| Author |
Message |
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:59 pm
Post subject: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
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?
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rzed
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:Xns959B5B7189F79whhvans@62.253.162.203:
| 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?
|
Who's your intended audience? People of the past?
It's not an *entirely* hopeless affectation, but an archaism that
would have to be justified in a contemporary text, I'd say. Is it
worth the verbiage to do that?
But I don't know that it's all that far out of date -- it seems to
me that I've seen "waggon" used in more or less recent Brit-Lit,
though probably not in anything originating in the past fifty years
or more.
Suppose you adopt the principle you seem to be espousing. I can
imagine a few paragraphs might be spent in comparing the early
railroad transport with previous historical methods. The comparison
might extend back to Roman times, or to the Middle Ages. Would you
change the spelling to match the era? Would you change the word?
The language?
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 5:28 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On 08 Nov 2004, rzed wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:Xns959B5B7189F79whhvans@62.253.162.203:
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?
Who's your intended audience? People of the past?
|
No, but it's a report -- expert opinion thing -- which will eventually
go to people dealing with historic buildings. (By nature those of us
who work in this field tend to be well-disposed towards past
practices.)
| Quote: | It's not an *entirely* hopeless affectation, but an archaism that
would have to be justified in a contemporary text, I'd say. Is it
worth the verbiage to do that?
|
Probably not; it just seemed somehow more in context.
| Quote: | But I don't know that it's all that far out of date -- it seems to
me that I've seen "waggon" used in more or less recent Brit-Lit,
though probably not in anything originating in the past fifty years
or more.
Suppose you adopt the principle you seem to be espousing. I can
imagine a few paragraphs might be spent in comparing the early
railroad transport with previous historical methods. The comparison
might extend back to Roman times, or to the Middle Ages. Would you
change the spelling to match the era? Would you change the word?
The language?
|
Good point. It's probably best to stick with "wagons" (although I
must admit Ii still rather fancy the tone of the archaism...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 6:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle 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?
|
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.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:58:27 +0100, "John Dean"
<john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrought:
| 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 see that googling on "waggon site:.uk" brings up quite a few railway
preservation society sites, so maybe Harvey's instinct to conserve it
is right.
I may be very wrong here, but weren't those disgusting large, round
"chocolate"-coated industrial confectionery things that they used to
sell at third-division footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia) called
"Waggon Wheels"?
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:58:27 +0100, "John Dean"
john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrought:
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 see that googling on "waggon site:.uk" brings up quite a few railway
preservation society sites, so maybe Harvey's instinct to conserve it
is right.
I may be very wrong here, but weren't those disgusting large, round
"chocolate"-coated industrial confectionery things that they used to
sell at third-division footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia) called
"Waggon Wheels"?
|
Still are. Though the manufacturers now call them "Wagon Wheels" -
http://www.wagonwheels.com/
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:58 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<Xns959B6A9F72249whhvans@194.168.222.122>...
| Quote: | On 08 Nov 2004, rzed wrote
Harvey Van Sickle <harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote in
news:Xns959B5B7189F79whhvans@62.253.162.203:
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?
|
<much snippage>
| Quote: | Suppose you adopt the principle you seem to be espousing. I can
imagine a few paragraphs might be spent in comparing the early
railroad transport with previous historical methods. The comparison
might extend back to Roman times, or to the Middle Ages. Would you
change the spelling to match the era? Would you change the word?
The language?
Good point. It's probably best to stick with "wagons" (although I
must admit Ii still rather fancy the tone of the archaism...)
|
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". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stan Brown
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 10:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
"Whilst"?
That should be "while", surely?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"And if you're afraid of butter, which many people are nowa-
days, (long pause) you just put in cream." --Julia Child |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:11 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:06:19 +0100, Ross Howard <gguiri@yahoo.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I may be very wrong here, but weren't those disgusting large, round
"chocolate"-coated industrial confectionery things that they used to
sell at third-division footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia) called
"Waggon Wheels"?
|
Yummy! Yes, they were. Biccy, marshmallow, jam and chocolate.
Haven't had one for a few years, though, so I don't know if they still
exist, or, if they do, whether they've dropped one of the gs by now.
And it's raining, and I've been out to Waitrose once already today.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2004 06:58:23 -0800, rrhersh@acme.com (Richard R.
Hershberger) wrote:
| Quote: | 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.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Ross Howard typed thus:
| Quote: | On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 12:58:27 +0100, "John Dean"
john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrought:
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 see that googling on "waggon site:.uk" brings up quite a few railway
preservation society sites, so maybe Harvey's instinct to conserve it
is right.
I may be very wrong here, but weren't those disgusting large, round
"chocolate"-coated industrial confectionery things that they used to
sell at third-division footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia) called
"Waggon Wheels"?
|
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.
You might as well diss Tunnocks.
BTW, "Waggon and Horses" is still a common pub name. I used to go to
one in Sale, a few doors from the office where I worked in the early
80s.
--
David
=====
replace the first component of address
with the definite article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 11:46 pm
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On 08 Nov 2004, Stan Brown wrote
| Quote: | "Whilst"?
That should be "while", surely?
|
It was a reference to the previous thread. I was trying to be
clever...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jordan Abel
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 1:20 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | footy grounds (AmE: footy stadia)
|
AmE would be "soccer fields", or, if one allowed it to refer to american
football, "football stadiums". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:36 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:20:49 -0500, Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu>
wrought:
| 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".
|
I was being ionic.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Ward
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 4:01 am
Post subject: Re: Whilst we're on the topic: what say you to "waggon"? |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 13:20:49 -0500, Jordan Abel <jmabel@purdue.edu>
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".
|
Only wishing to start arguments, I was wondering if there was a
Football Hall of Fame. There is, and it even ranks the inductees! If
only the Hall at Cooperstown did that!
1. Pele -- Brazil
2. George Best -- N. Ireland
3. Bobby Charlton -- England
4. Johan Cruyff -- Netherlands
5. Bobby Moore -- England
6. Ferenc Puskas -- Hungary
7. Gordon Banks -- England
8. Marco van Basten -- Netherlands
9. Franz Beckenbauer -- Germany
10. John Charles -- Wales
11. Kenny Dalglish -- Scotland
12. Duncan Edwards -- England
13. Eusebio -- Portugal
14. Tom Finney -- England
15. Garrincha -- Brazil
16. Jairzinho -- Brazil
17. Stanley Matthews -- England
18. Gerd Muller -- Germany
19. Michel Platini -- France
20. Roberto Rivelino -- Brazil
21. Alfredo Di Stefano -- Argentina
22. Lev Yashin -- Russia
23. Billy Wright -- England
24. Zico -- Brazil
25. Dino Zoff -- Italy
http://www.ifhof.com/hof/halloffame.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in