| Author |
Message |
Matti Lamprhey
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Kat" <Katch661@ydbttvou.com> wrote...
| Quote: | Robert Lieblich <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Rio wrote:
[ ... ]
I didn;t say I never use a dictionary. However, I don't regard
dictionaries a the be-all and end-all defning law-books of
language. Languages evolve faster than dictionaried do, if you
really haven;t noticed.
Oh, we've noticed, all right. It's just that when you undertake a
usage without checking the dictionary or otherwise knowing whether
it's idiomatic, you run a serious risk of screwing up.
PMFJI, but the way Luke used the word "avail" is often heard (in
England, at least), and it was certainly crystal clear to me what he
meant. It may or may not be good English according to the grammar
books (yet) but then a lot of what we use in everyday discussion, is
not strictly "good English". I'm very surprised at the people here who
claimed not to have heard that use of the word before. A Google
search turned up over 150 instances of it. If it's not exactly
"commonplace" usage, as Luke claims, I think it probably will be one
day - simple because it is such an efficient way of saying "make
available to". I am surprised that "make available" is not listed in
my dictionary as one of the meanings of "available". I bet it will be
one day, and may well be already in some dictionaries. As Luke
rightly said, the dictionaries list new usages of words every time a
new edition is published. I'm sure this usage of the word "avail" will
be one day. It may well already be in some dictionaries.
[...]
Kat (England)
|
Well, I've never heard it used that way in England. However, NSOED
lists it as sense 4 v.t. Give (a person) the advantage _of_, inform,
assure _of_. US _arch_ L18. It cites Thomas Jefferson: "It will rest,
therefore, with you, to avail Mr. Barclay of that fund."
So it will be interesting to see whether the 150 googlings you mention
appear to be Left- or Rightpondian. Note, by the way, that Luke's usage
was slightly different in that Jefferson's availed the chap OF the fund.
[I've now tried googling but didn't spot any usages along the lines used
by Luke. How did you isolate them?]
Matti |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Kat wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:18:26 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Rio wrote:
I didn;t say I never use a dictionary. However, I don't regard
dictionaries a the be-all and end-all defning law-books of language.
Languages evolve faster than dictionaried do, if you really haven;t
noticed.
Oh, we've noticed, all right. It's just that when you undertake a
usage without checking the dictionary or otherwise knowing whether
it's idiomatic, you run a serious risk of screwing up.
PMFJI,
|
None needed. Welcome to the fray.
| Quote: | but the way Luke used the word "avail" is often heard (in
England, at least), and it was certainly crystal clear to me what he
meant. It may or may not be good English according to the grammar
books (yet) but then a lot of what we use in everyday discussion, is
not strictly "good English".
|
Both usage groups take a quite liberal attitude toward what is "good
English." As new usages break out, it's inevitable that they will
encounter some questioning, and even some resistance. In the
particular case of Luke's "avail," it was new to me, but I didn't
say anything. To the extent I noticed it at all, I just figured it
was something he'd heard or seen in his locality and let it go at
that. Tthe first comment on it came from Mike Lyle, who wrote
"(Every bugger on the planet will notice that idiosyncratic -- nay,
eccentric -- use of 'avail', though.)" By local standards that's
hardly harsh. And indeed to most of us the usage in question was,
to use a couple of slightly more neutral terms, unusual and
unfamiliar.
Peter Duncanson then chimed in with "My understand [sic] of 'avail'
is that it is what the client will do with the article. If I make an
item available someone else is then _able_ to _avail_ of it." It
was this that elicited Luke's sneering: "The way I used the word is
quite commonplace, as you must be aware," which in effect called
Peter a liar. If Peter was aware that the usage was "quite
commonplace," then he was lying when he described his understanding
as something entirely different.
Luke then continued with his recital of the know-nothing creed:
"Whether that usage is listed in any dictionary or not, I don't
know. I can't be bothered to look!" This is no way for a newbie, or
anyone else, to make friends.
| Quote: | I'm very surprised at the people here who
claimed not to have heard that use of the word before.
|
People's experience is what it is. I have no recollection of seeing
or hearing that usage before. Mike Lyle and Peter Duncanson were
clearly in the same boat. It may surprise you, but then English
usage is full of surprises. Visit the great "another thing coming"
and "could care less" debates here and on AUE, and learn from them.
| Quote: | A Google
search turned up over 150 instances of it. If it's not exactly
"commonplace" usage, as Luke claims, I think it probably will be one
day - simple because it is such an efficient way of saying "make
available to".
|
Okay, fine. When it becomes common usage, it will be commonly
used. That's not the point. Had Luke said something similar to
what you said, he probably would have elicited a few comments from
those such as I who had not previously encountered it, but no sneers
and no hostility.
| Quote: | In any case, I can sympathise with Luke getting hacked off.
|
Okay, I'll grant you that. It's not up to me to tell you who to
sympathize with, and Mike's language wasn't exactly gentle. But
calling a regular a liar and, by implication, calling a bunch of us
ignoramuses is, to repeat, no way to make friends.
| Quote: | It's
annoying when you come here to discuss something specific and possibly
of interest to many readers (I being one), and one or more nit-picking
pedant waters down the topic with quips about this or that usage of a
word or this or that grammatical slip, when it has no relevance to the
topic of the thread.
|
What did you say the name of this newsgroup was? It is common in
this group to take notice of -- or even issue with -- someone else's
usage, even if unrelated to the thread. It often yields very
interesting results. In this particular case, I didn't take Mike to
be nitpicking. Provocative perhaps, but the subject was legitimate
-- and it has revealed, through all the flames, an interesting point
of English usage. That it pisses off Luke and made him decamp may
or may not be one of its other virtues.
| Quote: | For God's sake, if they want to take issue with
in that manner, they should start a new thread!
|
That's an issue of Usenet etiquette, and you may be right. But it's
hardly universal practice, and I don't think it merits a ! at the
end.
| Quote: | I've noticed that the
nit-pickers are usually the folks who don't have anything useful to
contribute to the thread too. It strikes me as a childish form of pure
egotism - a means of getting attention. ("Hey, everybody, see how
clever *I* am!" sort of style.) I don't think it's at all clever. I
think it's rather childish and destructive and it degrades an
otherwise great group.
|
I think you don't fully grasp yet how this place functions. Other
than Mike Lyle's phraseology, nothing that happened here justified
any part of Luke's little tantrum. Had Luke simply said "You may
think it eccentric, but in the circles in which I travel it's quite
commonplace," someone else would probably have done a dictionary
search and reported back. Indeed, you ran a Google search and
reported the result. Reasonable people would then have reacted much
as I have: Well, it's not something I say, but clearly it's used
somewhere. In the midst of this, Tony Cooper decided to undertake
some attitude adjustment with Luke, which worked about as well as it
usually does, and I chimed in, and you responded to me, and Luke's
hostile reactions pretty much drowned out the search for truth in
usage. That's unfortunate. But also, sadly, not atypical.
And in case no one noticed, Luke got some very good answers to his
original inquiry, and he thanked those who helped him. I've seen
worse.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | Kat wrote:
[...]
I think it's rather childish and destructive and it
degrades an otherwise great group.
I think you don't fully grasp yet how this place functions. Other
than Mike Lyle's phraseology, nothing that happened here justified
any part of Luke's little tantrum. [...]
|
Oh, dear! I'm sorry I triggered it: my clumsily executed intent was
less heel-biting venom than rib-nudging merriment, as I'm really
rather cuddly.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:25:23 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Duncanson then chimed in with "My understand [sic] of 'avail'
is that it is what the client will do with the article. If I make an
item available someone else is then _able_ to _avail_ of it." It
was this that elicited Luke's sneering: "The way I used the word is
quite commonplace, as you must be aware," which in effect called
Peter a liar. If Peter was aware that the usage was "quite
commonplace," then he was lying when he described his understanding
as something entirely different.
|
I was not, of course, lying.
What startles me about 'avail' as used by Luke and others is that they avail
themselves of a word that means 'use' to convey the meaning 'provide for
use'. This is rather like using 'take' to mean 'give'.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joanne Marinelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:12 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:423C4463.8E7F6CCC@Verizon.net...
[huge snip]
| Quote: | And in case no one noticed, Luke got some very good answers to his
original inquiry, and he thanked those who helped him. I've seen
worse.
--
Liebs
|
Need I remind you that this isn't a matter for litigation? If the OP's
response, in your view, was unreasonable, in my view it was only mildly so,
and you seem to be making it worse by grandstanding. I have had similar
experiences in creative writing newsgroups which I found intolerably
infantile, indicted them as such, and had the regulars rush to defend their
practices.
I never returned, and if that's the OP's choice in relation to AEU, I'd
accept it as such.
I'll qualify this by adding I may not disagree with the case you've
presented, but as an advocate you protest too much.
Joanne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:23 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:55:50 GMT, Katch661@ydbttvou.com (Kat) wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:18:26 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Rio wrote:
[ ... ]
I didn;t say I never use a dictionary. However, I don't regard
dictionaries a the be-all and end-all defning law-books of language.
Languages evolve faster than dictionaried do, if you really haven;t
noticed.
Oh, we've noticed, all right. It's just that when you undertake a
usage without checking the dictionary or otherwise knowing whether
it's idiomatic, you run a serious risk of screwing up.
PMFJI, but the way Luke used the word "avail" is often heard (in
England, at least), and it was certainly crystal clear to me what he
meant. It may or may not be good English according to the grammar
books (yet) but then a lot of what we use in everyday discussion, is
not strictly "good English". I'm very surprised at the people here who
claimed not to have heard that use of the word before. A Google
search turned up over 150 instances of it. If it's not exactly
"commonplace" usage, as Luke claims, I think it probably will be one
day - simple because it is such an efficient way of saying "make
available to". I am surprised that "make available" is not listed in
my dictionary as one of the meanings of "available". I bet it will be
one day, and may well be already in some dictionaries. As Luke
rightly said, the dictionaries list new usages of words every time a
new edition is published. I'm sure this usage of the word "avail" will
be one day. It may well already be in some dictionaries.
In any case, I can sympathise with Luke getting hacked off. It's
annoying when you come here to discuss something specific and possibly
of interest to many readers (I being one), and one or more nit-picking
pedant waters down the topic with quips about this or that usage of a
word or this or that grammatical slip, when it has no relevance to the
topic of the thread. For God's sake, if they want to take issue with
in that manner, they should start a new thread! I've noticed that the
nit-pickers are usually the folks who don't have anything useful to
contribute to the thread too. It strikes me as a childish form of pure
egotism - a means of getting attention. ("Hey, everybody, see how
clever *I* am!" sort of style.) I don't think it's at all clever. I
think it's rather childish and destructive and it degrades an
otherwise great group.
|
Luke came here to ask for advice about usage that would not confuse
readers of product that he intends to sell internationally. The
product he intends to sell evidently deals with money and banking.
He wondered if the spelling "check" would confuse readers that
normally spell the word "cheque", and if "cheque" would confuse
readers that normally spell the word "check".
A wondering that, in my mind, was a bit silly in the first place.
People who buy products dealing with money and banking wouldn't have a
problem with either term when used in context. An American buyer of
his product isn't going to say "Whazzat?" when he reads "Most
businesses will decline to accept a third-party cheque endorsed to
them."
Then, this guy who wonders about throwing the reader off with a minor
spelling convention deviation, goes all twisted knickers over the
criticism of the use of a word (avail) that *does* confuse readers.
Who is childish here?
There is a legitimate basis for discussing the word "check" as the
Americans use it when it does not describe the piece of paper you
write to draw funds from your bank. If Luke was writing something to
sell internationally to restaurant management people, he would be wise
to explain that Americans refer to the bill presented in a restaurant
as a "check". If Luke was writing something to sell internationally
to a group that does inventory management, he would be wise to explain
that Americans "check off" items on a list.
"Check" or "cheque", though, in a money and banking product is a
self-evident usage. You have no reason to criticize us for having a
bit of fun with him.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:32 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:25:23 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | , Tony Cooper decided to undertake
some attitude adjustment with Luke, which worked about as well as it
usually does, and I chimed in, and you responded to me, and Luke's
hostile reactions pretty much drowned out the search for truth in
usage. That's unfortunate. But also, sadly, not atypical.
|
My "attitude adjustment comment consisted of: "You can be bothered to
come here and pose your questions about the wording of a product you
intend to use to sell your services, but you can't be bothered to use
a dictionary?"
Your comment was "You found such people and yet you're leaving. You
really *are* fussy."
Why is one an "attitude adjustment" and the second a "chiming"?
Do you feel your chiming worked out any better?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:42 pm
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:22:53 -0000, "Matti Lamprhey"
<matti@official-totally-reversed.com> wrote:
| Quote: | [I've now tried googling but didn't spot any usages along the lines used
by Luke. How did you isolate them?]
Matti
|
Search for the exact phrase: "avail it to".
Kat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:17 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:42:40 GMT, Katch661@ydbttvou.com (Kat) wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:22:53 -0000, "Matti Lamprhey"
matti@official-totally-reversed.com> wrote:
[I've now tried googling but didn't spot any usages along the lines used
by Luke. How did you isolate them?]
Matti
Search for the exact phrase: "avail it to".
Interesting. |
Most hits refer to acts of what we might call "availablisation". Or should
that be "availablization"? On the other hand "availablification" would avoid
the choice of s or z.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:18 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:23:11 GMT, Tony Cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 14:55:50 GMT, Katch661@ydbttvou.com (Kat) wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:18:26 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Rio wrote:
[ ... ]
I didn;t say I never use a dictionary. However, I don't regard
dictionaries a the be-all and end-all defning law-books of language.
Languages evolve faster than dictionaried do, if you really haven;t
noticed.
Oh, we've noticed, all right. It's just that when you undertake a
usage without checking the dictionary or otherwise knowing whether
it's idiomatic, you run a serious risk of screwing up.
PMFJI, but the way Luke used the word "avail" is often heard (in
England, at least), and it was certainly crystal clear to me what he
meant. It may or may not be good English according to the grammar
books (yet) but then a lot of what we use in everyday discussion, is
not strictly "good English". I'm very surprised at the people here who
claimed not to have heard that use of the word before. A Google
search turned up over 150 instances of it. If it's not exactly
"commonplace" usage, as Luke claims, I think it probably will be one
day - simple because it is such an efficient way of saying "make
available to". I am surprised that "make available" is not listed in
my dictionary as one of the meanings of "available". I bet it will be
one day, and may well be already in some dictionaries. As Luke
rightly said, the dictionaries list new usages of words every time a
new edition is published. I'm sure this usage of the word "avail" will
be one day. It may well already be in some dictionaries.
In any case, I can sympathise with Luke getting hacked off. It's
annoying when you come here to discuss something specific and possibly
of interest to many readers (I being one), and one or more nit-picking
pedant waters down the topic with quips about this or that usage of a
word or this or that grammatical slip, when it has no relevance to the
topic of the thread. For God's sake, if they want to take issue with
in that manner, they should start a new thread! I've noticed that the
nit-pickers are usually the folks who don't have anything useful to
contribute to the thread too. It strikes me as a childish form of pure
egotism - a means of getting attention. ("Hey, everybody, see how
clever *I* am!" sort of style.) I don't think it's at all clever. I
think it's rather childish and destructive and it degrades an
otherwise great group.
Luke came here to ask for advice about usage that would not confuse
readers of product that he intends to sell internationally. The
product he intends to sell evidently deals with money and banking.
|
Not evidently at all. He may be selling cheques signed by famous
people, or he could be selling a book about the history of paper
money, or a kid's board game that uses cheques, like Monopoly uses
fake curency. There are probably a 1001 things he could be deiling
with other than "money and banking" to use your phrase. It isn't very
intelligent to jump to conclusions like that. That's why there is so
much prejudice and injustice in the world. He might even have been
addressing his writing to poorly educated people, youngsters or
whatever, without much exposure to international English conventions.
Luke may well be a professional in his field with many years
experience, and if so, I expect he has a good reason to be concerned
about the topic of his post.
| Quote: | He wondered if the spelling "check" would confuse readers that
normally spell the word "cheque", and if "cheque" would confuse
readers that normally spell the word "check".
A wondering that, in my mind, was a bit silly in the first place.
|
Evidently. But you you would think that, considering the way you
prejudge people. It's known as cynicism.
| Quote: | People who buy products dealing with money and banking wouldn't have a
problem with either term when used in context.
|
See what I said, above.
| Quote: | An American buyer of
his product isn't going to say "Whazzat?" when he reads "Most
businesses will decline to accept a third-party cheque endorsed to
them."
|
Oh, so you know who Luke's target audience is - as well as what he
deals in now then?!
| Quote: | Then, this guy who wonders about throwing the reader off with a minor
spelling convention deviation, goes all twisted knickers over the
criticism of the use of a word (avail) that *does* confuse readers.
|
I don't blame him. It was off-topic - and now you've made it clear
that it was off-topic coming from someone with a prejudiced outlook.
Kat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:30 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 19 Mar 2005, Kat wrote
| Quote: | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:23:11 GMT, Tony Cooper wrote
Then, this guy who wonders about throwing the reader off with a
minor spelling convention deviation, goes all twisted knickers
over the criticism of the use of a word (avail) that *does*
confuse readers.
I don't blame him. It was off-topic - and now you've made it clear
that it was off-topic coming from someone with a prejudiced
outlook.
|
In Usenet, as I assume you're aware, the initiator of a post doesn't
get to decide the rules of what will/won't be considered on- or off-
topic. That's up to the charter and (to a large extent) the other
posters in the group.
Discussions of the usage of an English word in a group called
"alt.english.usage" are, by definition, not off-topic.
You may dislike the fact that the discussion of usage has moved to
another word than that raised by the original post, but that doesn't
make the discussion "off-topic".
--
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 |
|
|
Kat
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:34 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 10:25:23 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Kat wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:18:26 -0500, Robert Lieblich
Robert.Lieblich@Verizon.net> wrote:
Rio wrote:
I didn;t say I never use a dictionary. However, I don't regard
dictionaries a the be-all and end-all defning law-books of language.
Languages evolve faster than dictionaried do, if you really haven;t
noticed.
Oh, we've noticed, all right. It's just that when you undertake a
usage without checking the dictionary or otherwise knowing whether
it's idiomatic, you run a serious risk of screwing up.
PMFJI,
None needed. Welcome to the fray.
but the way Luke used the word "avail" is often heard (in
England, at least), and it was certainly crystal clear to me what he
meant. It may or may not be good English according to the grammar
books (yet) but then a lot of what we use in everyday discussion, is
not strictly "good English".
Both usage groups take a quite liberal attitude toward what is "good
English." As new usages break out, it's inevitable that they will
encounter some questioning, and even some resistance. In the
particular case of Luke's "avail," it was new to me, but I didn't
say anything. To the extent I noticed it at all, I just figured it
was something he'd heard or seen in his locality and let it go at
that. Tthe first comment on it came from Mike Lyle, who wrote
"(Every bugger on the planet will notice that idiosyncratic -- nay,
eccentric -- use of 'avail', though.)" By local standards that's
hardly harsh. And indeed to most of us the usage in question was,
to use a couple of slightly more neutral terms, unusual and
unfamiliar.
Peter Duncanson then chimed in with "My understand [sic] of 'avail'
is that it is what the client will do with the article. If I make an
item available someone else is then _able_ to _avail_ of it." It
was this that elicited Luke's sneering: "The way I used the word is
quite commonplace, as you must be aware," which in effect called
Peter a liar.
|
Did you really see it that way? I didn't. I thought Luke was genuinely
incredulous that someone could have not heard the word used in that
way before.
| Quote: | If Peter was aware that the usage was "quite
commonplace," then he was lying when he described his understanding
as something entirely different.
Luke then continued with his recital of the know-nothing creed:
"Whether that usage is listed in any dictionary or not, I don't
know. I can't be bothered to look!" This is no way for a newbie, or
anyone else, to make friends.
|
I don't think Luke came here to make friends. I think he came to solve
a dilemma. I also think he said he couldn;t be bothered to look in the
dictionary because he didn't consider it necessary. He didn't come
here to discuss his use of "avail".
| Quote: | I'm very surprised at the people here who
claimed not to have heard that use of the word before.
People's experience is what it is. I have no recollection of seeing
or hearing that usage before. Mike Lyle and Peter Duncanson were
clearly in the same boat. It may surprise you, but then English
usage is full of surprises. Visit the great "another thing coming"
and "could care less" debates here and on AUE, and learn from them.
A Google
search turned up over 150 instances of it. If it's not exactly
"commonplace" usage, as Luke claims, I think it probably will be one
day - simple because it is such an efficient way of saying "make
available to".
Okay, fine. When it becomes common usage, it will be commonly
used. That's not the point. Had Luke said something similar to
what you said, he probably would have elicited a few comments from
those such as I who had not previously encountered it, but no sneers
and no hostility.
In any case, I can sympathise with Luke getting hacked off.
Okay, I'll grant you that. It's not up to me to tell you who to
sympathize with, and Mike's language wasn't exactly gentle. But
calling a regular a liar and, by implication, calling a bunch of us
ignoramuses is, to repeat, no way to make friends.
It's
annoying when you come here to discuss something specific and possibly
of interest to many readers (I being one), and one or more nit-picking
pedant waters down the topic with quips about this or that usage of a
word or this or that grammatical slip, when it has no relevance to the
topic of the thread.
What did you say the name of this newsgroup was? It is common in
this group to take notice of -- or even issue with -- someone else's
usage, even if unrelated to the thread.
|
So I've noticed! Just because it happens here doesn't make it healthy
form or good newsgroup etiquette. It was common practice to persecute
Jews in Nazi Germany, but it doesn't make it good practice.
| Quote: | It often yields very
interesting results. In this particular case, I didn't take Mike to
be nitpicking. Provocative perhaps, but the subject was legitimate
-- and it has revealed, through all the flames, an interesting point
of English usage. That it pisses off Luke and made him decamp may
or may not be one of its other virtues.
For God's sake, if they want to take issue with
in that manner, they should start a new thread!
That's an issue of Usenet etiquette, and you may be right. But it's
hardly universal practice, and I don't think it merits a ! at the
end.
I've noticed that the
nit-pickers are usually the folks who don't have anything useful to
contribute to the thread too. It strikes me as a childish form of pure
egotism - a means of getting attention. ("Hey, everybody, see how
clever *I* am!" sort of style.) I don't think it's at all clever. I
think it's rather childish and destructive and it degrades an
otherwise great group.
I think you don't fully grasp yet how this place functions. Other
than Mike Lyle's phraseology, nothing that happened here justified
any part of Luke's little tantrum.
|
I didn't see it as a tantrum. But there you go.
Kat |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joanne Marinelli
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 12:43 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
"Kat" <Katch661@ydbttvou.com> wrote in message
news:423c597b.1507255@news.individual.net...
| Quote: | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 16:23:11 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
Luke came here to ask for advice about usage that would not confuse
readers of product that he intends to sell internationally. The
product he intends to sell evidently deals with money and banking.
Not evidently at all. He may be selling cheques signed by famous
people, or he could be selling a book about the history of paper
money, or a kid's board game that uses cheques, like Monopoly uses
fake curency. There are probably a 1001 things he could be deiling
with other than "money and banking" to use your phrase. It isn't very
intelligent to jump to conclusions like that. That's why there is so
much prejudice and injustice in the world. He might even have been
addressing his writing to poorly educated people, youngsters or
whatever, without much exposure to international English conventions.
Luke may well be a professional in his field with many years
experience, and if so, I expect he has a good reason to be concerned
about the topic of his post.
Kat, your defense proves the point that Luke didn't quite know what he was |
about as a writer looking at a particular market share, and I have to agree
with some others here that his indecisiveness over minor pondian spelling
differences was more fluff than substance.
If he was targeting Americans abroad in Britain, he could still do that as a
British writer discussing what might be of interest to this American set. It
is not good practice to "write dialect" in non-fiction, and I know I
wouldn't do it if I was aiming at British readers. His problem had less to
do with usage than with the fact that he wasn't quite sure who he was
writing for.
Joanne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Gwilliam
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:00 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:34:21 GMT, Kat wrote:
| Quote: | So I've noticed! Just because it happens here doesn't make it healthy
form or good newsgroup etiquette. It was common practice to persecute
Jews in Nazi Germany, but it doesn't make it good practice.
|
I think that remark is in rather poor taste.
--
Andrew Gwilliam
To email me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "silverhelm" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:04 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 19 Mar 2005, Andrew Gwilliam wrote
| Quote: | On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 17:34:21 GMT, Kat wrote:
So I've noticed! Just because it happens here doesn't make it
healthy form or good newsgroup etiquette. It was common practice
to persecute Jews in Nazi Germany, but it doesn't make it good
practice.
I think that remark is in rather poor taste.
|
Me too: and it meets the requirements of Godwin's Law, as well.
--
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 |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in