally as easy to get agreement from around the world.
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 22:12, William Case wrote:
Thanks Jack;
On Wed, 2006-30-08 at 21:53 -0400, Jack Gates wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 10:11, William Case wrote:
Hi All;
It sounds like the exact seem thing in Canada as it does in the US. Probably for the same reasons.
-- Jack Gates http://www.morningstarcom.net
But I truly believe that the same educational problems are not just North American. It is probably equally as easy to get agreement from around the world.
I agree! I think we will see them say the same thing and I think it will be for the same reason. But I have not said what I think that reason is and I think I will not open that can of worms.
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 05:15 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Nowadays, looks like the same thing is happening. With all that damn testing, and "No Child Left Behind", teachers are just trying to "rat train" students to pass the tests. No life skills are learned.
The ironies of this are that we dumb down things, so all can "pass", but we also push high academics on students more than we should (the extremes, with no between). We do both badly. Yet the real basics, which could be taught to nearly everyone, and be useful, get ignored. We can teach kids to speak and write reasonably, and that's more important than failing to make *everyone* a scholar. But we settle for merely occupying the underachievers with something to do during the day.
We could do better. I convinced one teacher to teach a student rather than find them something else to do, instead. It was worth the effort, for all involved. I always preferred the non-mainstream work, it was more interesting, and generally more practical. More like old fashioned personal mentoring than preaching to a herd that ignores or doesn't understand you.
Grasping at a straw to not go completely off-topic: It's Windows versus Linux. ;-) One is a dumbed down bit of expensive eye-candy, that's mostly useless and a time waster. The other is a capable tool, given the chance and interest.
181 postings (I only know that because fortunately GMail groups them since they have the same title, and my trash bin shows 181 postings with this topic)--- time to kill the thread or take it off list.
From: "Jacques B." jjrboucher@gmail.com
181 postings (I only know that because fortunately GMail groups them since they have the same title, and my trash bin shows 181 postings with this topic)--- time to kill the thread or take it off list.
Spoil sport! {^_-}
jdow wrote:
From: "Jacques B." jjrboucher@gmail.com
181 postings (I only know that because fortunately GMail groups them since they have the same title, and my trash bin shows 181 postings with this topic)--- time to kill the thread or take it off list.
Spoil sport! {^_-}
I'm not. At least we aren't talking about top posting. :-)
These issues certainly seem universal. Have a look at a timely article.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/08/30/news/dialect.php
I would enjoy the reaction when a woman from North Korea goes into a shop in South Korea and asks the owner for a light bulb. While it is only in the print edition of the IHT they would ask for a "bura" (불알). Unfortunately that word takes on the meaning of "testicle" in the south.
Also, in the Taiwan, they use the word for chicken in much the same as people from the USA. It can be the bird, or it can refer to someone that is afraid of something. The folks across the straight in the PRC have also added a 3rd meaning of "prostitute". And, yes, they are all the same character.
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 12:30, Jacques B. wrote:
181 postings (I only know that because fortunately GMail groups them since they have the same title, and my trash bin shows 181 postings with this topic)--- time to kill the thread or take it off list.
Party Pooper!
From: "Tim" ignored_mailbox@yahoo.com.au
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 05:15 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
Nowadays, looks like the same thing is happening. With all that damn testing, and "No Child Left Behind", teachers are just trying to "rat train" students to pass the tests. No life skills are learned.
The ironies of this are that we dumb down things, so all can "pass", but we also push high academics on students more than we should (the extremes, with no between). We do both badly. Yet the real basics, which could be taught to nearly everyone, and be useful, get ignored. We can teach kids to speak and write reasonably, and that's more important than failing to make *everyone* a scholar. But we settle for merely occupying the underachievers with something to do during the day.
We could do better. I convinced one teacher to teach a student rather than find them something else to do, instead. It was worth the effort, for all involved. I always preferred the non-mainstream work, it was more interesting, and generally more practical. More like old fashioned personal mentoring than preaching to a herd that ignores or doesn't understand you.
Grasping at a straw to not go completely off-topic: It's Windows versus Linux. ;-) One is a dumbed down bit of expensive eye-candy, that's mostly useless and a time waster. The other is a capable tool, given the chance and interest.
As is general with runaway advocacy, political or religious, there is an appropriate question here, "Which one is which?" I can point you to items over which Linux stumbles; and I can point you to items over which Windows stumbles. Pick the program or set of programs that does what YOU need best then pick the OS on which they run best. I'd not think a femto-second about replacing Linux for what it is doing well with Windows. (I am contemplating FreeBSD, however.) I'd not think a femto-second about moving other tasks I perform with Windows over to either FreeBSD or Linux. At this time the respective tasks have no serious capability on the "other" platform. But then, I have strange needs that really do require Windows - strictly due to a combination of licensing issues and the cost of porting an adequate equivalent of megabucks of DirectShow code over to ANYTHING else - um and a hardware vendor who'd have to do the porting and is utterly uninterested.
{^_-} I'll say no more than this (in this thread) about the advocacy issue. It's too "religious/political" in nature.
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:31, Gene Heskett wrote:
I was fortunate in that my grammer school education took place in the State of Iowa, where, back in the 40's, we were extremely proud of being the most literate state in the union with a 99.9% literacy rate. No educational system is doing its students any life favors when the high school graduating class is composed of 20+% functionally illiterate students, but they graduate anyway because of the un-funded no child left behind act.
To be fair, graduating underperforming students has been a problem for much longer than we've had No Child Left Behind.
And 99.9% seems an awfully high literacy rate for any sample the size of a state, even one that's proud of it. Perhaps Iowa residents, despite excellent language comprehension, weren't so good at statistics?
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 14:30, Alan M. Evans wrote:
On Tue, 2006-08-29 at 10:31, Gene Heskett wrote:
I was fortunate in that my grammer school education took place in the State of Iowa, where, back in the 40's, we were extremely proud of being the most literate state in the union with a 99.9% literacy rate. No educational system is doing its students any life favors when the high school graduating class is composed of 20+% functionally illiterate students, but they graduate anyway because of the un-funded no child left behind act.
To be fair, graduating underperforming students has been a problem for much longer than we've had No Child Left Behind.
And 99.9% seems an awfully high literacy rate for any sample the size of a state, even one that's proud of it. Perhaps Iowa residents, despite excellent language comprehension, weren't so good at statistics?
I lived there for my first 25 years, and never met anyone except an old recent emmigrant german farmer that signed his checks with an x mark but wrote the check in german. The checks were always good, but his speech was littered with germanisms... He died before I got wanderlust. And we were pretty good at statistics thank you.
From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Gene Heskett
I lived there for my first 25 years, and never met anyone except an old
recent
emmigrant german farmer that signed his checks with an x mark but wrote the
check
in german. The checks were always good, but his speech was littered with germanisms... He died before I got wanderlust. And we were pretty good at statistics thank you.
So you define illiterate as whether someone can sign their name or not. Some define it as not able to read a help-wanted ad in a newspaper or a news article and tell you what it said. Some would say it is a working vocabulary of less than 3 or 4 thousand words. Others would say it means that one can't spell 'emigrant' or can't figure out how to use a spell checker ;-) Hey isn't this what started this thread? ;-)
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 14:20, Timothy Murphy wrote:
(Reminds me - I was taught 60 years ago never to write "lot", "got" or "nice", but that is a hard diet to follow.)
According to my English teacher 'nice' means 'precise' and should not be used in any other context. Actually, her influence is still strong - it's a word I still avoid even after more than half a century.
Anne
Anne Wilson wrote:
According to my English teacher 'nice' means 'precise' and should not be used in any other context. Actually, her influence is still strong - it's a word I still avoid even after more than half a century.
Hummm... I always thought nice meant "run a program with modified scheduling priority".
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 22:44, Ed Greshko wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
According to my English teacher 'nice' means 'precise' and should not be used in any other context. Actually, her influence is still strong - it's a word I still avoid even after more than half a century.
Hummm... I always thought nice meant "run a program with modified scheduling priority".
Doesn't that increase precision?
Anne
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Hummm... I always thought nice meant "run a program with modified scheduling priority".
Doesn't that increase precision?
Er no - why should it? {^_^}
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 11:07, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Hummm... I always thought nice meant "run a program with modified scheduling priority".
Doesn't that increase precision?
Er no - why should it? {^_^}
It does more precisely what you wanted it to do :-)
Anne
Michael P. Brininstool:
No, just changes the precise value.
Anne Wilson:
To the priority that you would more precisely wish it to be :-)
This is getting silly.
It's reminding me of Thompson and Thomson from the Tintin comics.
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 09:20, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Hm, tried the English (Denmark) version and there is absolutely no Danish in that and it merely looks like another American English variant.
I looked at English (Irish) some time ago, and couldn't find any difference from English (UK).
The two differences that are sometimes quoted are "rere" (for the back of a building) and "seperate" for "separate". I've always assumed that the latter stems from some Dan Quayle-like teacher refusing to admit he (or more likely she) was wrong.
But English (Irish) did not actually have either of these.
A lot of these English variants strike me as rather mythical. I guess if you can't think of a topic for a thesis and live on the moon it is quite handy.
(Reminds me - I was taught 60 years ago never to write "lot", "got" or "nice", but that is a hard diet to follow.)
I don't recall that being proscribed by my teachers, but OTOH, it wasn't encouraged either when I was in grammer school in the 40's, which BTW is as far as I got in formal schooling, I was too busy fixing these new-fangled things called tv's. I've made a comfortable living lassoing electrons and makeing them do usefull or entertaining work since. :-)
But I use 'nice' where its appropriate without any guilt, its a complement IMO.
-- Timothy Murphy e-mail (<80k only): tim /at/ birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366 s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
From: "Timothy Murphy" tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Hm, tried the English (Denmark) version and there is absolutely no Danish in that and it merely looks like another American English variant.
I looked at English (Irish) some time ago, and couldn't find any difference from English (UK).
The two differences that are sometimes quoted are "rere" (for the back of a building) and "seperate" for "separate". I've always assumed that the latter stems from some Dan Quayle-like teacher refusing to admit he (or more likely she) was wrong.
For the record I have several dictionaries here that show both spellings with neither the preferred spelling. The "e" on the end has fallen off potatoe only in the days since the Quayle tarring. I learned it with the potatoe spelling when I was in school in the 40s. It was a "Toe May Toe" or "Toe Mah Toe" thing. Both looked (sounded) wrong to about half the people.
{^_^}
On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, jdow wrote:
For the record I have several dictionaries here that show both spellings with neither the preferred spelling. The "e" on the end has fallen off potatoe only in the days since the Quayle tarring. I learned it with the potatoe spelling when I was in school in the 40s. It was a "Toe May Toe" or "Toe Mah Toe" thing. Both looked (sounded) wrong to about half the people.
My Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition (1970) lists "potato" as the only acceptable spelling (plural is "potatoes"). Same with my Random House College Dictionary Revised Edition (1972). I think it's safe to say those are pre-conspiracy. I already cited dictionary.com, but I'm sure that's post-conspiracy. wikipedia.org has an entry for "potatoe", which calls that variant "archaic" (the spelling, not SWMBO). It cites the OED, which lists the most recent usage as 1880 (eighteen-eighty--surely before Dan's and Joanne's time). Wikipedia also describes the Quayle incident and mentions that the flashcard was misspelled.
Wikipedia cites this description of the incident: http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html. Quayle's advance men were supposed to have checked the cards. I doubt Quayle was set up, but he was certianly victimized by the media (who show no favoritism when it comes to victimizing people for gaffes and soundbites--witness the apocryphal Al Gore "invented the Internet" quote).
{^_^}
On Tuesday 29 August 2006 04:43 pm, jdow wrote:
From: "Timothy Murphy" tim@birdsnest.maths.tcd.ie
Erik P. Olsen wrote:
Hm, tried the English (Denmark) version and there is absolutely no Danish in that and it merely looks like another American English variant.
I looked at English (Irish) some time ago, and couldn't find any difference from English (UK).
The two differences that are sometimes quoted are "rere" (for the back of a building) and "seperate" for "separate". I've always assumed that the latter stems from some Dan Quayle-like teacher refusing to admit he (or more likely she) was wrong.
For the record I have several dictionaries here that show both spellings with neither the preferred spelling. The "e" on the end has fallen off potatoe only in the days since the Quayle tarring. I learned it with the potatoe spelling when I was in school in the 40s. It was a "Toe May Toe" or "Toe Mah Toe" thing. Both looked (sounded) wrong to about half the people.
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze after He marked the latter as mispelled [BTW the spell checker missed it too]
{^_^}
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
after He marked the latter as mispelled [BTW the spell checker missed it too]
The spell checker got it right. Short rare words should be flagged. On a qwerty keyboard, s and z are adjacent. Sesquipedalian, though rare, is unlikely to be a mistake.
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 16:57, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
Anne
On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 17:08 +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
Fuze is something electrical or mechanical that can set off an explosive, while fuse is the string-like thing that, when lighted, burns and eventually sets off the explosive. It's in dictionary.com. But another definition makes both words synonyms.
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 12:08, Anne Wilson wrote:
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
Anne
I live in the US and I have never heard of fuze either.
On Thursday 31 August 2006 03:11, Chris Mohler wrote:
I live in the US and I have never heard of fuze either.
Hell, I've been reading a ton (tonne) of H.G. Wells lately, and I've not been introduced to "fuze" either.
How about "connexion"? That valid o'er the pond?
No, that would be 'connection'.
Anne
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
How about "connexion"? That valid o'er the pond?
No, that would be 'connection'.
And over here I take it as being a horrrrridly "affected" usage. {^_^}
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 02:27:00AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
How about "connexion"? That valid o'er the pond?
No, that would be 'connection'.
And over here I take it as being a horrrrridly "affected" usage.
Unless, perhaps, one uses it in connexion with the Friends of the English Regency?
Chris Mohler wrote:
How about "connexion"? That valid o'er the pond?
Anne Wilson wrote:
No, that would be 'connection'.
Personally, I'd call "connexion" "historical usage", but valid (e.g. "the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion"). I'd lump it together with "shew", which seems to have been a valid alternative until the twentieth century.
James.
On Thursday 31 August 2006 13:18, James Wilkinson wrote:
Chris Mohler wrote:
How about "connexion"? That valid o'er the pond?
Anne Wilson wrote:
No, that would be 'connection'.
Personally, I'd call "connexion" "historical usage", but valid (e.g. "the Countess of Huntingdon's Connexion"). I'd lump it together with "shew", which seems to have been a valid alternative until the twentieth century.
You're probably right there, James. I believe that it was common in the 18th century - I don't know how much longer. Again, this supports the theory that many US spellings are historically linked with English of the earlier centuries.
Anne
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
More <choke> precisely </choke> a fuze in my experience is solely used for an explosives detonator. It is not used when speaking of electrical protection devices or when speaking of joining two objects intimately as with welding.
{^_^}
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 22:26, jdow wrote:
From: "Anne Wilson" cannewilson@tiscali.co.uk
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
More <choke> precisely </choke> a fuze in my experience is solely used for an explosives detonator. It is not used when speaking of electrical protection devices or when speaking of joining two objects intimately as with welding.
{^_^}
A somewhat more familiar variation on that, a 'fuzee', seems to be american slang for a dynamite stick sized (and similarly composed chemically) lighting flare device, to be ignited near the scene of an accident by truckers who are required to carry 3 of them for such emergencies. Usually equipt with a sharp spike on the end opposite the kitchen match like end used to start its burning with a bright magenta colored light so that it can be stuck in the ground. IIRC they have about a 15 minute burn time. I have NDI what sort of requirements along these lines that might be required of the british lorry drivers.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 05:08:24PM +0100, Anne Wilson wrote:
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 16:57, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
I had always thought fuze (as detonator) a Briticism, so I looked it up in my copy of Mencken's The American Language (1982, as updated with new material by Raven McDavid). According to Mencken, in both senses it is a Briticism.
Further, he says that American spelling is gaining ground even in Britain, and that even the Overdose of English Dictionary prefers some American spellings to English, e.g. ax to axe. He cites the (British) Authors' and Printers' Dictionary (1956) as preferring jail and jailer over gaol and gaoler, and fuse to fuze.
In a footnote, he refers to the Dictionary of U.S. Army Terms (Washington, 1943) as preferring fuze for a detonating device.
That lead me to look it up in the Overdose Of English Dictionary (1971), which accepts both spellings for both the detonator and bringing together, but doesn't mention the electrical device at all. It includes a 1644 use of fuse in the former sense.
On spell checking this email, I found that the aspell dictionary doesn't accept fuze as sufficiently American.
Is everyone now thoroughly muddled? Good.
On Thursday 31 August 2006 04:42, Charles Curley wrote:
I had always thought fuze (as detonator) a Briticism, so I looked it up in my copy of Mencken's The American Language (1982, as updated with new material by Raven McDavid). According to Mencken, in both senses it is a Briticism.
Further, he says that American spelling is gaining ground even in Britain, and that even the Overdose of English Dictionary prefers some American spellings to English, e.g. ax to axe. He cites the (British) Authors' and Printers' Dictionary (1956) as preferring jail and jailer over gaol and gaoler, and fuse to fuze.
In a footnote, he refers to the Dictionary of U.S. Army Terms (Washington, 1943) as preferring fuze for a detonating device.
That lead me to look it up in the Overdose Of English Dictionary (1971), which accepts both spellings for both the detonator and bringing together, but doesn't mention the electrical device at all. It includes a 1644 use of fuse in the former sense.
On spell checking this email, I found that the aspell dictionary doesn't accept fuze as sufficiently American.
Is everyone now thoroughly muddled? Good.
Yup - it sounds to me like one of those words that no-one wants to own :-) Rather like the instrument that we call the French Horn. I think the French call it a German Horn, and no doubt the Germans have a different name for it.
Anne
From: "Charles Curley" charlescurley@charlescurley.com
Is everyone now thoroughly muddled? Good.
It's enough to muddle the woad.
{^_-} (<sigh> I miss Randall Garrett.)
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 02:24:20AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Charles Curley" charlescurley@charlescurley.com
Is everyone now thoroughly muddled? Good.
It's enough to muddle the woad.
Ah, yes. As the ancient Pictish blues song says,
All you need is woad! Woad! Woad is all you need!
(Later re-worked by the Beatles.)
{^_-} (<sigh> I miss Randall Garrett.)
Amen. A case of Too Few Magicians.
On Thursday 31 August 2006 07:43 pm, Charles Curley wrote:
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 02:24:20AM -0700, jdow wrote:
From: "Charles Curley" charlescurley@charlescurley.com
Is everyone now thoroughly muddled? Good.
It's enough to muddle the woad.
Ah, yes. As the ancient Pictish blues song says,
All you need is woad! Woad! Woad is all you need!
And they called it The Birth of the Blues
(Later re-worked by the Beatles.)
{^_-} (<sigh> I miss Randall Garrett.)
Amen. A case of Too Few Magicians.
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Anne Wilson Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:08 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: What is the language "British"?
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 16:57, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
Anne
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 09:25 am, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Anne Wilson Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:08 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: What is the language "British"?
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 16:57, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
Never spent much time blowing up things eh ;-)
Anne
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
-----Original Message----- From: fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com [mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com] On Behalf Of Anne Wilson Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 10:08 AM To: For users of Fedora Core releases Subject: Re: What is the language "British"?
On Wednesday 30 August 2006 16:57, Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
Since I'd never heard of 'fuze' I checked four dictionaries. Three of them didn't list it. The fourth said that it is a 'US variant spelling of "fuse"'
Anne
On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 22:09 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
I would say the same (also coming from an electronics background), that both the circuit breaking fuse, and ignition fuse, are spelt "fuse," and I've never seen another variant. I can imagine that there might be a "fuze" brand name.
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:50 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
And that brings the thread back to the start [can you say recursion?] ;-)
Mike
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. You have found the bank of Larn. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:50 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
And that brings the thread back to the start [can you say recursion?] ;-)
Just remember: "NET" means "Not Entirely True".
Mike
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 11:07 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 10:50 am, Mike McCarty wrote:
[snip]
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
And that brings the thread back to the start [can you say recursion?] ;-)
Just remember: "NET" means "Not Entirely True".
especially if it is .net ;-) BTW Army Field manuals always refer to the fuze on explosive devices as a fuze if the electrician installs a fuze in the fusebox.... Do Not power up the circuit <ouch>
Mike
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. You have found the bank of Larn. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
Thunderbird Compose spell checker can't deal with Fuze though!
Bob Goodwin*
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 15:03, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
Darn, first braggart hasn't a chance in this company. My Websters is 11 years newer. :(
Thunderbird Compose spell checker can't deal with Fuze though!
Bob Goodwin*
On Wed, 2006-06-09 at 20:04 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 15:03, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
Darn, first braggart hasn't a chance in this company. My Websters is 11 years newer. :(
Thunderbird Compose spell checker can't deal with Fuze though!
I sympathize with the American posters here who know no better than to use American toys that call themselves dictionaries. The OED which is a real English dictionary does not define fuze directly but simply refers to fuse. The definition of fuse(n.) includes something to break an electrical circuit and something to ignite explosives, so that should settle it.
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 18:49, William Case wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-09 at 20:04 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 15:03, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
Darn, first braggart hasn't a chance in this company. My Websters is 11 years newer. :(
Thunderbird Compose spell checker can't deal with Fuze though!
I sympathize with the American posters here who know no better than to use American toys that call themselves dictionaries. The OED which is a real English dictionary does not define fuze directly but simply refers to fuse. The definition of fuse(n.) includes something to break an electrical circuit and something to ignite explosives, so that should settle it.
I guess that the editors of the OED don't spend much time playing with fireworks.
-- Regards Bill
Grumpy wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 18:49, William Case wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-09 at 20:04 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 15:03, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
> dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to > blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same. > And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
Darn, first braggart hasn't a chance in this company. My Websters is 11 years newer. :(
Thunderbird Compose spell checker can't deal with Fuze though!
I sympathize with the American posters here who know no better than to use American toys that call themselves dictionaries. The OED which is a real English dictionary does not define fuze directly but simply refers to fuse. The definition of fuse(n.) includes something to break an electrical circuit and something to ignite explosives, so that should settle it.
I guess that the editors of the OED don't spend much time playing with fireworks.
-- Regards Bill
I suggest that you look where I believe the term "fuze" originated. It came from electronic designs for "proximity fuzes." Try google with "proximity fuze" and you will be overwhelmed with articles, probably more than you care to read but the spelling is fuze in that case.
Bob Goodwin
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:09:04 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I sympathize with the American posters here who know no better than to use American toys that call themselves dictionaries. The OED which is a real English dictionary does not define fuze directly but simply refers to fuse. The definition of fuse(n.) includes something to break an electrical circuit and something to ignite explosives, so that should settle it.
Point of information here : the makers of dictionaries have no pipeline to any gods of language, if such there be. What they do is go out and study usage, then report what they find.
Some of them try persistently to pass an informed judgment on what is *good* usage (according to their own great knowledge and therefore *presumed* good judgment) and then report that preferentially; perhaps the best example is Fowler's Modern English Usage, especially in the first edition. And that may indeed be a good thing to do, as most professional writers agree in Fowler's case.
Others, equally learned in language, do their best on principle to eschew any judgment, and report "just the facts," leaving it to each of us to pass our own. The OED is a good example here : it bases every article, as the full title says, "on historical principles" -- id est, *not* on those of a Fowler.
But in either case, they are only human. There exists no such authority to back them up as, for instance, the compilers of law books or of handbooks of physics enjoy. Try comparing the two editions of Fowler, for instance. Maybe also look up and examine other prescriptive reference sources, and one or two other history-based ones; there are several of each.
Beartooth wrote:
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:09:04 -0400, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I sympathize with the American posters here who know no better than to use American toys that call themselves dictionaries. The OED which is a real English dictionary does not define fuze directly but simply refers to fuse. The definition of fuse(n.) includes something to break an electrical circuit and something to ignite explosives, so that should settle it.
Point of information here : the makers of dictionaries have no pipeline to any gods of language, if such there be. What they do is go out and study usage, then report what they find.
[snip]
In this context, yes. However, this is emphatically not universally true. There are dictionary/language standards groups which do assume authority to dictate actual usage in other languages. In particular, Spanish and German are both dictated that way. Not too long ago, there were "official" changes to both of those languages (which I have some facility in) which I disagreed with. One letter was elided from Spanish (sad day for me, now spanish spelling is "weird" like that in English in some ways) and German changed the official spellings of words with triple letters in them (like ,,stillliegen") to only have double, (,,stilliegen") and some minor changes in orthography regarding the sharp "s". So now German has some more "funny" rules for pronunciation. "Stilliegen", as spelled, should be pronounced with a glottal stop after the Ls. But that's not the way the word is pronounced. So, german spelling (which is much but not an enormous lot better than english spelling) has some more blemishes on it.
Mike
On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 21:49:20 -0400, William Case wrote:
On Wed, 2006-06-09 at 20:04 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 15:03, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
Darn, first braggart hasn't a chance in this company. My Websters is 11 years newer. :(
Thunderbird Compose spell checker can't deal with Fuze though!
I sympathize with the American posters here who know no better than to use American toys that call themselves dictionaries. The OED which is a real English dictionary does not define fuze directly but simply refers to fuse. The definition of fuse(n.) includes something to break an electrical circuit and something to ignite explosives, so that should settle it. -- Regards Bill
'Fuze' historically refers to not just any fuse, but a specific fuse, the proximity fuze. Why? Dunno. However, that's the etymology.
-Thufir
From: "Bob Goodwin" bobgoodwin@wildblue.net
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
Mike
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
To partially coorborate your 1947 dictionary's definition I have my grandfather's 1947 Websters business dictionary at hand. Fuse definition 1 was detonator and definition 2 was electrical interrupter. Fuze was ONLY detonator.
{^_^}
*My ancient dictionary, about as fragile as the dead sea scrolls, even shows pictures of several "fuzes!" Two have propellers and they obviously screw into the nose of a projectile/bomb.
"FUZE noun A mechanical or electrical device that initiates the explosive charge of a shell, bomb, grenade, etc."
Funk & Wagnalls New College Standard Dictionary C. 1947
To partially coorborate your 1947 dictionary's definition I have my grandfather's 1947 Websters business dictionary at hand. Fuse definition 1 was detonator and definition 2 was electrical interrupter. Fuze was ONLY detonator.
But, let us all not forget that languages in active use are not static.
An example of this can be found even in Chinese. The character 雞 (or written in simplified Chinese 鸡) means "chicken" and has had the meaning of 1) A bird and 2) frightened. Much like what most of us relate to.
However, in the PRC a new meaning as been added and can be found in their dictionary, 3) Female prostitute. FWIW, "duck" also was awarded the additional definition of Male prostitute, or gigolo.
A note here would be that in Taiwan these usages have not (yet) been adopted.
So, while going back and looking in dictionaries from the 1940's and 1930's and earlier can be interesting for researching the archaic usage of words they may no longer reflect current usage.
What is curious is that people living in an area don't really notice the evolution of their language or word usage. There have been times where I'd not returned to the USA (New Jersey, lots of jokes about that state.) for nearly 2 years and was confronted with the usage of some words in ways that caused me confusion.
It is almost along the same lines as looking at yourself and/or your mate/partner every day. You don't notice the subtle changes. But, when you meet someone you've not seen in a long time they say things like "My you've changed" and then go on to describe what is different about you.
Ed Greshko wrote:
An example of this can be found even in Chinese. The character ? (or written in simplified Chinese ?) means "chicken" and has had the meaning of
- A bird and 2) frightened. Much like what most of us relate to.
However, in the PRC a new meaning as been added and can be found in their dictionary, 3) Female prostitute. FWIW, "duck" also was awarded the additional definition of Male prostitute, or gigolo.
As a matter of interest, is there a Mandarin equivalent of the Acadamie Francaise, to decide which new words (or meanings) are acceptable in the Republic of China, or elsewhere?
But I think the introduction of new words, or the addition of new meanings to old words, is very different from the acceptance of spelling variations, as Mr Quayle found to his cost.
In practice, I imagine any spelling that does not have the imprimatur of the OED or Webster will simply be regarded as "wrong". I don't think "that's how we spell it in Jamaica" (or Minnesota) would be considered a valid excuse.
I may call a gigolo a "duck" without anyone batting an eyelid, but if I say I am eating a ducc's eg I'll be universally condemned.
On Wednesday 06 September 2006 13:50, Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon.
Correct in my rather extended experience. What liberal arts major is running dictionary.com? Obviously one whose hands do NOT fit the tools...
A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
I didn't bother... My dictionary is a bit dated, Websters New World College Edition, original Copyright 1958. The cover used to be red, but has faded to whats best called a wilted, dusty rose I think. Hey, its 24 years newer than I am, so its current enough for the girls I go with... :)
Mike
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);} This message made from 100% recycled bits. You have found the bank of Larn. I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you. I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
From: "Mike McCarty" Mike.McCarty@sbcglobal.net
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 05 September 2006 12:25, Michael P. Brininstool wrote:
dictionary.com sez basically that fuse is the thing you light to blow something up and the fuze is an electronic version of same.
And as a C.E.T. of 34 years, and chasing electrons for a living for 57 or so, I have yet to see the hot wire device designed to open a circuit when too much current flows called anything but a fuse, with an 's'. Thats not
Yep.
saying it couldn't be so spelled in other locales, but here, there's only one way to spell it unless the writer failed spelling.
Then dictionary.com is wrong. A fuze is a device for detonating a weapon. A fuse is an electrical device. I've been doing electronics for 40 years, and *never* have encountered the term "fuze" to mean an electronics component.
Furthermore, I looked in a "real" dictionary, and that's what it verified.
As a precocious kid who has played with electricity and electronics for over 55 years - "fuse" interrupts electrons or mates objects together while "fuze" detonates. (A rough check of a '53 ARRL handbook indicates it figured "fuse" was the object that interrupted electron flow.)
{^_^} Joanne (Daddy discovered I could pay attention to his instructions and had me doing "stuff" when I was about four years old. Then he died and I started doing it ALL for myself a couple years later due to impatience with the adults around me.)
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
after He marked the latter as mispelled [BTW the spell checker missed it too]
The spell checker got it right. Short rare words should be flagged. On a qwerty keyboard, s and z are adjacent. Sesquipedalian, though rare, is unlikely to be a mistake.
Fuse - Something to protect electric/electronic circuits. Fuze - Something you lite to set off an explosive.
US dictionaries use fuse for both.
BTW, spell checkers are not always correct. With the dropping of Pluto from the official planets list, the term pluton was going to be used for the Dwarf Planets. This was chosen because it didn't show up in MS Words dictionary. It has been used in geology for ages.
pluton n : large mass of intrusive igneous rock believed to have solidified deep within the earth [syn: {batholith}, {batholite}, {plutonic rock}]
Robin Laing wrote:
Michael Hennebry wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Grumpy_Penguin wrote:
I had to explain to an English teacher the difference between fuse and fuze
What was the distinction that you were trying to make? In the dictionary I just checked, the definitions refer to each other and pretty much make them synonyms.
after He marked the latter as mispelled [BTW the spell checker missed it too]
The spell checker got it right. Short rare words should be flagged. On a qwerty keyboard, s and z are adjacent. Sesquipedalian, though rare, is unlikely to be a mistake.
Fuse - Something to protect electric/electronic circuits. Fuze - Something you lite to set off an explosive.
US dictionaries use fuse for both.
So do British ones: http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fuse_1?view=uk http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fuse_2?view=uk though the second offers "fuze" as an alternative spelling.
Paul.
-
Alan -
Alan M. Evans -
Andrew Parker -
Andy Green -
Anne Wilson -
Antonio Olivares -
Arch Willingham -
Bear Tooth -
Beartooth
-
Bill Case -
Bob Goodwin -
BRUCE STANLEY -
Carroll Grigsby -
Charles Curley -
Chong Yu Meng -
Chris Mohler -
Craig White -
David -
David Fletcher -
Derek C Hopkins -
Duncan Anderson -
Ed Greshko -
Erik P. Olsen -
Gayal -
Gene Heskett -
George Arseneault -
Grumpy -
Guillermo Garron -
Jack Gates -
Jacques B. -
James Wilkinson -
jdow -
Jim Rice -
Jonathan Allen -
Matthew Miller -
Matthew Saltzman -
Michael Hennebry -
Michael P. Brininstool -
Mike Klinke -
Mike McCarty -
Mike Wright -
Nigel Henry -
Paul Howarth -
Richard England -
Robin Laing -
Sjoerd Mullender -
Steve Searle -
Thufir -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy -
Todd Zullinger -
Tom Diehl -
Tom Horsley