OT Where's my royalties?

Keith Willoughby

Jon Senior wrote:

> Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...
>> 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.
>
> And outwith old cartoons, do you use it in that context in your daily
> life? Do your colleagues? Do your friends?

Except, the question is not whether I use it. The question would be that
*if* I used it in that context, would you interrupt to tell me that my
usage was incorrect? Do you think it's actually impossible for gay to
have more than one meaning?

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"You've sunk my battleship!"

Jon Senior

Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...
> Jon Senior wrote:
>
> > Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...
> >> You're begging the question. It's a logical fallacy. It's not an
> >> argument.
> >
> > Then you misunderstood the point. The subject of phonetics refers to a
> > specific aspect of speech, the word phonetics does not encapsulate
> > everything to do with speech.
>
> You misunderstand. You're arguing by assertion, by starting with the
> premise you should finish with, and pretending the intermediate steps
> happened.

The assertion that phonetics refers to a specific aspect of speech is
based on its common usage, the dictionary definitions given, and the
etymology of the word. That strikes me as a suitable starting point. My
further discussion beyond that assertion was elaboration for those who
seemed troubled by the simple definition.

> > So I'm not allowed to argue against points that you made?
>
> You can do that. You're not supposed to argue points that you made and
> pretend that you're arguing points that I made.

Not entirely sure what the point was but if so... I apologise. I will
limit myself to attacking your arguments rather than turning on myself.

> > Really. NATO have existed for a thousand years?
>
> Yes, that's right. That's obviously my argument. I think NATO have
> existed for a thouand years.

Really?

> > Or was that the specific case?
>
> What do you think?

I think it might it have been.

> > If so, what is the general case?
>
> The general case is "English is not a static language. Popular usage
> eventually determines correctness". I have the feeling that L'Academie
> Francais is more your thing.

And this has only occurred for a thousand years?

> > Once again, I refer you to the cat / dog scenario. For your sake, I have
> > explained it clearly below!
>
> Ah, attempted patronising. Isn't that sweet?

"Attempted" would imply that I failed. I would have said that mine was a
perfectly patronising sentence.

> > <thought experiment>
> >
> > A child, is brought up in seclusion. The people who teach it, call cats
> > dogs, and vice versa. They also answer yes for no, and no for yes. When
> > it has reached adulthood, it is "released" into the "wild" and left to
> > survive. You encounter this person and after a while, work out what has
> > that they're knowledge is faulty. Do you correct them?
> >
> > </thought experiment>
>
> Well, the analogy isn't nearly the same. Nobody sane calls a cat a
> dog. The NATO Phonetic Alphabet is known as such by millions of
> people.

So in the thought experiment above... is the child insane? Did you in
fact read it, or did you just decide that I referred to cats as dogs and
charge on regardless? You mentioned a straw man...

> > A repetition of the same word. Possible redundancy?
>
> It doesn't repeat the same word, does it? Say it out loud. "PIN
> Number". No repetition at all.

Personal Idenitification Number Number. You know you're absolutely right
there!

> Only people who get a pathetic kick out of correcting people on pedantic
> matters such as this care about PIN numbers.
>
> >> but only very
> >> shallow people give a toss about that.
> >
> > Wrong. People who care about the impression they give. If someone uses
> > the term "PIN number" I tend to pigeonhole them into the category of
> > "less bright" until I see evidence to the contrary. Shallow? Possibly,
>
> Oh, definitely. Shallow, with delusions of superiority.

Delusions? I'm clearly superior. For starters I've yet to resort to name
calling!

> > Probably very good, since they were capable of recognising the error,
>
> There is no error. "PIN Number" is a perfectly good colloquialism to
> every one except the self-satisfied pedant.

Aside from being incorrect, there is no error.

> > and of broaching the subject with the mistaken party.
>
> If you broached that particular subject with me, I'd tell you where to
> get off. The phrase "get a life" would likely be used, along with some
> choice swearing.

And you think that I would be the one lacking social skills in that
situation? Could you really not deal with them without resorting to
insults and foul language?

> > Unchecked, this sort of thing leads to words like Lasing[1]. It is
> > indicative of a general dumbing down and lack of awareness.
>
> Is it bollocks. Is indicative of people who are comfortable with a lack
> of anally-retentive accuracy, and who have some ridiculous phobia about
> neoligisms, as if William Shakespeare was the last person who was
> allowed to make up words.

Yes. It is. Speaking as someone who has relatively recently been
educated I can safely say that there is a significant dumbing down
occurring in this society. If you are in any doubt, try checking the TV
schedules, or listening to any radio phone in. Or speaking to any child
who tries to fit in to their peer group, but can't because they get high
marks in class.

> "Lasing" is a fantastic addition to the English language.

And here we must part company!

> > All of this is mere rambling around the core point which is that the use
> > of the word "phonetic" in the case of the "NATO Phonetic Alphabet" is
> > incorrect and leads to a misunderstanding of the word phonetic which can
> > cause problems in years to come.
>
> No, it doesn't. Obviously, you think this is important enough to bring it
> up at every opportunity you get, but it isn't. It's not remotely important.

I presume that you can cite a number of points at which I have forced
this issue into an unrelated conversation. Or have you started "with the
premise you should finish with, and <pretended> the intermediate steps
happened."

> Believe it or not, most people are perfectly comfortable with words that
> have more than one meaning depending on context.
>
> I'd definitely check out Ian's suggestions of Asperger's.

So laughable it's not really worth discussing. I have experience of
those afflicted with Asperger's and can confidently say that I don't
number amongst them.

You however (If we are in the game of diagnosing mental afflictions)
might want to investigate "Sociopath".

Jon

Gawnsoft

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 15:24:48 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote (more or less):
....
>In summary:
>
>Nice - one meaning as understood my Joe public.

I think this example nicely illustrates why you're wrong. :-)


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Jon Senior

Tony Raven junk@raven-family.com opined the following...
> Well we could start with the dictionary definition of unique:
>
> Unique - u-nek, adj. sole; without a like; _often used loosely for unusual,
> pre-eminent_; found solely in, belonging solely to etc. (Chambers 20th
> Century)
>
> So it seems unique is no longer what you think it is

"Sole", "without a like", "found solely in", "belonging solely to etc.".
Of all the definitions above only the one which suggests common, but
incorrect usage fits anything other than the definition I use.

Your point was what, precisely?

Jon

Jon Senior

Gawnsoft xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net opined the
following...
> >Nice - one meaning as understood my Joe public.
>
> I think this example nicely illustrates why you're wrong. :-)

Oops. Still, one typo in a debate this heated is not bad going! ;-)

Jon

Gawnsoft

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:08:11 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...

....
>> > Unchecked, this sort of thing leads to words like Lasing[1]. It is
>> > indicative of a general dumbing down and lack of awareness.
>>
>> Is it bollocks. Is indicative of people who are comfortable with a lack
>> of anally-retentive accuracy, and who have some ridiculous phobia about
>> neoligisms, as if William Shakespeare was the last person who was
>> allowed to make up words.
>
....
>> "Lasing" is a fantastic addition to the English language.
>
>And here we must part company!

Do you object to Shakespeare?

During his lifetime, he near doubled the number of words in the
English language.

Do you object to 'television' or 'televising'?

Do you object to 'laser' or 'scuba'?

How about 'cellphone'?


--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Jon Senior

Gawnsoft xlucid@users.sourceforge.remove.this.antispam.net opined the
following...
> On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 21:08:11 +0100, Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):
>
> >Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...
>
> ...
> >> > Unchecked, this sort of thing leads to words like Lasing[1]. It is
> >> > indicative of a general dumbing down and lack of awareness.
> >>
> >> Is it bollocks. Is indicative of people who are comfortable with a lack
> >> of anally-retentive accuracy, and who have some ridiculous phobia about
> >> neoligisms, as if William Shakespeare was the last person who was
> >> allowed to make up words.
> >
> ...
> >> "Lasing" is a fantastic addition to the English language.
> >
> >And here we must part company!
>
> Do you object to Shakespeare?

Not particularly.

> During his lifetime, he near doubled the number of words in the
> English language.

By adding new ones, not by changing the meaning of the existing ones.

> Do you object to 'television' or 'televising'?

No. Well. I object to a number of things shown on television, and thus,
televised!

> Do you object to 'laser' or 'scuba'?

LASER. I have no problems with. Nor scuba for that matter, although I
don't know its origins off-hand.

> How about 'cellphone'?

Nope.

Why?

Jon

Keith Willoughby

Jon Senior wrote:

> Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...
>> Jon Senior wrote:
>>
>> The general case is "English is not a static language. Popular usage
>> eventually determines correctness". I have the feeling that L'Academie
>> Francais is more your thing.
>
> And this has only occurred for a thousand years?

It's been just under a thousand years since the Norman invasion. That
seems a good baseline for 'English'. However, if you're reduced to
nitpicking that figure . . .

[...]

>> > <thought experiment>
>> >
>> > A child, is brought up in seclusion. The people who teach it, call cats
>> > dogs, and vice versa. They also answer yes for no, and no for yes. When
>> > it has reached adulthood, it is "released" into the "wild" and left to
>> > survive. You encounter this person and after a while, work out what has
>> > that they're knowledge is faulty. Do you correct them?
>> >
>> > </thought experiment>
>>
>> Well, the analogy isn't nearly the same. Nobody sane calls a cat a
>> dog. The NATO Phonetic Alphabet is known as such by millions of
>> people.
>
> So in the thought experiment above... is the child insane?

The child doesn't exist. It's all very well postulating situations that
don't exist as "thought experiments", but it bore no relationship to reality.

> Did you in fact read it, or did you just decide that I referred to
> cats as dogs and charge on regardless?

No, I read it. And I told you the analogy isn't relevant. It isn't.

> You mentioned a straw man...
>
>> > A repetition of the same word. Possible redundancy?
>>
>> It doesn't repeat the same word, does it? Say it out loud. "PIN
>> Number". No repetition at all.
>
> Personal Idenitification Number Number. You know you're absolutely right
> there!

*Yes, I am right*. See, people don't say "personal identification number
number". They say "PIN Number". It's not the same thing at all. I can
tell the difference, so why can't you?

>> There is no error. "PIN Number" is a perfectly good colloquialism to
>> every one except the self-satisfied pedant.
>
> Aside from being incorrect, there is no error.

Except it's not "incorrect". It's not even repetition or
redundancy. There's nothing inherently "incorrect" about the phrase "PIN
number".

>> > and of broaching the subject with the mistaken party.
>>
>> If you broached that particular subject with me, I'd tell you where to
>> get off. The phrase "get a life" would likely be used, along with some
>> choice swearing.
>
> And you think that I would be the one lacking social skills in that
> situation?

That's right.

> Could you really not deal with them without resorting to insults and
> foul language?

I could. I would choose not to. See, sometimes it's not "resorting" to
insults and "foul" language. Sometimes, it's heartily deserved as the
first response.

>> > Unchecked, this sort of thing leads to words like Lasing[1]. It is
>> > indicative of a general dumbing down and lack of awareness.
>>
>> Is it bollocks. Is indicative of people who are comfortable with a lack
>> of anally-retentive accuracy, and who have some ridiculous phobia about
>> neoligisms, as if William Shakespeare was the last person who was
>> allowed to make up words.
>
> Yes. It is. Speaking as someone who has relatively recently been
> educated I can safely say that there is a significant dumbing down
> occurring in this society. If you are in any doubt, try checking the TV
> schedules,

No, hang on. The subject is the use of neologisms, not what's on TV. How
does the creation of the word 'lasing' indicate 'dumbing down'? Who on
Earth is using 'lasing' in a 'dumb' manner? How does the 50-year usage
of "Phonetic Alphabet" lead to dumbing down?

> or listening to any radio phone in. Or speaking to any child who tries
> to fit in to their peer group, but can't because they get high marks
> in class.
>
>> "Lasing" is a fantastic addition to the English language.
>
> And here we must part company!

What word would you prefer for that act? And does your distaste stretch
to all neologisms concerned with new technology?

>> No, it doesn't. Obviously, you think this is important enough to bring it
>> up at every opportunity you get, but it isn't. It's not remotely important.
>
> I presume that you can cite a number of points at which I have forced
> this issue into an unrelated conversation.

You said yourself that you correct people whenever it comes up. It
appears to be a crusade.

> Or have you started "with the premise you should finish with, and
> <pretended> the intermediate steps happened."
>
>> Believe it or not, most people are perfectly comfortable with words that
>> have more than one meaning depending on context.
>>
>> I'd definitely check out Ian's suggestions of Asperger's.
>
> So laughable it's not really worth discussing. I have experience of
> those afflicted with Asperger's and can confidently say that I don't
> number amongst them.
>
> You however (If we are in the game of diagnosing mental afflictions)
> might want to investigate "Sociopath".

<snigger> You'll have to do a bit better than that. Having little regard
or patience for pedants is hardly sociopathic behaviour.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Fill with mingled cream and amber, I will drain that glass again."

Tony Raven

Jon Senior wrote:
> Tony Raven junk@raven-family.com opined the following...
>> Well we could start with the dictionary definition of unique:
>>
>> Unique - u-nek, adj. sole; without a like; _often used loosely for unusual,
>> pre-eminent_; found solely in, belonging solely to etc. (Chambers 20th
>> Century)
>>
>> So it seems unique is no longer what you think it is
>
> "Sole", "without a like", "found solely in", "belonging solely to etc.".
> Of all the definitions above only the one which suggests common, but
> incorrect usage fits anything other than the definition I use.
>
> Your point was what, precisely?
>
> Jon

All the dictionary definitions are acceptable. You can't just pick those you
like as being correct and reject the rest as incorrect. The use of unique to
mean unusual is not incorrect however much you may wish it to be and rather
unique as in rather unusual is acceptable usage.

Tony

Jon Senior

Tony Raven junk@raven-family.com opined the following...
> All the dictionary definitions are acceptable. You can't just pick those you
> like as being correct and reject the rest as incorrect. The use of unique to
> mean unusual is not incorrect however much you may wish it to be and rather
> unique as in rather unusual is acceptable usage.

I accept that you can't pick and choose definitions. I was merely
pointing out that the odd one out, was also the least "strict". To
describe something as very unique, or nearly unique tends to suggest
that the speaker has hit a limit in their vocabulary. Rather unusual, or
very unusual, more accurately conveys the meaning.

I don't believe that a language can, or should, be frozen, but I do try
to avoid evolution of a manner which adds confusion. I'm all in favour
of new words, where they don't have knock on effects on existing ones,
or don't involve taking commonly used words out of the language without
offering an alternative.

Jon

David Martin

On 25/6/04 9:53 pm, in article MPG.1b46a110e4acb556989802@news.clara.net,
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>> Do you object to 'laser' or 'scuba'?
>
> LASER. I have no problems with. Nor scuba for that matter, although I
> don't know its origins off-hand.

LASER - light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation
SCUBA - self-contained underwater breathing apparatus

...d

Jon Senior

Keith Willoughby keith@flat222.org opined the following...
> It's been just under a thousand years since the Norman invasion. That
> seems a good baseline for 'English'. However, if you're reduced to
> nitpicking that figure . . .

No. Seems as good as any other. I wasn't sure what the significance was.

> >> > A child, is brought up in seclusion. The people who teach it, call cats
> >> > dogs, and vice versa. They also answer yes for no, and no for yes. When
> >> > it has reached adulthood, it is "released" into the "wild" and left to
> >> > survive. You encounter this person and after a while, work out what has
> >> > that they're knowledge is faulty. Do you correct them?
> >> >
> >> > </thought experiment>
> >>
> >> Well, the analogy isn't nearly the same. Nobody sane calls a cat a
> >> dog. The NATO Phonetic Alphabet is known as such by millions of
> >> people.
> >
> > So in the thought experiment above... is the child insane?
>
> The child doesn't exist. It's all very well postulating situations that
> don't exist as "thought experiments", but it bore no relationship to reality.

Are you suggesting that the above is impossible?

> > Did you in fact read it, or did you just decide that I referred to
> > cats as dogs and charge on regardless?
>
> No, I read it. And I told you the analogy isn't relevant. It isn't.

Is too. ;-) A thought experiment allows you to explore avenues of
thought in a similar manner to a real experiment. There is nothing
impractical or impossible about the experiment I offered.

> > Personal Idenitification Number Number. You know you're absolutely right
> > there!
>
> *Yes, I am right*. See, people don't say "personal identification number
> number". They say "PIN Number". It's not the same thing at all. I can
> tell the difference, so why can't you?

And "pin" means? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pin&db=* will
provide some answers. The page contains two definitions which are
abbreviations. If you treat "pin" as a word in its own right, then a
"pin number" makes no sense (Except possibly when referring to a large
numbered collection of sharp metallic objects!). If it is an
abbreviation, then the sentence should make sense with the abbreviation
expanded.

> > And you think that I would be the one lacking social skills in that
> > situation?
>
> That's right.

OK. Limited circle of friends? Do you find it difficult to hold normal
conversations without resorting to swear words? Or is it just strangers
at whom you are happy to swear?

> > Could you really not deal with them without resorting to insults and
> > foul language?
>
> I could. I would choose not to. See, sometimes it's not "resorting" to
> insults and "foul" language. Sometimes, it's heartily deserved as the
> first response.

Such as when the cagers try to kill me. Even then it's the adrenaline
talking.

> > Yes. It is. Speaking as someone who has relatively recently been
> > educated I can safely say that there is a significant dumbing down
> > occurring in this society. If you are in any doubt, try checking the TV
> > schedules,
>
> No, hang on. The subject is the use of neologisms, not what's on TV. How
> does the creation of the word 'lasing' indicate 'dumbing down'? Who on
> Earth is using 'lasing' in a 'dumb' manner? How does the 50-year usage
> of "Phonetic Alphabet" lead to dumbing down?

"Lasing" is indicative of dumbing down because it provides a continuous
tense for a non-existant verb. I do not lase. Scientists have not lased.
Laser is an abbreviation. It already made little sense as a noun. It
makes even less sense as one part of a non-existant verb. For someone to
think "lasing" is possible, implies a major crack in their comprehension
of language. Not the rules of grammar as defined in a book, but its
daily usage.

The usage of "Phonetic Alphabet" does not necessarily lead to dumbing
down (Although in some cases it does lead to misunderstanding). It does
however shown up a lack of understanding.

> What word would you prefer for that act? And does your distaste stretch
> to all neologisms concerned with new technology?

Why does it need "a" word? What was wrong with "firing a laser"? It has
served us well for many years, which seems to be both your argument for
the use of a word, and against it.

> > I presume that you can cite a number of points at which I have forced
> > this issue into an unrelated conversation.
>
> You said yourself that you correct people whenever it comes up. It
> appears to be a crusade.

The key point here is "whenever it comes up". It has come up now about 3
times in my life. You implied that I go out of my way to bring the topic
up. I do not.

> <snigger> You'll have to do a bit better than that. Having little regard
> or patience for pedants is hardly sociopathic behaviour.

I never suggested it was (Although it may be indicative of such a
tendency). Having abusive language as a considered response to a
stranger offering a correction would suggest sociopathic behaviour.

Jon

Jon Senior

David Martin d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk opined the following...
> LASER - light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation
> SCUBA - self-contained underwater breathing apparatus

Thankyou.

Jon

Dave Kahn

On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 18:14:09 +0100, "Simon Mason"
<simon@simonmason.karoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Did any one find out about my royalties then?

Stop trying to change the subject!

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain