 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / February 2007It's Lens
The word is lens: there is no trailing E. Take the time to check a dictionary every now and then. Thank you > The word is lens: there is no trailing E. > > Take the time to check a dictionary every now and then. > > Thank you Excellent advice, prudent and wise indeed and action. :-) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lense From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >> The word is lens: there is no trailing E. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] | | http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lense Excellent ! In International News Groups one can not get hung up on spelling variations.  SignatureDave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm > From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > In International News Groups one can not get hung up on spelling > variations. To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if anyone could understand me at all! >> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning > is ambivalent, ^^^^^^^^^^ Surely you meant "ambiguous". :-) >>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >:-) "Abivalent" is not ambiguous in that statement. He could have used "ambiguous", and that wouldn't be abivalent either. Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, and therefore ambiguous is abivalent and abivalent is abiguous, when used properly, as he did. Got that? SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >"Abivalent" is not ambiguous in that statement. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Got that? I have never seen the word "abivalent" before. What does it mean? Or did you intend to type "ambivalent"? >>>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Got that? http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081545.html Got that? SignatureJohn Bean >>>>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >Got that? And ambivalent opinion, to say the least, given the meaning of the two words. This does a much better job of explaining it than your cite, http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/ambiguous.html But, if you want to get the *real*, un-ambiguous, non-ambivalent connotations for these words, read this one: http://www.bartleby.com/68/55/2255.html Alas, if the complexity of that is too much, here's one that gets right to the point: "However, ambivalent is often used where you might expect ambiguous" http://www.allwords.com/word-ambiguous.html While it doesn't show up precisely in all of these various references, the significant point is actually that "amibiguous" is from Latin and "ambivalent" is from German, with essentially the same basic meaning. Keep in mind that dictionaries are not rule books; they are a collection of observed usage. Eventually, you'll get it! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, No, they aren't. I can feel ambivalent, but not ambiguous. Peter >> Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, > >No, they aren't. I can feel ambivalent, but not ambiguous. Look up both the definitions and a list of synonyms for the two words in three or four dictionaries. If you are ambivalent, you are *necessarily* ambiguous. The opposite may or may not be the connotation, depending on the context used. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > opposite may or may not be the connotation, depending on the > context used. If I am ambivalent about something, I am not _myself_ ambiguous. _I_ can be ambivalent, but in that case it is my feelings about something, not me myself, that are ambiguous. Any dictionary that can cite two such clearly distinct words as synonyms is one I would throw out. Peter >> >> Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >If I am ambivalent about something, I am not _myself_ ambiguous. That is not what I said though. I said if *you* are ambivalent, the *you* are ambiguous. Just the same as if a word or sentence if ambivalent, then the word or sentence is ambiguous. >_I_ can be >ambivalent, but in that case it is my feelings about something, not me >myself, that are ambiguous. That is not necessarily true, though it might be. It is itself ambivalent... :-) Depends on the context... >Any dictionary that can cite two such clearly >distinct words as synonyms is one I would throw out. Start tossing, fool. If you find one that doesn't, it is either a poor dictionary (that probably should be tossed) or a very simple dictionary that doesn't even list synonyms. Please cease this silly discussion of what you think dictionaries should say, and look up to see what a few *do* say. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> >> Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, > >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the *you* are ambiguous. Just the same as if a word or sentence > if ambivalent, then the word or sentence is ambiguous. A word or sentence cannot be ambivalent. Ambivalence is a property of thought, so can apply only to something sentient (well, maybe a Turing compliant maybe a computer could ambivalent...) > >_I_ can be > >ambivalent, but in that case it is my feelings about something, not me > >myself, that are ambiguous. > > That is not necessarily true, though it might be. It is itself > ambivalent... :-) Depends on the context... And how would I "be" ambiguous? A person is not ambiguous per se, only _ever_ with regard to something else. I may have an ambiguous expression, I may express myself ambiguously, but I cannot be in a generalised way ambiguous without regard to the thing, person, concept meme or idea _about which_ I am being ambiguous. In general, ambivalence is a property of how someone feels, while ambiguity is a property of how something is communicated. > >Any dictionary that can cite two such clearly > >distinct words as synonyms is one I would throw out. > > Start tossing, fool. [Said in patient though not humourless voice => ] You do not know me, and your discussion so far has been somewhat simplistic. I shall thus treat your "fool" appellation with the contempt that it deserves, while reserving any consideration of whether you deserve equal contempt because I know you no better than you know me - except that I know I have better manners than you. ;-) > If you find one that doesn't, it is either > a poor dictionary (that probably should be tossed) or a very > simple dictionary that doesn't even list synonyms. > > Please cease this silly discussion of what you think > dictionaries should say, and look up to see what a few *do* say. LOL. If you really want citations, look up the definitions in the OED which make it quite plain that the two words have different meanings - ambiguous being defined as meaning (of language) having more than one possible meaning or interpretation, or (of ideas or intentions) being unclear or as yet undecided; while ambivalent means having mixed feelings or contradictory ideas about something, someone or some idea. Neither Roget nor Fowler has the two as synonyms, incidentally. In fact, while ambiguous is an old word (from Latin), ambivalent dates only from 1916 and comes from Jungian analysis where it means (meant) "having either or both of two contrary or parallel values". I suppose that if one took that definition, out of context, there are a very few words that could be described as "ambivalent", but only that small class of words that are their own antonym - cleave, for example. That's enough writing for now, I'm going to bed. Peter >> >> >> Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >thought, so can apply only to something sentient (well, maybe a Turing >compliant maybe a computer could ambivalent...) Oh, bullshit. Get yourself an armload of dictionaries and see if you can figure out the difference between what "common usage" is and what *meaning* is. (Likewise there is a difference between definition and connotation.) >> >_I_ can be >> >ambivalent, but in that case it is my feelings about something, not me [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >ambiguous without regard to the thing, person, concept meme or idea _about >which_ I am being ambiguous. Same bullshit as above. Just because it is not the most common usage it doesn't cease to be *valid* *English*. >In general, ambivalence is a property of how someone feels, while ambiguity >is a property of how something is communicated. "In general" indeed. Do you understand what you just said? You've said it isn't *always* that... >> >Any dictionary that can cite two such clearly >> >distinct words as synonyms is one I would throw out. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >[Said in patient though not humourless voice => ] You do not know me, and >your discussion so far has been somewhat simplistic. I know only what you present of yourself here. If you have some indication of being other than described, please show it. The discussion is indeed somewhat simplistic, because the *topic* is exceedingly simplistic! >I shall thus treat >your "fool" appellation with the contempt that it deserves, while reserving Tossing most of the commonly used dictionaries is foolish. You are the one who provided the detail. >any consideration of whether you deserve equal contempt because I know you >no better than you know me - except that I know I have better manners than [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >That's enough writing for now, I'm going to bed. You at least got close. Virtually *anything* that is ambivalent is by definition ambiguous. That is because ambivalent describes something with two equal states. Anything with two *or* *more* equal states is ambiguous. The problem is simply that you are limiting the meaning to merely the common usage or what the connotation would be out of context. That is however far more restricted than the actual *meaning* of the terms. The American Heritage College Thesaurus, incidentally, uses each word as part of the definition of the other. Both Bartleby and The Oxford Pocket Thesaurus of Current English list them as synonyms. Various dictionaries define one or the other in terms of being the same as equivocal. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >The problem is simply that you are limiting the meaning to >merely the common usage or what the connotation would be out of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Various dictionaries define one or the other in terms of being >the same as equivocal. Well, the Oxford, Chambers and Collins dictionaries (the 3 most authoritative UK English works) all clearly agree that the two words have a different meaning, as outlined by Peter. This could of course be a (not uncommon) divergence between UK and US English; however, my Merriam-Webster US dictionary (the only US dictionary I have here) agrees with the 3 UK ones. I have never previously seen any suggestion that the two words are synonymous, and would feel anyone so using them was not quite speaking the same language I do. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >I have never previously seen any suggestion that the two words >are synonymous, and would feel anyone so using them was not >quite speaking the same language I do. Welcome to the English languages... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>I have never previously seen any suggestion that the two words >>are synonymous, and would feel anyone so using them was not >>quite speaking the same language I do. > >Welcome to the English languages... My understanding is from an American who was a Professor of English at Granada University, Spain (he went there for a couple of weeks during the Vietnam era and never left) that there are SIX distinct versions for English. British American Australian India South African and I forget what the last one was. Each has their own spellings, rules and history. This is because English is a living language and each of the branches above has developed separately or not. In the case of American it still uses some English words and phrases that was in use in British English when America was a part of the British Empire. Since then it has remained in US English but not in British English. English is the worlds universal language and so everyone has an input so words come and go and spellings change depending where you are on the planet. However there is a large core that remains constant such that the majority can communicate clearly most of the time. Signature\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ /\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ "Chris Hills" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message > In the case of American it still uses some English words and phrases > that was in use in British English when America was a part of the British > Empire. Since then it has remained in US English but not in British > English. I think a lot of the American English words still come from the British expressions....Their language is a "living" one also, and they are coining new words all the time, and many, if not most of them migrate over here.....Look at all the rock music expressions.....Many of them started in GB. >>> I have never previously seen any suggestion that the two words >>> are synonymous, and would feel anyone so using them was not [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > South African > and I forget what the last one was. Possibly Hong Kong/Singapore ... >> I have never previously seen any suggestion that the two words >> are synonymous, and would feel anyone so using them was not >> quite speaking the same language I do. > > Welcome to the English languages... You're still wrong, Floyd. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> >> Which is because, of course, the two words are synonyms, >> > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > myself, that are ambiguous. Any dictionary that can cite two such clearly > distinct words as synonyms is one I would throw out. Very few words are perfect synonyms, most just have some overlap, as these two do. I agree with you, though, they aren't the same (except in some specialized senses). >>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > :-) Nah. I can use either hand. >> Surely you meant "ambiguous". > > Nah. I can use either hand. I'd give my left arm to be ambivalent. -- JR >>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >>>>> The word is lens: there is no trailing E. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Surely you meant "ambiguous". Nah. He meant ambivalent. Ambivalent posts are no fun in newsgroups; they don't provide any fodder for flaming. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>> From: "JimKramer" <jimG@jlkramer.net> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > :-) Err....Right......Thanks for the correction....... > To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning > is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. I think the colour of the correction depends very much on the donor. You may be motivated by the desire to empower or demean the recipient. A donor may make a grandiose correction for display purposes. It's really down to the way that you do it. Gummo >> To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the >> meaning is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Gummo Gummo, you ignorant slut. The word is of course "color". http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colour :) > Gummo, you ignorant slut. The word is of course "color". > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/colour Bold donor! Bold donor! :¬) Gummo > After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if > anyone could understand me at all! That's the issue, I suspect "lense" is American English whereas "lens" is English English. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if >> anyone could understand me at all! > > That's the issue, I suspect "lense" is American English whereas "lens" is > English English. I also note that from the limited look that I've made at online dictionaries I note that they mostly fail to note Americanisms or other national variations. Pete Signaturehttp://www.petezilla.co.uk >> After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if >> anyone could understand me at all! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pete Then you would suspect wrongly. Unless, of course, you just missed putting in a smiley emoticon, in which case, "lense" is the old(e) English version of the word... ;-) SignatureSkip Middleton www.shadowcatcherimagery.com www.pbase.com/skipm > > After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if > > anyone could understand me at all! > > That's the issue, I suspect "lense" is American English whereas "lens" is > English English. Isn't "lense" just Cretin English? Given the way that Merkins pronounce "cretin", of course, you could be mistaken for thinking that that was English spoken on a Greek island though... ;-) Peter >> After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if >> anyone could understand me at all! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pete Indeed? And here I was thinking it's you guys on the east side of the pond that was moidering th' Queen's English. >> After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if >> anyone could understand me at all! > > That's the issue, I suspect "lense" is American English whereas "lens" is > English English. Your suspicions are not well founded! Probably tied to ignorance and stubborness more than anything else. -- John McWilliams >>> After all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if >>> anyone could understand me at all! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Your suspicions are not well founded! Probably tied to ignorance >and stubborness more than anything else. So... he is not alone around here, is he! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning > is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. After > all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if anyone > could understand me at all! I think it's sad when people lack basic English skills. >> To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning >> is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. After >> all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if anyone >> could understand me at all! > >I think it's sad when people lack basic English skills. Culture centric value judgments are not particularly smart. A lack of English skills is meaningless, and claiming otherwise pegs you, not them, as sadly lacking. Not only does "correct" English vary from region to region, but it should also be obvious that most of the people in the world do *not* speak English at all. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>> To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning >>> is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. After [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > obvious that most of the people in the world do *not* speak > English at all. I don't know about that. In most places other than the US, anyone with an education learns a second language, and quite often that second language is English. Message-ID: <45a66a37$0$5793$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> from Pudentame contained the following: >I don't know about that. In most places other than the US, anyone with >an education learns a second language, and quite often that second >language is English. I think it would be a good idea for USAians to learn English... gd&rlf SignatureGeoff Berrow (put thecat out to email) It's only Usenet, no one dies. My opinions, not the committee's, mine. Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/ >>>> To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the >>>> meaning [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > education learns a second language, and quite often that second language > is English. Yes. The language of international commerce is English. All airline pilots have to use it (for example) in their radio communications with the control towers of international airports. If one is going to learn a second language, English would usually be the best choice. William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- rnZ2d@comcast.com>... > If one is going to learn a second > language, English would usually be the best choice. isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people around the world mess their language? SignatureHåkan > William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- > rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people > around the world mess their language? If it is, then they are not very bright....for one thing, most English speakers either can't or won't learn a second language....We are notably bad at that. So where do we get off bitching about other people's use of English? Before I went to Austria back in the 80's, I boned up on my German, which I studied in High School, and which was my mother's original language.....But when I got to Austria, I seldom mat anyone who could not speak English a lot better than I could speak German....They would wait patiently for me to compose a sentence in German, and then they would answer me in near perfect English......:^) > isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people > around the world mess their language? Sheeeit no. English is a dozen languages all thrown into a pot and not stirred very well. Look in the OED and there isn't a single word that is English: Indo-this, Indo-that, French, Latin, Greek, Roman, Hindi, Asyrian, Old Norse, High German, Gaelic, Saxon, Chinese ... I exaggerate, there is an 'Old English' that is well nigh incomprehensible. Learn the spelling rules for two dozen languages, make three drunken variants of each, and you have the spelling rules for English. Most speakers of English speak and write it badly, which begs the question 'what is English, anyway?' But, I have to say, "lense" just looks bad. It is like spelling "clue" as "clew". Or is it now ValSpeak: "Like, 'lense' is totally clewless"? I have to wonder if I am now faced with killfiling posts with the word 'lens' in the subject line. Strunk wept: http://www.bartleby.com/141/ * * * Isn't it annoying to speakers of Swedish that no one, except Jim Henson, messes with their language? SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com > > isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many > > people around the world mess their language? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Most speakers of English speak and write it badly, which begs > the question 'what is English, anyway?' Doesn't beg the question, it raises it. Strictly speaking, begging the question is an argument that seeks to prove a point by relying on the assumption that the point in question is, in fact, correct. Almost everyone gets that wrong now - but in a spelling thread I just had to point it out... ;-) > But, I have to say, "lense" just looks bad. > It is like spelling "clue" as "clew". There is a real word "clew" - you'll find it in the rigging of a square rigged ship. Useless piece of information of the day... Peter > > Most speakers of English speak and write it badly, which begs > > the question 'what is English, anyway?' > Doesn't beg the question, it raises it. Quite right. Hoisted on mine own pedant. > There is a real word "clew" - you'll find it in the > rigging of a square rigged ship. Square rigged? I think all sails have clews: it's the corner(s) of a sail not attached to the boat but to a sheet - though it is semi-attached on a sloop where it is the corner of the sail at the end of the boom and is attached to the outhaul, the main sheet being attached to the boom. "Clew" is also a variation of the word "clue". An annoying variation, much like "lense". SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >>> Most speakers of English speak and write it badly, which begs >>> the question 'what is English, anyway?' [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > boom and is attached to the outhaul, the main sheet > being attached to the boom. Not sure what you mean by not attached to the boat, as the tack of the sail is attached much the same way the clew is, with the exception that generally the clew is adjustable to add or release tension on the sail. The clew is at the dangerous end of the boom, and yes, all sailing vessels have 'em, even some powered boats that use a tri-sail for stability. I dislike the look of "lense", however quaint some think it. So maybe I'll just open up Firefox and go brows. Signaturejohn mcwilliams [SNIP] > I dislike the look of "lense", however quaint some think it. So > maybe I'll just open up Firefox and go brows. You think lense is low browe? Peter > [SNIP] >> I dislike the look of "lense", however quaint some think it. So >> maybe I'll just open up Firefox and go brows. > > You think lense is low browe? I guess, or maybe so high browé that it's a whoosh. But now I'm thinking of a certain Dutch beer..... Cheers! Signaturejohn > [SNIP] >> >> I dislike the look of "lense", however quaint some think it. So >> maybe I'll just open up Firefox and go brows. Adding the "e" makes it look more British, or "continental" somehow........ > > [SNIP] > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Adding the "e" makes it look more British, or "continental" > somehow........ ...though not to a British person! Funny thing, language. Even funnier thing, our perceptions of other peoples' use of language... :-) Peter > Funny thing, language. Even funnier thing, our perceptions of other > peoples' use of language... I was once convinced that lense was a legitimate olde english spelling of lens through the example that many Brit spellings included an "e" at the end, mostly vestiges of the French contributions to the line. The reality is that English is highly bastardized language (if not the most bastardized). So spelling changes over time. It rlelay dnsoe't metatr. Cheers, Alan >> Funny thing, language. Even funnier thing, our perceptions of other >> peoples' use of language... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The reality is that English is highly bastardized language (if not the >most bastardized). So spelling changes over time. Or even bastardised. Another example of how UK English has moved on and US English follows the traditional usage. David SignatureDavid Littlewood > In article <FYvqh.34338$jk2.249781@wagner.videotron.net>, Alan Browne >> The reality is that English is highly bastardized language (if not the >> most bastardized). So spelling changes over time. >> > Or even bastardised. Another example of how UK English has moved on and > US English follows the traditional usage. I usually follow the British spellings, OTOH I don't spell consistently ... esp. on usenet. Of late I seem to use "...ize" more than "...ise" to make verbs, sometimes even correctly. Cheers, Alan Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > > In article <FYvqh.34338$jk2.249781@wagner.videotron.net>, Alan Browne > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ... esp. on usenet. Of late I seem to use "...ize" more than "...ise" > to make verbs, sometimes even correctly. You verbize? ;-) Peter >>>In article <FYvqh.34338$jk2.249781@wagner.videotron.net>, Alan Browne >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You verbize? ;-) Of Courze! Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. The reality is that English is highly bastardized language (if not the >>> most bastardized). So spelling changes over time. That's reasonable....We English speakers are, for the most part, a bunch of bastards......... >The reality is that English is highly bastardized language (if not the >>>> most bastardized). So spelling changes over time. > >That's reasonable....We English speakers are, for the most part, a bunch of >bastards......... January 16, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, Just don't look at me with those bastardize. >> Funny thing, language. Even funnier thing, our perceptions of other >> peoples' use of language... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Cheers, > Alan I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or Latin/Greek/Whatever roots....by the same token, I can't stand the modern tendency to misspell words such as "thru" for "through". > I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled > correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or > Latin/Greek/Whatever roots....by the same token, I can't stand the modern > tendency to misspell words such as "thru" for "through". I wonder just how many new Latin words enter the English vocabulary every year? >> I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled >> correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I wonder just how many new Latin words enter the English vocabulary every > year? Actually, many new words are composites, or combinations of two or more "old" words, and so they can have Latin or Greek roots....... > >> I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled > >> correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, many new words are composites, or combinations of two or more > "old" words, and so they can have Latin or Greek roots....... Or both - like "television". Peter > I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled > correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or > Latin/Greek/Whatever roots....by the same token, I can't stand the modern > tendency to misspell words such as "thru" for "through". For those of us who were taught how to spell and correctly, such abbreviated forms look alien and, according to our education, wrong. However the rules of evolution dictate that they will most likely become the normal spelling in due course. "Thru" carries all the meaning of "through" with a saving of three characters. The effect of global digital communication will only accelerate this process that would otherwise have taken 300-500 years to occur, possibly down to less that 100 years. It is a little sad that so many words and terms that had similar but subtly different meanings in the past have degenerated to synonyms in the last few decades, our language losing much of its flair for subtle nuance in favour of a truncated, simplified lexicon. Well so be it. It will get worse... here's an AOL-er translation: WILIM GRAHM WROTA > I DONT MIND NU ENGLISH WORDS BUT I INSIST TAHT THEY B SP3L3D COR3CTLY..AFTER!1!!1!!!!!1!!!1!11!1!11!1!!! WTF AL TEH SPALNG IEDNTIFEIS TEH WORDS ORIGINS OR WUT ROTS..BY1!11!!!1!1!1!1!!!1!1!1!!1 WTF LOL DA SME 2KAN I CANT STAND TEH MODARN TANDENCY 2 MISPEL WORDS SUCH AS THRU FOR THROUGH1!1!111 LOL FOR THOSE OF US WHO WER3 TAUGHT HOW 2 SP3L AND CORACTLY SUCH ABR3VIAETD FORMS LOK ALEIN AND ACORDNG 2 OUR 3DUCATION WRONG HOWEVER!1!! OMG WTF TEH RULAS OF EVOLUTION DICTAET TAHT THAY WIL MOST LIEKLY BCOME TEH NORMAL SPELNG IN DU3 COURS311!1!!1! LOL THRU CAREIS AL DA M3ANNG OF THROUGH WIT A SAVNG OF THRE CHARACT3RS1!11!!! OMG WTF DA AF3CT OF GLOBAL DIGITAL COMUNICATION WIL ONLY ACALERAET THIS PROC3S TAHT WUD OTH3RWIES HAEV TAEKN 30-50 YEARS 2 OCUR POSIBLY DOWN 2 LES TAHT 10 Y3ARS IT!!1!11! OMG LOL IS A LITL3 SAD TAHT SO MANY WORDS AND T3RMS TAHT HAD SIMILAR BUT SUBTLY DIFERANT MEANNGS IN TEH PAST HAEV D3G3NERAETD 2 SYNONYMS IN DA LAST F3W DECAEDS OUR LANGUAEG LOSNG MUCH OF ITS FLARE FOR SUBTLE NUANCE IN FAVOUR OF A TRUNCAETD SIMPLIFEID LEXICON!111111 LOL WEL SO B IT!11!11 OMG LOL >> I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled >> correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the last few decades, our language losing much of its flair for subtle > nuance in favour of a truncated, simplified lexicon. Well so be it. > It will get worse... here's an AOL-er translation: > > WILIM GRAHM WROTA > > > I DONT MIND NU ENGLISH OMG, IM LOL!!!!!!!!!!! BUT WTF????? *NO TRIMMING*??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> It will get worse... here's an AOL-er translation: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > BUT WTF????? *NO TRIMMING*??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hmmm? Sombody's off their meds this morning. >>> It will get worse... here's an AOL-er translation: >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Hmmm? Sombody's off their meds this morning. That'd be "Somebody's off his meds...." since we're in a spelling/grammar choking and chortling mode in this here* thread, and the verb and subject is* now in agreement. Did you look for the poor placement of the word "only" upthread? I'm not off meds, but just off the rocker this a.m. Peace, out! * this here= intentional. * ditto singular Signaturejohn mcwilliams >>>> It will get worse... here's an AOL-er translation: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Did you look for the poor placement of the word "only" upthread? I see someone else reads James J. Kilpatrick. > I'm not off meds, but just off the rocker this a.m. > > Peace, out! > > * this here= intentional. > * ditto singular >> I don't mind new English words, but I insist that they be spelled >> correctly....After all, the spelling identifies the word's origins, or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > last few decades, our language losing much of its flair for subtle nuance > in favour of a truncated, simplified lexicon. Well so be it. But one of the more interesting things about language is its history, or the origin of its vocabulary...When the spellings are messed up, these origins can no longer be traced to the root words from which they came. The price, IMO, of the savings in a few letters is far too great...... On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:20:22 +0000, Richard Polhill <richard.news@polhill.vispa.invalid> wrote: >It is a little sad that so many words and terms that had similar but subtly >different meanings in the past have degenerated to synonyms in the last few >decades, our language losing much of its flair for subtle nuance in favour of >a truncated, simplified lexicon. Well so be it. January 16, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick, It isn't lost. The truncated, simplified lexicon has come into existence to serve a purpose, and the flair for subtle nuance will continue to exist for use where it is appropriate. Bank employees in Hong Kong might learn only the former, but a bank employee in Hong Kong who was writing his magnum opus in English (for the challenge of added difficulty ...) might learn both. regards, --le ________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto. website: www.heylloyd.com telephone: 416-686-0326 email: portrait@heylloyd.com ________________________________ -- > "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message > > Adding the "e" makes it look more British, or "continental" > > somehow........ > ...though not to a British person! Ditto - not the Queen's English. Looks Hungarian to me. Written by anybody _but_ a native English speaker. I had always thought when I saw it that 'lense' was the spelling in the writer's native tongue. I quite often revert to the English spelling when writing in a non- native language and the spelling is close between the two languages. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- >rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people >around the world mess their language? Absolutely not! We can be *thankful*... everyone else does all the work, but we get the equal benefit of being able to communicate. Of course there *are* a.sholes who have absurd ideas that everybody should use English "properly", and believe that means exactly the way they use it, by definition... But most people aren't like that. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > Of course there *are* a.sholes who have absurd ideas that > everybody should use English "properly", and believe that means > exactly the way they use it, by definition... But most people > aren't like that. Good ol' boy has to go up to "Havarhd" for a meeting, and stops one of the undergrads on campus for directions. Says, "Son, can you tell me where the library's at?" The boy looks down his nose at the good ol' boy and says, "Sirruh! This is Havarhd University! We do not end a sentence with a preposition. Try again using proper grammar." Good ol' boy thinks about it for a second, and says, "Awright. Can you tell me where the library's at, *a.shole*?" > William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- > rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people > around the world mess their language? Not really. What I find annoying are the native English speakers who cannot or will not learn their language and then think it's terrible that anyone should care. Language is what a) gives us the cognitive collaboration that makes us the powerful species that we are and b) defines us in terms of society, nation and intellect. We spent years teaching our kids spelling, punctuation and grammar to express themselves and their thoughts using the standards and conventions common to their native language. It appears no longer. I'd love to know what native speakers of other tongues find is true for their own languages. Do you feel that the local language is or has been taught adequately? Do you find that increasing numbers of your fellow nationals have a weaker and weaker grasp of your language fundamentals? Do you find that the prevailing opinion is that it simply doesn't matter, that it is wrong to care? >> William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- >> rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > you find that the prevailing opinion is that it simply doesn't matter, > that it is wrong to care? It is also true, however, that as a "living language" English may be modified, and changed by common usage.....In particular, I like to coin new words, and do this in my private letters frequently. Sometimes, their meaning is immediately evident. One such example is the word, "Sebastionized" to describe a paralyzed hand, frozen in the shape of a turned up claw......I coined this from the movie about the circus performer, "the great Sebastian" played by Cornel Wilde, back in the 50's.....I have met several people who knew what I was talking about immediately.....As time passed, however, and the movie became forgotten, the word and its meaning faded along with it...... >> William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- >> rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > cannot or will not learn their language and then think it's terrible > that anyone should care. An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely classifies him, The moment he talks he makes some other Englishman despise him. One common language I'm afraid we'll never get. Oh, why can't the English learn to set A good example to people whose English is painful to your ears? The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears. There even are places where English completely disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years! Why can't the English teach their children how to speak? Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks have taught their Greek. In France every Frenchman knows his language fro "A" to "Zed" The French never care what they do, actually, as long as they pronounce in properly. Arabians learn Arabian with the speed of summer lightning. And Hebrews learn it backwards, which is absolutely frightening. But use proper English you're regarded as a freak. Why can't the English, Why can't the English learn to speak? >>> William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- >>> rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why can't the English, > Why can't the English learn to speak? R.I.P., Noël! SignatureJohn McWilliams Richard Polhill a écrit : >> William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- >> rnZ2d@comcast.com>... [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Do you find that the prevailing opinion is that it simply doesn't > matter, that it is wrong to care? I can only answer the question for french and spanish, which have taken two different and opposite paths. French people are extremely picky about their language; spelling is extremely difficult, and grammar is not easy either. People, even in poor suburbs, are still taught how to speak and write french properly. On the opposite, in Spain, there has been major modifications in spelling and grammar, to turn the spelling into something which is phonetic: you (almost) write spanish as you speak it. No rule... > I can only answer the question for french and spanish, which have taken > two different and opposite paths. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > phonetic: you (almost) write spanish as you speak it. > No rule... Italian: There is "Italian", and then there is "Roman", "Venitian", "Neapolitan", "Sicilian", "Milanese", "Florentine", and "Ticinese", this last being shared with Switzerland. Each of the major cities has a true dialect which has its own rules, spelling, vocabulary, etc., reflecting Italy's history as a loose confederation of autonomous city-states. Chinese: There is "Mandarin/Han", the official language. Then there is Cantonese, Shanghainese, Taiwanese/Formosan, Hunan, Manchurian, all of which are _written_ the same but are as different from each other as French and English -- true languages, not dialects. Add in the 150 or so "Minority" languages like Tibetan and you have a prime example of how languages change and evolve over time and space. Of 1.5 billion people who speak "Chinese", is it any wonder than a resident of Harbin (in Manchuria, near Siberia) can't be understood by a resident of Hong Kong? Languages are fluid, natural, evolving human artefacts. As soon as a language's rules are frozen it dies -- Latin and Sanskrit spawned many living languages. No one speaks either in daily conversation. Just my EUR 0.02 jf Signaturewell, it looked good on paper On 10/02/2007 19:03, j. fabian dixit: > Italian: > There is "Italian", and then there is "Roman", "Venitian", "Neapolitan", > "Sicilian", "Milanese", "Florentine", and "Ticinese", this last being > shared with Switzerland. Each of the major cities has a true dialect > which has its own rules, spelling, vocabulary, etc., reflecting Italy's > history as a loose confederation of autonomous city-states. Really, here in Italy, every *village* has its own dialect. And in large cities, like Rome, the dialect is quite different from downtown to suburbs. BTW, just to avoid an OT, the Italian term for lens is "obiettivo" (pl. "obiettivi"), even if a lot of people doubles the "b". The same word can also be translated as objective, impartial, purpose, goal, aim, target, intention, design, point. Signature[a directive occurred while processing this error] > Richard Polhill a écrit : >>> William Graham wrote in article <ibCdnbj6Xo44EjvYnZ2dnUVZ_s- [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > (almost) write spanish as you speak it. > No rule.. I find that the newer generation speaks (and writes) English worse every year. I blame this on our education system, which seems to be getting worse and worse every year. The best English (construction wise) that I have heard in the US is from the deep South....Georgia to Louisiana. Not counting the accent, they put their words together better than any one else in the country. And the best foreign speakers of the language come from Germany, where they not only learn English, but they do an outstanding job of it! (They do pretty well in Denmark, too) >> Do you find that increasing numbers of your fellow >> nationals have a weaker and weaker grasp of your language fundamentals? >> Do you find that the prevailing opinion is that it simply doesn't >> matter, that it is wrong to care? >I can only answer the question for french and spanish, which have taken >two different and opposite paths. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >phonetic: you (almost) write spanish as you speak it. >No rule... Spanish has always been a very phonetic language, this is not a new change. Its grammar is actually quite ellaborate. And of course in every language you will have people that don't follow the rules because they never learnt them. Spain is not the only country that speaks Spanish. What modifications are you refering to? Geo > isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people > around the world mess their language? It would be hypocritical of us to feel such annoyance. After all, English doesn't just borrow from other languages, it follows the languages down dark alleys and mugs them for new words. This post brought to you by the word "loose." SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. >> isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people >> around the world mess their language? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >follows the languages down dark alleys and mugs them for >new words. Ha! Best laugh I've had so far today, thanks. David SignatureDavid Littlewood >>It would be hypocritical of us to feel such annoyance. After >>all, English doesn't just borrow from other languages, it >>follows the languages down dark alleys and mugs them for >>new words. > Ha! Best laugh I've had so far today, thanks. Thanks James Nicoll, who I'm quoting. I'm sorry I didn't find the attribution sooner. SignatureMichael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email address only to submit mail for evaluation. In-Reply-To: <50skrsF1gjpghU1@mid.individual.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>> It would be hypocritical of us to feel such annoyance. After >>> all, English doesn't just borrow from other languages, it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Thanks James Nicoll, who I'm quoting. I'm sorry I didn't > find the attribution sooner. (begin quote) "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. " - James Nicoll (end quote) One of my favorites... Jim Cornwall > James Nicoll wrote: > > "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that > > the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore ..." Aaaooww, Guv'nor, even a crib 'ouse 'hore has 'er standards, she does. SignatureNicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters http://www.nolindan.com/da/index.htm n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com >> James Nicoll wrote: >> > "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that >> > the English language is as pure as a crib-house whore ..." > >Aaaooww, Guv'nor, even a crib 'ouse 'hore has 'er standards, >she does. Hey - a Dick Van Dyke accent! SignatureJohn Bean >> isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people >> around the world mess their language? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > This post brought to you by the word "loose." Not lose?? <s>. And here in California one generally messes "with" or "up" or "around". Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> isn't it annoying for native speakers of English that so many people >> around the world mess their language? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > This post brought to you by the word "loose." If you are going to steal somebody else's work, you should at least get it right. =============================================== "Not only does the English Language borrow words from other languages, it sometimes chases them down dark alleys, hits them over the head, and goes through their pockets." -- Eddy Peters http://www.mbinde.com/docs/sig-fortunes.txt =============================================== mike > This post brought to you by the word "loose." A good thing in women's morals and a bad thing in lug-nuts. >>>> To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning >>>> is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. After [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I don't know about that. Then you probably shouldn't be commenting on what you don't know. >In most places other than the US, >anyone with an education learns a second language, and quite >often that second language is English. Which does not deny what I said. Think of Asia... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >> To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the >> meaning [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I think it's sad when people lack basic English skills. Well, having learned it from babyhood, it's not for me to say, but I noticed that most young Europeans can speak it quite well because they learned it in school from an early age. In fact, the most beautiful English I ever heard was spoken by a German High School student who had only been living in the US for about 6 months. >>To me, it is impolite to even correct anyone's English, unless the meaning >>is ambivalent, or I sense that the poster would like to be corrected. After >>all, If I had to post in another language, it would be a miracle if anyone >>could understand me at all! > > I think it's sad when people lack basic English skills. But would you then agree with me if I thought that it's sad when people lack basic Greek skills? If not, why not? Lest you think I am using the (unstated) context(*) around your sentence to unfairly attack, let me be explicit. In a newsgroup where lots of people with languages other than English as their native tongue post, it is a) impolite to use English as a synonym for language, b) arrogant to correct people's English (of course, they may want to; that's another story). There. Now I feel better. (*) To wit: English was used as a synonym for language |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message