If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"Wolf K" wrote in message
... donors, who like to see their names on buildings and letterheads. That reminds me of something I noticed when I was over in the USA (Boston area, visiting my sister and her family who were living there at the time). On buildings which are named after benefactors, and on people's name badges on their office doors and on letterheads etc) there's much more use of people's middle initials than in the UK. Here, a middle name is something that is rarely used apart from official forms which require all your names. But in the USA, it almost seems like a badge of honour to flaunt your middle initial: no-one is just "John Smith" or "Dave Jones" - they are all "John H Smith" or "Dave A Jones" - even for uncommon names where the middle name isn't need to avoid ambiguity. And there's this habit, which the UK perceives as being very American, of a father, son and grandson all having the same first name and having to be distinguished by suffixes "John Smith II", "John Smith III" etc. Could be worse, though: in some European countries (France, Spain), you get men whose middle name is a woman's (possibly their mother's or grandmother's). JosĂ© MarĂ*a Olazábal, Jean-Marie le Pen etc. That's a bit too close to "A Boy Named Sue" for British tastes :-) We all have our national peculiarities. I'm sure we Brits do. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
On 06/28/2018 04:19 PM, Apd wrote:
[snip] "We must develop knowledge optimization initiatives to leverage our key learnings". Once I heard "That sentence should be taken outside and shot.". http://dilbert.com/strip/1998-11-26 You can add to that my bugbear: "going forward". Well, where else is your business going - backwards, sideways? what I thought of when I heard that was "The red queen's race". You figure it out. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
On 06/28/2018 05:40 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
[snip] "Can I get a cup of coffee" - you're asking the server to make a medical diagnosis as to whether you'd be physically able to do it. The literal answer is probably yes, seeing as how you were able to push the door open, walk in, make your way to a table and sit down. The server will automatically translate the question into one that makes more sense. One thing I object to is when people mix up "one is not" with "not one is" (or similar). I have 2 US coins worth a total of 30 cents. One is not a nickel. What are they? A quarter and a nickel. That answer fits the stated rule ("one is not a nickel" doesn't say anything about the other). It doesn't fit the "translation" (not one is a nickel). "all cars are not blue" is wrong (you prove it any time you see a blue car). it should have been "not all cars are blue" or "some cars are not blue" or "only some cars are blue". -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
On 06/29/2018 12:53 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[snip] What I think is called a public school, or the public school system, in the USA, is called a state school, or other terms, in the UK. I once heard of a "state school" in the US. I think it was a special school for the mentally retarded. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "The hands that help are better far than the lips that pray." -- Robert G. Ingersoll |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
In message , Wolf K
writes: On 2018-06-29 01:53, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Char Jackson writes: [] I'm not a language/grammar geek, so it's entirely possible that my usage is wrong, as well. I went to Public School. Even there, you can't escape the "two nations divided by a common language" matter! What I think is called a public school, or the public school system, in the USA, is called a state school, or other terms, in the UK. "Public school" in the USA and Canada usually means primary and usually also middle school (years K to 8). It's often is used in contrast to faith-based schools. The upper grades are "high school". I guess we'd say secondary school for the 11 (sometimes 13) to 16/18 part, but on the whole we rarely use the qualifiers, just saying school. Grammar is taught in public school. High school English/Language curricula generally assume knowledge of that grammar. It's very badly taught, mixing grammar and usage indiscriminately, and using conflicting and sometimes incorrect linguistic concepts. The result is [] You remind me of another matter, "grammar schools" - a matter which raises much political heat here in the UK. They're mainly state-funded schools, generally perceived (by both sides of the debate, though their opponents hate to admit it) as providing a better standard; I'm not _sure_ what differentiates them from other state-funded schools, though I _think_ it's selection (i. e. there is an entrance examination, and those who fail to reach some level go to other schools, which used to be called "comprehensive" or "secondary modern", though there has been fragmentation of late, with some being called things like "academy" [though grammar schools can be academies too, I think]). The main confusion in the name is that the teaching of (English) grammar, as such, is _not_ nominally any different between grammar schools and not-grammar schools (though I imagine it once might have been for the name to have come about). In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are _open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s. IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the church. But I didn't search for confirmation. You may well be right. Though here, now, a lot of state-funded schools _are_ nominally at least connected with some religion - usually branches of the Christian faith, such as Anglican (C. of E.) or (Roman) Catholic, thought some Muslim, and I presume some others. (I don't know of any specifically atheist ones!) There's periodic friction about whether association with the nominal religion has to be a qualification for admission, and whether state funding should continue if it either is or isn't. And you hear of families changing allegiance - or pretending to - to get their kids into what is perceived to be a good school. (And moving house, but you say that happens in the us too.) Further: US usage, I understand, uses "school" to include both child and adult education; in UK, with certain (mostly subject-specific) exceptions, where you go to get your degree is "university", "school" being for age 5 to about 16 or 18 only. (So "where did you go to school" has a different meaning in the two countries: isn't often asked in UK.) "School" for post-secondary education is usually informal, but there are exceptions: Eg, at Ryerson University in Toronto there is a "Rotman School of Business". It's what is usually called a faculty over here. However, with the exception of where they're talking about a _specific_ (i. e. named) one, I don't think I've often heard an American speak of "going to university"; equally, I don't think I've ever heard a Brit refer to "going to college", unless perhaps when conversing with Americans. (FWIW, here colleges are _mostly_ subdivisions of universities - usually cross-subject, though in a few cases subject-specific.) This use of "school" for "faculty" is spreading, probably because of the increasing influence of donors, who like to see their names on buildings and letterheads. (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf .... some language may be offensive to younger viewers. Like "please" and "thank you". (Intro to /Off Their Rockers/, quoted in RT 25-31 May 2013 by Sarah Millican.) |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
In message , Mayayana
writes: [] and gifted. And probably increasingly common are evangelical schools, with textbooks showing Moses riding a dinosaur. I like it (-: [] What I find more striking today is the poor quality of college education. People are getting bachelors degrees who are all but illiterate and can't think On the whole, I'm against literacy being considered that important in, say, scientific subjects - *provided the candidate can actually communicate effectively*, their knowledge _of the subject_ is what should be being tested. I particularly find unpleasant the prejudice against multi-choice tests versus those in essay form, which seemed (at least when I was being educated, 30-40 years ago, in UK) an attempt to preserve privilege. (And I _could_ and can still write well, so it wasn't just an I'm-being-discriminated-against POV.) But I strongly agree with the next bit: analytically. At one time college was meant to teach future leaders to think and to provide them with well-rounded knowledge. Today it's a required step Yes, the ability to think analytically is paramount. to get a no-skills office job. The graduating student Yes; this has come as a side-effect (UK, anyway - us may be different due to the funding model) of the view that "everyone should have the opportunity to go to university". I actually agree with the basic thought behind that, but it has been translated into "everyone should go to university", which is a different thing entirely! may have gone to college mostly to avoid adulthood. (-: At best it provides them with a cultural language and connections to reach a white collar lifestyle. |-: [] That may partially account for the general American trend toward valuing ignorance and even conflating it with decency. A smart kid is a showoff. Giftedness "Facts are bad." One despairs sometimes (-: undermines democracy. Thus, we should all be trained to equality in all things. Which in some cases means downwards - which is a loss to society. We're all good for _something_ - even those who can't think very well! (Though, I admit, it's often quite hard work to figure out _what_ some people are good for! But it doesn't mean they're _less_ useful.) It points to the central American confusion. We idealize equality while trying to escape it. We reject class while pursuing it. In Britain, class is an accepted part of the social order. In the US, we like to pretend it doesn't exist. We'll talk about sexism, racism, etc but it's very hard for people to recognize the fundamental inequality of wealth. I think the American perception of the British attitude to class tends to be a little exaggerated - as does the British perception of the importance of wealth in America. More recently, though, I think the awareness of language as a social and business tool has become much more sophisticated than it used to be. People often speak in a technical manner, often favoring Greek and Latin roots over Germanic, because it seems authoritative. (Handiwork becomes manual labor. Boyfriend/girlfriend becomes significant other.) (Though that last one is at least partially due to the desire to remove gender-specific terminology [and allow same-gender, too].) I had a work estimate recently for a woman (What's a work estimate?) who's a Shakespearean professor of English. She Not a professor of Shakespearean English?) [Discuss (-:!] [] Another interesting language change: I know very few people today who have a regional accent. That's another thing that college now does. It was once said that broadcasting would do similar. But - despite about a century of broadcasting, and several decades of widespread tertiary education, regional accents seem to be surviving and thriving here, despite it being such a relatively small country! On the whole they've moderated to the extent that people from the different regions can now _understand_ each other, which wasn't always the case (I've met elderly Geordies and people from other reasons whom I struggle to understand), but there are definite regional accents - and regional identity feeling is strong. Eliminate cultural flavor that might be assoicated with ignorance, so that everyone sounds like they're from Ohio, with the exception of whiny young celebrities who employ a nearly constant vocal fry to sound upper class. It's almost Orwellian. All quirks must be erased in the successful person, so that they act almost as an automaton. Here, the _stronger_ variants (in both accent and vocabulary) are knocked off by contact with others, but the underlying accents remain. So there are a lot of factors there in both the breakdown of literacy and the rise of official-speak. "Management-speak" is a universal blight for both of us (-: I just saw a video of Stephen Colbert interviewing Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who just won an upset election in NYC. She's well spoken, seems both intelligent and decent, yet her speech is peppered with, "so I was like", "so he was like", "so I go", "so he goes". She talks like a teenager. So I'm like, way to not intimidate the electorate, dude. When they _try_ to be something they're not, they usually fail. The exception is when the difference is _very_ great and deception is not intended: when Jimmy Carter visited the north-east of England and said "Howway the lads" (supporting cry for the local football team), the locals loved him for trying, even though he said it with an atrocious American accent; similarly "eech been ein Berliner". [Which I've been assured did _not_ mean "I am a jam do(ugh)nut."] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have met." - John J. Kinyon |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
... However, with the exception of where they're talking about a _specific_ (i. e. named) one, I don't think I've often heard an American speak of "going to university"; equally, I don't think I've ever heard a Brit refer to "going to college", unless perhaps when conversing with Americans. (FWIW, here colleges are _mostly_ subdivisions of universities - usually cross-subject, though in a few cases subject-specific.) Also, colleges as separate institutions (as opposed to part of universities such as Oxford, Cambridge and Durham) tend to offer (or used to do when I was at university) courses that result in lower-standard qualifications such as HNDs (Higher National Diploma) and BTECs (Business and Technology Education Council) as opposed to degree-level BA/BSc. They tend to be perceived to be more vocational than theoretical. And that's great: despite recent governments trying to encourage as many school-leavers as possible to go to university to do degree courses, the world needs plumbers, bricklayers, joiners, etc - better that we train our own people to do these jobs that have to bring in people from outside the UK. Some colleges specialise in 6th form training: taking children who have left school with lower-level GSCE (General Certificate in Secondary Education) and teaching them a few (usually around three) subjects for A (advanced) levels which are the entry requirement for university. This role is normally fulfilled by secondary schools, but some children work better in an environment when there are no younger children. I think another distinction is that colleges tend not to offer any accommodation and are used by people living at home with parents and who are therefore all local to the college, whereas universities are residential: the students leave home and live in university halls of residence or flats (apartments) or in privately-rented flats. Another difference of terminology: a single subject (lectures, coursework, exams) that is studied as part of a degree tends to be referred to in the UK as a "subject" or a "course" rather than a "program"; the latter word is restricted to something you watch on television (when it is spelled programme) or a set of instructions that is run on a computer (when the US spelling is almost invariably used). |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
In message , Mayayana
writes: "NY" wrote | I'm fairly relaxed about UK versus US spelling. The U in colour, humour etc, | has no purpose and could be removed; likewise it is perverse that we The pronunciation varies too: in England, "culluh", in US "coll'r" (which to UK ears sounds like collar, i. e. neckpiece). Though to be inconsistent, the first 0 isn't always uh - we pronounce hono[u]r as onner (US arn'r). reverse | the R and E in theatre. But since that's what British spelling rules say, The -re/-er endings derive from the higher proportions of French/German in the heritages, I think. Though I've never understood the origin of the US voiced embedded T (water is pronounced warder, writer as rider, Italy ad Iddly, title as tidal, and so on); it's not an inability to pronounce an unvoiced T - that comes out fine if at the beginning of a word (title gets two different Ts in US). | then I will fight to the death to spell the words that way :-) | (-: And don't forget aluminium. It's much more fun than our aluminum. Aluminium feels like a long, hilly sleigh ride, what? Yes, it's odd. We in UK do have non-i words - laudanum, lanthanum; but both sides have helium, or even a metal, chromium. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Usenet is a way of being annoyed by people you otherwise never would have met." - John J. Kinyon |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote
| The pronunciation varies too: in England, "culluh", in US "coll'r" I pronounce it culluh. The further west you go, the more the R appears, until at the West Coast they seem to be almost obsessed with it: cullurrh. Coll'r might be used in parts of the South, but I'm not familiar with it. | Though I've never understood the origin of | the US voiced embedded T (water is pronounced warder, writer as rider, | Italy ad Iddly, title as tidal, and so on); it's not an inability to | pronounce an unvoiced T - that comes out fine if at the beginning of a | word (title gets two different Ts in US). | Maybe it has to do with being less forceful? Dramatic pronunciation is cultivated in Britain. Consonants are often relished for their explosive potential. Pronouncing Ts your way requires that explosive quality. The word can't flow. A kitten named Mittens from Britain. A Brit needs to step through each syllable. If I say it the K and Ns are the only consonants. My tongue never goes to the roof of the mouth on the Ts. The accent serves to suggest the T: KI-n name[d] MI-ns My very elderly father pronounces Saturday as sad-dee. I pronounce it as sad-[uh]-day, with the uh barely being a throat sound. I can't guess where he came up with such crazy speech. Recently I've noticed it's common for people to say student as stu-dent, with the D and 2 Ts all stressed. That sounds strange to me. I say stu-[d]nt. The tongue is just slightly further forward than it would be for "stoont". Again, the accent on the first syllable serves to suggest the D. In general, pronunciation becomes sharper as it goes west, but even the West Coasters tend to linger on consonants. It's not done forcefully. I'd say it's done it dorkily, but I might have a bias. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"pyotr filipivich" wrote
| | A good chunk of that College "tuition" is going to "overhead": | Administrative Staff, Climbing Walls in the state of the art | recreation center, dormitories which are nicer than their first | apartment will be, assistants to the deputy director for the | intersectional grievance committee. Etc, etc, etc. How do we know that? Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen an analysis. Though I fdo know that Harvard's endowment is now well over $50 billion. There seems to be no limit to how big they think they should get. | The first two things to remember about plumbing: | 1) Water Flows Down Hill. | 2) It ain't all Water. | And the second two things are like unto tit: | 3) Don't bite your nails. | 4) Payday is Thursday. | You clever fellow. I can see you don't need the dubious benefit of a college education. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
... And don't forget aluminium. It's much more fun than our aluminum. Aluminium feels like a long, hilly sleigh ride, what? Yes, it's odd. We in UK do have non-i words - laudanum, lanthanum; but both sides have helium, or even a metal, chromium. Wikipedia talks about the derivation of the name for the element: "British chemist Humphry Davy, who performed a number of experiments aimed to synthesize the metal, is credited as the person who named aluminium. In 1808, he suggested the metal be named alumium. This suggestion was criticized by contemporary chemists from France, Germany, and Sweden, who insisted the metal should be named for the oxide, alumina, from which it would be isolated. In 1812, Davy chose aluminum, thus producing the modern name. However, it is spelled and pronounced differently outside of North America: aluminum is in use in the U.S. and Canada while aluminium is in use elsewhere." So after Davy had made his first proposal, with no N in it, and his colleagues had made the very sensible suggestion that the element should have a name that was more similar to the ore alumina, it seems that the original name was aluminum (the American spelling) and then the spelling vacillated between -um and -ium: I hadn't realised that even in the US the -ium spelling was once used, until Noah Webster became involved. But I see that the official IUPAC spelling is -ium, with -um regarded as an acceptable variant. OK, we won that argument, but we lost the sulphur/sulfur one :-) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
Wolf K wrote:
In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are _open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s. IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the church. But I didn't search for confirmation. I don't think so. My understanding is that back in medieval times, the quality hired tutors to teach their offspring, there were no such things as schools to send them to. The "Public Schools", then, were institutions that anybody could send their kids to, as opposed to private, in-home education. But it wasn't free (government supported). That's what a public school is in the US: a government supported school that does not charge tuition. -- Tim Slattery tim at risingdove dot com |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"Tim Slattery" wrote in message
... Wolf K wrote: In the UK, "public school" usually means the ones (mostly) attended by the privileged - i. e. fee-paying. (The well-known ones like Eton and Harrow, but really any fee-paying one.) I've never been sure why we call them "public schools" - I think the argument might be that they are _open_ to any member of the public who can afford the fees, though if that _is_ the argument it's a weak one, since many have entrance exam.s. IIRC, they were called "public" in contrast to the schools run by the church. But I didn't search for confirmation. I don't think so. My understanding is that back in medieval times, the quality hired tutors to teach their offspring, there were no such things as schools to send them to. The "Public Schools", then, were institutions that anybody could send their kids to, as opposed to private, in-home education. But it wasn't free (government supported). That's what a public school is in the US: a government supported school that does not charge tuition. This terminology makes a lot more sense than in the UK where we have both "public" and "private" schools which are very similar: fee-paying (*) schools which are not paid for by "the State" (ie the government, from taxes). The school that I went to was founded in the early 1800s "for the board and education of the sons of Nonconformist clergy" though widened its intake to include any boys whose parents could pay the fees, no matter what their religious beliefs (if any). When I was there in the 1970s it still had a "visiting chaplain" from the United Reformed Church which was referred to as Zion, but apart from that, and the statutory Religious Education lesson that all schools are required to teach every week, the religious influence was fairly non-existent. Some public schools, like Ampleforth College, have much greater religious input, to the extent that some of the teaching is done by monks and a "Benedictine ethos permeates pupils' experience". (*) Apart from those exception children who are granted a bursary or scholarship, often paid for by a benefactor who long ago invested money whose interest would pay the fees of an exceptional pupil. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"Mayayana" on Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:04:52
-0400 typed in alt.windows7.general the following: "pyotr filipivich" wrote | | A good chunk of that College "tuition" is going to "overhead": | Administrative Staff, Climbing Walls in the state of the art | recreation center, dormitories which are nicer than their first | apartment will be, assistants to the deputy director for the | intersectional grievance committee. Etc, etc, etc. How do we know that? The colleges will announce with a straight face that they have hired x number of "facilitators", or the competition of such a facility, etc. The other thing to remember, "diversity" in UniSpeak means diversity of shape, color, gender, but conformity of thought. (Which isn't quite true, many universities are ready to accept any school of thought from Left all the way through to the Ultra-left..) Now that you mention it, I don't think I've ever seen an analysis. Though I fdo know that Harvard's endowment is now well over $50 billion. There seems to be no limit to how big they think they should get. | The first two things to remember about plumbing: | 1) Water Flows Down Hill. | 2) It ain't all Water. | And the second two things are like unto tit: | 3) Don't bite your nails. | 4) Payday is Thursday. | You clever fellow. I can see you don't need the dubious benefit of a college education. With Age, comes Wisdom. Although far too often, Age Travels alone. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Microsoft Rewards? (now OT: grammar!)
"pyotr filipivich" wrote
| The other thing to remember, "diversity" in UniSpeak means | diversity of shape, color, gender, but conformity of thought. Well put. | (Which | isn't quite true, many universities are ready to accept any school of | thought from Left all the way through to the Ultra-left..) | I'm not so sure about that. I see a building "neo-fascism" of the extreme left, for lack of a better term. A moralistic dogma that seems to be anti-intellect and demands obedience. Even the moderate left is seen to betray them. To believe that gender exists is perceived as an act of aggression and suppression of freedom. Believing that race exists may only be done as an act of cultural self-expression by minorities. To assert any category at all constitutes a limitation to the cult of Self in its dizzy attempts to optimize personal fulfillment and perform its highest religious ritual: "self expression". To assert the possibility of any existential limitation is to be either an oppressor or a quitter, depending on what the limitation is. (Which gets a bit sticky. What defines this Self, after all, other than it's rejection of definition? Where is the core that's *not* merely reaction against other? And what existential freedom can any Self have, other than the freedom to relate to reality? Freedom of speech is one thing. Freedom from all limitations is a naive misunderstanding.) I've recently been reading about "4th wave feminism". One of its main creators, a young, lesbian, English professor in Britain, says the basis of this 4th wave is "incredulity that [views she disagrees with] can still exist". It makes fundamentalist Christians seem tolerant, thoughtful and inclusive. It's a statement at once naive, arrogant, comical and chilling. My best guess is that this intolerance is coming out of a culture of young people who represent a unique blend of being inexperienced, spirited and spoiled. But maybe I'm just getting old. I come out of the hippie generation, when teenagers took over college faculty buildings. The older people then must have wondered whether the end of the world was coming. (The majority of Americans in '68 thought the students massacred at Kent State got what they deserved. Their protests were regarded as a sort of cultural treason.) I suppose that by comparison, Twitter-activism, posting outrage that one has to tolerate the existence of different ideas, next to one's post about liking Cocoa Puffs and between 2 ads for candy bars, could be seen as being kind of cute. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|