in or on the lists
MDM
In the UK, would you say in or on with lists?
MDM
Blue Sow
> 'It was number one in the bestseller lists.'
> In the UK, would you say in or on with lists?
>
My preference would be 'in'.
--
Blue Sow
Peter Duncanson
I would agree that "in" is appropriate for that particular example.
Googling gives
"on the list" site:.uk 773,000
"in the list" site:.uk 738,000
I'd say that, very approximately, if the list is one that ranks
items in order, such as a bestseller list, a pop music chart, etc.
then "in the list" would be suitable. An item has a position "in"
the list.
If the list is one does not involve a ranking, such as a menu, a
list of people invited to a party, a list of people who are banned
from entering the country, etc. then "on the list" is suitable.
There is not a clear division; there seems to some be overlap.
Doing Google searches using <"on the list" site:.uk> and <"in the
list" site:.uk> [1] will give some idea of how these phrases are
used.
[1] Only the text between < and > should be used in the Google
search.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.culture.language.english)
Blue Sow
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 13:11:59 +0000, Blue Sow <bl...@sow.not> wrote:
>
>> MDM wrote:
>>> 'It was number one in the bestseller lists.'
>>> In the UK, would you say in or on with lists?
>>>
>> My preference would be 'in'.
>
> I would agree that "in" is appropriate for that particular example.
>
>
> I'd say that, very approximately, if the list is one that ranks
> items in order, such as a bestseller list, a pop music chart, etc.
> then "in the list" would be suitable. An item has a position "in"
> the list.
>
> If the list is one does not involve a ranking, such as a menu, a
> list of people invited to a party, a list of people who are banned
> from entering the country, etc. then "on the list" is suitable.
One tends to be 'on' a 'waiting list' also, which places one 'in' a queue.
>
> Doing Google searches using <"on the list" site:.uk> and <"in the
> list" site:.uk> [1] will give some idea of how these phrases are
> used.
Any idea how to set up such a search so that it searches current usage while
ignoring current abusage?
--
Blue Sow
Peter Duncanson
No.
Peter Duncanson
Sorry. That reply was a wee bit terse.
Google Advanced Search allows a search limited by the date of
creation/update of a web page. That is no help with the age of the
subject matter of a page.
There are ways in which pages could be searched on the basis of
content, but only in the necessary information is in the pages to
begin with.
Blue Sow
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:17:25 +0000, Blue Sow <bl...@sow.not> wrote:
>
>>> Any idea how to set up such a search so that it searches current usage while
>>> ignoring current abusage?
>> No.
>
> Sorry. That reply was a wee bit terse.
>
Possibly deserved - my question was rather tongue-in-cheek, after recently
having contact with a group of students who persisted in spelling 'definitely'
with an 'a' (definately). If this is typical, then Google will be reporting
that as the 'correct' spelling some time soon.
Naurally, the language must develop, but it would be nice if this was not purely
a result of illiteracy. Perhaps the students simply could not be bothered to
check in a 'dikshunry'.
--
Blue Sow
Mike Stevens
>> Any idea how to set up such a search so that it searches current
>> usage while ignoring current abusage?
>
> No.
How do you define the difference? How about "abusage is a usage I don't
like"?
--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus III
web-site www.mike-stevens.co.uk
Defend the waterways.
Visit the web site www.saveourwaterways.org.uk
Blue Sow
> Peter Duncanson wrote:
>
>>> Any idea how to set up such a search so that it searches current
>>> usage while ignoring current abusage?
>> No.
>
> How do you define the difference?
Define the difference? It is easier to just define the words. I described what
I meant by 'abusage' above.
> How about "abusage is a usage I don't
> like"?
No, that would not appear to be a reasonable definition, although I have no idea
of your likes and dislikes.
--
Blue Sow
Mike Stevens
OK, how about "today's abusage is tomorrow's usage"?
To my mind, if a significany number of people use a particular linguistic
entity, then it's a current usage. To call some current usages "abusage" is
adopting a value judgement that other may not accept.
Blue Sow
> Blue Sow wrote:
>> Mike Stevens wrote:
>
> OK, how about "today's abusage is tomorrow's usage"?
>
> To my mind, if a significany number of people use a particular linguistic
> entity, then it's a current usage. To call some current usages "abusage" is
> adopting a value judgement that other may not accept.
>
'significant number' being the important point.
Your use of 'significany' above was almost certainly a typographical error such
as anyone might make.
If you persisted with it however, it would be a spelling error (an abusage).
If large numbers of people adopted it, it might become current usage, but
meanwhile it remains an abusage.
My point was that search engines would report it as an example of current usage
during the period when it was either a typo. or a simple spelling mistake
(assuming it was published in a way that the search engine could access it).
I used an example of a spelling error to illustrate the point previously, and
have now done so again.
--
Blue Sow
Nick Wagg
news:4u4rmlF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> To my mind, if a significany number of people use a particular linguistic
> entity, then it's a current usage. To call some current usages "abusage"
> is adopting a value judgement that other may not accept.
Inevitably language changes, but to assume that all changes have the
same validity is questionable. Whether or not you accept the value
judgment, certain aspects of linguistics, such as spelling and grammar,
so long as they are deemed to have importance to those in authority,
will be deemed invalid if they do not conform.
It is all very well for a group of people to insist on spelling a word
in a certain way when communicating with each other but if a
potential employer disagrees with them, it will be more difficult
to find work.
Mike Stevens
So are you suggesting that "usage" is something that is done (a) by a
significant number of people and simultaneously (b) delibefrately, whereas
"abusage" is either done by very few people or is done accidentally?
Personally I'd call the "very few bur deliberate" case "idiosyncracy" and
the accidental case "accident", thus escaping from the value-judgement
implicit in the word "abusage".
Blue Sow
Well no - I was not suggesting that. I wrote exactly what I intended to write,
and I did not mean anything other than the words I used.
Any interpretation you wish to add to that is purely of your own invention, and
making assumptions about the causes of abusage risks error. That is why I wrote
'was almost certainly a typographical error' rather than 'was a typographical
error'. You may have typed it deliberately - how could I know? Thus it could
have been an idiosyncrasy of yours, or an accident.
But if it was an abusage, why pretend it was something else, just to avoid
making the decision?
I think that you could quite easily distinguish between a spelling error and
'current usage' if you really try. I am not sure what you seek to prove by
pretending not to have that ability.
--
Blue Sow
Mike Stevens
> But if it was an abusage, why pretend it was something else, just to
> avoid making the decision?
>
> I think that you could quite easily distinguish between a spelling
> error and 'current usage' if you really try. I am not sure what you
> seek to prove by pretending not to have that ability.
Of course I can distinguish between a spelling error and a regular usage.
But I wouldn't call a spelling error (or a typing error, which is subtly
different and what my slip actually was) "abusage". I really react very
much against the implicit value-judgement in the term "abusage".
Blue Sow
> Blue Sow wrote:
>
>> But if it was an abusage, why pretend it was something else, just to
>> avoid making the decision?
>>
>> I think that you could quite easily distinguish between a spelling
>> error and 'current usage' if you really try. I am not sure what you
>> seek to prove by pretending not to have that ability.
>
> Of course I can distinguish between a spelling error and a regular usage.
> But I wouldn't call a spelling error (or a typing error, which is subtly
> different and what my slip actually was) "abusage". I really react very
> much against the implicit value-judgement in the term "abusage".
We had agreed on the typing error, or rather we had never differed. That does
not affect my examples.
I have noted your reaction against 'value-judgements' but you offer no
alternative, given that the reader may not, and may never, know what the writer
had in mind, if anything.
One cannot tell, without additional knowledge, if a spelling variance (I avoid
the word 'error') is intentional or unintentional, and if the latter, if it was
'an accident' or borne of ignorance of the accepted spelling. One may not
therefore decide it is an idiosyncrasy or an accident as one does not have the
data needed to make such a decision.
Please do tell your non-value-judgemental word for such a circumstance. I will
continue to use the word 'abusage' or perhaps, for variety, 'misusage'. In any
event, and returning to topic, it is not 'current usage'.
--
Blue Sow
MDM
"Blue Sow" <bl...@sow.not> wrote in message
news:457c07b8$0$32030$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
MDM
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message
news:pc3on299paui8c1hv...@4ax.com...