OT Where's my royalties?

Tony Raven

audrey wrote:
>
> I am by way of being our in-house pedant, and tend to fume about
> people using certain words 'wrongly' (eg an event being described as
> 'tragic' if no-one died, something being 'rather unique', etc). Our
> in-house linguist (MA and nearly a PhD therein) tells me to calm down
> and accept it, and refers me to this essay by Peter Trudgill in
> 'Language Myths'

My Oxford Concise Dictionary doesn't require death for it to be tragic, just
an unhappy ending.

>
> I therefore try not to let these things upset me anymore, although a
> lifetime of pedantry is hard to leave behind.
>
<pedant>
With respect its not a lifetime unless you know something imminent that I
don't and you exhibited pedantry from birth rather than developed it during
your education.. Its "part of a lifetime of pedantry" I hope
</pedant>

Tony

audrey

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 14:11:33 +0100, "Tony Raven"
<junk@raven-family.com> wrote:

..

><pedant>
>With respect its not a lifetime unless you know something imminent that I
>don't and you exhibited pedantry from birth rather than developed it during
>your education.. Its "part of a lifetime of pedantry" I hope
></pedant>
>
I can see I have much to learn before I may wear the badge of pedantry
with honour.



--

email = audmad aaatttt hhhottt mmmaailll dddoottt ccccoommm

Jon Senior

In article <87659fyh5d.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org>, keith@flat222.org
says...
> And the 'phonetic' part of the NATO Phonetic Alphabet refers to the fact
> that it's spoken. It has nothing to do with the way words are spelled,
> merely the verbal delivery. It's *you* who is making the incorrect
> assumption.

Wrong. But if you wish to continue in that vein please do so. Phonetic
refers to pronunication, not just speaking. Thus it should be possible
to rename the NATO Phonetic Alphabet (when using your definition) to the
NATO Pronunciation Alphabet. Of course... you and I both know that it is
not a pronunciation alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. According to
Mike's source, the Radiotelephony spelling alphabet of the International
Civil Aviation Organization.

My assumption is based on the English language and its roots in Greek
and Latin. What is yours based on?

Jon

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> In theory I agree with you here. Languages do evolve. However, they
> normally do so in a manner which doesn't break comprehension. I have
> encountered people who use "phonetic" in an incorrect manner (e.g. Mr
> Willoughby) and thus introduce confusion into a conversation.
>

It seems that Mr Willoughby is correct in his use of phonetic as in phonetic
alphabet, it having been in common use as such since at least 1941 as the
Joint Army/Navy Phonetic alphabet and has become the common name for such
alphabets since. That's probably from before you were born and certainly a
lot earlier than words you probably accept as having changed usage such as
gay, cool, yahoo etc

Tony

Jon Senior

In article <2k2nj1F17bfrfU1@uni-berlin.de>, junk@raven-family.com
says...
> It seems that Mr Willoughby is correct in his use of phonetic as in phonetic
> alphabet, it having been in common use as such since at least 1941 as the
> Joint Army/Navy Phonetic alphabet and has become the common name for such
> alphabets since.

Only insofar as he chooses to disregard the meaning of the word
"phonetic". The concept does not make sense. And if we are to consider
the military to be an authoritative source of language information, I
would remind you that they consider "Roger" and "Affirmative" to mean
"yes", categorise all plant-life into "cover" / "non-cover" and are
responsible for words like "tabbing"[1].

> That's probably from before you were born and certainly a
> lot earlier than words you probably accept as having changed usage such as
> gay,

happy?

> cool,

chilled?

> yahoo

An exclamation?

Jon

[1] T.A.B. stands for Tactical Advance to Battle. Tabbing is thus the
practice of tactically advancing to battle. As best as I can tell this
has a strong correlation with the meaning of the word "running", but may
also include carrying a heavy rucksack!

Jon Senior

In article <2k2okhF16vaksU1@uni-berlin.de>, junk@raven-family.com
says...
> Mine is based on common english usage established over a period of time. Thus
> Phonetic Alphabet has been widely used for over 60 years and become part of
> common parlance. English changes according to usage not through slavish
> adherance to its roots. Or would you claim that gay cannot possibly mean
> homosexual because its french roots have nothing to do with homosexuality or
> that nice cannot mean pleasant because its latin root means ignorant?

The original meaning of "gay" is no longer recognised in common English
usage. The original meaning of "nice" is longer recognised in common
English usage. The original meaning of phonetic is a fundamental aspect
of the English language. See if you can spot the difference.

Jon

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
> In article <87659fyh5d.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org>, keith@flat222.org
> says...
>> And the 'phonetic' part of the NATO Phonetic Alphabet refers to the fact
>> that it's spoken. It has nothing to do with the way words are spelled,
>> merely the verbal delivery. It's *you* who is making the incorrect
>> assumption.
>
> Wrong. But if you wish to continue in that vein please do so. Phonetic
> refers to pronunication, not just speaking. Thus it should be possible
> to rename the NATO Phonetic Alphabet (when using your definition) to the
> NATO Pronunciation Alphabet. Of course... you and I both know that it is
> not a pronunciation alphabet, but a spelling alphabet. According to
> Mike's source, the Radiotelephony spelling alphabet of the International
> Civil Aviation Organization.
>
> My assumption is based on the English language and its roots in Greek
> and Latin. What is yours based on?
>

Mine is based on common english usage established over a period of time. Thus
Phonetic Alphabet has been widely used for over 60 years and become part of
common parlance. English changes according to usage not through slavish
adherance to its roots. Or would you claim that gay cannot possibly mean
homosexual because its french roots have nothing to do with homosexuality or
that nice cannot mean pleasant because its latin root means ignorant?

Tony
..

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Only insofar as he chooses to disregard the meaning of the word
> "phonetic". The concept does not make sense. And if we are to consider
> the military to be an authoritative source of language information, I
> would remind you that they consider "Roger" and "Affirmative" to mean
> "yes", categorise all plant-life into "cover" / "non-cover" and are
> responsible for words like "tabbing"[1].
>
>> That's probably from before you were born and certainly a
>> lot earlier than words you probably accept as having changed usage such as
>> gay,
>
> happy?
>
>> cool,
>
> chilled?
>
>> yahoo
>
> An exclamation?
>
> Jon
>
> [1] T.A.B. stands for Tactical Advance to Battle. Tabbing is thus the
> practice of tactically advancing to battle. As best as I can tell this
> has a strong correlation with the meaning of the word "running", but may
> also include carrying a heavy rucksack!

Keith Willoughby

Jon Senior wrote:

> In article <87659fyh5d.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org>, keith@flat222.org
> says...
>> And the 'phonetic' part of the NATO Phonetic Alphabet refers to the fact
>> that it's spoken. It has nothing to do with the way words are spelled,
>> merely the verbal delivery. It's *you* who is making the incorrect
>> assumption.
>
> Wrong. But if you wish to continue in that vein please do so. Phonetic
> refers to pronunication, not just speaking.

Well, that's begging the question, isn't it?

> Thus it should be possible to rename the NATO Phonetic Alphabet (when
> using your definition) to the NATO Pronunciation Alphabet. Of
> course... you and I both know that it is not a pronunciation alphabet,
> but a spelling alphabet.

This is a straw man.

> According to Mike's source, the Radiotelephony spelling alphabet of
> the International Civil Aviation Organization.
>
> My assumption is based on the English language and its roots in Greek
> and Latin. What is yours based on?

And this appears to be a claim to authority, given that it's not really
backed up.

If you go for a non sequitur next, I think you get a free set of wine
glasses.

I've already given you my reasons. They are twofold. One, it's been
called a Phonetic Alphabet for a long time. It's well known as one. No
matter what pedants say, it's a Phonetic Alphabet even if it didn't have
a claim to be one based on some definitions of 'phonetic', one of which
I provided, and on the greek root meaning 'sound'.

If you want to argue that it would be more correctly called a spelling
alphabet, then that's fine. I'd agree with you. You apparently would
rather pick people up in public and tell them that calling it a
'phonetic alphabet' is just flat out wrong. I take it you get a kick out
of the 'gotcha'?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"He swapped five photos of his wife
For one of Barry John"

Keith Willoughby

Jon Senior wrote:

> In article <2k2okhF16vaksU1@uni-berlin.de>, junk@raven-family.com
> says...
>> Mine is based on common english usage established over a period of time. Thus
>> Phonetic Alphabet has been widely used for over 60 years and become part of
>> common parlance. English changes according to usage not through slavish
>> adherance to its roots. Or would you claim that gay cannot possibly mean
>> homosexual because its french roots have nothing to do with homosexuality or
>> that nice cannot mean pleasant because its latin root means ignorant?
>
> The original meaning of "gay" is no longer recognised in common English
> usage.

I manage to recognise it. For example, I'm pretty sure that the
Flintstones were merely happy. I don't think there's any need to dub
over their theme tune.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Ceci n'est pas une sig

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> Only insofar as he chooses to disregard the meaning of the word
> "phonetic". The concept does not make sense. And if we are to consider
> the military to be an authoritative source of language information, I
> would remind you that they consider "Roger" and "Affirmative" to mean
> "yes", categorise all plant-life into "cover" / "non-cover" and are
> responsible for words like "tabbing"[1].

Roger means confirmed and understood and is recognised as such in the english
language along with a number of other meanings unrelated to its germanic
roots. Answered in the affirmative has been an expression meaning said yes
for years before the military usage.

Like it or not these words have come into common english usage and their new
meanings are accepted as such. Quite what language you are going to use
though is beyond me as the very words you are using are complete corruptions
of medieval english language which was a complete corruption of the english
language in the first century AD. At what point in time do you arbitrarily
intend to freeze the english language into Senior's Approved English Language?

>
>> yahoo
>
> An exclamation?
>

No.

Tony

Jon Senior

In article <87n02rwxvm.fsf@flat222.dyndns.org>, keith@flat222.org
says...
> > Wrong. But if you wish to continue in that vein please do so. Phonetic
> > refers to pronunication, not just speaking.
>
> Well, that's begging the question, isn't it?

Do I really need to explain that one?

> This is a straw man.

Or "an argument against" as it's otherwise known!

> > According to Mike's source, the Radiotelephony spelling alphabet of
> > the International Civil Aviation Organization.
> >
> > My assumption is based on the English language and its roots in Greek
> > and Latin. What is yours based on?
>
> And this appears to be a claim to authority, given that it's not really
> backed up.

That was similar to the one I remembered. Do I have a source? No. Though
the following might be of interest to you:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/NATO_phonetic_alphabet

Note the use of a simplified phonetic alphabet.

> If you go for a non sequitur next, I think you get a free set of wine
> glasses.

Yaddy, yaddy. I've noticed a common pattern amongst online debaters.
When they can no longer defend against the arguments, they attack the
style. Not a criticism... just an observation ;-)

> I've already given you my reasons. They are twofold. One, it's been
> called a Phonetic Alphabet for a long time. It's well known as one. No
> matter what pedants say, it's a Phonetic Alphabet even if it didn't have
> a claim to be one based on some definitions of 'phonetic', one of which
> I provided, and on the greek root meaning 'sound'.

Argument one is historical, but doesn't account for correctness, or
sense. Since it is not a phonetic alphabet but "The Phonetic Alphabet"
it is a bizarre definition.

"some definitions". One definition which in the context of all others
posted appears to be incomplete.

> If you want to argue that it would be more correctly called a spelling
> alphabet, then that's fine. I'd agree with you. You apparently would
> rather pick people up in public and tell them that calling it a
> 'phonetic alphabet' is just flat out wrong. I take it you get a kick out
> of the 'gotcha'?

I wouldn't argue that is would be more correctly called a spelling
alphabet, there is no debate over that matter. With regard to the
correction, if you don't correct people, they won't learn. Fundamentally
calling it a phonetic alphabet *is* flat out wrong. Most people I've
told are capable of understanding this and acknowledge it, rather than
mumbling "well that's what I've always called it". If someone is brought
up to call "dogs", "cats" and vice versa, do you correct them, or do you
let them wander through life at odds with the world?

I freely admit to pedantry. I ommitted the pedant tags on the grounds
that I thought it was blatently obvious.

"PIN number" is well known as a phrase, but is meaningless (or
excessively meaningful!). As is "taking your car for it's MOT". My
pedantic rantings are not limited to this one issue you know!

Jon

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
>
> The original meaning of "gay" is no longer recognised in common English
> usage. The original meaning of "nice" is longer recognised in common
> English usage. The original meaning of phonetic is a fundamental aspect
> of the English language. See if you can spot the difference.
>

Ah, I didn't see the asterisk next to the word phonetic in my Oxford
dictionary along with the footnote that this was a pure word not to be
corrupted in meaning by commoners. I now see it with the sight you have given
me and also see that there is no asterisk alongside gay and nice which are
therefore free to have their meanings added to or changed by common usage.
You learn so much from urc.

Tony

PS Gay and nice still retain their original meanings as well as their new
additional meanings.

David Martin

On 25/6/04 12:52 pm, in article jg4od018u9smtoqom89ni0dpv3pr1h3jc1@4ax.com,
"Gawnsoft" <xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net> wrote:

> I thought K and Q were both Ghadaffi?
>
> (I don't get B, D or Y in the above list, mind you...)
>
Bdellium is pronounced Delm
Deuterium is pronounced jew tere ee um
Yttrium is pronounced it ree um

...d