Media wankers.
in [UK Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Sat Navs for Cars
Next: Google wave invites
From: steve auvache on 27 Dec 2009 12:35 In article <v65fj5tuad6bebfrdbh953gdlk4182rvsa(a)4ax.com>, Champ <news(a)champ.org.uk> writes >On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:41:17 +0000, Colin Irvine ><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: > >>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:33:01 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: >> >>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:21:05 +0000, Colin Irvine >>><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >>> >>>>"it is now sanctioned by use, has appeared in official use, and >>>>remains the popular term". That's happened to many words in the >>>>English language. Doesn't make them correct. >>> >>><re-animates old, old argument> >>> >>>What other authority, other than usage, can bestow 'correctness' ? > >>Common sense, avoidance of ambiguity and elegance immediately spring >>to mind. > >And who is the abiter of these admirable qualities? I suggest it is >"common usage". The Court of Public Opinion? -- steve auvache
From: Ace on 27 Dec 2009 13:26 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:41:17 +0000, Colin Irvine <look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:33:01 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: > >>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:21:05 +0000, Colin Irvine >><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >> >>>"it is now sanctioned by use, has appeared in official use, and >>>remains the popular term". That's happened to many words in the >>>English language. Doesn't make them correct. >> >><re-animates old, old argument> >> >>What other authority, other than usage, can bestow 'correctness' ? > >Common sense, avoidance of ambiguity and elegance immediately spring >to mind. OK, so in what way is the discussed usage of "Union Jack" ambiguous or inelegant? As one of the very few people here who has actually raised a Jack, albeit a company one rather than the Union one, I for one would never get confused by the term.
From: Colin Irvine on 27 Dec 2009 13:57 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:10:25 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: >On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:41:17 +0000, Colin Irvine ><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: > >>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:33:01 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: >> >>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:21:05 +0000, Colin Irvine >>><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >>> >>>>"it is now sanctioned by use, has appeared in official use, and >>>>remains the popular term". That's happened to many words in the >>>>English language. Doesn't make them correct. >>> >>><re-animates old, old argument> >>> >>>What other authority, other than usage, can bestow 'correctness' ? > >>Common sense, avoidance of ambiguity and elegance immediately spring >>to mind. > >And who is the abiter of these admirable qualities? I suggest it is >"common usage". That's the problem. Common usage doesn't always maintain these admirable qualities. For example, common usage has almost entirely replaced "oral" with "verbal" - as in "verbal report" meaning "oral report". So we now have two words used to mean "oral" and no word available when you mean "verbal". This defies common sense and introduces ambiguity. As it happens the correct usage is maintained in, for example, NHS Patient Consent policies, where the distinction is made between non-verbal consent (e.g. presenting your arm for an injection) and the two types of verbal consent - oral (saying "yes") and written (signing a consent form). -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
From: Colin Irvine on 27 Dec 2009 14:11 On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:26:03 +0100, Ace squeezed out the following: >On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:41:17 +0000, Colin Irvine ><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: > >>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:33:01 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: >> >>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 10:21:05 +0000, Colin Irvine >>><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >>> >>>>"it is now sanctioned by use, has appeared in official use, and >>>>remains the popular term". That's happened to many words in the >>>>English language. Doesn't make them correct. >>> >>><re-animates old, old argument> >>> >>>What other authority, other than usage, can bestow 'correctness' ? >> >>Common sense, avoidance of ambiguity and elegance immediately spring >>to mind. > >OK, so in what way is the discussed usage of "Union Jack" ambiguous or >inelegant? It's neither. It just doesn't feel right. A bit like passing port anticlockwise. >As one of the very few people here who has actually raised a Jack, >albeit a company one rather than the Union one, I for one would never >get confused by the term. I don't think anyone would find them confusing. As an aside, I see Wiki uses Union Flag rather than Union Jack in its links. -- Colin Irvine ZZR1400 BOF#33 BONY#34 COFF#06 BHaLC#5 http://www.colinandpat.co.uk
From: Ace on 27 Dec 2009 14:22
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:11:36 +0000, Colin Irvine <look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:26:03 +0100, Ace squeezed out the following: > >>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 13:41:17 +0000, Colin Irvine >><look(a)bottom.of.home.page> wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 12:33:01 +0000, Champ squeezed out the following: >>>>What other authority, other than usage, can bestow 'correctness' ? >>> >>>Common sense, avoidance of ambiguity and elegance immediately spring >>>to mind. >> >>OK, so in what way is the discussed usage of "Union Jack" ambiguous or >>inelegant? > >It's neither. It just doesn't feel right. You mean it offends your sense of superiority? >A bit like passing port anticlockwise. Oh, you _do_ mean it offends your sense of superiority. |