usages and citation sources
Peter T. Daniels
> uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source for the dictionaries."
> -- Peter Moylan
(Presumably in aue at some point)
If "you or I" use a word in print, it is a citation source for "the
dictionaries." Its "inappropriateness" is irrelevant.
The vast growth of corpus linguistics will eventually have a profound
effect on the content of "the dictionaries."
klei...@astound.net
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> The vast growth of corpus linguistics will eventually have a profound
> effect on the content of "the dictionaries."
I guess so.
But the effect on grammars will be even more profound.
Peter Moylan
I sincerely hope that a printout of a web page won't count as "in
print". Hmm, I guess you're saying, in effect, that it will, because
dictionaries already fail to distinguish between edited and unedited prose.
No doubt something like the Richoux ratio is likely to grow in
importance, as a way of distinguishing between widespread usages and
artefacts of sloppy writing. If so, I hope a more reliable - and, more
importantly, consistent - search engine than Google can be used.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Colin Fine
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If a
>>> newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source for
>>> the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
>>
>> (Presumably in aue at some point)
>>
>> If "you or I" use a word in print, it is a citation source for "the
>> dictionaries." Its "inappropriateness" is irrelevant.
>>
>> The vast growth of corpus linguistics will eventually have a profound
>> effect on the content of "the dictionaries."
>
> I sincerely hope that a printout of a web page won't count as "in
> print". Hmm, I guess you're saying, in effect, that it will, because
> dictionaries already fail to distinguish between edited and unedited prose.
>
> No doubt something like the Richoux ratio is likely to grow in
> importance, as a way of distinguishing between widespread usages and
> artefacts of sloppy writing. If so, I hope a more reliable - and, more
> importantly, consistent - search engine than Google can be used.
>
classified, one is register: it is certainly useful for a researcher
using a corpus to be able to select from (eg) formal writing, informal
writing, formal speech and informal speech.
But to assume, as you seem to be doing, that a corpus should not include
what you call 'artefacts of sloppy writing' would be a bizarre and
unhelpful approach to linguistics.
Colin
Peter T. Daniels
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If a
> >> newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source for
> >> the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
> >
> > (Presumably in aue at some point)
> >
> > If "you or I" use a word in print, it is a citation source for "the
> > dictionaries." Its "inappropriateness" is irrelevant.
> >
> > The vast growth of corpus linguistics will eventually have a profound
> > effect on the content of "the dictionaries."
>
> I sincerely hope that a printout of a web page won't count as "in
> print". Hmm, I guess you're saying, in effect, that it will, because
> dictionaries already fail to distinguish between edited and unedited prose.
>
> No doubt something like the Richoux ratio is likely to grow in
> importance, as a way of distinguishing between widespread usages and
> artefacts of sloppy writing. If so, I hope a more reliable - and, more
> importantly, consistent - search engine than Google can be used.
Over here in sci.lang we don't know what the "Richoux index" is.
Also, did your sentence quoted above have a context, from which someone
inappropriately plucked it to use in a .sig?
Peter T. Daniels
Presumably he doesn't care a fig for helpfulness to linguistics, but
views dictionaries according to the early-nineteenth-century mode of
"authority" for prescribing "correct" usage.
Peter Moylan
>>>>> "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If
>>>>> a newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation
>>>>> source for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
> Presumably he doesn't care a fig for helpfulness to linguistics, but
> views dictionaries according to the early-nineteenth-century mode of
> "authority" for prescribing "correct" usage.
In hindsight, I see that I didn't really address your original point, so
let's try again.
The overwhelming majority of dictionary users are not linguists. They
use dictionaries to check the spelling of words, or to look up the
meaning of words they're uncertain about. In effect, they're using them
in the traditional early-nineteenth-century mode. They're not looking
for regional distributions or temporal trends or whatever. They just
want to be told how to spell and use the damned word.
If you're using the typical one-volume dictionary, then you're probably
using it the same way a non-linguist does. OK, I don't claim to know
much about linguistics, but I can't imagine that sort of dictionary
being helpful to a linguist. Surely you'd want more specialised tools
than the average person wants.
The increased availability of corpora because of things like the WWW is
no doubt helpful to linguists. Nobody will deny that. By all means use
it for research. For the sort of lexicographer who's producing
dictionaries for the average person, though, it's a double-edged sword.
Careful judgment is needed to distinguish recommended usage from
deprecated usage. Like it or not, those people are authority figures who
are recording The Rules From On High. It doesn't matter that linguists
don't see it like that. The average yob does.
People consult dictionaries because they want to impress someone - their
boss, for example - with the quality of their writing. If they didn't
care about register, they wouldn't be using a dictionary. They want the
high-status version of the language.
"High status" used to be defined in terms of what the best-respected
writers and speakers did. And, the publishing and editing process being
what it was, the better writers had the best chance of getting their
work into print. Nowadays the vast majority of published writing is
unedited and unreviewed, and possibly not even proof-read by the author.
Thus, it's a little harder to work out what the high-status uses are.
I'm not particularly worried about the influence of crappy web pages and
the like. It's usually easy to tell that what you're looking at is full
of typos and sloppy wording, and is therefore not a good model to
follow. (Although students of English as a foreign language might not be
able to make such judgments.) What I do worry about - and here we get to
the quote that started this subthread - is the undue influence of
newspapers.
Newspapers used to provide adequate - not brilliant, but adequate -
samples of good writing. These days sub-editors no longer debug the
writing. If a journalist is confused about the meaning of a word, and
uses it in an unintended way, it gets printed. What is worse is that -
at least in Australia, and I suspect elsewhere - all the newspapers are
owned by a small number of people, some of whom have the habit of
interfering with the editorial process and dictating what should and
should not be written. To me, that means that newspapers are no longer
good samples of high-register writing.
By all means gather such samples, along with everything else that is
available, for serious linguistic study. There, it's appropriate. But
for deciding what to put into the average dictionary, newspapers are no
longer good reference sources.
rrh...@acme.com
Peter Moylan wrote:
> People consult dictionaries because they want to impress someone - their
> boss, for example - with the quality of their writing. If they didn't
> care about register, they wouldn't be using a dictionary. They want the
> high-status version of the language.
That is one reason people consult dictionaries, but hardly the only
reason. They also consult dictionaries as an aid to interpreting the
language of others. English may or may not be the first language of
the persons consulting it, and they may or may not be using it to
assist them with the prestige register. It is not obvious to me that a
dictionary editor should aim the dictionary at the group you describe,
and work to avoid leading them astray in their efforts to impress,
while neglecting these other persons' needs.
Richard R. Hershberger
Peter T. Daniels
Peter Moylan wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> >>>>> "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If
> >>>>> a newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation
> >>>>> source for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
>
> > Presumably he doesn't care a fig for helpfulness to linguistics, but
> > views dictionaries according to the early-nineteenth-century mode of
> > "authority" for prescribing "correct" usage.
>
> In hindsight, I see that I didn't really address your original point, so
> let's try again.
>
> The overwhelming majority of dictionary users are not linguists. They
> use dictionaries to check the spelling of words, or to look up the
> meaning of words they're uncertain about. In effect, they're using them
> in the traditional early-nineteenth-century mode. They're not looking
> for regional distributions or temporal trends or whatever. They just
> want to be told how to spell and use the damned word.
No. Checking the spelling or discovering the actual meanings are
exactly what dictionaries are for.
> If you're using the typical one-volume dictionary, then you're probably
> using it the same way a non-linguist does. OK, I don't claim to know
> much about linguistics, but I can't imagine that sort of dictionary
> being helpful to a linguist. Surely you'd want more specialised tools
> than the average person wants.
What are you supposing a linguist would need a dictionary for that's
different from what a regular person needs it for?
(Don't say the etymologies; that's just a bell and/or whistle.)
> The increased availability of corpora because of things like the WWW is
> no doubt helpful to linguists. Nobody will deny that. By all means use
> it for research. For the sort of lexicographer who's producing
> dictionaries for the average person, though, it's a double-edged sword.
> Careful judgment is needed to distinguish recommended usage from
> deprecated usage. Like it or not, those people are authority figures who
> are recording The Rules From On High. It doesn't matter that linguists
> don't see it like that. The average yob does.
But that's not how lexicographers see it. Read the introductory pages
of any dictionary (even of the American Heritage, which is the most
insistent about the prescriptive role of the lexicographer). Their job
is to record (i.e. describe) usage, not to prescribe (i.e. proscribe)
usage.
Where did average yobs get the idea that there are Rules From On High?
Sean Case
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Where did average yobs get the idea that there are Rules From On High?
Probably from having their grammar corrected all the time.
Sean Case
Robert Bannister
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>
>>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>"If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If
>>>>>>>a newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation
>>>>>>>source for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
>>
>>>Presumably he doesn't care a fig for helpfulness to linguistics, but
>>> views dictionaries according to the early-nineteenth-century mode of
>>> "authority" for prescribing "correct" usage.
>>
>>In hindsight, I see that I didn't really address your original point, so
>>let's try again.
>>
>>The overwhelming majority of dictionary users are not linguists. They
>>use dictionaries to check the spelling of words, or to look up the
>>meaning of words they're uncertain about. In effect, they're using them
>>in the traditional early-nineteenth-century mode. They're not looking
>>for regional distributions or temporal trends or whatever. They just
>>want to be told how to spell and use the damned word.
>
>
> No. Checking the spelling or discovering the actual meanings are
> exactly what dictionaries are for.
>
These days, except for arguments in alt.usage.english, I only use
dictionaries to see whether the my answer to the cryptic crossword is
really a word. The most recent was to check whether "tonga" really was a
vehicle: the clue involved "to North Georgia".
--
Rob Bannister
Peter T. Daniels
Well, it ain't linguists that are doing the correcting.
Sean Case
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Sean Case wrote:
> > In article <1158612504.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> Where did average yobs get the idea that there are Rules From On High?
>> Probably from having their grammar corrected all the time.
> Well, it ain't linguists that are doing the correcting.
I expect it mostly starts with English teachers, although there's
usually someone around who will rush to cast out the mote from his
brother's grammar.
Sean Case
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>> "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If a
>>>> newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source
>>>> for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
>> No doubt something like the Richoux ratio is likely to grow in
>> importance, as a way of distinguishing between widespread usages
>> and artefacts of sloppy writing. If so, I hope a more reliable -
>> and, more importantly, consistent - search engine than Google can
>> be used.
>
> Over here in sci.lang we don't know what the "Richoux index" is.
It's simply the ratio of counts from a web search for two different
phrases. For example, if I search for "receive" and "recieve" I get
receive 2,180,000,000
recieve 26,600,000
ratio 81.95
On the raw data (26 million for "recieve") it would appear that
"recieve" is a common spelling. Looking at the ratio instead, we see
that "receive" continues to be the dominant spelling by a large margin,
so the evidence suggests that "recieve" is simply a misspelling.
For a more extreme example:
jumped 77,800,000
jumpd 16,500
ratio 4715
This is such a large ratio that we are almost forced to conclude that
"jumpd" is either a typo or a very rare misspelling. (Or a very rare
word; but from other evidence the "typo" explanation is the most
compelling.)
Now look at this one:
"thank you" 848,000,000
"thankyou" 20,100,000
ratio 42.19
Here the ratio is getting to be a little on the small side. There are at
least some grounds for suggesting that "thankyou" is emerging as an
accepted word.
For a more extreme example:
"judgment" 182,000,000
"judgement" 62,700,000
ratio 2.9
The ratio is so small this time that it looks as if we're looking at two
almost equally popular spellings. Narrowing the search down to specific
countries changes the results a little, but doesn't change the fact that
both spellings are in widespread use.
Of course, all of the above gives us results that are not at all
surprising. Unfortunately I can't think of the unexpected ones that have
turned up.
The ratio is, of course, a crude measure, and there are examples where
you need to be very careful in interpreting the result. Ah, yes, here's
one. A Google search will tell you that "I shrunk" is a more common
phrase than "I shrank", but the numbers change a lot if you exclude
pages containing the word "Honey". Even so, it does appear that "I
shrunk" is an accepted variant of "I shrank". This is a case where
further checking would be needed, for example by trying to eliminate
obvious parodies. Another thing you have to watch out for is that Google
seems to have a buggy and country-dependent way of calculating the
number of pages, so you also have to beware of artefacts introduced by
using a search engine whose reliability is in question.
> Also, did your sentence quoted above have a context, from which
> someone inappropriately plucked it to use in a .sig?
I don't recall that, but it was probably in the context of a complaint
that newspapers are getting sloppy about English language standards. In
any case, I wouldn't say that it was plucked inappropriately. As a
stand-alone statement, it remains as an assertion that I would defend.
Mike Lyle
It certainly ain't. All you have to do is read this thread to see that
they'd be a total menace to anybody who actually wanted to learn
communication. "Take the ladder away, Jack: I'm all right."
--
Mike.
Peter T. Daniels
What does "learn communication" mean?
T.H. Entity
<gram...@verizon.net> wrought:
Ah, but first what does "mean" mean?
--
THE
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
T.H. Entity wrote:
> On 20 Sep 2006 15:52:14 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrought:
>
> >
> >Mike Lyle wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> > Sean Case wrote:
> >> > > In article <1158612504.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Where did average yobs get the idea that there are Rules From On High?
> >> > >
> >> > > Probably from having their grammar corrected all the time.
> >> >
> >> > Well, it ain't linguists that are doing the correcting.
> >>
> >> It certainly ain't. All you have to do is read this thread to see that
> >> they'd be a total menace to anybody who actually wanted to learn
> >> communication. "Take the ladder away, Jack: I'm all right."
> >
> >What does "learn communication" mean?
>
> Ah, but first what does "mean" mean?
I wanted, of course, to avoid a loaded expression such as "good
English". But Cerberus will have his sop; so, aware that Peter probably
knows what I meant, I'll concede that something along the lines of
"learn to communicate effectively and appropriately" might have been
better. Any comment in response will have to be bloody good if it's
going to get me to pursue this side-issue.
--
Mike.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> >>>> "If you or I use a word inappropriately, that's an error. If a
> >>>> newspaper uses a word inappropriately, that's a citation source
> >>>> for the dictionaries." -- Peter Moylan
>
> >> No doubt something like the Richoux ratio is likely to grow in
> >> importance, as a way of distinguishing between widespread usages
> >> and artefacts of sloppy writing. If so, I hope a more reliable -
> >> and, more importantly, consistent - search engine than Google can
> >> be used.
> >
> > Over here in sci.lang we don't know what the "Richoux index" is.
>
> It's simply the ratio of counts from a web search for two different
> phrases. For example, if I search for "receive" and "recieve" I get
> receive 2,180,000,000
> recieve 26,600,000
> ratio 81.95
The name (not used by everyone in a.u.e.) is after Donna Richoux, who
has posted a lot of these counts with ratios.
A.u.e. often sees posts complaining that people rely on Google as the
Oracle of All that is Correct, as well as posts using Google counts
with (as far as I can tell) an awareness that it's only a survey of
usage in all registers and has the flaws Peter mentions. Much less
common are the supposed people who rely on Google to judge correctness
or "correctness".
--
Jerry Friedman
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
Sean Case wrote:
> In article <1158636723.8...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Sean Case wrote:
> > > In article <1158612504.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Where did average yobs get the idea that there are Rules From On High?
>
> >> Probably from having their grammar corrected all the time.
>
> > Well, it ain't linguists that are doing the correcting.
>
> I expect it mostly starts with English teachers, although there's
> usually someone around who will rush to cast out the mote from his
> brother's grammar.
Just ask my brother.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> T.H. Entity wrote:
> > On 20 Sep 2006 15:52:14 -0700, "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gram...@verizon.net> wrought:
> >
> > >
> > >Mike Lyle wrote:
> > >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > >> > Sean Case wrote:
> > >> > > In article <1158612504.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > >> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > > Where did average yobs get the idea that there are Rules From On High?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Probably from having their grammar corrected all the time.
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, it ain't linguists that are doing the correcting.
> > >>
> > >> It certainly ain't. All you have to do is read this thread to see that
> > >> they'd be a total menace to anybody who actually wanted to learn
> > >> communication. "Take the ladder away, Jack: I'm all right."
> > >
> > >What does "learn communication" mean?
> >
> > Ah, but first what does "mean" mean?
>
> I wanted, of course, to avoid a loaded expression such as "good
> English". But Cerberus will have his sop; so, aware that Peter probably
> knows what I meant
(actually, I didn't)
> I'll concede that something along the lines of
> "learn to communicate effectively and appropriately" might have been
> better. Any comment in response will have to be bloody good if it's
> going to get me to pursue this side-issue.
The vast majority of effective and appropriate communication does not
rely on the Correct English taught in elementary school; effective and
appropriate communication requires intimacy with the linguistic
varieties used by the people one is communicating with.
It is virtually impossible to teach effective and appropriate
communication -- it's something you grow up learning to do, along with
everything else you learn about language in your early years.
Peter T. Daniels
Note in the "drinkable/undrinkable" thread that Brian Scott (somehow)
reduced the millions of hits to a few hundred each, and he or someone
else noted that many of the "drinkable" hits were in negative contexts
anyway (thus validating my point that "undrinkable" is an ordinary word
and "drinkable" appears only in rather specialized contexts).
Colin Fine
Nor is that generally sufficient. One of the rationalisations often put
forward by prescriptive grammarians and pedants for their fantasies is
that they improve clarity of expression.
In general this is utterly bogus. You can express yourself clearly or
like mud independently of whether you are following prescriptive norms
or not.
And I'm not even addressing the 'appropriate' part of the remark.
Colin
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
I imagine none would deny it.
>
> Nor is that generally sufficient. One of the rationalisations often put
> forward by prescriptive grammarians and pedants for their fantasies is
> that they improve clarity of expression.
> In general this is utterly bogus. You can express yourself clearly or
> like mud independently of whether you are following prescriptive norms
> or not.
Oh, dear! Spare us the Linguistics 101 "prescriptive" bogey-man,
please: this is adult company. I don't believe in ghoulies and ghosties
and things that go "Bump!" in the night. But I _did_ believe, when long
ago I was an English teacher, in helping students to avoid making
themselves appear inept.
>
> And I'm not even addressing the 'appropriate' part of the remark.
Well, if you're planning to become a linguist (or anything else, for
that matter), you should. Language must be fit for its purpose. It
doesn't exist in some vacuum convenient for students of linguistics.
--
Mike.
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[...]
> Note in the "drinkable/undrinkable" thread that Brian Scott (somehow)
> reduced the millions of hits to a few hundred each, and he or someone
> else noted that many of the "drinkable" hits were in negative contexts
> anyway (thus validating my point that "undrinkable" is an ordinary word
> and "drinkable" appears only in rather specialized contexts).
Which raises an interesting point. The circumstances of life do cause
some words to appear more often in negative contexts: we'd be far more
likely to say that something was "undrinkable" or "uneatable" or
"unwearable" than the reverse. (I can't on the spur of the moment think
of other certain examples, but "unusable", "unconquerable", and
"insurmountable" may possibly fit the bill.)
The first three, of course, represent strong value judgements; so using
the positive forms seems to fall into the same class as the
faint-praise double negative. The cook probably won't take it as a
compliment if you say a meal was "eatable" any more than if you call it
"not unbearable".
So, while it's obvious that positive "drinkable" is, in use, _rare_
compared to "undrinkable", I wonder if that makes it less _ordinary_.
Does a user of "undrinkable" actually have "drinkable" in his
vocabulary as a "live" item, even if he never says it?
--
Mike.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> [...]
> > Note in the "drinkable/undrinkable" thread that Brian Scott (somehow)
> > reduced the millions of hits to a few hundred each, and he or someone
> > else noted that many of the "drinkable" hits were in negative contexts
> > anyway (thus validating my point that "undrinkable" is an ordinary word
> > and "drinkable" appears only in rather specialized contexts).
>
> Which raises an interesting point. The circumstances of life do cause
> some words to appear more often in negative contexts: we'd be far more
> likely to say that something was "undrinkable" or "uneatable" or
> "unwearable" than the reverse. (I can't on the spur of the moment think
> of other certain examples, but "unusable", "unconquerable", and
> "insurmountable" may possibly fit the bill.)
Of course there are all the "lost positives": nocent, ept, effable,
couth (probably clinging to life), plussed (okay, that one isn't
serious)....
> The first three, of course, represent strong value judgements; so using
> the positive forms seems to fall into the same class as the
> faint-praise double negative. The cook probably won't take it as a
> compliment if you say a meal was "eatable" any more than if you call it
> "not unbearable".
Though "edible" finds plenty of employment with wild plants and
mushrooms.
> So, while it's obvious that positive "drinkable" is, in use, _rare_
> compared to "undrinkable", I wonder if that makes it less _ordinary_.
> Does a user of "undrinkable" actually have "drinkable" in his
> vocabulary as a "live" item, even if he never says it?
For "drinkable" I'd imagine the answer is yes. (Almost) anyone who can
say, "This wine is still undrinkable," can say, "This wine is not
drinkable yet," and "This wine should be drinkable in five years."
The linguists have probably studied this sort of thing--x% of people
who use expression A use the related expression B.
--
Jerry Friedman hopes posting this in sci.lang shows mitigated gall.
Quo fas et gloria ducunt!
Peter T. Daniels
You seem to be not entirely clear on the concepts of "linguist" and
"linguistics." They do not exist for the purpose of fitting language to
"its purpose," but for investigating _how_ it fits its many purpose_s_.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> > > Nor is that generally sufficient. One of the rationalisations often put
> > > forward by prescriptive grammarians and pedants for their fantasies is
> > > that they improve clarity of expression.
> > > In general this is utterly bogus. You can express yourself clearly or
> > > like mud independently of whether you are following prescriptive norms
> > > or not.
> >
> > Oh, dear! Spare us the Linguistics 101 "prescriptive" bogey-man,
> > please: this is adult company. I don't believe in ghoulies and ghosties
> > and things that go "Bump!" in the night. But I _did_ believe, when long
> > ago I was an English teacher, in helping students to avoid making
> > themselves appear inept.
> > >
> > > And I'm not even addressing the 'appropriate' part of the remark.
> >
> > Well, if you're planning to become a linguist (or anything else, for
> > that matter), you should. Language must be fit for its purpose. It
> > doesn't exist in some vacuum convenient for students of linguistics.
>
> You seem to be not entirely clear on the concepts of "linguist" and
> "linguistics." They do not exist for the purpose of fitting language to
> "its purpose," but for investigating _how_ it fits its many purpose_s_.
I am entirely clear on the matter (though I said nothing about why
linguists and linguistics exist). Anybody who hasn't understood the
importance of appropriateness in language hasn't understood language at
all.
The expression "Language must be fit for its purpose" is a
generalisation, and needs no plural, particularly in a paragraph
mentioning appropriateness of language.
All this is in response to a practical comment that people need to
learn to use language effectively and appropriately. Which in turn, I
seem to remember, came about when somebody implied that only
linguisticians knew the rules of English, or something like that.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
> Does a user of "undrinkable" actually have "drinkable" in his
> vocabulary as a "live" item, even if he never says it?
>
It's certainly in my active vocabulary, but it's nearly always followed
by "but".
--
Rob Bannister
Peter T. Daniels
Depends, of course, on what you mean by "rules." Linguists observe
language and work out the rules it follows. Which often have little to
do with the "rules" taught in those useless English classes.
Colin Fine
English classes' are important. They're just not part of linguistics
(except sociolinguistics and perhaps pragmatics).
They're just as important as other branches of etiquette, like what tool
to eat with and what natural functions may occur in public.
Colin
Peter T. Daniels
You seem to imply that most of the children who suffer through English
class are ever going to have to write formal prose at some point in the
future. This just isn't the case.
Vinny Burgoo
In alt.usage.english, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
[snip]
>It is virtually impossible to teach effective and appropriate
>communication -- it's something you grow up learning to do, along with
>everything else you learn about language in your early years.
Tell that to ALOBA.
http://www.skillscascade.com/teaching/teachinghow.htm
TEACHING COMMUNICATION SKILLS
- THE "HOW"
We have redesigned our handouts for agenda-led, outcome-based,
anaysis (ALOBA) so that facilitators can easily access the key
points when they are teaching.
We have grouped the principles into sections to make better
sense; designed a "knee" plan, the overall plan of "how" to
organise and give feedback and deepen the learning experience;
plus two more detailed plans of ALOBA in practice, one for use
with video and a second one for use with a simulated patient.
Does anyone know why an "overall plan of 'how' to organise and give
feedback and deepen the learning experience" is a "'knee' plan"? As far
as I can tell, this is the only time "knee plan" is used in this sense
anywhere on the Web. It certainly doesn't appear anywhere else at the
Skills Cascade website. (What is the Skills Cascade, I hear you ask?
"This collection of resources has been setup [sic] by East Anglia
Communications skills cascade facilitators to promote and support the
teaching of communication skills in health care.")
Also, what does "outcome-based" (also "outcomes(s)-focused") mean? I
spent hours the other day trying to track down a useful definition.
There are very few attempts at defining it, presumably because it
doesn't actually mean anything. Here's one:
The sense in which 'outcomes-based' has been used is 'that we
are clear about what we are trying to achieve and that all our
work is directed at achieving those things'.
That's the Social Care Institute for Excellence discussing a document in
which "outcome-based" is actually defined as "[being] aware of the
importance of demonstrating that [we] are providing what is
needed and wanted by service users".
Then there's York University's Social Policy Research Unit, a key core
facilitator of outcomes-focused strategies. Back in 1996, it was
dismayed to discover that there was a lot of "[c]onfusion about the
meaning of 'outcome' in social care. Staff were as likely to be confused
as service users." Ten years on, the Unit has yet to offer a definition
of "outcomes-focused" (not in any of its downloadable documents, anyway)
and, not surprisingly, the confusion continues. A city council
co-operating with the researchers in a pilot scheme to make the
provision of social services more outcomes-focused can't make up its
mind whether "outcomes-focused" means identifying the needs of "service
users" (the disabled, the elderly, the mad), identifying their wants,
identifying something unspecified but certainly not needs, or is simply
a way of saving money. All of these irreconcilable meanings compete for
dominance on the same page at the council's website, as I recall.
And, while I'm here, I came across a useful word today: heartsink.
Heartsinks are, in medical argot, difficult patients. They are usually
frequent attenders at GPs' surgeries. They "know their rights" and talk
about themselves non-stop. They are abusive and they probably smell.
They are voluble, volatile, truculent and intractable. Usage example:
Half the group were subjected to a management plan which seemed
to make them less heartsink over the five year period.
Heartsink posters? On Usenet? Surely not!
--
V
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk
Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Colin Fine wrote:
> > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > > Depends, of course, on what you mean by "rules." Linguists observe
> > > language and work out the rules it follows. Which often have little to
> > > do with the "rules" taught in those useless English classes.
> > >
> > Ah, but now you're overstating. The rules taught in 'those useless
> > English classes' are important. They're just not part of linguistics
> > (except sociolinguistics and perhaps pragmatics).
Of _course_ they aren't part of linguistics! The small part of language
study concerned with English grammar is a mainly harmless academic
pursuit, and has little or no bearing on language-learning, literary
criticism, or anything else in the wider world. That's why I get
impatient when people with an interest in linguistics imagine it
entitles them to take swipes at those whose interest in language is
practical.
> >
> > They're just as important as other branches of etiquette, like what tool
> > to eat with and what natural functions may occur in public.
>
> You seem to imply that most of the children who suffer through English
> class are ever going to have to write formal prose at some point in the
> future. This just isn't the case.
Well, not that I ever taught it to children myself; but, of course,
that isn't the only thing we did in our English classes as children,
and no suffering was entailed. Perhaps you were unlucky. Your
objection could be adapted to apply to any school subject. I'd find it
difficult -- and repugnant -- to draw up a curriculum in which children
learned only what would be directly useful in their adult lives: the
defining feature of a child is that he isn't an adult yet, and the
defining feature of the future is that it hasn't happened yet.
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson
<hnN...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"knee plan"
The only hint I can find on that website is on page:
http://www.skillscascade.com/teaching/ALOBAgroup03.htm
The yellow-background text boxes showing the stages of a process
have systematically varying widths and are centre justified to give
this effect:
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
CCCCCCCCCCCC
DDDD
EEEEEEEEEEEE
FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
The indentation at each side might be described as forming the shape
of a leg bent at the knee.
The significance of this formatting is a mystery to me. The
associated Word file is at:
http://www.skillscascade.com/teaching/ALOBAgroup03.doc
This just a wild guess.
There seems to be no connection between "knee plan" and, for
example, the term "knee-of-the-curve". The latter is used in
cost-benefit analysis. The "knee" is the point on the curve after
which additional costs do not result in significant benefits.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > Colin Fine wrote:
> > > Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >
> > > > Depends, of course, on what you mean by "rules." Linguists observe
> > > > language and work out the rules it follows. Which often have little to
> > > > do with the "rules" taught in those useless English classes.
> > > >
> > > Ah, but now you're overstating. The rules taught in 'those useless
> > > English classes' are important. They're just not part of linguistics
> > > (except sociolinguistics and perhaps pragmatics).
>
> Of _course_ they aren't part of linguistics! The small part of language
> study concerned with English grammar is a mainly harmless academic
> pursuit, and has little or no bearing on language-learning, literary
> criticism, or anything else in the wider world. That's why I get
'Scuse me? Have you ever _read_ any literary criticism? (I mean the Ron
Hardin-era kind, not the postmodern and whatever has succeeded it
kind.)
> impatient when people with an interest in linguistics imagine it
> entitles them to take swipes at those whose interest in language is
> practical.
Literary criticism is "practical"?
> > > They're just as important as other branches of etiquette, like what tool
> > > to eat with and what natural functions may occur in public.
> >
> > You seem to imply that most of the children who suffer through English
> > class are ever going to have to write formal prose at some point in the
> > future. This just isn't the case.
>
> Well, not that I ever taught it to children myself; but, of course,
> that isn't the only thing we did in our English classes as children,
I am not, of course, referring to Eng Lit classes, and if you're not
either, then I don't know what other things you might have in mind.
> and no suffering was entailed. Perhaps you were unlucky. Your
> objection could be adapted to apply to any school subject. I'd find it
> difficult -- and repugnant -- to draw up a curriculum in which children
> learned only what would be directly useful in their adult lives: the
> defining feature of a child is that he isn't an adult yet, and the
> defining feature of the future is that it hasn't happened yet.
Does "Europe" no longer use the "tracking system," by which at age 14
students are directed either to a trade or to a continuing academic
course?
Vinny Burgoo
>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:40:37 +0100, Vinny Burgoo
>>"knee plan"
>
>The only hint I can find on that website is on page:
>http://www.skillscascade.com/teaching/ALOBAgroup03.htm
>
>The yellow-background text boxes showing the stages of a process
>have systematically varying widths and are centre justified to give
>this effect:
>
>AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>
> BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
>
> CCCCCCCCCCCC
>
> DDDD
>
> EEEEEEEEEEEE
>
> FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
>
>GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG
>
>The indentation at each side might be described as forming the shape
>of a leg bent at the knee.
I see what you mean. Uniquely, the text in the central box is in red,
and it is the only box to mention "outcomes", so it is obviously the key
core focus something-or-other of the analysis. It is the box on which
everything hinges. It is the knee.
>The significance of this formatting is a mystery to me. The
>associated Word file is at:
>http://www.skillscascade.com/teaching/ALOBAgroup03.doc
I assumed the layout to be an attempt at depicting the skills cascade -
and of course it still might be exactly that. In toshistan, it is
entirely possible for a cascade to have a knee.
>This just a wild guess.
>
>There seems to be no connection between "knee plan" and, for
>example, the term "knee-of-the-curve". The latter is used in
>cost-benefit analysis. The "knee" is the point on the curve after
>which additional costs do not result in significant benefits.
By that definition, I would put the knee about an inch above the
cascade.
--
V
A. Gwilliam
> Does "Europe" no longer use the "tracking system," by which at age 14
> students are directed either to a trade or to a continuing academic
> course?
Europe comprises 45 different countries, give or take. I wouldn't want
to be the one to generalise from that!
Incidentally, why do you put Europe in scare quotes?
--
A. Gwilliam
To e-mail me, replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
LaReina del Perros
wrote:
[...]
>That's the Social Care Institute for Excellence discussing a document in
>which "outcome-based" is actually defined as "[being] aware of the
>importance of demonstrating that [we] are providing what is
>needed and wanted by service users".
[...]
Well, I say it's spinach, and I say to Hell with it.
Peter T. Daniels
A. Gwilliam wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Does "Europe" no longer use the "tracking system," by which at age 14
> > students are directed either to a trade or to a continuing academic
> > course?
>
> Europe comprises 45 different countries, give or take. I wouldn't want
> to be the one to generalise from that!
>
> Incidentally, why do you put Europe in scare quotes?
For the last few years, a number of European countries have been
amalgamated into the European Union, whose regulations to some extent
supersede those of the member nations, and I am wondering whether the
"tracking system" still prevails.
Robert Bannister
> Does "Europe" no longer use the "tracking system," by which at age 14
> students are directed either to a trade or to a continuing academic
> course?
>
I have never heard of such a thing, either in Britain, Australia or
continental Europe. Children are give choices. The actual choices are
probably made by their parents, but they are choices, not directions.
They may be advised by the school, however, that their choices are
inappropriate, because the boy who can't read is unlikely to get to
university or because the girl who continually fails at metalwork might
be better off doing something else.
--
Rob Bannister
Perth, W Australia
Frances Kemmish
I wonder if Peter is referring to the system which was in place in
England back when we were young, where children were placed in secondary
schools, either grammar, technical, or secondary-modern, according to
the results of the 11+ exam. I think that was pretty much gone by the
time I graduated from university in 1970, although there were some minor
holdouts after that.
In the rest of Europe (even the rest of the UK, in fact) every country
has its own educational system. Perhaps one or two countries have
something that approximates to whatever it is Peter is thinking of.
Fran
Peter T. Daniels
Germany is what I was thinking of. Probably what I heard from
Assyriologists like Jo Renger and Dietz Edzard when they visited
Chicago. I should think they were born in the 30s.
the Omrud
> I wonder if Peter is referring to the system which was in place in
> England back when we were young, where children were placed in secondary
> schools, either grammar, technical, or secondary-modern, according to
> the results of the 11+ exam. I think that was pretty much gone by the
> time I graduated from university in 1970, although there were some minor
> holdouts after that.
There still are, and not so minor. The borough of Trafford and the
county of Kent maintain the 11+, although the idea of the technical
school disappeared in the 50s, I think, leaving only the Grammar
schools and the Secondary Modern schools (know to all as Sec Mods).
There are probably other counties.
Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
entire teaching career.
obAUE: British temporary teachers are known as "supply teachers", cf
the US "substitute teachers". It's common to refer to one simply as
"a supply", e.g. "Mr Smith is ill so we've got a supply in".
--
David
=====
Colin Fine
Even England-and-Wales and Scotland (which have had political union for
300 years) have significantly different educational systems.
And I rather suspect that education is one of the areas within the remit
of the Welsh Assembly so that their educational system may also have
diverged from the English system by now. I may be wrong though.
Why then expect any harmonisation among even the 15 older members of the
EU, never mind the 10 new members?
Colin
Frances Kemmish
> Frances Kemmish <fkem...@optonline.net> had it:
>
>
>>I wonder if Peter is referring to the system which was in place in
>>England back when we were young, where children were placed in secondary
>>schools, either grammar, technical, or secondary-modern, according to
>>the results of the 11+ exam. I think that was pretty much gone by the
>>time I graduated from university in 1970, although there were some minor
>>holdouts after that.
>
>
> There still are, and not so minor. The borough of Trafford and the
> county of Kent maintain the 11+, although the idea of the technical
> school disappeared in the 50s, I think, leaving only the Grammar
> schools and the Secondary Modern schools (know to all as Sec Mods).
> There are probably other counties.
There was a technical school in Ripley in Derbyshire until at least
1967. It was one of the secondary schools available to kids from my village.
>
> Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
> Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
> entire teaching career.
>
The variations between different Secondary Modern schools were enormous.
The one in Alfreton was regarded as very good: my mother's friend, who
worked as a secretary in our village junior school, arranged for her
youngest to go there, rather than the local sec mod, which was dreadful.
Fran
Peter Moylan
> Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
> Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
> entire teaching career.
I was saddened to discover that my former High School had turned into
something called a "Technology High School", which probably approximates
your Secondary Modern. A school for those who once would have dropped
out of school at age 14; those who would rather be shooting cans off
fences or racing in stolen cars rather than all that boring reading and
writing stuff.
The reason it saddened me is that nobody from the town I grew up in will
ever again have a chance to go to university. The state government's
reasoning, I presume, is that nobody with academic ambitions should be
living in a country town. I gather that that particular town is already
designated as a place to relocate those on long-term welfare benefits,
in order to reduce the crime rate in the cities. You can't educate the
children of such families, or they might accidentally escape from the
poverty trap.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain
eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer
receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet
address could disappear at any time.
Vinny Burgoo
>On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:40:37 +0100, Vinny Burgoo <hnN...@yahoo.co.uk>
>>That's the Social Care Institute for Excellence discussing a document in
>>which "outcome-based" is actually defined as "[being] aware of the
>>importance of demonstrating that [we] are providing what is
>>needed and wanted by service users".
>Well, I say it's spinach, and I say to Hell with it.
Gammon with your spinach, madam?
--
V
Peter Moylan
> By that definition, I would put the knee about an inch above the
> cascade.
I am greatly tempted to put the knee in whenever I meet one of the
facilitators of this pedagobabble.
Peter T. Daniels
Peter Moylan wrote:
> the Omrud wrote:
>
> > Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
> > Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
> > entire teaching career.
>
> I was saddened to discover that my former High School had turned into
> something called a "Technology High School", which probably approximates
> your Secondary Modern. A school for those who once would have dropped
> out of school at age 14; those who would rather be shooting cans off
> fences or racing in stolen cars rather than all that boring reading and
> writing stuff.
Curious. In New York City, some of the most exclusive and selective
public high schools have "technology" in their names, such as Brooklyn
Tech and a recently established one in Staten Island with a rather
longer name that I don't recall.
They're alongside Bronx (High School of) Science, and Stuyvesant (in
Manhattan). And we also have the celebrated "trade schools" or
"vocational schools," such as Performing Arts (a successor to the one
depicted in the movie *Fame*), Aviation Trades, and quite a few others.
Peter T. Daniels
That's why I asked!
A. Gwilliam
Ah, so that's what you meant. The EU doesn't have any involvement in
its member states' educational systems.
Linz
wrote:
>Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
>Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
>entire teaching career.
Ahem.
--
Hooray for the differently sane.
the Omrud
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:27:12 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
> >Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
> >entire teaching career.
>
> Ahem.
This was not a dig at the children, but an indication of desperation
when faced with a system and a school which seemed to have no
interest in educating children. Unfortunately, five years in such an
environment causes those going through it to lose faith in the system
and to assume that education is not for them. A young teacher
cannot, alone, undo these problems. I expect there are excellent Sec
Mods, but this wasn't one of them.
--
David
=====
Joachim Pense
I cannot relate your "tracking system" to what I know about education
systems in Germany. Can you please elaborate a bit?
Joachim
LFS
Ahem. I suspect that Linz was giving a polite "Oy!"
[aue only]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud
For my misspelling, which I have only just noticed? Very possibly,
sorry.
--
David
=====
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>And I rather suspect that education is one of the areas within the remit
>of the Welsh Assembly so that their educational system may also have
>diverged from the English system by now. I may be wrong though.
When did "remit" in that sense become so common?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://people.tribe.net/hayesstw
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Linz
wrote:
>Linz <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> had it:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:27:12 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
>> >Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
>> >entire teaching career.
>>
>> Ahem.
>
>This was not a dig at the children,
No, it was mild dig at your spelling. It's definately not maternaty.
Although the number of posters to certain fora who think that
obstetric jargon includes 'pregnate' and 'dialate' might disagree with
me.
the Omrud
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 16:21:02 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Linz <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> had it:
> >
> >> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 09:27:12 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
> >> >Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her
> >> >entire teaching career.
> >>
> >> Ahem.
> >
> >This was not a dig at the children,
>
> No, it was mild dig at your spelling. It's definately not maternaty.
> Although the number of posters to certain fora who think that
> obstetric jargon includes 'pregnate' and 'dialate' might disagree with
> me.
Right, sorry. Ah, I understand now - "maternity" is one of your
special subjects. I do know how to spell it, but it seems that my
fingers don't.
--
David
=====
Linz
wrote:
Doesn't matter what you wrote, I'm intrigued now by your timezone.
Warrington's not that far from me but you're posting in my future!
the Omrud
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:37:43 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Doesn't matter what you wrote, I'm intrigued now by your timezone.
> Warrington's not that far from me but you're posting in my future!
It looks as though your clock is about 8 minutes slow. Your post is
marked 18:31 but the NNTP host time in the header is 18:39.
Perhaps those aliens over Todmorden have been messing with causality.
--
David
=====
O-V R:nen
> Ah, so that's what you meant. The EU doesn't have any involvement in
> its member states' educational systems.
Bologna/baloney. (The effort to harmonize (at least) university-level
education across EUrope is widely known as "the Bologna process", feel
free to google® it for more information.)
A. Gwilliam
Okay, you're correct in the strictest sense. But countries other than
EU member-states are involved in the process; not to mention other
international organisations, such as the Council of Europe.
O-V R:nen
> O-V R:nen wrote:
> > Bologna/baloney. (The effort to harmonize (at least) university-level
> > education across EUrope is widely known as "the Bologna process", feel
> > free to google® it for more information.)
> Okay, you're correct in the strictest sense. But countries other than
> EU member-states are involved in the process; not to mention other
> international organisations, such as the Council of Europe.
Considering that it serves to directly promote at least two of the
four Freedoms (free movement of labour, and goods and services), it's
hardly incorrect to consider it an EU initiative, even if there
are some hangarounds and wannabes involved as well.
Mike Lyle
I, too, usually find it difficult to keep track of which European
activities are EC ones and which are not. But I think it's quite wrong
to call the non-EC signatories of the 1999 Bologna Declaration
"hangarounds and wannabees", or to assume that because a group shares
objectives with the EC, then that group must _represent_ or be led by
the EC. Even if the initiative came from member states, it doesn't
follow that it was an EC initiative; indeed, a group wouldn't
necessarily be an EC one even if all the participants were members.
--
Mike.
Peter T. Daniels
No. When you reach 14, someone decides whether you will learn a trade
or get a further academic education.
Which is what it says at the top of this posting.
Robert Bannister
> 'To some extent'.
> Even England-and-Wales and Scotland (which have had political union for
> 300 years) have significantly different educational systems.
>
> And I rather suspect that education is one of the areas within the remit
> of the Welsh Assembly so that their educational system may also have
> diverged from the English system by now. I may be wrong though.
Doesn't the system vary from county to county? It certainly used to.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 10:32:42 +0100, Colin Fine <ne...@kindness.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>And I rather suspect that education is one of the areas within the remit
>>of the Welsh Assembly so that their educational system may also have
>>diverged from the English system by now. I may be wrong though.
>
>
> When did "remit" in that sense become so common?
>
>
Probably when "within their gift" went out.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> Frances Kemmish wrote:
>>In the rest of Europe (even the rest of the UK, in fact) every country
>>has its own educational system. Perhaps one or two countries have
>>something that approximates to whatever it is Peter is thinking of.
>
>
> Germany is what I was thinking of. Probably what I heard from
> Assyriologists like Jo Renger and Dietz Edzard when they visited
> Chicago. I should think they were born in the 30s.
>
The same thing applies to Germany: the system varies quite a bit from
state to state, with some city-states like Hamburg being more different
than most.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> the Omrud wrote:
>
>> Wife once did a maternaty leave supply cover at a Trafford Girls'
>> Secondary Modern. It was the most unpleasant six months in her entire
>> teaching career.
>
>
> I was saddened to discover that my former High School had turned into
> something called a "Technology High School", which probably approximates
> your Secondary Modern. A school for those who once would have dropped
> out of school at age 14; those who would rather be shooting cans off
> fences or racing in stolen cars rather than all that boring reading and
> writing stuff.
>
> The reason it saddened me is that nobody from the town I grew up in will
> ever again have a chance to go to university. The state government's
> reasoning, I presume, is that nobody with academic ambitions should be
> living in a country town. I gather that that particular town is already
> designated as a place to relocate those on long-term welfare benefits,
> in order to reduce the crime rate in the cities. You can't educate the
> children of such families, or they might accidentally escape from the
> poverty trap.
>
I thought the aim of the federal government's policies (going back to
Keating) was to make university education entirely fee-paying so that
only rich, and preferably foreign students could enrol.
--
Rob Bannister
A. Gwilliam
I think that strictly it varies from local education authority to local
education authority. My guess would be that would mean London
boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities, and counties.
Someone else may know better, though.
I'm writing here only as regards England.
Peter Moylan
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> I was saddened to discover that my former High School had turned
>> into something called a "Technology High School", which probably
>> approximates your Secondary Modern. A school for those who once
>> would have dropped out of school at age 14; those who would rather
>> be shooting cans off fences or racing in stolen cars rather than
>> all that boring reading and writing stuff.
>
> Curious. In New York City, some of the most exclusive and selective
> public high schools have "technology" in their names, such as
> Brooklyn Tech and a recently established one in Staten Island with a
> rather longer name that I don't recall.
Australian polticians are abysmally ignorant when it comes to anything
to do with science and technology. Most of them genuinely don't know the
difference between the sort of engineer who designs complex systems and
the "engineer" who operates a lathe. Nearly all of basic science is
dismissed as ivory-tower stuff that has nothing to do with real life,
which is why so many of our brightest people leave the country. (And not
just in the sciences.)
Our very best Minister for Science was a person who started his career
as a history teacher. His only qualification in science was that he was
intelligent enough to understand the virtues of reading widely. He was
eventually edged out of the position, probably because astute
politicians don't like to have intelligent people breathing down their
shoulders. I think he was also disliked in government circles because he
opposed most of the government policies about things like cutting
funding for education and research.
It's possible that the word "technology" acquired a more professional
feel to it in the US because places like MIT managed to demonstrate that an
"Institute of Technology" could have just as high standards as something
that's called a University. Here, "technology" sounds too much like
"technical colleges", which teach things like carpentry and plumbing and
electrical wiring and secretarial studies and so on.
The concept of a "technology high school" sounds sensible (apart from
the inappropriate name) at first sight, because there are still plenty
of school children who will never go on to a professional career. The
catches are that it doesn't offer a transfer offer for those who have
been sent down the wrong path - and I saw plenty of those when I was a
university course coordinator and advisor - and that it lumps together
those who are genuinely interested in the "manual arts" (in which case
they should probably be doing an apprenticeship and/or attending a
technical college) and those who are just stuck in school because school
is compulsory until a certain age.
The system I went through at the same school seemed to work well enough,
because by the third year of high school everyone was placed in streams.
The 'A' stream had all the academic subjects, and was intended for those
who were aiming at some sort of tertiary study. The 'C' stream was the
business/commercial stream. The 'B' stream was somewhere in between, for
those whose talents were still not clearly identified. There was also a
'D' stream for those who weren't doing well at anything but who were
still educable, and (in the early years) an 'S' stream which had
remedial classes for those with intellectual disabilities and other
learning problems. (The 'S' stream was original called 'R' for remedial,
but the label was changed because those kids weren't supposed to know
that they were in remedial classes.) The advantage of that system was
that anyone who was misclassified could be switched to another stream,
i.e. mistakes weren't permanent.
The disadvantage, I suppose, was that it was probably expensive to offer
such a wide range of subjects to a school with (from memory) about 600
pupils. Cutting out the academic subjects would have allowed a saving in
teacher numbers.
Peter Moylan
> No, it was mild dig at your spelling. It's definately not maternaty.
> Although the number of posters to certain fora who think that
> obstetric jargon includes 'pregnate' and 'dialate' might disagree
> with me.
In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling (and
mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
Skitt
> Linz wrote:
>> No, it was mild dig at your spelling. It's definately not maternaty.
>> Although the number of posters to certain fora who think that
>> obstetric jargon includes 'pregnate' and 'dialate' might disagree
>> with me.
>
> In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling (and
> mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
What about dialating?
--
Skitt
Living in The Heart of the Bay
http://www.ci.hayward.ca.us/
Steve Hayes
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling (and
>mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
I've not seen that one before.
Peter T. Daniels
Dietz was from Munich; I think Jo is from Berlin.
Joachim Pense
That's not the German system.
Joachim
Linz
> Linz <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk> had it:
>
>> On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 17:37:43 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't matter what you wrote, I'm intrigued now by your timezone.
>> Warrington's not that far from me but you're posting in my future!
>
> It looks as though your clock is about 8 minutes slow. Your post is
> marked 18:31 but the NNTP host time in the header is 18:39.
This makes sense.
> Perhaps those aliens over Todmorden have been messing with causality.
But this wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Linz
> Peter Moylan wrote:
>> Linz wrote:
>
>>> No, it was mild dig at your spelling. It's definately not maternaty.
>>> Although the number of posters to certain fora who think that
>>> obstetric jargon includes 'pregnate' and 'dialate' might disagree
>>> with me.
>>
>> In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling (and
>> mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
>
> What about dialating?
Mentioned in my post above.
Peter Moylan
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:19:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>
>> In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling (and
>> mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
>
> I've not seen that one before.
A quick google showed me that "cerviacal" and its companion "cerviacle"
are uncommon, at least on the web. I notice it more in its spoken form.
Part of the reason for its existence, I suspect, is a lack of agreement
on where to put the stress when saying "cervical". The most common form
has first-syllable stress, but some medicos seem to prefer
second-syllable stress. (Perhaps that's to distinguish between the neck
and the entryway to the womb. I don't know.) Newsreaders who pick up the
second-syllable stress arbitrarily decide, in my experience, to add
another syllable.
Peter Duncanson
<pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>Steve Hayes wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:19:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
>> <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>>
>>> In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling (and
>>> mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
>>
>> I've not seen that one before.
>
>A quick google showed me that "cerviacal" and its companion "cerviacle"
>are uncommon, at least on the web. I notice it more in its spoken form.
>Part of the reason for its existence, I suspect, is a lack of agreement
>on where to put the stress when saying "cervical". The most common form
>has first-syllable stress, but some medicos seem to prefer
>second-syllable stress. (Perhaps that's to distinguish between the neck
>and the entryway to the womb. I don't know.) Newsreaders who pick up the
>second-syllable stress arbitrarily decide, in my experience, to add
>another syllable.
This is puzzling. There is a word with second-syllable stress
differing in sound from cervical by only a single letter that
"never" receives the additional syllable: "survival".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Arnold Zwicky
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:19:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
><pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>>In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling
>>(and mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
>I've not seen that one before.
sixty or so google webhits today, with reference both to the cervix
and to the cervical vertebrae:
----
AWBW now has the GARDASIL HPV Vaccine to protect against HPV which can
cause cerviacal cancer.
www.aboutwomenbywomen.yourmd.com/
A quick laboratory test can confirm that one has Chlamydia, all the
hospital needs is a urine sample, or a swab sample from the penis or
cerviacal region ...
www.edina.k12.mn.us/edinahigh/departments/science/krause/studentwork/period2/ryans.htm
Chronic neckache - can be caused by cerviacal strains and sprains in
atheletic events.
www.sghhealth4u.com.sg/health4u/orthopaedic_section/sports_upper.htm
I found out later that he had a cerviacal spine break so I am so happy
that I did everything and documented well.
blog.myspace.com/monocspecialops
----
related to some other reshapings, e.g. "pectorial" for "pectoral".
arnold zwicky
Joachim Pense
Well, it was certainly different in the 30s than today. But generally
in the traditional German school system, elementary school lasts four
years, so pupils are typically 10. (In Berlin today it's 6 years - I
don't know about the 30s). Then, it's decided if the pupil continues
at a basic, intermediate or upper-level school. The basic school ends
after the 9th year (elementary school included) - in earlier times it
was the 8th. For the intermediate school, it's 10 years, and the
upper-level one at 13 years. (sometimes only 12). For the upper level
school (called "Gymnasium" to amuse you NSoE) the is a choice between
classics-oriented ("humanist"), science-oriented,
modern-language-oriented, or even art-oriented flavours.
The critical point is that the decision happens at the end of the
elementary school, when the students are only 9 or 10 (today's Berlin
being the exception), which strikes as being a bit early.
There is an alternative model since the 70s where moving between the
different school levels is simpler (and can be done per subject).
Anyway, I don't see a "tracking system" where e decision happens at
the age of 14.
Joachim
Mike Wright
Maybe its just a case of "survival" being a much more common
conversational word than "cervical".
I don't think it's uncommon for people (including me) to sort of
half-process a written word that they don't use in speech, leading to a
variety of errors when they finally try to use it.
--
Mike Wright
http://www.raccoonbend.com
Skitt
I wish I could remember what grade I was in when I attended what I think was
Grundschule Tabarz in the 1944/1945 school year. I believe I had already
completed four years in a Latvian elementary school by that time, and I
skipped a year entering the German school.
I do remember Herr Schmidt and his ruler, even though I was never whacked
with it.
After an interruption in my education because of the war and the subsequent
mess, I entered the seventh (final) grade in a Latvian elementary school in
a DP Camp. Two and a half years of high school (Gymnasium) followed, and
then we moved to the USA, where I completed one and a half years of high
school, and after that, college.
Skitt
<Sigh> So it was. Never mind.
A. Gwilliam
> Steve Hayes wrote:
> >On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:19:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling
> > > (and
> >> mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
> >
> > I've not seen that one before.
>
> A quick google showed me that "cerviacal" and its companion
> "cerviacle" are uncommon, at least on the web. I notice it more in
> its spoken form. Part of the reason for its existence, I suspect, is
> a lack of agreement on where to put the stress when saying
> "cervical". The most common form has first-syllable stress, but some
> medicos seem to prefer second-syllable stress. (Perhaps that's to
> distinguish between the neck and the entryway to the womb. I don't
> know.) Newsreaders who pick up the second-syllable stress arbitrarily
> decide, in my experience, to add another syllable.
Not just the stress can change though. I have both 'cervicle, with the
middle syllable as [vI], and cer'vicle, with the middle syllable as
[vaI], in my lexicon. I would suspect that the "cerviacal" variant is
some people's uncertain hovering between the two.
I rarely use the word, so the best I can say is that I _think_ that the
two pronunciations are free variants for me.
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>
>
>>Colin Fine wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>'To some extent'.
>>>Even England-and-Wales and Scotland (which have had political union
>>>for 300 years) have significantly different educational systems.
>>>
>>>And I rather suspect that education is one of the areas within the
>>>remit of the Welsh Assembly so that their educational system may
>>>also have diverged from the English system by now. I may be wrong
>>>though.
>>
>>Doesn't the system vary from county to county? It certainly used to.
>
>
> I think that strictly it varies from local education authority to local
> education authority. My guess would be that would mean London
> boroughs, metropolitan boroughs, unitary authorities, and counties.
> Someone else may know better, though.
Ah, I used to work for the ILEA (Inner London Education Authority), who
were, I think, the largest employer of teachers in England at the time.
--
Rob Bannister
Peter Moylan
> In article <3pjeh21vjdsbdhjtd...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 25 Sep 2006 12:19:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
> ><pe...@ozebelgDieSpammers.org> wrote:
>
> >>In the area of the female reproductive system, the misspelling
> >>(and mispronunciation) that annoys me the most is "cerviacal".
>
> >I've not seen that one before.
>
> sixty or so google webhits today, with reference both to the cervix
> and to the cervical vertebrae:
> Chronic neckache - can be caused by cerviacal strains and sprains in
> atheletic events.
> www.sghhealth4u.com.sg/health4u/orthopaedic_section/sports_upper.htm
Obviously the extra syllable would be normal for atheletes.
Richard Bollard
wrote:
[...]
>
>Also, what does "outcome-based" (also "outcomes(s)-focused") mean? I
>spent hours the other day trying to track down a useful definition.
>There are very few attempts at defining it, presumably because it
>doesn't actually mean anything.
[...]
I would have thought that it means you are concerned with getting
results (outcomes) rather than just doing stuff. Many people get so
focussed on procedures that they lose track of what they are actually
meant to be achieving.
--
Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia
To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.
Peter T. Daniels
So your sole objection was to the "14." Sheesh. You might have said so.
Donna Richoux
> Joachim Pense wrote:
> > Anyway, I don't see a "tracking system" where e decision happens at
> > the age of 14.
>
> So your sole objection was to the "14." Sheesh. You might have said so.
Where I disagree with what you said (besides "Europe" and "14"), and I
believe some other people said this also, is that in the Netherlands, at
least, the decision at age 11 about which kind of school to attend next
is made *by the student and parents*. Yes, the students take a sort of
aptitude exam to identify skills and interests, and yes, the teachers
make recommendations, but it is *not* a dictate made by the authorities.
Therefore it does not resemble what is called a "tracking system" in the
US.
Which *elementary* school to attend is also a decision made by the
families. There are different schools with different philosophies or
orientation in every town and village. It doesn't feel all that
different to get to choose the "middelbare" school as well. That's what
corresponds roughly to US junior high and senior high together.
Where you are right is that some of those middelbare schools are aimed
at preparing for trades and technical work, others for university work,
others for a mixture of possibilities... A certain degree of crossover
and change is permitted for a while, but overall the Dutch schools do
expect young people to choose a general field of vocation at a younger
age than US students.
--
Best - Donna Richoux
An American living in the Netherlands
Joachim Pense
And to the term "Tracking system". And to "students are directed
either to a trade or to a continuing academic course?" The decision is
not between trade and continuation, its different school courses
("academic"? well...). They end of course with different
qualifications, and only the final Gymnasium exam ("Abitur") qualifies
you to study at a university. (But if you have taken it, you can take
any subject at any university - maybe after being waitlisted for some
years if your grade is bad and the subject is popular)
Re-quote:
Colin Fine
more, have they?
Colin
Colin Fine
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>> This is puzzling. There is a word with second-syllable stress
>> differing in sound from cervical by only a single letter that
>> "never" receives the additional syllable: "survival".
>
> Maybe its just a case of "survival" being a much more common
> conversational word than "cervical".
>
> I don't think it's uncommon for people (including me) to sort of
> half-process a written word that they don't use in speech, leading to a
> variety of errors when they finally try to use it.
>
More to the point, 'survival' is transparently linked to the familiar
word 'survive'.
Colin
Linz
Only the strange ones who /wanted/ to be in <spit>Lancashire</spit>.