Independent spelling

[Tone]

That gets me every time.

How come 'independent' is the opposite of 'dependant' but 'independant'
iznay?

How do I get speel chucker to jbex automatically on Thunderbox?

Tone

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:47:02 +0100
Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:

> That gets me every time.
>
> How come 'independent' is the opposite of 'dependant' but 'independant'
> iznay?

Coz independent is the opposite of dependent not dependant (one is
the state of depending on sommat, the other is the one in that state).

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/

[Tone]

On 22/07/2022 15:06, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:47:02 +0100
> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> That gets me every time.
>>
>> How come 'independent' is the opposite of 'dependant' but 'independant'
>> iznay?
>
> Coz independent is the opposite of dependent not dependant (one is
> the state of depending on sommat, the other is the one in that state).
>

Not so according to my dickshunhairy

Adjective: dependant

Noun:
1. A person who relies on another person for support

1. Contingent on somthing else
2. Addicted to a drug

Noun: dependent
1. A person who relies on another person for support

Adjective:

1. Not independent
2. Contingent on something else

Tone

[soup]

On 22/07/2022 14:47, Tone wrote:

> How do I get speel chucker to jbex automatically on Thunderbox?
>
> Tone

Go to the Thunderbird tools menu and select Preferences.
Select the Composition tab.
Under Spelling, select the Enable spellcheck as you type check box.

[soup]

On 22/07/2022 14:47, Tone wrote:

> How do I get speel chucker to jbex automatically on Thunderbox?
>
> Tone

Go to the Thunderbird menu and select Preferences.

[Tease'n'Seize]

soup wrote:

> Tone wrote:
>
>> How do I get speel chucker to jbex automatically on Thunderbox?
>

> Go to the Thunderbird menu and select Preferences.
> Select the Composition tab.
> Under Spelling, select the Enable spellcheck as you type check box.

You porbably want to install Marco Pinto's British English Dictionary too ...

[Adrian Caspersz]

On 22/07/2022 14:47, Tone wrote:

cf. inflammable vs. flamable

--
Adrian C

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:

> Noun: dependent
> 1. A person who relies on another person for support

Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
noun, but it's probably become one by common use.

[Tone]

Have dun that. But realised I needed to download a dictionary too.

Now jbexing.

Ta

Tone

[Tone]

As I found.

Ta

Tone

[Richard Robinson]

I like "apart" vs. "a part". 1 word, 2 things; 2 words, 1 thing.

--
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

[Richard Robinson]

Ahem A Rivet's Shot said:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Noun: dependent
>> 1. A person who relies on another person for support
>
> Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
> noun, but it's probably become one by common use.

An adjective pronounced with a silent noun ?

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <20220722203155.fb11...@eircom.net>, Ahem A
Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> on Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 20:31:55 awoke
Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
>Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Noun: dependent
>> 1. A person who relies on another person for support
>
> Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
>noun, but it's probably become one by common use.
>

The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours Lost
- "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")
--
0sterc@tcher -

"Oů sont les neiges d'antan?"

[Ilya Kostarev]

Should be undependent?

[Tone]

Or disdependent

Tone

[Don Stockbauer]

Flammable
inflammable
non-inflammable

[RustyHinge]

Note: different parts of speech - adjective and noun.

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[RustyHinge]

On 22/07/2022 20:31, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>
>> Noun: dependent
>> 1. A person who relies on another person for support
>
> Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
> noun, but it's probably become one by common use.

I disagree with the dictionary TAAAW. 'Dependent' is an adjective, not a

[RustyHinge]

ASeemingly you *do* agree that dependant is a noun. Do you agree that
'dependent' is an adjective? (And possibly an adverb?)

I don't see it as a boneofcontention.

[RustyHinge]

...and enable in 'startup'.

[RustyHinge]

On 22/07/2022 21:22, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Adrian Caspersz said:
>> On 22/07/2022 14:47, Tone wrote:
>>> That gets me every time.
>>>
>>> How come 'independent' is the opposite of 'dependant' but 'independant'
>>> iznay?
>>>
>>> How do I get speel chucker to jbex automatically on Thunderbox?
>>
>> cf. inflammable vs. flamable
>
> I like "apart" vs. "a part". 1 word, 2 things; 2 words, 1 thing.

I like the early Collins' definition of 'nice': "Exact, precise, to the
point. Often used to mean pleasant by those who are not nice."

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 05:02:00 +0100
RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> I like the early Collins' definition of 'nice': "Exact, precise, to the
> point. Often used to mean pleasant by those who are not nice."

That is a nice definition.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 04:55:56 +0100
RustyHinge <rusty...@foobar.girolle.co.uk> wrote:

> ASeemingly you *do* agree that dependant is a noun. Do you agree that
> 'dependent' is an adjective? (And possibly an adverb?)

Yes exactly.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 21:31:59 +0100
"Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.com> wrote:

> The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
> Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours Lost
> - "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")

Yes dependAnt is a noun dependEnt is not.

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <tbfrge$3kqo7$1...@dont-email.me>, RustyHinge <rusty.hinge@fooba
r.girolle.co.uk> on Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 04:55:56 awoke Nicholas from

his slumbers and wrote
>On 22/07/2022 21:31, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <20220722203155.fb11...@eircom.net>, Ahem A
>> Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> on Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 20:31:55 awoke
>> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
>>> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Noun: dependent
>>>> 1. A person who relies on another person for support
>>>
>>> Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
>>> noun, but it's probably become one by common use.
>>>
>> The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
>> Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours Lost
>> - "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")
>
>ASeemingly you *do* agree that dependant is a noun. Do you agree that
>'dependent' is an adjective? (And possibly an adverb?)
>
>I don't see it as a boneofcontention.
>

Smallboneofcontention <grin> strangely the adjective is only spelt
'dependent', while the noun has the alternative spellings 'dependent'
and 'dependant'.

<Musings> if the noun 'dependant' has an alternative spelling of
'dependent', why does 'pedant' not have an alternative of 'pedent'?

[Richard Robinson]

Because "English, what can you do ?"

[Tone]

On 23/07/2022 07:26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 21:31:59 +0100
> "Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.com> wrote:
>
>> The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
>> Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours Lost
>> - "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")
>
> Yes dependAnt is a noun dependEnt is not.
>

I goove it depends on whether you are speaking English or Merkan.

The Oxford and Collins dictionaries agree with you.

But

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/spelling-variants-dependent-vs-dependant

Tone

[maus]

As the greatest number of Englishey speakers and writers now are in the
indian area (Pakistan, Bharat, Bengla Desh), perhaps they should be
considered in determining a standard.


--
grey...@mail.com
"Are you sure that you can live on your investments after retirement?
If not, send us all your money."

[Brian Gaff]

I hate as you type spelling checkers they spoil you chain of thought. I
always do it at the end.
Brian

--

--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Tone" <to...@email.com> wrote in message
news:tbe9on$35fgb$1...@dont-email.me...

> That gets me every time.
>
> How come 'independent' is the opposite of 'dependant' but 'independant'
> iznay?
>
> How do I get speel chucker to jbex automatically on Thunderbox?
>

> Tone

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2022 11:43:01 +0100
Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:

> On 23/07/2022 07:26, Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
> > On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 21:31:59 +0100
> > "Nicholas D. Richards" <nich...@salmiron.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
> >> Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours
> >> Lost
> >> - "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")
> >
> > Yes dependAnt is a noun dependEnt is not.
> >
>
> I goove it depends on whether you are speaking English or Merkan.
>
> The Oxford and Collins dictionaries agree with you.

______^^^^^^

It's good to see they get something right in the other place, some
of their alumni have proved quite disappointing.

> https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/spelling-variants-dependent-vs-dependant

Ah the infamous spelling revisionists - hey guys there is no world
shortage of Us.

[chr...@privacy.net]

Synonyms aint they!

Actually, 'inflammable' is now of course deprecated as it became
ambiguous after the 1970s - like a lot of things!

Chris

[Richard Robinson]

It's a mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world ?

[Sam Plusnet]

I could (sort of) understand them going for a clean sweep of spelling
reform, but they didn't.
They just piddled around at the edges in a "Why the %^&*( did they
bother?" sort of way.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Nicholas D. Richards]

In article <yOXCK.678632$83a5....@fx05.ams1>, Sam Plusnet
<n...@home.com> on Sat, 23 Jul 2022 at 20:16:46 awoke Nicholas from his
slumbers and wrote

The trouble with spelling reform, As I See It;

the pronunciation of words changes with time and place, so spelling
reform could only be a continuous process and would be different in
different parts of the country. Would it be garage or garridge, Nigl
Far-ridge or Nigel Farraage?

old texts, letters and cornflaik paccits wud become unreed'ble, or becum
a forrin langidge.

is it a plot to separate the poorly educated (the majority of us) from
our elders and betters who can afford the time and money to learn
foreign languages so that they can read that which should be our
inheritance?

[Richard Robinson]

Nicholas D. Richards said:
>>
> The trouble with spelling reform, As I See It;
>
> the pronunciation of words changes with time and place, so spelling
> reform could only be a continuous process and would be different in
> different parts of the country. Would it be garage or garridge, Nigl
> Far-ridge or Nigel Farraage?
>
> old texts, letters and cornflaik paccits wud become unreed'ble, or becum
> a forrin langidge.
>
> is it a plot to separate the poorly educated (the majority of us) from
> our elders and betters who can afford the time and money to learn
> foreign languages so that they can read that which should be our
> inheritance?

Or just a wbo-creation scheme ?

[soup]

On 23/07/2022 12:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
> I hate as you type spelling checkers they spoil you chain of thought. I
> always do it at the end.
> Brian
>

Thunderbird will do that, it's all in the preferences.

[Sam Plusnet]

If they had had the courage of their convictions they could have done
the clean sweep, and stated that all worms are pronounced exactly as
they is spilled. After a generation had gone through school, everyone
(in the USA at least) would be singing from the same hymn-sheet &
pronunciation would be fixed.

>
> old texts, letters and cornflaik paccits wud become unreed'ble, or becum
> a forrin langidge.

<Shrug> Shakespeare is a forrin langidge to a lot of people today, so
reading "old" English would just become another specialist skill - like
reading Chaucer, or Beowulf.

>
> is it a plot to separate the poorly educated (the majority of us) from
> our elders and betters who can afford the time and money to learn
> foreign languages so that they can read that which should be our
> inheritance?
>
>


--

Sam Plusnet

[Richard Robinson]

Also it's fairly cheap and gets yer pissed.

[maus]

I was told once that Shakespear could only be pronounced correctly by
Connought gypsies (for instance, they would pronounce `clean' as `Clean'
rather than it is now elsewhere. There was a legend that some of
Cromwells troops remained here, and joined the gypsy bands.

> If they had had the courage of their convictions they could have done
> the clean sweep, and stated that all worms are pronounced exactly as
> they is spilled. After a generation had gone through school, everyone
> (in the USA at least) would be singing from the same hymn-sheet &
> pronunciation would be fixed.
>>
>> old texts, letters and cornflaik paccits wud become unreed'ble, or becum
>> a forrin langidge.
>
><Shrug> Shakespeare is a forrin langidge to a lot of people today, so
> reading "old" English would just become another specialist skill - like
> reading Chaucer, or Beowulf.

Big difference between Chaucer and Beowulf. Beowulf would have been
composed, as far as anyone knows, before the Anglo-Saxon-Jutes left
Europe, when the language was very fluid, and some can be translated as
almost anything. Chaucer would have been written when the English
discovered that they were no longer French vassals.
AFAIK.

>> is it a plot to separate the poorly educated (the majority of us) from
>> our elders and betters who can afford the time and money to learn
>> foreign languages so that they can read that which should be our
>> inheritance?
>>
>>
>
>


--

[Richard Robinson]

I tried to read Paradise Lost, recently. It's a great story, but still,
I gave up halfway through because I just didn't want to wade through all
the 'education' that Milton had and I don't - never say anything in 2
lines if you can do it by 2 pages of oblique references to 3 O.T
prophets and 4 previously unheard of Greek mythological thingies. I
suppose the OT stuff was understandable given the context ("What did you
do in the civil war, Daddy?"), but it's all Gr^H alien to me. Shame,
really.

[maus]

On 2022-07-24, Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Sam Plusnet said:
>> On 24-Jul-22 7:45, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>
>
> I tried to read Paradise Lost, recently. It's a great story, but still,
> I gave up halfway through because I just didn't want to wade through all
> the 'education' that Milton had and I don't - never say anything in 2
> lines if you can do it by 2 pages of oblique references to 3 O.T
> prophets and 4 previously unheard of Greek mythological thingies. I
> suppose the OT stuff was understandable given the context ("What did you
> do in the civil war, Daddy?"), but it's all Gr^H alien to me. Shame,
> really.
>

I read "Pilgrims Progress", and I could not understand how it would be
moral to leave your wife and children to follow some religion,
A local saint here, St. Kevin of Glendalock, was made a saint because he
left his wife and children to go to live in a cave. When his wife
followed to get him to come back, he threw her into a lake where she
drowned. Crazy stuff.

Where did these crazy ideas come from?.

John Milton wrote all those poems in the context of his time. He tried
to divorce his wife during the Civil war.

I liked and like, ``On his blindness". as I am now at the when I only stand
and wait

[soup]

On 24/07/2022 20:27, Richard Robinson wrote:
> soup said:
>> On 23/07/2022 12:14, Brian Gaff wrote:
>>> I hate as you type spelling checkers they spoil you chain of thought. I
>>> always do it at the end.
>>> Brian
>>>
>> Thunderbird will do that, it's all in the preferences.
>
> Also it's fairly cheap and gets yer pissed.
>

Let's hear it for all "electric soups" .

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Is that like "electric Kool-Aid" but warmer and more nutritious ?

[Richard Robinson]

Also, electric pressure cookers.

The ultimate lazy cooking. Chop stuff up, put it in the pot, clamp the
lid down, push a button & go out for a while, and when you come back you
have a hot meal waiting. You wouldn't be able to stir it even if you
wanted to.

[Mike Fleming]

On 22/07/2022 21:31, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
> In article <20220722203155.fb11...@eircom.net>, Ahem A

> Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> on Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 20:31:55 awoke

> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote

>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
>> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Noun: dependent
>>> 1. A person who relies on another person for support
>>
>> Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
>> noun, but it's probably become one by common use.
>>

> The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
> Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours Lost
> - "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")

Shakespeare isn't really a reliable source in the matter of spelling; he
did, after all, either not know how to spell his name or took his choice
from a selection of spellings, depending on how charitable you want to be.

[Mike Fleming]

On 24/07/2022 20:28, maus wrote:
>
> I was told once that Shakespear could only be pronounced correctly by
> Connought gypsies (for instance, they would pronounce `clean' as `Clean'
> rather than it is now elsewhere. There was a legend that some of
> Cromwells troops remained here, and joined the gypsy bands.

Do Connaught gypsies speak with Brummie accents then?

[Mike Fleming]

On 24/07/2022 20:36, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Sam Plusnet said:
>> On 24-Jul-22 7:45, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>
>> <Shrug> Shakespeare is a forrin langidge to a lot of people today, so
>> reading "old" English would just become another specialist skill - like
>> reading Chaucer, or Beowulf.
>>>
>>> is it a plot to separate the poorly educated (the majority of us) from
>>> our elders and betters who can afford the time and money to learn
>>> foreign languages so that they can read that which should be our
>>> inheritance?
>
> I tried to read Paradise Lost, recently. It's a great story, but still,
> I gave up halfway through because I just didn't want to wade through all
> the 'education' that Milton had and I don't - never say anything in 2
> lines if you can do it by 2 pages of oblique references to 3 O.T
> prophets and 4 previously unheard of Greek mythological thingies. I
> suppose the OT stuff was understandable given the context ("What did you
> do in the civil war, Daddy?"), but it's all Gr^H alien to me. Shame,
> really.

More recent writers do that too, though - the Peter Wimsey novels have a
fair bit of reference in them.

[maus]

On 2022-07-25, Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/07/2022 21:31, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>> In article <20220722203155.fb11...@eircom.net>, Ahem A
>> Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> on Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 20:31:55 awoke
>> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>

> Shakespeare isn't really a reliable source in the matter of spelling; he
> did, after all, either not know how to spell his name or took his choice
> from a selection of spellings, depending on how charitable you want to be.

The bard is the source of much of our common language, he is
uncriticable (If such a word can exist)

[maus]

On 2022-07-25, Mike Fleming <mi...@tauzero.co.uk> wrote:

Many recent one speak with cut-glass accents now. I was speaking of ones
that would have climbed the Reek in bare feet. The day is next Sunday.

[Richard Robinson]

True, but she works a bit better for me, the quotes/references seem more
like pointers to things I might want to look up (not that I can remember
ever having done so, mind, but if I were to bump into Izaak Walton or
'Anatomy of Melancholy', she'd likely have prompted me to have a
look-see). Incidentally, since you mention her, is 'Gaudy Night' one
you've met ? It seems noticeably less trivial than the others.
Recommendation, if you like her anyway, not that you said you did. Or
anyone else, of course

T.S. Eliot, though ... blocks of Greek lettering in "English" writing;
S.E.P.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 24-Jul-22 20:36, Richard Robinson wrote:

> I tried to read Paradise Lost, recently. It's a great story, but still,
> I gave up halfway through because I just didn't want to wade through all
> the 'education' that Milton had and I don't - never say anything in 2
> lines if you can do it by 2 pages of oblique references to 3 O.T
> prophets and 4 previously unheard of Greek mythological thingies.

You could instead try Pilgrim's Progress - where Bunyan says exactly the
same thing over and over and over and over....

--
Sam Plusnet

[Richard Robinson]

Now you mention it, I think I did see a copy somewhere and had a look.
Long time ago, but ISTR I went "nah, booooring" pretty quickly.

Incidentally (I seem to be rambling a lot atm. Ne'mind, these thing
happen) I read a Faintly Amusing Fact recently. All yer sober Puritans
all dressed in sober black ... was a Peacock Thing. Whatever they used
for black dye washed out very quickly, it took a lot more work to make
it stick than the other colours, so it cost a lot more. it was showing
off. Or so I read, anyway.

[maus]

On 2022-07-25, Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Sam Plusnet said:
>> On 24-Jul-22 20:36, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>
> happen) I read a Faintly Amusing Fact recently. All yer sober Puritans
> all dressed in sober black ... was a Peacock Thing. Whatever they used
> for black dye washed out very quickly, it took a lot more work to make
> it stick than the other colours, so it cost a lot more. it was showing
> off. Or so I read, anyway.
>
>

Before the puritans, there were rules on what sort of clothes a person
could wear ("sumpatery" or something like that). There are two breeds
of sheep in wales still, `Black mountain' and `Black', the latter
producing black wool which remained black even after being washed. The
monks needed it. I saw a breed of sheep called 'zwarbles' recently,
their wool largely black. When wool was valuable, people had to sell that
wool seperately, as it could not be dyed in any other colour.

In the future, when in any option, people will have to wear wollen
clothes to keep warm, rather than turning on the central heating, all
that stuff will become relevant again.

[RustyHinge]

And one wonders whether he was joshing with his "difference between a
hawk and a handsaw" or whether subsequent transcribers didn't know the
differnce between a harnser and a handsaw?

--
Rusty Hinge
To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer and the BOFH.

[Richard Robinson]

IANAH but ... I wonder, maybe they just didn't think it was as
important as we've subesquently come to ?

Maybe, the more Society-at-large comes to depend on it, the more
things like dictionaries become important ? Thinks, literacy statistics
around the time of Dr. Johnson ...

Thinks, "Had we but tuits enough, and time" ...

[Richard Robinson]

Richard Robinson said:
>
> Thinks, "Had we but tuits enough, and time" ...

It may have been this thread or not, but it'll do. Authors dropping
references that require above-average education to get the sense of.

my complaint of Milton was that the story was being told in those terms,
you don't have a clue what's happening unless you know the stuff in
question. And Dorothy Sayers was mentioned in the same context …

but in her case it's not important to the plot, it's just showing a bit
mre about the people (which isn't totally irrelevant, obv, but it's not
vital). More like pointers, I said, and might follow up but haven't yet.

My point being, I've just now remembered one that I did follow up. On
reflection, I'm not sure it was her (or what else it might have been),
but the same point applies, and it was John Donne's Valediction
Forbidding Mourning.

If anybody doesn't know it, the first startpage hit is
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/44131/a-valediction-forbidding-mourning
and, people, it is good value.

[Sam Plusnet]

On 26-Jul-22 11:17, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 22/07/2022 21:31, Nicholas D. Richards wrote:
>>> In article <20220722203155.fb11...@eircom.net>, Ahem A

>>> Nicholas from his slumbers and wrote
>>>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 18:01:47 +0100
>>>> Tone <to...@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Noun: dependent
>>>>> 1. A person who relies on another person for support
>>>>
>>>> Here is where I disagree with your dictionary it shouldn't be a
>>>> noun, but it's probably become one by common use.
>>>>
>>> The OED has it as a noun, and it has been for nearly 500 years.
>>> Shakespeare used it that way more than 400 years ago (Loves Labours Lost
>>> - "The best ward of mine honour, is rewarding my dependants .")
>>
>> Shakespeare isn't really a reliable source in the matter of spelling; he
>> did, after all, either not know how to spell his name or took his choice
>> from a selection of spellings, depending on how charitable you want to be.
>
> IANAH but ... I wonder, maybe they just didn't think it was as
> important as we've subesquently come to ?
>
> Maybe, the more Society-at-large comes to depend on it, the more
> things like dictionaries become important ? Thinks, literacy statistics
> around the time of Dr. Johnson ...
>
> Thinks, "Had we but tuits enough, and time" ...

Until there was a dictionary which was generally accepted as a standard
reference work[1], it was hard for anyone to say what was the 'proper'
spelling.

[1] There were word lists and dictionaries before his, but they didn't
achieve the same recognition.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Richard Robinson]

I'd be suprised if no-one found a way ... "Attitudes to Prescriptive
Spelling in the Early Modern Era", ed. Gissa Grant

> [1] There were word lists and dictionaries before his, but they didn't
> achieve the same recognition.

Bonus pedantry points !

[Mike Fleming]

On 25/07/2022 18:33, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>>

>> More recent writers do that too, though - the Peter Wimsey novels have a
>> fair bit of reference in them.
>
> True, but she works a bit better for me, the quotes/references seem more
> like pointers to things I might want to look up (not that I can remember
> ever having done so, mind, but if I were to bump into Izaak Walton or
> 'Anatomy of Melancholy', she'd likely have prompted me to have a
> look-see). Incidentally, since you mention her, is 'Gaudy Night' one
> you've met ? It seems noticeably less trivial than the others.
> Recommendation, if you like her anyway, not that you said you did. Or
> anyone else, of course

Yes, I read it after the last time it was mentioned. I do have a paper
copy of it somewhere which I've never read (joined the "to read" pile
which then got transferred to another pile, I suspect) but I downloaded
the ebook to the Kindle.

[Richard Robinson]

okay .. my interest is wonderng to what extent the situation of the
main character is a comment on her own.

As in so many other cases, it's only idle speculation, I've not poked
into her biographicals.

[Mike Fleming]

On 27/07/2022 12:26, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Mike Fleming said:
>> On 25/07/2022 18:33, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> Mike Fleming said:
>>>>
>>>> More recent writers do that too, though - the Peter Wimsey novels have a
>>>> fair bit of reference in them.
>>>
>>> True, but she works a bit better for me, the quotes/references seem more
>>> like pointers to things I might want to look up (not that I can remember
>>> ever having done so, mind, but if I were to bump into Izaak Walton or
>>> 'Anatomy of Melancholy', she'd likely have prompted me to have a
>>> look-see). Incidentally, since you mention her, is 'Gaudy Night' one
>>> you've met ? It seems noticeably less trivial than the others.
>>> Recommendation, if you like her anyway, not that you said you did. Or
>>> anyone else, of course
>>
>> Yes, I read it after the last time it was mentioned. I do have a paper
>> copy of it somewhere which I've never read (joined the "to read" pile
>> which then got transferred to another pile, I suspect) but I downloaded
>> the ebook to the Kindle.
>
> okay .. my interest is wonderng to what extent the situation of the
> main character is a comment on her own.
>
> As in so many other cases, it's only idle speculation, I've not poked
> into her biographicals.

She was very highly educated and a languages specialist. Her Wikipedia
entry is well worth reading. Her last husband, funnily enough, was a
Fleming (AFAIK, no relation).

[Sam Plusnet]

I suspect that "schoolmasters" did so prescribe - but I wonder of they
all sang from the same hymn-sheet, or made up their own.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Bernard Peek]

On 2022-07-26, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>
> Until there was a dictionary which was generally accepted as a standard
> reference work[1], it was hard for anyone to say what was the 'proper'
> spelling.

Lexicographers recognise that dictionaries are descriptive and not
prescriptive. An entry in a dictionary is a record of a word that has been
in use, but might now be obsolete.

The absence of an entry for a word or spelling doesn't make that word or
spelling illegitimate. It just means that the lexicographers either haven't
got round to adding it or consider that it isn't in widespread use (yet.)



--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com

[Sam Plusnet]

On 28-Jul-22 11:57, Bernard Peek wrote:
> On 2022-07-26, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> Until there was a dictionary which was generally accepted as a standard
>> reference work[1], it was hard for anyone to say what was the 'proper'
>> spelling.
>
> Lexicographers recognise that dictionaries are descriptive and not
> prescriptive. An entry in a dictionary is a record of a word that has been
> in use, but might now be obsolete.

Yes but you have to have dictionaries in place, before you can have that
prescriptive/descriptive discussion.

Once the good Doctor's dictionary was widely distributed, its spellings
became the generally accepted default. However you could still prefer &
use your own version, and that's still true today.

>
> The absence of an entry for a word or spelling doesn't make that word or
> spelling illegitimate. It just means that the lexicographers either haven't
> got round to adding it or consider that it isn't in widespread use (yet.)
>

That's why I talked about 'proper' spilling.
We have never had (nor wanted) an equivalent of the Académie Française,
but there are generally agreed on spillings of the vast majority of worms.



--
Sam Plusnet

[Richard Robinson]

Sam Plusnet said:
>
> Once the good Doctor's dictionary was widely distributed, its spellings
> became the generally accepted default. However you could still prefer &
> use your own version, and that's still true today.

A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.

[RustyHinge]

On 30/07/2022 16:50, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Sam Plusnet said:
>>
>> Once the good Doctor's dictionary was widely distributed, its spellings
>> became the generally accepted default. However you could still prefer &
>> use your own version, and that's still true today.
>
> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
> how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
> have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
> said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
> neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
> you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.

Thass all very well, but please parse...

[Richard Robinson]

RustyHinge said:
> On 30/07/2022 16:50, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> Sam Plusnet said:
>>>
>>> Once the good Doctor's dictionary was widely distributed, its spellings
>>> became the generally accepted default. However you could still prefer &
>>> use your own version, and that's still true today.
>>
>> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
>> how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
>> have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
>> said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
>> neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
>> you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.
>
> Thass all very well, but please parse...

Do you mean that people ought to be familiar with gramma as well as
spoiling ?

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> wrote in
news:Lr2dnZc4L7XKznj_...@brightview.co.uk:

> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant
> about how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean
> "should have".

Yes, that's a favourite rant of mine.

> I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by
> hearing it said rather than by reading it, then given the usual
> (IME,A) sort of neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough
> try at putting what you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.

That's no excuse, no excuse at all. It's an outrageous abuse of language.
<grin>

--
Peter
-----

[Sam Plusnet]

On 30-Jul-22 16:50, Richard Robinson wrote:
> Sam Plusnet said:
>>
>> Once the good Doctor's dictionary was widely distributed, its spellings
>> became the generally accepted default. However you could still prefer &
>> use your own version, and that's still true today.
>
> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
> how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
> have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
> said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
> neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
> you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.

There are plenty of people who, whilst not illiterate, aren't much at
home with reeling and writhing.

Hence their main input for worms & phrases is aural, and so provide us
with mondegreens and other verbal cock-ups.


--
Sam Plusnet

[Richard Robinson]

grin yerself, I wasn't making excuses, other grin.

But isn't it odd the way they're so ungrateful when you do them the favour
of explaining it ?

If it confuses the meaning, that's different, and I'll join you if you
want clarity. Unless I'm deliberately trying to not provide it, of
course (I'm thinking of the false plural for a single person of unknown
gender, where I'd sooner pick grandma's nits than justify an assumption).

[Richard Robinson]

Exactly. It's (possibly) one of the nice things about the 'net, that so
many people have discovered a reason to actually want to use it, as
opposed to just needing to interact with bureaucracies.

Incidentally, I did hear the Earl o' Moray slain in song, a few years
back. Petty little squabble among Scots aristocrats c.1500, IIRC. U.K.
leGuin, again : "Not a nation so much as a family quarrel", OWTTE

[Peter]

Richard Robinson <rich...@privacy.net> wrote in

news:qI6dnSnNRMoOH3j_...@brightview.co.uk:

>
> But isn't it odd the way they're so ungrateful when you do them the
> favour of explaining it ?
>

Wot, you think they should of thanked you?

--
Peter
-----

[RustyHinge]

On 30/07/2022 19:03, Richard Robinson wrote:
> RustyHinge said:
>> On 30/07/2022 16:50, Richard Robinson wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet said:
>>>>
>>>> Once the good Doctor's dictionary was widely distributed, its spellings
>>>> became the generally accepted default. However you could still prefer &
>>>> use your own version, and that's still true today.
>>>
>>> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
>>> how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
>>> have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
>>> said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
>>> neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
>>> you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.
>>
>> Thass all very well, but please parse...
>
> Do you mean that people ought to be familiar with gramma as well as
> spoiling ?

Yes. It helps haqrefgnqvat - sort have.

[Richard Robinson]

And indeed we are all concerned to express ourselves as clearly as
cbffvoyr. [who he ? - ed]

[Richard Robinson]

Curses, comeback failure. The Balloon Has Landed.

[Jonathan Harston]

On Saturday, 30 July 2022 at 16:50:53 UTC+1, Richard Robinson wrote:
> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
> how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
> have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
> said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
> neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
> you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.

But if you're spelling as you hear it, it should be: should ov not should of
(and not should have - it's should've).

There is absolutely no way "should of" is any sort of representation of
what they are attempting to represent in writing.

jgh

[Richard Robinson]

Jonathan Harston said:
> On Saturday, 30 July 2022 at 16:50:53 UTC+1, Richard Robinson wrote:
>> A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant about
>> how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean "should
>> have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by hearing it
>> said rather than by reading it, then given the usual (IME,A) sort of
>> neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough try at putting what
>> you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.
>
> But if you're spelling as you hear it, it should be: should ov not should of
> (and not should have - it's should've).

Arguably. I suspect I could find some fairly ambiguous uses of the 'f'
as well, if I were to be inclined, but I was never that serious about
it. It's just a thought that maybe some people who mainly rely on aural
might not be quite so nice about how they get their meanings across in
lettering.

> There is absolutely no way "should of" is any sort of representation of
> what they are attempting to represent in writing.

I'm defintely not inclined to get absolutist about it. Um, except that
clearly that is how they are using it, and I think the meaning is clear
enough, and I reckon that's the most important aspect of it all.

[John Williamson]

Take what you hear when I say "should've", add a dose of auto incorrect,
then you get "should of", especially when using speech to text services
on a dumbphone.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Brian D]

One that's currantly pissing me off is the arj worm, as used by chief
ecilops and tv presenters, reckonise, something to do with adding up?

Richard Robinson <ric...@qualmograph.org.uk> wrote:

> Jonathan Harston said:
> > On Saturday, 30 July 2022 at 16:50:53 UTC+1, Richard Robinson wrote:
> > > A connected thing - I have a friend who enjoys the occasional rant
> > > about how people shouldn't be writing "should of" when they mean
> > > "should have". I enjoy replying that if you pick the phrase up by
> > > hearing it said rather than by reading it, then given the usual
> > > (IME,A) sort of neutral-ish vowel for 'of', it's a reasonable enough
> > > try at putting what you've heard onto paper^Helectrons.
> >
> > But if you're spelling as you hear it, it should be: should ov not
> > should of (and not should have - it's should've).
>
> Arguably. I suspect I could find some fairly ambiguous uses of the 'f' as
> well, if I were to be inclined, but I was never that serious about it.
> It's just a thought that maybe some people who mainly rely on aural might
> not be quite so nice about how they get their meanings across in
> lettering.
>
> > There is absolutely no way "should of" is any sort of representation of
> > what they are attempting to represent in writing.
>
> I'm defintely not inclined to get absolutist about it. Um, except that
> clearly that is how they are using it, and I think the meaning is clear
> enough, and I reckon that's the most important aspect of it all.
>
>
>


--

Braind

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sat, 20 Aug 2022 23:29:31 +0100
Brian D <brian...@lycos.co.uk> wrote:

> One that's currantly pissing me off is the arj worm, as used by chief
> ecilops and tv presenters, reckonise, something to do with adding up?

Isn't that what you're supposed to do after monetising ?

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith
Odds and Ends at http://www.sohara.org/