| Author |
Message |
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:05 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Jukka Aho spake thusly:
Can't speak for English-speaking countries, but I would assume the
situation is pretty much the same in all PAL countries: the word
"channel" (or local equivalent of thereof) is used first and
foremost in the "History Channel" sense and
channel-as-related-to-the-broadcast-frequency is only a secondary
meaning (used in this latter sense mostly by broadcast professionals,
not ordinary people.) That's at least how it works in the Finnish
language.
That is the same as in the UK. There is another good reason for
allocating the broadcast channels into the "correct" order - Video
Plus. This programs your VCR to record a given channel at a given
time by use of a code number (up to about 10 digits but usually
shorter) which is printed in the listings guide. For this to work,
you must allocate the channels in the same order that the programmers
of Video Plus expect.
1: BBC1
2: BBC2
3: ITV2
4: Channel 4
5: Five
|
ITV2 or ITV1? Five or five?
But for VideoPlus purposes, isn't the allocation on the VCR that
matters, not that on the TV itself?
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:18 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
John Dean turpitued:
| Quote: | But why would a major news source "asume" anything? They must check
stories, no? They have stringers in the UK, yes? They have fact
checkers?
|
Fact checkers? You must have missed seeing that Ross was quoting Fox.
"We report. You believe."
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:22 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Jukka Aho:
| Quote: | As far as I know, NTSC tv sets usually use the broadcast channel number
as the primary access key to all programming: you zap
|
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote control
to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to select it.
| Quote: | the tv stations in their broadcast channel order, the tv set will
display the broadcast channel number on the screen, and you can key
in the broadcast channel number on the remote to switch to a
particular station. ...
|
More precisely, either the broadcast channel number or the cable
channel number. These terms distinguish two different numbering
systems that both use on the same general principles; for example,
broadcast channel 17 is a name for a specific frequency, while cable
channel 17 is a name for a different specific frequency.
The 12 VHF broadcast channels (2 through 13; there was once a 1, but
that frequency was reassigned) refer to the same frequencies in both
systems; from 14 up they're different. The cable channels are not all
in numerical order by frequency; notably, 14 through 22 fall between
6 and 7. (Those frequencies are unavailable to broadcast TV because,
again, they're assigned to other purposes.) All modern analog TVs
can be switched from one to the other system, according to whether
they're being used with an antenna (= UK "aerial") or with cable; there
was a time when TVs required a converter to be used with cable channels.
Digital and satellite systems use still other channel numbers, which
I do not know about.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Ever wonder why they call the screen
msb@vex.net a vacuum tube?" -- Kent Paul Dolan
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jukka Aho
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:14 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
|
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an example of
a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context somewhere, then
adding it in his active vocabulary without fully understanding its
meaning.
| Quote: | More precisely, either the broadcast channel number or the cable
channel number. These terms distinguish two different numbering
systems that both use on the same general principles; for example,
broadcast channel 17 is a name for a specific frequency, while cable
channel 17 is a name for a different specific frequency.
|
There is a similar division in Europe, although cable tv systems can
also use broadcast channels (at least in Finland, provided there's
no-one actually broadcasting on that channel in that area.) If the cable
company wishes to do that they will need to get a release from the local
regulatory authority first (so as not to interfere with any actual or
planned broadcasts.)
| Quote: | The 12 VHF broadcast channels (2 through 13; there was once a 1, but
that frequency was reassigned) refer to the same frequencies in both
systems; from 14 up they're different. The cable channels are not all
in numerical order by frequency; notably, 14 through 22 fall between
6 and 7. (Those frequencies are unavailable to broadcast TV because,
again, they're assigned to other purposes.)
|
Here's the channel plan for PAL B/G systems (8 MHz raster):
<http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/hw/cable/ps2217/produc
ts_installation_guide_chapter09186a00802262e7.html#wp1040116>
The UK is based on PAL-I and they don't use all the bands:
<http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/terrestrial/tuning/>
The differences between PAL-B/G/I and SECAM are slowly coming to an end,
though, as Europe is converting to digital.
| Quote: | All modern analog TVs can be switched from one to the other system,
according to whether they're being used with an antenna (= UK
"aerial") or with cable; there was a time when TVs required a
converter to be used with cable channels.
|
Sounds exactly the same as in Europe.
| Quote: | Digital and satellite systems use still other channel numbers,
which I do not know about.
|
I've heard that the American DTV system would keep the notion of
"channel numbers" (by assigning _pseudo_ channel numbers for digital
streams), even though several concurrent video streams can actually be
delivered within a single multiplex, sharing only one (formely analog)
channel. To me, that sounds a bit messy, but maybe it makes more sense
to you.  You can read more about it here:
<http://www.psip.org/documents/BE_PSIP_06_June_2001.pdf>
(See the third columnn on page 2.)
--
znark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:13 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
John Dean spake thusly:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
Can't speak for English-speaking countries, but I would assume the
situation is pretty much the same in all PAL countries: the word
"channel" (or local equivalent of thereof) is used first and
foremost in the "History Channel" sense and
channel-as-related-to-the-broadcast-frequency is only a secondary
meaning (used in this latter sense mostly by broadcast professionals,
not ordinary people.) That's at least how it works in the Finnish
language.
That is the same as in the UK. There is another good reason for
allocating the broadcast channels into the "correct" order - Video
Plus. This programs your VCR to record a given channel at a given
time by use of a code number (up to about 10 digits but usually
shorter) which is printed in the listings guide. For this to work,
you must allocate the channels in the same order that the programmers
of Video Plus expect.
1: BBC1
2: BBC2
3: ITV2
4: Channel 4
5: Five
ITV2 or ITV1? Five or five?
But for VideoPlus purposes, isn't the allocation on the VCR that
matters, not that on the TV itself?
|
Yes. I meant to make that clear, but seem to have failed to include
it. ITV2 is a typo, of course it is ITV1.
I don't know how Video Plus deals with stuff from external sources
such as Sky, Cable and Freeview boxes. I imagine that they assume
channel 6 or channel 0, but what happens if you have two different
such boxes? I don't have this problem because my Tivo deals with it
for me.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:20 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
That is the same as in the UK. There is another good reason for
allocating the broadcast channels into the "correct" order - Video
Plus.
Also known as "ShowView".
This programs your VCR to record a given channel at a given
time by use of a code number (up to about 10 digits but usually
shorter) which is printed in the listings guide. For this to
work you must allocate the channels in the same order that the
programmers of Video Plus expect.
The ShowView codes do not have much time left here. We're going to
switch off analogue transmissions for good in 2007. This includes both
terrestrial and cable networks.
|
2010 here for analogue switch off, but that may change depending on
the penetration of digital. My parents in Ludlow can't even get
Channel five yet.
Cable just rebroadcasts the analogue terrestrial signal - if there's
no analogue terrestrial signal then they won't be able to.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:27 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an example of
a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context somewhere, then
adding it in his active vocabulary without fully understanding its
meaning.
|
Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons. I don't recognise that it has to
have any specific effect.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:48 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
"David" writes:
| Quote: | Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons...
|
Well, maybe, but that's a foreign country, after all!
--
Mark Brader "Outside of nearly having two head-on collisions,
msb@vex.net we found driving in England to be fairly easy."
Toronto -- Cher Classick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Barnes
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:53 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, Jukka Aho wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Brader wrote:
zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an example
of a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context somewhere,
then adding it in his active vocabulary without fully understanding its
meaning.
|
This BrE speaker understood you perfectly the first time. A US/UK
difference, possibly? To me a remote control is a zapper and anything
you do with it is "zapping".
I remember thinking, when I first read your explanation of channels, how
good it was. Most native speakers couldn't do it half as well.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:48 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:27:06 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Jukka Aho spake thusly:
Mark Brader wrote:
zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an example of
a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context somewhere, then
adding it in his active vocabulary without fully understanding its
meaning.
Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons. I don't recognise that it has to
have any specific effect.
|
Odd. Would most Britons assign that meaning to it? To zap something is
to destroy it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Martin
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 5:20 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
in 1167795 20050622 104803 Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:27:06 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
Mark Brader wrote:
zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an example of
a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context somewhere, then
adding it in his active vocabulary without fully understanding its
meaning.
Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons. I don't recognise that it has to
have any specific effect.
Odd. Would most Britons assign that meaning to it? To zap something is
to destroy it.
|
I first met "zap" when I was introduced to a program called SuperZap back in
the early 60s and took it to mean "instant modification".
Bob Martin in the UK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mickwick
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 7:41 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | The forename "Jason" became popular in the UK in the 70s with women
who swooned at the sight of Peter Wyngarde as "Jason King". So there
is a whole set of men named Jason who are now in their 30s.
|
That Jason King used to live in Cheriton, right where the Channel Tunnel
terminus now stands.
Not a lot of people know that.
--
Mickwick |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:28 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 07:27:06 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
Mark Brader wrote:
zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an
example of a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context
somewhere, then adding it in his active vocabulary without fully
understanding its meaning.
Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons. I don't recognise that it has to
have any specific effect.
Odd. Would most Britons assign that meaning to it? To zap something is
to destroy it.
|
I can use it for that, but "zapper" is one of many terms used for the
doofer, thingy, box and so forth. If someone spoke of zapping I would
think, without further context, that they were speaking of changing
channels on the TV.
I see from Google the usage is so well known that some companies are
using the term as part of their brand name.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:33 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Charles Riggs wrote:
| Quote: | the Omrud wrote:
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
Mark Brader wrote:
[to someone who had written:] |
| Quote: | zap
That took me aback for a moment; to me it means using the remote
control to *stop* seeing something, such as a commercial, not to
select it.
Thanks for the correction. What you have just witnessed is an
example of a non-native speaker first seeing a word used in context
somewhere, then adding it in his active vocabulary without fully
understanding its meaning.
Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons. I don't recognise that it has to
have any specific effect.
Odd. Would most Britons assign that meaning to it? To zap something is
to destroy it.
|
Yeah, like those bug zappers do. ZAP! Bug gone.
http://www.california.com/~jodafo/images/zapper.jpg
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R H Draney
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:25 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Skitt filted:
| Quote: |
Charles Riggs wrote:
the Omrud wrote:
Hold your horses with your backing down there. To me in the UK, "to
zap" means to point a remote control device at the thing it controls
and operate one of the buttons. I don't recognise that it has to
have any specific effect.
Odd. Would most Britons assign that meaning to it? To zap something is
to destroy it.
Yeah, like those bug zappers do. ZAP! Bug gone.
|
He's not dead, merely moved to a higher channel....
Among people old enough to remember when televisions *and* programming only came
in black and white, the remote control may be called "the clicker"...that's when
"don't touch that dial" actually meant something....r |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in