| Author |
Message |
John Lawler
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:40 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com> writes:
| Quote: | rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) writes:
For what it is worth, I find such affectations annoying and
distracting. I occasionally read modern fantasy. I regard with deep
suspicion any work which talks about "magick".
In this the fantasy writers are taking their cue from present-day
occultists, a proportion of whom have, over the past 20 years or so,
adopted the K spelling (used by Aleister Crowley) as a means of
distinguishing ritual magic from the kind practised by stage
magicians. It seems a valid distinction and not merely an
affectation.
|
Right. It's basically a brand name.
But do they pronounce it /meijIk/ as Crowley recommended? I suppose
he's not exactly in a position to sue for copyright infringement.
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler U Michigan Linguistics Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"He who wants to persuade should put his trust not in the right argument,
but in the right word. The power of sound has always been greater than
the power of sense." -- Joseph Conrad
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:42 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Wood Avens wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Nov 2004 06:58:23 -0800, rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R.
Hershberger) wrote:
For what it is worth, I find such affectations annoying and
distracting. I occasionally read modern fantasy. I regard with
deep
suspicion any work which talks about "magick".
In this the fantasy writers are taking their cue from present-day
occultists, a proportion of whom have, over the past 20 years or
so,
adopted the K spelling (used by Aleister Crowley) as a means of
distinguishing ritual magic from the kind practised by stage
magicians. It seems a valid distinction and not merely an
affectation.
|
I'd be so much happier supporting that if I didn't know A. Crowley
was on the same side!
I think I could only ever be wickan, not wiccan.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:42 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
In message <cmnqfn$3r3$1@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>, John Dean
<john-dean@frag.lineone.net> writes
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
I'm assessing a railway goods building (mid 19C; Grade II listed),
and writing about the configuration for moving stuff from railway to
road transport. In their day, both the rail and road vehicles would
have been "waggons".
I use "wagon" -- by the tme of Gowers/Fowler, this had won out in
BrEng (and for what it's worth, Word's BrEng dictionary doesn't even
recognise the double-g form). But since the railway and road vehicles
I'm writing about would have been "waggons" when they existed, I'm
tempted to revert to the now-rare form.
What say the group: is "waggon" -- applied to historical wheeled
vehicles which would have been spelled that way -- excusable, or a
hopeless affectation?
OED2 claims 'waggon' is "still very commonly used" in GB (though they
don't supply C20 examples) but 'rare' in the US. I don't recollect
seeing the two g version.
|
I am still unhappy at my 'wagon' being marked incorrect by Mr Bromley,
BA, in a school spelling test in 1956. Bromley, are you reading this?
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:25 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:42:32 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | Wood Avens wrote:
In this the fantasy writers are taking their cue from present-day
occultists, a proportion of whom have, over the past 20 years or
so,
adopted the K spelling (used by Aleister Crowley) as a means of
distinguishing ritual magic from the kind practised by stage
magicians. It seems a valid distinction and not merely an
affectation.
I'd be so much happier supporting that if I didn't know A. Crowley
was on the same side!
I think I could only ever be wickan, not wiccan.
|
I'm sure you're far too well-informed to suppose that Wiccan =
Crowleian, Mike, but the unwary might acquire that impression if they
over-zealously linked your two sentences.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:39 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:40:02 GMT, jlawler@umich.edu (John Lawler)
wrote:
| Quote: | Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com> writes:
rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) writes:
For what it is worth, I find such affectations annoying and
distracting. I occasionally read modern fantasy. I regard with deep
suspicion any work which talks about "magick".
In this the fantasy writers are taking their cue from present-day
occultists, a proportion of whom have, over the past 20 years or so,
adopted the K spelling (used by Aleister Crowley) as a means of
distinguishing ritual magic from the kind practised by stage
magicians. It seems a valid distinction and not merely an
affectation.
Right. It's basically a brand name.
But do they pronounce it /meijIk/ as Crowley recommended?
|
No - at least, none of the Thelemites of my acquaintance do.
| Quote: | I suppose
he's not exactly in a position to sue for copyright infringement.
|
I doubt if he'd think of it as copyright infringement, in the
circumstances; he might even, I conjecture, be fairly pleased that
this and the rest of his work had survived and was still studied.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:47 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Jordan Abel wrote:
| Quote: | Ross Howard wrote:
footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia)
AmE would be "soccer fields", or, if one allowed it to refer to american
football, "football stadiums".
|
The stadium encompasses more than just the field, though. The stadium
is the whole shebang, including (and perhaps mainly) the facilities
for seating spectators.
I thought in BrE one spoke of the "pitch". If not, just what is the
"pitch", a word that I believe is unused in AmE in this sort of context?
--
Steny '08! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 08:59:15 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I'm assessing a railway goods building (mid 19C; Grade II listed), and
writing about the configuration for moving stuff from railway to road
transport. In their day, both the rail and road vehicles would have
been "waggons".
I use "wagon" -- by the tme of Gowers/Fowler, this had won out in BrEng
(and for what it's worth, Word's BrEng dictionary doesn't even
recognise the double-g form). But since the railway and road vehicles
I'm writing about would have been "waggons" when they existed, I'm
tempted to revert to the now-rare form.
What say the group: is "waggon" -- applied to historical wheeled
vehicles which would have been spelled that way -- excusable, or a
hopeless affectation?
|
I see both with about equal frequency, and my Collins dictionare gives both,
with wagon first -- indicationg that that is the preferred spelling, which,
incidentally it also gives for -ize endings, rather than -ise.
In my own writing I also use both forms indiscriminately, but in a formal
document I try to use one spelling consistently throughout. I think most
newspapers here use the gg spelling, but I'd have to check.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 21:42:32 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
<mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | I'd be so much happier supporting that if I didn't know A. Crowley
was on the same side!
I think I could only ever be wickan, not wiccan.
|
And what about Catholick?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2004 23:47:09 GMT, Areff <me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Jordan Abel wrote:
Ross Howard wrote:
footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia)
AmE would be "soccer fields", or, if one allowed it to refer to american
football, "football stadiums".
The stadium encompasses more than just the field, though. The stadium
is the whole shebang, including (and perhaps mainly) the facilities
for seating spectators.
I thought in BrE one spoke of the "pitch". If not, just what is the
"pitch", a word that I believe is unused in AmE in this sort of context?
|
In cricket the pitch is the rectangular area between the stumps, 22 yards long
and 10 feet wide.
It's also the manner of bowling the ball "pitched just off leg stump".
A stadium includes the field of play and seating for spectators etc.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Areff typed thus:
| Quote: | Jordan Abel wrote:
Ross Howard wrote:
footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia)
AmE would be "soccer fields", or, if one allowed it to refer to american
football, "football stadiums".
The stadium encompasses more than just the field, though. The stadium
is the whole shebang, including (and perhaps mainly) the facilities
for seating spectators.
I thought in BrE one spoke of the "pitch". If not, just what is the
"pitch", a word that I believe is unused in AmE in this sort of context?
|
Yes, the pitch is the green bit between the spectators. Sometimes
they all run onto this green bit at the end of a game - this is a
"pitch invasion".
A football "field" is a pitch within school grounds or in a park, for
non-professional use. It might be marked out for football and have
goals, but there would be no other facilities.
--
David
=====
replace the first component of address
with the definite article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2004 23:47:09 GMT, Areff <me@privacy.net> wrought:
| Quote: | Jordan Abel wrote:
Ross Howard wrote:
footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia)
AmE would be "soccer fields", or, if one allowed it to refer to american
football, "football stadiums".
The stadium encompasses more than just the field, though. The stadium
is the whole shebang, including (and perhaps mainly) the facilities
for seating spectators.
I thought in BrE one spoke of the "pitch". If not, just what is the
"pitch", a word that I believe is unused in AmE in this sort of context?
|
The "pitch" is the playing area, i.e. the "field". The "ground" (used
for footy, rugby and cricket) is the "stadium" or "ballpark". "Pitch"
implies grass (well, mud with perhaps the odd sprig of green in the
corners), so we have basketball courts, too, not pitches.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Will
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 5:48 pm
Post subject: OT: HVO (Was Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you t |
|
|
the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1bf9ada752f0172298a9d5@news.individual.net>...
[snip trainspottery stuff]
| Quote: | Disgusting? Disgusting?? The "chocolate flavoured" coating and
synthetic jam of the Waggon Wheel is one of the defining tastes of my
childhood. I would eat the odd one nowadays, just to be reminded,
but they only seem to come in packs of 18 and I couldn't trust myself
not to wolf the lot in one go. And, as every Brit over 40 *knows*,
they've been sneakily shrunk over the years, so that they no longer
blot out the noon sun at 20 paces.
|
I ate one once but I didn't like it. What I want to know, and I know
this isn't the place to expect an answer but you never know, is this:
when did confectionery first become infected with Hydrogenated
Vegetable Oil? The mere sound of it is enough to put me off my Mars
bar. What was used before this evil poison was invented, and why
can't we return to it? We, as in the Associated Confederation of
Manufacturers of Eatables, or ACME for short.
| Quote: | You might as well diss Tunnocks.
|
Gordon Bennett, I wouldn't dream of dissing Tunnocks. Though nowadays
the only time I eat one (or several, if we're playing Truth or Dare)
is on my annual canoeing trip on the Wye with the lads, one of whom
always brings said comestible. And malt whisky. They go rather well
together, I find.
Will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:25 pm
Post subject: Re: HVO (Was Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to |
|
|
"Will" <billrigby@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d36f7597.0411090556.188199cc@posting.google.com...
| Quote: | the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1bf9ada752f0172298a9d5@news.individual.net>...
[snip trainspottery stuff]
Disgusting? Disgusting?? The "chocolate flavoured" coating and
synthetic jam of the Waggon Wheel is one of the defining tastes of my
childhood. I would eat the odd one nowadays, just to be reminded,
but they only seem to come in packs of 18 and I couldn't trust myself
not to wolf the lot in one go. And, as every Brit over 40 *knows*,
they've been sneakily shrunk over the years, so that they no longer
blot out the noon sun at 20 paces.
I ate one once but I didn't like it. What I want to know, and I know
this isn't the place to expect an answer but you never know, is this:
when did confectionery first become infected with Hydrogenated
Vegetable Oil? The mere sound of it is enough to put me off my Mars
bar. What was used before this evil poison was invented, and why
can't we return to it? We, as in the Associated Confederation of
Manufacturers of Eatables, or ACME for short.
|
It's *partially* hydrogenated vegetable oil. It turns out that it may
actually be worse for your health than animal fat. How can it be made safer,
made so that it contains no trans fats? The answer, I recently learned from
an article on the subject, is to*fully* hydrogenate the vegetable oil!
| Quote: |
You might as well diss Tunnocks.
Gordon Bennett, I wouldn't dream of dissing Tunnocks. Though nowadays
the only time I eat one (or several, if we're playing Truth or Dare)
is on my annual canoeing trip on the Wye with the lads, one of whom
always brings said comestible. And malt whisky. They go rather well
together, I find.
|
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:59 pm
Post subject: Re: HVO |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "Will" <billrigby@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d36f7597.0411090556.188199cc@posting.google.com...
What I want to know, and I know
this isn't the place to expect an answer but you never know, is this:
when did confectionery first become infected with Hydrogenated
Vegetable Oil? The mere sound of it is enough to put me off my Mars
bar. What was used before this evil poison was invented, and why
can't we return to it? We, as in the Associated Confederation of
Manufacturers of Eatables, or ACME for short.
It's *partially* hydrogenated vegetable oil. It turns out that it may
actually be worse for your health than animal fat.
|
Nasty stuff. I won't allow it in the kitchen -- and I've got low
standards when it comes to junk food.
--
SML, eating mac 'n' cheese at the computer
Dignity, always dignity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Wood Avens wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Nov 2004 06:58:23 -0800, rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R.
Hershberger) wrote:
For what it is worth, I find such affectations annoying and
distracting. I occasionally read modern fantasy. I regard with deep
suspicion any work which talks about "magick".
In this the fantasy writers are taking their cue from present-day
occultists, a proportion of whom have, over the past 20 years or so,
adopted the K spelling (used by Aleister Crowley) as a means of
distinguishing ritual magic from the kind practised by stage
magicians. It seems a valid distinction and not merely an
affectation.
|
Can they not make the distinction clear in their writing? It's difficult
to imagine of the confusion lasting more than a sentence or two.
--
SML
Dignity, always dignity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in