| Author |
Message |
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:22 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:18:48 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
As in a Chinese cymbal vs. a Sabian HH Medium-heavy Ride cymbal, you
mean?
This group tends to focus on grammar and usage rather than
cymbalism. You may want to try one of the writing groups for that.
Me for gongs, preferably large. J. Arthur Rank, anyone?
|
Topic drift... Gongs go "clong" - not "clang"!
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Odysseus
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
RickyC wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:18:48 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
As in a Chinese cymbal vs. a Sabian HH Medium-heavy Ride cymbal, you
mean?
This group tends to focus on grammar and usage rather than
cymbalism. You may want to try one of the writing groups for that.
Me for gongs, preferably large. J. Arthur Rank, anyone?
Topic drift... Gongs go "clong" - not "clang"!
And here I was, thinking of trolleys. |
--
Odysseus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:26:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[ ... ]
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than
"it sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to
remind me which one is "right" or "standard".
Here's the Liebs Test, all warranties disclaimed: If you can
replace "than" with "from" and it still sounds okay, use "from."
Otherwise, use "than." You should never need "to."[1]
OK; I'll try that test, as well as Michael's.
(But I still have a sneaking suspicion that I'll think "from" sounds
wrong when it is, in fact, right; it's one of of those things that the
more you think about it, the more *everything* sounds wrong. Maybe a
post-it note is a better idea after all...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
|
You lot are like a pack of rabid dogs at the bottom of a pit. I thow
you a piece of old road-kill and long after the red meat has all gone,
you are still gnawing away happily on the gristle and bones!  )
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
RickyC wrote:
| Quote: | On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:26:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[ ... ]
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other
than
"it sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to
remind me which one is "right" or "standard".
Here's the Liebs Test, all warranties disclaimed: If you can
replace "than" with "from" and it still sounds okay, use "from."
Otherwise, use "than." You should never need "to."[1]
OK; I'll try that test, as well as Michael's.
(But I still have a sneaking suspicion that I'll think "from"
sounds
wrong when it is, in fact, right; it's one of of those things that
the
more you think about it, the more *everything* sounds wrong. Maybe
a
post-it note is a better idea after all...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
You lot are like a pack of rabid dogs at the bottom of a pit. I thow
you a piece of old road-kill and long after the red meat has all
gone,
you are still gnawing away happily on the gristle and bones! )
|
I expect rabid dogs are very unhappy. :-(
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:16:44 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:51:46 GMT, RickyC@SurfinSouthCoast.com (RickyC)
wrote:
[ ... ]
If not, then I stand corrected. The fact that a "regular" coke at some
stage has became what I would call a very large coke, (so that if you
want a human-sized coke rather than a giant-sized one, you have to ask
for a small coke)
We've done this before in aue. Several people have reported - myself
included - that when asking for a "small" drink that they have been
told "We don't have a small size. Would you like a medium drink?"
On occasion I've tried "Give me the smallest size <name of drink
you have. Even that has been known to elicit this: "Our smallest is
the medium size.: To which I respond: Okay, I'll take that one."
And even then I've seen some hesitancy on occasion.
|
One solution would be to close all coffee-houses. like The Grand
Vizier Kuprili of Constantinople did. Anyone caught drinking coffee
(amall, medium or regular) was soundly cudgeled!
| Quote: | P.S. to RickyC -- It's all in fun, or at least it's supposed to be.
When the cudgels really do come out, it'll be obvious. Welcome
aboard.
|
Thanks. It's not everyday one actually gets welcomed in a newsgroup -
especially me. But then, I usually barge in, uninvited, anyway
(cudgel at the ready) ;-)
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
RickyC wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:26:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[ ... ]
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than
"it sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to
remind me which one is "right" or "standard".
Here's the Liebs Test, all warranties disclaimed: If you can
replace "than" with "from" and it still sounds okay, use "from."
Otherwise, use "than." You should never need "to."[1]
OK; I'll try that test, as well as Michael's.
(But I still have a sneaking suspicion that I'll think "from" sounds
wrong when it is, in fact, right; it's one of of those things that the
more you think about it, the more *everything* sounds wrong. Maybe a
post-it note is a better idea after all...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
You lot are like a pack of rabid dogs at the bottom of a pit. I thow
you a piece of old road-kill and long after the red meat has all gone,
you are still gnawing away happily on the gristle and bones! )
|
I prefer to say we're like the Chinese with their pigs. Every part
gets used, even the squeal. That explains the squealers around
here.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joanne Marinelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"RickyC" <RickyC@SurfinSouthCoast.com> wrote in message
news:423f72db.1842471@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:16:44 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 10:51:46 GMT, RickyC@SurfinSouthCoast.com (RickyC)
wrote:
[ ... ]
One solution would be to close all coffee-houses. like The Grand
Vizier Kuprili of Constantinople did. Anyone caught drinking coffee
(amall, medium or regular) was soundly cudgeled!
P.S. to RickyC -- It's all in fun, or at least it's supposed to be.
When the cudgels really do come out, it'll be obvious. Welcome
aboard.
Thanks. It's not everyday one actually gets welcomed in a newsgroup -
especially me. But then, I usually barge in, uninvited, anyway
(cudgel at the ready) ;-)
RickyC
|
Tony likes handing out cudgels. He tried to give me a big one but I
protested that it was not in compliance with ADA guidelines, and suggested a
variety of more adaptable mechanical claws, and before you ask, the ADA
stands for the much litigated Americans With Disabilities Act, which my
stupid activist-colleagues have allowed the right-wing to co-opt into a
moral majority warhead.
Joanne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Robin Bignall" <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:quau31hd1q9722to7mt4dmqftjrr9thlf2@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:51:41 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
"Robin Bignall" <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qrdt31115sujk3tbdcconppk72gl6m2ohi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:48:29 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
[...]
[Robin] The beliefs of several religious leaders on abortion have
become an
election issue in the last few days. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that several million voters might be influenced.
[Alan] Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will
change the
voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the unchurched
majority?
Enough to override the appeal of parties' policies and records on
education,
the health service, the use of military force, the environment, law and
order, security - and tax?
I don't know, Alan. That's why I said "might". While church
attendance has obviously fallen significantly during the past few
decades, and David the Omrud is correct when he says that few Brits
ever discuss religion or appear to let it bother them, abortion is a
very sensitive issue. I would not be surprised to find that a lot of
people, probably a majority of them men, think that our current laws
are too lax. Whether this translates into action at the ballot box is
anyone's guess.
As to the parties' records on the other things you mention, I find
little enough in any of them to appeal to me.
|
Your last point explains why the turn-out for elections is always rather
poor . . .
But my point was whether statements by the religious leaders are likely to
influence voting. My own hunch is that UK opinions on such matters as
abortion and homosexual partnerships (which are "hot" issues for the
churches at present) arise from all sorts of notions and influences, among
which church teachings are not foremost among the populace as a whole and
not crucial even for churchgoers. Does anyone really say to himself "I
usually vote Labour and I always thought abortion law was on the whole
acceptable, but **after what the Cardinal said** I realise I ought to vote
Conservative because Mr Howard is slightly less lax than Mr Blair in the
matter of late abortion"?
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 7:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:15:27 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robin Bignall" <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:quau31hd1q9722to7mt4dmqftjrr9thlf2@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:51:41 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
"Robin Bignall" <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qrdt31115sujk3tbdcconppk72gl6m2ohi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:48:29 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
[...]
[Robin] The beliefs of several religious leaders on abortion have
become an
election issue in the last few days. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that several million voters might be influenced.
[Alan] Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will
change the
voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the unchurched
majority?
Enough to override the appeal of parties' policies and records on
education,
the health service, the use of military force, the environment, law and
order, security - and tax?
I don't know, Alan. That's why I said "might". While church
attendance has obviously fallen significantly during the past few
decades, and David the Omrud is correct when he says that few Brits
ever discuss religion or appear to let it bother them, abortion is a
very sensitive issue. I would not be surprised to find that a lot of
people, probably a majority of them men, think that our current laws
are too lax. Whether this translates into action at the ballot box is
anyone's guess.
As to the parties' records on the other things you mention, I find
little enough in any of them to appeal to me.
Your last point explains why the turn-out for elections is always rather
poor . . .
It has not always been poor, but certainly has declined in recent |
years. Personally, I would hope that it means that the electorate is
growing up, and beginning to see that politicians of all shades will
promise anything to get elected or stay in power, and that there is no
real choice between either of the two parties who have a chance, under
our "first past the post" system, of forming a working majority.
| Quote: | But my point was whether statements by the religious leaders are likely to
influence voting. My own hunch is that UK opinions on such matters as
abortion and homosexual partnerships (which are "hot" issues for the
churches at present) arise from all sorts of notions and influences, among
which church teachings are not foremost among the populace as a whole and
not crucial even for churchgoers. Does anyone really say to himself "I
usually vote Labour and I always thought abortion law was on the whole
acceptable, but **after what the Cardinal said** I realise I ought to vote
Conservative because Mr Howard is slightly less lax than Mr Blair in the
matter of late abortion"?
Put as starkly as that it does seem unlikely. But that old warhorse |
of a commentator Anthony Howard, in a Times article today
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1067-1535827,00.html
speculates about whether or not we are seeing the start of a "moral
majority" along the lines of the States.
<quote>
Morality is on the march in our political system
Anthony Howard
ARE we watching the emergence of “a moral majority” (American-style)
in Britain? The evidence strikes me as ominous — and certainly
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor gave us all a shove in a transatlantic
direction by pouncing on Michael Howard’s answer in favour of a
stricter time limit for abortions (given to Cosmopolitan magazine) and
calling it “a step in the right direction”.
</quote>
There is also, in the Lords at this moment, the "Incitement to
Religious Hatred" bill, which was passed by the Commons with only one
hour of debate. The latest news is that there is no chance of this
bill becoming law before the election, so it has been dropped. The
curious thing is why those strange denizens of the Westminster Village
should believe that such a bill is necessary, when we seem to have
existing laws which criminalise incitement to hatred for any reason
fairly adequately.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a8dhrF69g4lpU3@individual.net...
| Quote: | Pat Durkin wrote:
[...]
"from" is used in the US, while the UK usage is usually "to".
[...]
No, standard formal BrE demands "from", in spite of Fowler's
impeccably-argued acceptance of the old-established "to". I think
"to" is commoner in general speech, though.
|
I think that that is what I said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a8dhrF69g4lpU3@individual.net...
Pat Durkin wrote:
[...]
"from" is used in the US, while the UK usage is usually "to".
[...]
No, standard formal BrE demands "from", in spite of Fowler's
impeccably-argued acceptance of the old-established "to". I think
"to" is commoner in general speech, though.
I think that that is what I said.
|
Didn't realise you were referring to informal speech rather than
writing: sorry.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RickyC
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 10:08 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:02:08 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | RickyC wrote:
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:26:47 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[ ... ]
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than
"it sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to
remind me which one is "right" or "standard".
Here's the Liebs Test, all warranties disclaimed: If you can
replace "than" with "from" and it still sounds okay, use "from."
Otherwise, use "than." You should never need "to."[1]
OK; I'll try that test, as well as Michael's.
(But I still have a sneaking suspicion that I'll think "from" sounds
wrong when it is, in fact, right; it's one of of those things that the
more you think about it, the more *everything* sounds wrong. Maybe a
post-it note is a better idea after all...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
You lot are like a pack of rabid dogs at the bottom of a pit. I thow
you a piece of old road-kill and long after the red meat has all gone,
you are still gnawing away happily on the gristle and bones! )
I prefer to say we're like the Chinese with their pigs. Every part
gets used, even the squeal.
|
That's like the Scottish too! Everything inside the skin gets used to
make haggis... Then they use the skin and the squeal to make
bagpipes...
RickyC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:38 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
In article news:<Xns962096BEC2A4whhvans@194.168.222.120>, Harvey Van
Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
|
Assuming that you are happy with "similar to" -- and that you wouldn't
say "similar from" -- you might try remembering that the opposite of
"similar" goes with the opposite of "to" ... "different from".
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 24 Mar 2005, Daniel James wrote
| Quote: | In article news:<Xns962096BEC2A4whhvans@194.168.222.120>, Harvey
Van Sickle wrote:
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than
"it sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to
remind me which one is "right" or "standard".
Assuming that you are happy with "similar to" -- and that you
wouldn't say "similar from" -- you might try remembering that the
opposite of "similar" goes with the opposite of "to" ...
"different from".
|
That's an extremely useful way to remember; thanks.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:51 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:38:54 GMT, Daniel James
<wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org> wrote:
| Quote: | In article news:<Xns962096BEC2A4whhvans@194.168.222.120>, Harvey Van
Sickle wrote:
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
Assuming that you are happy with "similar to" -- and that you wouldn't
say "similar from" -- you might try remembering that the opposite of
"similar" goes with the opposite of "to" ... "different from".
Another way: |
If A is different xxx B, then A differs xxx B.
To my ear the only xxx that sounds right after differs is "from".
"Than" and "to" sound positively wrong.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in