The New York Times
Masa
the certain arcitle.
Newspapers' name like "New York Times" get the certain article before
it, and
my question is
what is supposed to be abbreviated on the phrase?
For example, the New York Times newspaper.
Because my book of English grammar says that a proper noun with the
certain article comes from
it's being a "proper noun + common noun" originally and that part of
"common noun" been abbreviated.
Django Cat
> Let me ask a question about the relationship between a proper noun and
> the certain arcitle.
I think you mean the definite article.
>
> Newspapers' name like "New York Times" get the certain article before
> it, and
> my question is
> what is supposed to be abbreviated on the phrase?
>
> For example, the New York Times newspaper.
>
> Because my book of English grammar says that a proper noun with the
> certain article comes from
> it's being a "proper noun + common noun" originally and that part of
> "common noun" been abbreviated.
Can you tell us which grammar book that is, please, Masa? I can't
think of a single example where that applies... well, okay, here's an
extremely tenuous one:
"Are you watching Coronation Street [1] tonight?"
"Are you watching the Street tonight?"
But that's an example of very obscure piece of usage, dredged up to fit
the pattern your book describes, it's certainly not a rule of grammar.
If we look at your example of 'New York Times', it's pointless to see
this as three separate words; it's a single (proper) noun phrase, the
name of the paper, split across three words. If you had to split it up
into 'New York' and 'Times' you'd still have two proper noun phrases,
the name of the city and the name of the specific paper.
[1] Long-running British TV soap
DC
--
Eric Walker
[...]
> If we look at your example of 'New York Times', it's pointless to see
> this as three separate words; it's a single (proper) noun phrase, the
> name of the paper, split across three words. If you had to split it up
> into 'New York' and 'Times' you'd still have two proper noun phrases,
> the name of the city and the name of the specific paper.
I seem to remember reading, quite some time ago, that the Times was
rather fussy about its name, insisting on the definite article as part of
it at all times, despite the obviously impossible ludicrousness of such a
construction as "a The New York Times reporter".
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker, Owlcroft House
http://owlcroft.com/english/
Roland Hutchinson
Whereas I was taught out of a grammar book that insisted on "the New York
_Times_" (the last word only being in italics), "the St. Louis _Post-
Dispatch_", etc.
--
Roland Hutchinson
He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )
Django Cat
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:09:03 +0000, Eric Walker wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:43:10 +0000, Django Cat wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> If we look at your example of 'New York Times', it's pointless to
> see >> this as three separate words; it's a single (proper) noun
> phrase, the >> name of the paper, split across three words. If you
> had to split it up >> into 'New York' and 'Times' you'd still have
> two proper noun phrases, >> the name of the city and the name of the
> specific paper.
> >
> > I seem to remember reading, quite some time ago, that the Times was
> > rather fussy about its name, insisting on the definite article as
> > part of it at all times, despite the obviously impossible
> > ludicrousness of such a construction as "a The New York Times
> > reporter".
>
> Whereas I was taught out of a grammar book that insisted on "the New
> York _Times_" (the last word only being in italics), "the St. Louis
> _Post- Dispatch_", etc.
Both interesting points, chaps. However, I read the Masa's posting as
saying that he or she has read, or been taught, that in some way the
'The' in 'The New York Times' is there because this is a shortened
version of a longer title, and this is an example of a widely-applied
rule.
I suspect Masa has been misinformed.
DC
--
Masa
My writing wasn't clear enough, so quite misleading, I've reflected.
It's always a challenge for me to put a question in English.
What I wanted to say is as follows:
The + (proper noun) like The (New York Times)
comes from the original form of The + (proper noun) + (common noun).
And the part of common noun has been abbreviated.
If this rules applies, the New York Times must have been
the + (New York Times) + (common noun) originally.
If so, what would have been the word in the position of common noun?
I guessed it might be the + (New York Times) + (newspaper).
How do you say about this point?
Am I clear enough this time?
Garrett Wollman
Roland Hutchinson <my.sp...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Whereas I was taught out of a grammar book that insisted on "the New York
>_Times_" (the last word only being in italics), "the St. Louis _Post-
>Dispatch_", etc.
Whereas I was taught to italicize the exact title given on the
masthead; hence:
/The New York Times/
/The Times/ (London)
The /Contra Costa/ (Calif.) /Times/
In some citation styles, names of newspapers are not italicized.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
John Lawler
No, it doesn't come from that original form.
If someone has given you that idea, you should
learn to mistrust their linguistic judgement.
Proper nouns do not always have common
nouns indicating their status or type. Rather,
proper nouns are denotative by themselves.
And here's the rule for use of 'the':
There is no single rule for use of 'the'.
Every situation has its own idiomatic rules
for how articles should be used. This is
particularly true when proper nouns are
involved. So (* indicates ungrammatical):
Lake Michigan ~ *The Lake Michigan
Lake of the Woods ~ The Lake of the Woods
*Great Salt Lake ~ The Great Salt Lake
*The Salt Lake (City) ~ Salt Lake (City)
The Mississippi River ~ *Mississippi River
...etc.
The reason is that 'the' doesn't mean anything.
It's available (like 'a/an', which means just as little)
as a mark to distinguish some situations from others.
Which situations? *Any* situations; custom will
decide, and then one just follows custom.
In the case of newspapers, custom says that the
proper name of the newspaper (in italics if one
prefers, since it's a title) can be stated either as
The _<title>_ of _<place>_
(The Times of London)
or as
The _<place>_ _<title>_
(The New York Times)
and that the category does not appear in the name:
*The Times newspaper of London
*The New York Times newspaper
This rule applies to newspapers, not apple varieties,
nor lakes, nor counties, nor ambassadors, nor any
other variety of noun. They have their own rules,
equally idiosyncratic. That's just the way grammar
works. Is this hard to learn? Yes. Sorry about that.
Are there any other questions?
-John Lawler http://www.umich.edu/~jlawler/aue
"Man acts as if he were the shaper and master of language,
while it is language which remains the mistress of man."
-- Martin
Heidegger
Peter Moylan
> Sorry, I couldn't describe clearly what I wanted to ask. My writing
> wasn't clear enough, so quite misleading, I've reflected. It's always
> a challenge for me to put a question in English.
>
> What I wanted to say is as follows:
>
> The + (proper noun) like The (New York Times) comes from the original
> form of The + (proper noun) + (common noun).
There never was such an original form. The information in your grammar
book is just plain wrong.
The owners of a newspaper choose its name. Some of those owners chose to
put a "The" in the name, and some didn't.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Django Cat
That's perfectly clear now, Masa, but there's no rule like that which I
know about (I've been a teacher of English as a Foreign Language for
over 20 years). That's why I wanted to know which grammar book had
this rule in it, and maybe for you to post to us exactly what the book
says.
DC
--
Django Cat
> Which situations? Any situations; custom will
> decide, and then one just follows custom.
>
> In the case of newspapers, custom says that the
> proper name of the newspaper (in italics if one
> prefers, since it's a title) can be stated either as
>
> The _<title>_ of _<place>_
> (The Times of London)
>
> or as
>
> The _<place>_ _<title>_
> (The New York Times)
>
> and that the category does not appear in the name:
>
> *The Times newspaper of London
> *The New York Times newspaper
>
> This rule applies to newspapers, not apple varieties,
> nor lakes, nor counties, nor ambassadors, nor any
> other variety of noun. They have their own rules,
> equally idiosyncratic. That's just the way grammar
> works. Is this hard to learn? Yes. Sorry about that.
> Are there any other questions?
>
Very strong answer. Articles are extremely challenging to teach to ESL
learners, especially for speakers of languages where the concept
doesn't really exist - and that's not just speakers of non-European
languages, but also Slavic speakers.
Any thoughts on where Masa has got this idea from? Misapplication of
another grammar rule?
DC
--
Roland Hutchinson
Perhaps there's been some interference somewhere from the rules that
trademark owners would _like_ us to follow when using their trademarks?
Django Cat
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:35:56 +0000, Django Cat wrote:
>
> > Masa wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, I couldn't describe clearly what I wanted to ask. My writing
> >> wasn't clear enough, so quite misleading, I've reflected. It's
> always a >> challenge for me to put a question in English.
> >>
> >> What I wanted to say is as follows:
> >>
> >> The + (proper noun) like The (New York Times) comes from the
> original >> form of The + (proper noun) + (common noun). And the part
> of common >> noun has been abbreviated. If this rules applies, the
> New York Times >> must have been the + (New York Times) + (common
> noun) originally. >>
> >> If so, what would have been the word in the position of common
> noun? >>
> >>
> >> I guessed it might be the + (New York Times) + (newspaper).
> >>
> >> How do you say about this point?
> >> Am I clear enough this time?
> >
> > That's perfectly clear now, Masa, but there's no rule like that
> > which I know about (I've been a teacher of English as a Foreign
> > Language for over 20 years). That's why I wanted to know which
> > grammar book had this rule in it, and maybe for you to post to us
> > exactly what the book says.
>
> Perhaps there's been some interference somewhere from the rules that
> trademark owners would like us to follow when using their trademarks?
Like 'Macdonalds' implies 'Macdonalds Restaurant'?
DC, reopenning a can of eels.
--
Jonathan Morton
news:2IbOm.130760$9M4.1...@newsfe03.ams2...
>>
>> Perhaps there's been some interference somewhere from the rules that
>> trademark owners would like us to follow when using their trademarks?
>
>
> Like 'Macdonalds' implies 'Macdonalds Restaurant'?
McDonalds.
Regards
Jonathan
Jonathan Morton
news:40795347-bdab-4a09...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>In the case of newspapers, custom says that the
>proper name of the newspaper (in italics if one
>prefers, since it's a title) can be stated either as
>
> The _<title>_ of _<place>_
> (The Times of London)
Except that the proper name of that newspaper is "The Times". The word
"London" does not appear and never has appeared.
>
>or as
>
> The _<place>_ _<title>_
> (The New York Times)
Which is indeed the proper name of "The New York Times".
One can understand why both great papers go to some lengths to (try to)
ensure correct use of the name.
Regards
Jonathan
Leslie Danks
McDonald's
--
Les (BrE)
Jonathan Morton
news:4b09738f$0$1549$91ce...@newsreader03.highway.telekom.at...
Good point - Skitt's law strikes again.
Regards
Jonathan
R H Draney
The Cat had it right the first time:
http://www.macdonalds-pitlochry.co.uk/
(I see they offer haggis lasagne)....r
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?
Django Cat
> >>> Like 'Macdonalds' implies 'Macdonalds Restaurant'?
> >>
> >> McDonalds.
> >
> > McDonald's
>
> The Cat had it right the first time:
>
> http://www.macdonalds-pitlochry.co.uk/
>
> (I see they offer haggis lasagne)....r
As it happens... I have both been to Pitlochry and eaten haggis lasagne
there, but I rather think this wasn't the establishment.
Haggis lasagne is very tasty, assuming you like haggis. And lasagne.
DC
--
Django Cat
> Leslie Danks filted:
> >
> > Jonathan Morton wrote:
> >
> >> "Django Cat" <nota...@address.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:2IbOm.130760$9M4.1...@newsfe03.ams2...
> > > > >
> >>>> Perhaps there's been some interference somewhere from the rules
> that >>>> trademark owners would like us to follow when using their
> trademarks?
> > > >
> > > >
> >>> Like 'Macdonalds' implies 'Macdonalds Restaurant'?
> >>
> >> McDonalds.
> >
> > McDonald's
>
> The Cat had it right the first time:
>
> http://www.macdonalds-pitlochry.co.uk/
>
> (I see they offer haggis lasagne)....r
In fact my Pitlochry Haggis Lasagne experience was here:
http://www.victorias-pitlochry.co.uk/
And very good it was too.
I see Victoria now serves Haggis, and Lasagne, but now no longer
together as a brave piece of fusion cooking on the same plate. Maybe
her chef moved to Macdonalds. But probably not McDonald's.
DC
--
Mike Lyle
"Jonathan Morton" <jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com>
wrote in message news:Mv2dnZmp8-I07ZTW...@bt.com...
Cunningham's that we had no right to expect "The Times" in a formal
reference to represent the former "The Universal Daily Register".
--
Mike.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Or "The Daily Universal Register".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mike Lyle
Or "The Registered Universal Daily": it started, as you know, as a sheet
of advertisements for go-anywhere do-anything cleaning services, with
the unique selling point of maintaining a central record in order to
guarantee reliability and honesty. Unfortunately, this function was
undercut by Polish and Filipino immigrants, so, in order to survive, it
had to broaden its coverage to include news and official announcements.
--
Mike.
Roland Hutchinson
> Haggis lasagne is very tasty, assuming you like haggis. And lasagne.
Aye, now there's a shining example of the sort of keen, penetrative
analytical thinking we have come to expect from the spiritual and
intelectual progeny of the Scottish Enlightenment!
R H Draney
>
>Haggis lasagne is very tasty, assuming you like haggis. And lasagne.
Or have suffered a blow to the head....r
Sydney Sorenson
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
>I remember, I think, that it was an irrational insistence of Bob
>Cunningham's that we had no right to expect "The Times" in a formal
>reference to represent the former "The Universal Daily Register".
I can state, based on good authority, that Bob Cunningham had never
heard of "The Universal Daily Register" until now, and he has no
knowledge of any remark even similar to the one Mike Lyle's
irresponsible rumor-mongering offers.
Bob Cunningham did once comment on how unfortunate it seemed that a
major British newspaper has no better formal name than "The Times"
while that appellation is used in many cities for everyday reference
to their own newspaper.
On the remote chance that there might be some substance to the rumor,
I Google-Grouped on "universal daily register", but it turned up only
Mike Lyle's irresponsible slur.
Dick: I read it in "The Times".
Jane: Which one? "New York Times"? "Los Angeles
Times"? "Seattle Times"?
Dick: No, the one that's published in England and
has no more distinguishing name than the catchall
"The Times".
Jane: Oh, that one.
--
Sydney Sorenson | "It's easy to be a comedian when you have
(aka Wilbur Wiggins) | the whole government helping you."
Western AmE | -- Will Rogers
Mike Lyle
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 21:21:04 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> I remember, I think, that it was an irrational insistence of Bob
>> Cunningham's that we had no right to expect "The Times" in a formal
>> reference to represent the former "The Universal Daily Register".
>
> I can state, based on good authority, that Bob Cunningham had never
> heard of "The Universal Daily Register" until now, and he has no
> knowledge of any remark even similar to the one Mike Lyle's
> irresponsible rumor-mongering offers.
>
> Bob Cunningham did once comment on how unfortunate it seemed that a
> major British newspaper has no better formal name than "The Times"
> while that appellation is used in many cities for everyday reference
> to their own newspaper.
>
> On the remote chance that there might be some substance to the rumor,
> I Google-Grouped on "universal daily register", but it turned up only
> Mike Lyle's irresponsible slur.
The irresponsible rumour-monger has, with fitting humility, submitted to
correction on this matter: the paper in question was in fact "The Daily
Universal Register".
>
> Dick: I read it in "The Times".
>
> Jane: Which one? "New York Times"? "Los Angeles
> Times"? "Seattle Times"?
>
> Dick: No, the one that's published in England and
> has no more distinguishing name than the catchall
> "The Times".
>
> Jane: Oh, that one.
Yes, the first newspaper in the entire history of the world to adopt the
title. Compare, for example, "Spectator", "Observer", "Sentinel",
"Guardian", "Star", etc etc. The community of scholars likes its
attributions precise; the place of publication is generally included in
full references, which tends to mitigate any momentary ambiguity
suffered by the inattentive reader.
--
Mike.
Evan Kirshenbaum
[About _The Times_ of London]
> Yes, the first newspaper in the entire history of the world to adopt the
> title.
That seems unlikely. As far as I can discover, they adopted the new
name in 1788. In the September, 1782, _Town and Country Magazine_
(p. 485), I see a piece entitled "English Newspapers" in which the
capitalization appears to be modern except for things that are often
titles of newspapers and which includes the line
Well do our Chronicles display the Times
(The others: Newspaper, Truth, Magazine, Gazette, Advertiser, Journal,
and Evening-Post.)
So apparently there was a _Times_ that Englishmen would be expected to
have been familiar with even before _The Daily Universal Register_
started publication in 1785.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |This isn't good. I've seen good,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |and it didn't look anything like
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |this.
| MST3K
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Shortie Longfellow
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than the
skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting "about
549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about 4,300,000" on
"The Times of London."
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 23 Nov 2009 08:24:41 -0800:
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
>
> [About _The Times_ of London]
>
> > Yes, the first newspaper in the entire history of the world to adopt the
> > title.
>
> That seems unlikely. As far as I can discover, they adopted the new
> name in 1788. In the September, 1782, _Town and Country Magazine_
> (p. 485), I see a piece entitled "English Newspapers" in which the
> capitalization appears to be modern except for things that are often
> titles of newspapers and which includes the line
>
> Well do our Chronicles display the Times
>
> (The others: Newspaper, Truth, Magazine, Gazette, Advertiser, Journal,
> and Evening-Post.)
>
> So apparently there was a _Times_ that Englishmen would be expected to
> have been familiar with even before _The Daily Universal Register_
> started publication in 1785.
I don't think that's right. Whatever about the capitalisation I think
the meaning of that is:
Well do our newspapers display the times we live in.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Evan Kirshenbaum
As I said, the words listed were the only ones not at the beginning of
a sentence (or line--part is in verse) other than proper nouns that
were capitalized. It's a longish piece (over a column), and there are
a lot of nouns, including things like "art", "crimes", "intelligence",
"conversation", "wealth", and "leisure". The line is part of a
couplet:
Well do our Chronicles display the Times
Now streak'd with follies, and now stain'd with crimes;
It seems strange that those particular ones would be capitalized but
not the others unless there was something about them the author was
intending to mark.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The bathwater, in this case, does
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not appear to ever have contained
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |any baby.
|
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | ronniecat
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than
> the skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting "about
> 549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about 4,300,000" on
> "The Times of London."
Looking at Google Books, I see "The Times, of London" back to 1825 and
"The _Times_ of London" back to 1833. "The London _Times_" goes back
at least to 1813. (That's the earliest I saw that had a date I could
verify was correct.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and
|defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and
(650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and
|eptitude to choose such putably
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage.
Jerry Friedman
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
>
> [About _The Times_ of London]
>
> > Yes, the first newspaper in the entire history of the world to adopt the
> > title.
>
> That seems unlikely. As far as I can discover, they adopted the new
> name in 1788. In the September, 1782, _Town and Country Magazine_
> (p. 485), I see a piece entitled "English Newspapers" in which the
> capitalization appears to be modern except for things that are often
> titles of newspapers and which includes the line
>
> Well do our Chronicles display the Times
>
> (The others: Newspaper, Truth, Magazine, Gazette, Advertiser, Journal,
> and Evening-Post.)
>
> So apparently there was a _Times_ that Englishmen would be expected to
> have been familiar with even before _The Daily Universal Register_
> started publication in 1785.
But not Irishmen, as /The Hibernian Magazine/ printed it with a lower-
case "t" (but still capitalized "Chronicles") in that same year.
http://books.google.com/books?id=jLMRAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA543#v=onepage&q=&f=false
--
Jerry Friedman
Mike Lyle
> Shortie Longfellow <longs...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
>> That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than
>> the skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting "about
>> 549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about 4,300,000" on
>> "The Times of London."
Guilt can't generally be established in a trial by Google, but if you
mean that an awful lot of people are either vague about it or know that
others may be, then nobody would argue with you, even without seeing
Google counts. But that would not skunk it in scholarly circles, where
one's yea tends to be one's yea, and one's nay, one's nay.
>
> Looking at Google Books, I see "The Times, of London" back to 1825 and
> "The _Times_ of London" back to 1833. "The London _Times_" goes back
> at least to 1813. (That's the earliest I saw that had a date I could
> verify was correct.)
Well, I quite often use the form "the London _Times_" myself: those
examples, of course, support my position. As for the very interesting
"Chronicle...Times" quotation you found, I'll try to investigate, as it
does present good prima facie evidence.
--
Mike.
R H Draney
>
>That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than the
>skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting "about
>549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about 4,300,000" on
>"The Times of London."
The latter form certainly wouldn't work for the principal newspaper around
*here*..."The Republic of Arizona"?...r
Don Aitken
The British Library online catalogue should help. Unfortunately, the
separate catalogue for newspapers seems to have gone, so you may have
to trawl through lots of irrelevant stuff; having been caught that way
once, I'm not volunteering!
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Nick
> Haggis lasagne is very tasty, assuming you like haggis. And lasagne.
It sounds good. I presume the haggis filling replaces the
meat-and-tomato sauce, do you still have a white cheese sauce in there?
I realise that in the recent discussions of both cottage/shepherds' pie
and mushy peas I didn't recount a meal I had at The Swan in Hanley
Swan. It was called "Black Country Pie" IIRC and consisted of a layer
of faggot meat, a layer of mushy peas and a layer of potatoes, all
cooked and browned in the oven. I must make it sometime.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Robin Bignall
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
It took a long time for trivia such as news to sully the first page.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Shortie Longfellow
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> Shortie Longfellow <longs...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>>> That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than
>>> the skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting "about
>>> 549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about 4,300,000" on
>>> "The Times of London."
>
>Guilt can't generally be established in a trial by Google, but if you
>mean that an awful lot of people are either vague about it or know that
>others may be,
There's nothing vague about knowing that people in Los Angeles say
"The Times" when referring to their local paper and knowing that it's
simply not specific enough to say "The Times" when referring in Los
Angeles to the "The Times" published in England. The vagueness here
lies in the British name "The Times" itself, which has become vague
despite any specificity it may have once had.
Language evolves. "Decimate" no longer means only "kill one in ten,"
"aggravate" no longer means only "make heavier," and "The Times" is no
longer an adequate sole name for a newspaper.
>then nobody would argue with you, even without seeing
>Google counts. But that would not skunk it in scholarly circles, where
>one's yea tends to be one's yea, and one's nay, one's nay.
>>
>> Looking at Google Books, I see "The Times, of London" back to 1825 and
>> "The _Times_ of London" back to 1833. "The London _Times_" goes back
>> at least to 1813. (That's the earliest I saw that had a date I could
>> verify was correct.)
>
>Well, I quite often use the form "the London _Times_" myself:
I seem to remember its having been held here that the proper name of
the newspaper is _The Times_, so wouldn't a truly true scholar say
"the London _The Times_," not "the London _Times_"?
A Times Newspapers Web site seems to show a similar lack of respect
for the proper name, calling itself "TimesOnline," not
"TheTimesOnline."
(That Web site seems to support the use of "The Times" as the proper
name of the newspaper, referring in a footnote to "material from Times
Online, The Times or The Sunday Times.")
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<longs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>A Times Newspapers Web site seems to show a similar lack of respect
>for the proper name, calling itself "TimesOnline," not
>"TheTimesOnline."
>
>(That Web site seems to support the use of "The Times" as the proper
>name of the newspaper, referring in a footnote to "material from Times
>Online, The Times or The Sunday Times.")
TimesOnline is the website of two distinct newspapers, The Times and The
Sunday Times. The latter is not a Sunday edition of the former. They are
now part of the Murdoch empire but used to have different owners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Times
The Sunday Times is published by Times Newspapers Ltd, a subsidiary
of News International, which is in turn owned by News Corporation.
Times Newspapers also owns The Times, but the two papers were
founded independently and came under common ownership only in 1966.
Rupert Murdoch's News International acquired the papers in 1981.
A site name "TheTimesOnline" would refer only to the 6-day paper.
"TheTimesAndSundayTimesOnline" would be a bit unwieldy.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Interesting.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Bullwinkle: You sure that's the
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | only way?
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Rocky: Well, if you're going to be
| a hero, you've got to do
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | stupid things every once in
(650)857-7572 | a while.
Mike Lyle
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:25:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>> Shortie Longfellow <longs...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>
>>>> That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than
>>>> the skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting
>>>> "about 549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about
>>>> 4,300,000" on "The Times of London."
>>
>> Guilt can't generally be established in a trial by Google, but if you
>> mean that an awful lot of people are either vague about it or know
>> that others may be,
>
> There's nothing vague about knowing that people in Los Angeles say
> "The Times" when referring to their local paper and knowing that it's
> simply not specific enough to say "The Times" when referring in Los
> Angeles to the "The Times" published in England. The vagueness here
> lies in the British name "The Times" itself, which has become vague
> despite any specificity it may have once had.
>
> Language evolves. "Decimate" no longer means only "kill one in ten,"
> "aggravate" no longer means only "make heavier," and "The Times" is no
> longer an adequate sole name for a newspaper.
Well, perhaps Mr Murdoch, as a celebrated nationality-shifter, should
bow to your acknowledged expertise in name-changing.
>
>> then nobody would argue with you, even without seeing
>> Google counts. But that would not skunk it in scholarly circles,
>> where one's yea tends to be one's yea, and one's nay, one's nay.
>>>
>>> Looking at Google Books, I see "The Times, of London" back to 1825
>>> and "The _Times_ of London" back to 1833. "The London _Times_"
>>> goes back at least to 1813. (That's the earliest I saw that had a
>>> date I could verify was correct.)
>>
>> Well, I quite often use the form "the London _Times_" myself:
>
> I seem to remember its having been held here that the proper name of
> the newspaper is _The Times_, so wouldn't a truly true scholar say
> "the London _The Times_," not "the London _Times_"?
References and body text are not the same creature, and often display
differing stylistic behaviour.
[...]
--
Mike.
Shortie Longfellow
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Shortie Longfellow wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:25:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>> <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>> Shortie Longfellow <longs...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> That there is a widespread felt need for a more specific name than
>>>>> the skunked "The Times" seems to be shown by Google's getting
>>>>> "about 549,000" hits on the phrase "London Times" and "about
>>>>> 4,300,000" on "The Times of London."
>>>
>>> Guilt can't generally be established in a trial by Google, but if you
>>> mean that an awful lot of people are either vague about it or know
>>> that others may be,
>>
>> There's nothing vague about knowing that people in Los Angeles say
>> "The Times" when referring to their local paper and knowing that it's
>> simply not specific enough to say "The Times" when referring in Los
>> Angeles to the "The Times" published in England. The vagueness here
>> lies in the British name "The Times" itself, which has become vague
>> despite any specificity it may have once had.
>>
>> Language evolves. "Decimate" no longer means only "kill one in ten,"
>> "aggravate" no longer means only "make heavier," and "The Times" is no
>> longer an adequate sole name for a newspaper.
>
>Well, perhaps Mr Murdoch, as a celebrated nationality-shifter, should
>bow to your acknowledged expertise in name-changing.
Bluster. Doesn't respond to my remark sensibly.
>>> then nobody would argue with you, even without seeing
>>> Google counts. But that would not skunk it in scholarly circles,
>>> where one's yea tends to be one's yea, and one's nay, one's nay.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at Google Books, I see "The Times, of London" back to 1825
>>>> and "The _Times_ of London" back to 1833. "The London _Times_"
>>>> goes back at least to 1813. (That's the earliest I saw that had a
>>>> date I could verify was correct.)
>>>
>>> Well, I quite often use the form "the London _Times_" myself:
>>
>> I seem to remember its having been held here that the proper name of
>> the newspaper is _The Times_, so wouldn't a truly true scholar say
>> "the London _The Times_," not "the London _Times_"?
>
>References and body text are not the same creature, and often display
>differing stylistic behaviour.
>[...]
Bafflegab. If you don't want to answer the question, why don't you
just refrain from posting?
Is the name of the paper "The Times" or is it something else?
When you write "I quite often use the form "the London _Times_"
myself," you are implying that the name of the paper is "Times," not
"The Times."
Mike Lyle
been out of keeping with the proposal. After all, you didn't really
expect me to take seriously the idea that the paper should change its
name, did you?
>
>
>>>> then nobody would argue with you, even without seeing
>>>> Google counts. But that would not skunk it in scholarly circles,
>>>> where one's yea tends to be one's yea, and one's nay, one's nay.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at Google Books, I see "The Times, of London" back to 1825
>>>>> and "The _Times_ of London" back to 1833. "The London _Times_"
>>>>> goes back at least to 1813. (That's the earliest I saw that had a
>>>>> date I could verify was correct.)
>>>>
>>>> Well, I quite often use the form "the London _Times_" myself:
>>>
>>> I seem to remember its having been held here that the proper name of
>>> the newspaper is _The Times_, so wouldn't a truly true scholar say
>>> "the London _The Times_," not "the London _Times_"?
>>
>> References and body text are not the same creature, and often display
>> differing stylistic behaviour.
>> [...]
>
> Bafflegab. If you don't want to answer the question, why don't you
> just refrain from posting?
You mean this is a completely serious conversation? Well, in that case,
I'll rephrase my sentiments, as follows. References such as
bibliographies and footnotes should be precise, and use the formal
titles of any publications referred to; such precision is not always
needed in general writing or even in the main body of an academic or
other specialist work. I'll be a little surprised if you disagree with
that. (I might mention that I have never needed to mention the newspaper
in a specialist work.)
>
> Is the name of the paper "The Times" or is it something else?
>
> When you write "I quite often use the form "the London _Times_"
> myself," you are implying that the name of the paper is "Times," not
> "The Times."
I don't really think so for any everyday context; and I hope I wouldn't
use the form where it was likely to mislead.
--
Mike.
Django Cat
> "Django Cat" <nota...@address.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Haggis lasagne is very tasty, assuming you like haggis. And
> > lasagne.
>
> It sounds good. I presume the haggis filling replaces the
> meat-and-tomato sauce, do you still have a white cheese sauce in
> there?
>
Absolutely. The spiciness of the haggis adds a definite something to a
lasagne, not to mention the barley bringing variety to the texture.
We're having lasagne for dinner tonight, but not the haggis version,
which seems to be a Pitlochry speciality. Not to be confused with
Callender, where I once bought a battered haggis for the first and only
time. Not goood.
DC
--
Django Cat
> "Django Cat" <nota...@address.co.uk> writes:
>
> > Haggis lasagne is very tasty, assuming you like haggis. And
> > lasagne.
>
> It sounds good. I presume the haggis filling replaces the
> meat-and-tomato sauce, do you still have a white cheese sauce in
> there?
In fact Mrs C has just suggested that tomato sauce is de rigeur, with
the haggis merely being substituted for the minced beef, but that's not
how I remember it (and I was the one who ate it as she's vegetarian).
>
> I realise that in the recent discussions of both cottage/shepherds'
> pie and mushy peas I didn't recount a meal I had at The Swan in Hanley
> Swan. It was called "Black Country Pie" IIRC and consisted of a layer
> of faggot meat, a layer of mushy peas and a layer of potatoes, all
> cooked and browned in the oven. I must make it sometime.
That sounds completely scrummy. Pubs serving regional stuff like that
rather than the usual insipid fayre [sic] are to be cherished. Long
way from the Black Country though...
DC
--
Shortie Longfellow
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I see, you're making a mistake of a sort that's not too unusual. At
no point did I propose that the name of the paper be changed. You
improperly inferred that from my observation that many people seem to
feel that the name it has is insufficient to distinguish it.
I don't care what the "The Times" management want to call their paper,
and I wouldn't dream of advising them on what to call it. As an
English user and a dilettantish student of English usage, I do find it
interesting to think about an entrenched name's having become
inappropriate over time. I incidentally find it interesting to see
some AUE posters' rising vigorously to the defense of the name without
acknowledging any recognition of its evolved vagueness.
If I write about Jane Austen's writing near the beginning of her novel
_Emma_, "young ladies for enormous pay might be screwed out of health
and into vanity," I'm commenting on a striking and amusing aspect of
English change, not suggesting that Jane Austen rise from her grave
and modernize her wording. In a similar way, when I observe that the
"The Times" name is no longer a sufficiently distinguishing
appellation, I'm not suggesting that the name be changed.
I've never had and may never have occasion to read the "The Times"
paper, and its name is in no way a direct inconvenience to me. Why
should I bother to suggest that it be changed?
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
<longs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I don't care what the "The Times" management want to call their paper,
>and I wouldn't dream of advising them on what to call it. As an
>English user and a dilettantish student of English usage, I do find it
>interesting to think about an entrenched name's having become
>inappropriate over time. I incidentally find it interesting to see
>some AUE posters' rising vigorously to the defense of the name without
>acknowledging any recognition of its evolved vagueness.
That might be because we have discussed this before - more than once.
When it is necessary to distinguish "The Times" from any other Timeses
it is referred to as "The Times of London" or "The Times (of London)".
I understand that reporters from the paper will use that form when
necessary when introducing themselves.
Mark Brader
> TimesOnline is the website of two distinct newspapers, The Times and The
> Sunday Times. The latter is not a Sunday edition of the former.
Which looks to me like an obvious trademark violation. Does The Times
not claim a trademark on its own name, or does the Sunday Times go back
to an era before there was such a thing as trademark protection, or what?
--
Mark Brader "...but the past thousand years
Toronto, m...@vex.net have been atypical."
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Peter Duncanson:
>> TimesOnline is the website of two distinct newspapers, The Times and The
>> Sunday Times. The latter is not a Sunday edition of the former.
>> They... used to have different owners.
>
>Which looks to me like an obvious trademark violation. Does The Times
>not claim a trademark on its own name, or does the Sunday Times go back
>to an era before there was such a thing as trademark protection, or what?
I don't know the legal side of it but there are many other British
papers named The X Times.
There are, for instance, the Financial Times, the Church Times (Church
of England), Oxford Times, Evening Times (Glasgow), Mid Sussex Times,
Bexley Times, Richmond and Twickenham Times, Bootle Times, Coventry
Times, Formby Times,...
Similarly there are many papers with "Telegraph" in the name as well as
the national paper the Daily Telegraph. Ditto for "Mail" and "Star".
I think the point is that there is no risk of confusion. In 1966 the
Daily Worker, a communist paper, relaunched as the Morning Star. I seem
to recall some discussion as to whether the name could be used because
of "Star" already being used by the Daily Star. I can't recall whether
it went to court or not.
There was a court case in Ireland when the Irish Independent objected to
the UK paper The Independent publishing in Ireland (or something like
that). The Irish Independent claimed that there could be confusion
because of the similarity of the names. The judge disagreed, strongly.
He said that because of differences in the style and content there was
no risk of confusion.
Mark Brader
>>> TimesOnline is the website of two distinct newspapers, The Times and The
>>> Sunday Times. The latter is not a Sunday edition of the former.
>>> They... used to have different owners.
Mark Brader:
>> Which looks to me like an obvious trademark violation. Does The Times
>> not claim a trademark on its own name, or does the Sunday Times go back
>> to an era before there was such a thing as trademark protection, or what?
Peter Duncanson:
> I don't know the legal side of it but there are many other British
> papers named The X Times.
Sure, but those other titles all point to specific subject matter or a
specific location. "The Sunday Times" would be a natural name for the
plain Times's own Sunday edition. (I get the Toronto Star delivered,
but the Saturday and Sunday papers actually show the title as the
"Saturday Star" and the "Sunday Star".)
> I think the point is that there is no risk of confusion.
And the difference is that in this case there is. I actually was
confused by it -- I just assumed that the Sunday Times was the same
paper when I first heard of it.
--
Mark Brader "I can say nothing at this point."
Toronto "Well, you were wrong."
m...@vex.net -- Monty Python's Flying Circus
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Peter Duncanson:
>>>> TimesOnline is the website of two distinct newspapers, The Times and The
>>>> Sunday Times. The latter is not a Sunday edition of the former.
>>>> They... used to have different owners.
>
>Mark Brader:
>>> Which looks to me like an obvious trademark violation. Does The Times
>>> not claim a trademark on its own name, or does the Sunday Times go back
>>> to an era before there was such a thing as trademark protection, or what?
>
>Peter Duncanson:
>> I don't know the legal side of it but there are many other British
>> papers named The X Times.
>
>Sure, but those other titles all point to specific subject matter or a
>specific location. "The Sunday Times" would be a natural name for the
>plain Times's own Sunday edition. (I get the Toronto Star delivered,
>but the Saturday and Sunday papers actually show the title as the
>"Saturday Star" and the "Sunday Star".)
>
>> I think the point is that there is no risk of confusion.
>
>And the difference is that in this case there is. I actually was
>confused by it -- I just assumed that the Sunday Times was the same
>paper when I first heard of it.
I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently Sunday
papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises from weekly
(Mon-Sat) papers. If there were papers the "Daily News" and the "Sunday
News" it could not be assumed that they were related, the chances would
be that they were not.
It is only in the last 50 years that UK national daily papers have
acquired Sunday siblings, either by purchase of an existing Sunday paper
or by starting their own.
When I first came across Sunday papers in the late 1950s there were many
more Sunday titles than there were weekly titles. (My father got The
Times six days a week but we did not get a Sunday paper. I didn't meet
Sunday papers close up until I joined the Royal Air Force and saw what
others were reading.)
Garrett Wollman
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>(I get the Toronto Star delivered, but the Saturday and Sunday papers
>actually show the title as the "Saturday Star" and the "Sunday
>Star".)
Does the Star follow the Canadian tradition of delivering all the
preprints and other once-a-week sections in the Saturday paper, rather
than the Sunday? That always seemed odd when I was visiting Canada.
(But I was mostly visiting Quebec, since I lived in Vermont, and I
know Quebec still has more restrictive Sunday-trading laws than many
if not all of the other provinces.)
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Cheryl
> In article <sa6dnaNsLpzsyZPW...@vex.net>,
> Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:
>> (I get the Toronto Star delivered, but the Saturday and Sunday papers
>> actually show the title as the "Saturday Star" and the "Sunday
>> Star".)
>
> Does the Star follow the Canadian tradition of delivering all the
> preprints and other once-a-week sections in the Saturday paper, rather
> than the Sunday? That always seemed odd when I was visiting Canada.
> (But I was mostly visiting Quebec, since I lived in Vermont, and I
> know Quebec still has more restrictive Sunday-trading laws than many
> if not all of the other provinces.)
>
> -GAWollman
>
Our local paper - I forget which conglomerat it currently belongs to -
used to have all that stuff in the Saturday paper back when there were
papers everyday. They've eliminated the Sunday one entirely fairly
recently, but it always was the thinnest paper of the week. I never
though it had anything to do with Sunday trading laws, which have in any
case loosened up considerably. Flyer-circulation has varied - I think
they used to go out on a Saturday, but moved earlier in the week, have
moved to (I think) Thursday and has now been separated entirely from the
newspaper, being given out in a plastic biodegadable bag in order to be
more environmentally sensitive. This change isn't going very well,
because they've been neglecting to get all the flyers to people who want
them while delivering them to people who've been refusing them for years
for environmental reasons.
--
Cheryl
Mark Brader
> I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently Sunday
> papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises from weekly
Did you really mean "weekly" there? You said it twice. To me
a weekly newspaper is one that only produces one issue a week.
The typical example in North America would be a paper in a small
town where they don't have a lot of news, but your independent Sunday
papers would also count.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It is never good to adapt the design to the software;
m...@vex.net | it should be the other way around. --J.A. Durieux
Robert Lieblich
>
> Peter Duncanson:
> > I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently Sunday
> > papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises from weekly
> > (Mon-Sat) papers. ...
>
> Did you really mean "weekly" there? You said it twice. To me
> a weekly newspaper is one that only produces one issue a week.
> The typical example in North America would be a paper in a small
> town where they don't have a lot of news, but your independent Sunday
> papers would also count.
I think the word wanted is "weekday", although even then there's the
problem of Saturday.
--
Bob Lieblich
Whose Saturdays are often problematic
Mark Brader
>> (I get the Toronto Star delivered, but the Saturday and Sunday papers
>> actually show the title as the "Saturday Star" and the "Sunday
>> Star".)
> Does the Star follow the Canadian tradition of delivering all the
> preprints and other once-a-week sections in the Saturday paper, rather
> than the Sunday?
"All" is overstated -- there's some of that on Thursdays and Sundays
too -- but yeah, the Saturday paper is the big one. Meaning that we
get to see the weekly comics one day ahead of you.
> That always seemed odd when I was visiting Canada.
It's because of Sunday papers having been illegal not so long ago.
(Curiously, as far as I know They weren't ever bothered about the
*production* of newspapers on Sundays -- Monday-morning papers were
fine -- only the sale of them.) The other three Toronto papers
still only publish 6 days a week: Sunday through Friday for the Sun,
Monday through Saturday for the other two.
I remember exactly when the Star added the Sunday paper, because it
was the same month in 1977 when I got married and moved out of my
parents' place. I phoned their office early in the month and said
I wanted to get the paper delivered starting on October 29, and gave
them my details. Then they asked "Do you want the paper 5 days a week?"
(i.e. Monday to Friday delivery, as businesses might want) "Or 6?"
And I said, "7 days!" and so it was.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "I don't have *any* minions any more."
m...@vex.net -- Clive Feather
Mark Brader
>>> I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently Sunday
>>> papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises from weekly
>>> (Mon-Sat) papers. ...
Mark Brader:
>> Did you really mean "weekly" there? You said it twice...
Bob Lieblich:
> I think the word wanted is "weekday"...
And I thought it was "daily".
--
Mark Brader "He added a 3-point lead" is pronounced
Toronto differently in Snooker than in Typography...
m...@vex.net -- Liam Quin
Skitt
> Peter Duncanson:
>>>> I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently
>>>> Sunday papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises
>>>> from weekly (Mon-Sat) papers. ...
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> Did you really mean "weekly" there? You said it twice...
>
> Bob Lieblich:
>> I think the word wanted is "weekday"...
>
> And I thought it was "daily".
Well, it is "daily except on Sundays".
--
Skitt (AmE)
R H Draney
My current VCR thinks "daily" means "Monday through Friday" and has a strict
midnight-to-midnight interpretation of the day...if there's something on five
days a week that airs after midnight, I have to set both a "daily" recording and
a "weekly" recording (specifying Saturday), and then discard whatever
infomercial it records for me late Sunday night....r
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>Peter Duncanson:
>> I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently Sunday
>> papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises from weekly
>> (Mon-Sat) papers. ...
>
>Did you really mean "weekly" there? You said it twice. To me
>a weekly newspaper is one that only produces one issue a week.
>The typical example in North America would be a paper in a small
>town where they don't have a lot of news, but your independent Sunday
>papers would also count.
It was an editing error. I intended to use "daily", which does have its
problems as mentioned.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>Skitt filted:
>>
>>Mark Brader wrote:
>>> Peter Duncanson:
>>>>>> I can understand that. In the UK until comparatively recently
>>>>>> Sunday papers were in most cases completely separate enterprises
>>>>>> from weekly (Mon-Sat) papers. ...
>>>
>>> Mark Brader:
>>>>> Did you really mean "weekly" there? You said it twice...
>>>
>>> Bob Lieblich:
>>>> I think the word wanted is "weekday"...
>>>
>>> And I thought it was "daily".
>>
>>Well, it is "daily except on Sundays".
>
>My current VCR thinks "daily" means "Monday through Friday" and has a strict
>midnight-to-midnight interpretation of the day...if there's something on five
>days a week that airs after midnight, I have to set both a "daily" recording and
>a "weekly" recording (specifying Saturday), and then discard whatever
>infomercial it records for me late Sunday night....r
Is "current VCR" not an oxymoron?
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
R H Draney
>>midnight-to-midnight interpretation of the day...if there's something on five
>>days a week that airs after midnight, I have to set both a "daily" recording and
>>a "weekly" recording (specifying Saturday), and then discard whatever
>>infomercial it records for me late Sunday night....r
>
>Is "current VCR" not an oxymoron?
Not at all...I replaced the last one (which had a different schema for defining
"daily") when it started ejecting tapes for no good reason, and I'll probably
replace this one in a year or two when it develops a similarly annoying
quirk...there's a steady stream of the things going in and out of this
place....r
Jonathan Morton
news:hepd9...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>
>>On 26 Nov 2009 12:34:09 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>My current VCR thinks "daily" means "Monday through Friday" and has a
>>>strict
>>>midnight-to-midnight interpretation of the day...if there's something on
>>>five
>>>days a week that airs after midnight, I have to set both a "daily"
>>>recording and
>>>a "weekly" recording (specifying Saturday), and then discard whatever
>>>infomercial it records for me late Sunday night....r
>>
>>Is "current VCR" not an oxymoron?
>
> Not at all...I replaced the last one (which had a different schema for
> defining
> "daily") when it started ejecting tapes for no good reason, and I'll
> probably
...if you can find one - which I think is what Chuck meant by oxymoron.
I suppose they are still being produced, but I managed to transfer my few
remaining tapes to DVD a year or two back. Of course, that is probably just
in time for us to be told that DVD is now obsolete.
Regards
Jonathan
Chuck Riggs
<jonathan.mortonb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>news:hepd9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>> Chuck Riggs filted:
>>>
>>>On 26 Nov 2009 12:34:09 -0800, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>My current VCR thinks "daily" means "Monday through Friday" and has a
>>>>strict
>>>>midnight-to-midnight interpretation of the day...if there's something on
>>>>five
>>>>days a week that airs after midnight, I have to set both a "daily"
>>>>recording and
>>>>a "weekly" recording (specifying Saturday), and then discard whatever
>>>>infomercial it records for me late Sunday night....r
>>>
>>>Is "current VCR" not an oxymoron?
>>
>> Not at all...I replaced the last one (which had a different schema for
>> defining
>> "daily") when it started ejecting tapes for no good reason, and I'll
>> probably
>> replace this one in a year or two...
>
>...if you can find one - which I think is what Chuck meant by oxymoron.
It is. They are a dead duck.
What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a nuisance
to use, with the short life of tapes, with their bulk and with the
superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still has one.
<snip>
Nick
> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a nuisance
> to use, with the short life of tapes, with their bulk and with the
> superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still has one.
Because I have one, I have a pile of tapes and I can pick up second hand
videos for practically nothing at charity shops. So for watching the
odd film when we've got nothing we feel like on the PVR, or for
entertaining the children with suitable film it's perfect.
Would I buy one if it died? Probably, but not for very much.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a nuisance
>to use, with the short life of tapes, with their bulk and with the
>superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still has one.
Because it costs a fortune to replace all the video tapes you bought
over the last 30 years but still enjoy watching? And heck, they're far
easier to use. You can fast forward through the anti-piracy warnings,
unlike DVDs which force you to waste up to 5 mins on those and
trailers.
James Silverton
>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a
>> nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes, with their
>> bulk and with the superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still
>> has one.
Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of tapes to DVDs.
It is becoming quite difficult to find devices to read tapes. I have one
that plays both tapes and DVDs but it won't last for ever.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
R H Draney
>
> Amethyst wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000:
>
>>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a
>>> nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes, with their
>>> bulk and with the superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still
>>> has one.
>
>Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of tapes to DVDs.
>
>It is becoming quite difficult to find devices to read tapes. I have one
>that plays both tapes and DVDs but it won't last for ever.
But until I've either converted or replaced all of the tapes I still have, I
need the machine that plays them....
And it's handy to record those shows that are aired when it's not convenient for
me to watch, but where I don't much care about HD picture quality or even
archiving them after I've seen them....r
Pat Durkin
news:herp9q$rc3$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Amethyst wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000:
>
>>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a
>>> nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes, with their
>>> bulk and with the superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still
>>> has one.
>
> Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of tapes to
> DVDs.
>
> It is becoming quite difficult to find devices to read tapes. I have
> one that plays both tapes and DVDs but it won't last for ever.
I saw a 3-speed player advertised for sale ($50) at a building-supply
store for the 2 days after Thanksgiving Day. It wasn't one of the
door-busters. I think it also had good speakers, but the important
thing was that it had a DVD recorder built in. I may go to a few
stores on a weekday after the rush, to see and ask questions. But I
haven't, before this, searched out such an appliance on the internet,
so I don't need it "right now".
Since I have a player, and it has a line-out socket, I would first pay
money to save it through my computer>hard drive>DVD recorder.
I traveled on the few days before the holiday, and think now that
maybe it didn't record to a DVD, but to an M4 (flash drive?).
All of these are pipe-dreams or rainy-day fantasies, which I might
turn into an impulse purchase (or two).
Robin Bignall
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Amethyst wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000:
>
>>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a
>>> nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes, with their
>>> bulk and with the superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still
>>> has one.
>
>Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of tapes to DVDs.
>
I saw one of those advertised at a reasonable price and was thinking
of buying until I read the fine print. It won't convert commercial
tapes, which presumably have some sort of copy protection.
>It is becoming quite difficult to find devices to read tapes. I have one
>that plays both tapes and DVDs but it won't last for ever.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Chuck Riggs
Do you still use DOS, an obsolete product? Tapes are a nuisance. That
is why VCRs are obsolete.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>James Silverton filted:
>>
>> Amethyst wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000:
>>
>>>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a
>>>> nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes, with their
>>>> bulk and with the superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still
>>>> has one.
>>
>>Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of tapes to DVDs.
>>
>>It is becoming quite difficult to find devices to read tapes. I have one
>>that plays both tapes and DVDs but it won't last for ever.
>
>But until I've either converted or replaced all of the tapes I still have, I
>need the machine that plays them....
>
>And it's handy to record those shows that are aired when it's not convenient for
>me to watch, but where I don't much care about HD picture quality or even
>archiving them after I've seen them....r
I get satisfaction from throwing away obsolete products. My collection
of 78s, for example, all carefully collected, labeled and stored
through the years, tossed out on the same day. I saw no point in
keeping them once the higher fidelity, longer playing 33s were
available.
James Silverton
>> James Silverton filted:
>>>
>>> Amethyst wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000:
>>>
>>>>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such
>>>>> a nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes, with
>>>>> their bulk and with the superior sound quality of CDs,
>>>>> anyone still has one.
>>>
>>> Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of
>>> tapes to DVDs.
>>>
>>> It is becoming quite difficult to find devices to read
>>> tapes. I have one that plays both tapes and DVDs but it
>>> won't last for ever.
>>
>> But until I've either converted or replaced all of the tapes
>> I still have, I need the machine that plays them....
>>
>> And it's handy to record those shows that are aired when it's
>> not convenient for me to watch, but where I don't much care
>> about HD picture quality or even archiving them after I've
>> seen them....r
> I get satisfaction from throwing away obsolete products. My
> collection of 78s, for example, all carefully collected,
> labeled and stored through the years, tossed out on the same
> day. I saw no point in keeping them once the higher fidelity,
> longer playing 33s were available.
Have you converted your 33s to DVDs yet? Again, converters are not very
expensive. I am trying to decide how good a job they do and even whether
it is worthwhile at all, tho' a number of the 33s have a lot of
sentimental vlue.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
The sentimental value of a 33 can mean that you want a CD/DVD or other
copy of it *as it is now* rather than a modern media version of the
original (possibly remastered).
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 10:22:16 -0500:
Lidl have a turntable with a USB connection, and a software CD to get
the stuff onto CD/DVD, for EUR 59.99 tomorrow. I think I will get one.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
R H Draney
>
>Do you still use DOS, an obsolete product? Tapes are a nuisance. That
>is why VCRs are obsolete.
I use both DOS and a VCR daily...perhaps we have different definitions of
"obsolete"....r
musika
Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> typed:
I just looked that up. We don't get it until the 3rd of December but it is
only �39.99.
In Northern Ireland it is �49.99
--
Ray
UK
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>In news:a265h5hi0evgvauvr...@4ax.com,
>Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> typed:
>> Lidl have a turntable with a USB connection, and a software CD to get
>> the stuff onto CD/DVD, for EUR 59.99 tomorrow. I think I will get
>> one.
>
>I just looked that up. We don't get it until the 3rd of December but it is
>only �39.99.
>In Northern Ireland it is �49.99
Lidl appears to be three different companies in Britain and Ireland.
Lidl UK GmbH, Registered in England with a postal address in Scotland
Lidl Ireland GmbH, registered in the Republic of Ireland
Lidl Northern Ireland GmbH, registered in Northern Ireland
The three companies appear to set their own prices: Ireland > NI > GB
for this item.
EUR 59.99 is currently GBP 54.44 so the NI price of GBP 49.99 is
noticeably lower than that in the Republic.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
><ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:15:19 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a nuisance
>>>to use, with the short life of tapes, with their bulk and with the
>>>superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still has one.
>>
>>Because it costs a fortune to replace all the video tapes you bought
>>over the last 30 years but still enjoy watching? And heck, they're far
>>easier to use. You can fast forward through the anti-piracy warnings,
>>unlike DVDs which force you to waste up to 5 mins on those and
>>trailers.
>
>Do you still use DOS, an obsolete product? Tapes are a nuisance. That
>is why VCRs are obsolete.
You appear to be stating your opinions as hard facts.
Amethyst Deceiver
wrote:
>Chuck Riggs filted:
>>
>>Do you still use DOS, an obsolete product? Tapes are a nuisance. That
>>is why VCRs are obsolete.
>
>I use both DOS and a VCR daily...perhaps we have different definitions of
>"obsolete"....r
I don't use DOS daily, but I use it now and again.
R H Draney
To be fair, I don't actually look at DOS batch-file language every day, but a
set of macros I wrote not long ago is run daily on the two machines in my home
network, and two similar sets are run on the weekend, and I make daily use of
their results....r
John Varela
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> Have you converted your 33s to DVDs yet? Again, converters are not very
> expensive. I am trying to decide how good a job they do and even whether
> it is worthwhile at all, tho' a number of the 33s have a lot of
> sentimental vlue.
I had good success using this device:
http://www.griffintechnology.com/products/imic/
The turntable played directly into the iMic, thence into a USB port,
where it was saved and also played back out the iMic to the receiver
for real-time monitoring. Now, I play from iTunes through the USB
port to the iMic to the receiver, whence it is routed around the
house.
This method lets you used your existing, probably superior,
turntable instead of the turntable that comes with those all-in-one
things, as well as letting you play back through your stereo system.
--
John Varela
Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Nick Spalding
<o7f5h5dao94dh7gce...@4ax.com>
on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:41:53 +0000:
I was there at opening time, 8am, to get mine. I wasn't the only one,
of the five people in the queue at the checkout four of us had one.
I shall be going again later as they have a wine that I like on special
at EUR 3.50 per bottle in cases of 6 and they can't sell alcohol before
10.30; I shall not be surprised if there are no record players left.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Nick Spalding
on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:17:15 +0000:
I have a couple of suites of programs to handle the racing results at my
sailing club, one for the regular club racing and one for regattas and
other open events. They are in Basic and parts of some programs date
back to 1982. They have been through three generations of Basic,
stating with GWBasic, then QuickBasic and now VB for DOS.
I also use DOS xcopy to make file backups via batch files - there is a
great range of options available which cannot be achieved in Windows.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Nick Spalding
on Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:24:04 +0000:
I was not surprised.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Chuck Riggs
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
Why would anyone go to all the trouble of converting hundreds of LPs,
with their limited dynamic range, pops and scratches in a few cases,
poorer frequency response and higher distortion levels to DVDS?
Instead, I've been building up a new collection of CDs for years. I am
happy with it, even if there are still many holes.
This morning, I listened to a beautiful performance of Bach's B Minor
Mass. I believe it was done by John Gardner and the Chorus of St
Martin in the Fields.
Chuck Riggs
I don't get dewy eyed over a piece of technology. When it is obsolete,
I generally toss it out. I've made exceptions for Windows XP and my
ancient version of Agent, my news reader, only because I've yet to see
anything better come along.
Chuck Riggs
How good can it be? My last Shure cartridge, alone, cost more than
that.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
Xcopy is available in a Windows folder on this Windows XP machine.
Chuck Riggs
<ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:32:37 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000, Amethyst Deceiver
>><ne...@lindsayendell.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:15:19 +0000, Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being such a nuisance
>>>>to use, with the short life of tapes, with their bulk and with the
>>>>superior sound quality of CDs, anyone still has one.
>>>
>>>Because it costs a fortune to replace all the video tapes you bought
>>>over the last 30 years but still enjoy watching? And heck, they're far
>>>easier to use. You can fast forward through the anti-piracy warnings,
>>>unlike DVDs which force you to waste up to 5 mins on those and
>>>trailers.
>>
>>Do you still use DOS, an obsolete product? Tapes are a nuisance. That
>>is why VCRs are obsolete.
>
>You appear to be stating your opinions as hard facts.
Since they were so obviously opinions, as you recognized, why would
you think I think they are hard facts? Do you think I'm stupid?
If my posts bother you, Ms Deceiver, as they constantly seem to, you
are welcome to skip over them.
James Silverton
>> Chuck wrote on Sun, 29 Nov 2009 14:48:23 +0000:
>>
>>>> James Silverton filted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Amethyst wrote on Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:04:05 +0000:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I don't understand, Ron, is why, with VCRs being
>>>>>>> such a nuisance to use, with the short life of tapes,
>>>>>>> with their bulk and with the superior sound quality of
>>>>>>> CDs, anyone still has one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fairly inexpensive devices exist to allow conversion of
>>>>> tapes to DVDs.
>>>>>
<clipping>
>>>> But until I've either converted or replaced all of the
>>>> tapes I still have, I need the machine that plays them....
>>>>
>>>> And it's handy to record those shows that are aired when
>>>> it's not convenient for me to watch, but where I don't much
>>>> care about HD picture quality or even archiving them after
>>>> I've seen them....r
>>
>>> I get satisfaction from throwing away obsolete products. My
>>> collection of 78s, for example, all carefully collected,
>>> labeled and stored through the years, tossed out on the same
>>> day. I saw no point in keeping them once the higher
>>> fidelity, longer playing 33s were available.
>>
>> Have you converted your 33s to DVDs yet? Again, converters
>> are not very expensive. I am trying to decide how good a job
>> they do and even whether it is worthwhile at all, tho' a
>> number of the 33s have a lot of sentimental vlue.
<Clipping again, quotes only to set the background>
>Why would anyone go to all the trouble of converting hundreds of LPs,
>with their limited dynamic range, pops and scratches in a few cases,
>poorer frequency response and higher distortion levels to DVDS?
As I said, sentimental value associated with memories of listening to
some of the discs.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:41:53 +0000, "Peter Duncanson (BrE)"
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:06:39 GMT, "musika" <mUs...@SPAMNOTexcite.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In news:a265h5hi0evgvauvr...@4ax.com,
>>>Nick Spalding <spal...@iol.ie> typed:
>>
>>>> Lidl have a turntable with a USB connection, and a software CD to get
>>>> the stuff onto CD/DVD, for EUR 59.99 tomorrow. I think I will get
>>>> one.
>>>
>>>I just looked that up. We don't get it until the 3rd of December but it is
>>>only �39.99.
>>>In Northern Ireland it is �49.99
>>
>>Lidl appears to be three different companies in Britain and Ireland.
>>
>> Lidl UK GmbH, Registered in England with a postal address in Scotland
>>
>> Lidl Ireland GmbH, registered in the Republic of Ireland
>>
>> Lidl Northern Ireland GmbH, registered in Northern Ireland
>>
>>The three companies appear to set their own prices: Ireland > NI > GB
>>for this item.
>>
>>EUR 59.99 is currently GBP 54.44 so the NI price of GBP 49.99 is
>>noticeably lower than that in the Republic.
>
>How good can it be? My last Shure cartridge, alone, cost more than
>that.
Possibly not very good. I have a similarly cheap turntable. I also have
a more expensive cartridge which I intend to fit to it (when I can
remember where I stored the cartridge two years ago). The turntable
seems to spin without wow. The arm seems adequate. The remaining
possible weak point in the chain would be the electronics: the analogue
audio stages and the A/D convertor. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that
they are up to the job.
I also have a good quality turntable (Garrard 301) which I have not
tried recently. It is nearly 50 years old and its rubbery internals may
not be in pristine condition.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Amethyst Deceiver wrote, in <9ll5h5tn3nhc2pq92...@4ax.com>
If you want options there is Robocopy. This comes as standard with
Windows Vista, Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008. It is available for
download for use on Win XP. There is a GUI version.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robocopy
Nick Spalding
on Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:02:10 +0000:
Thanks. I'll have a look at it.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Nick
If you want a decent command line in Windows, there's Cygwin. Actually
I've got no problems using Windows once I've got Cygwin and XEmacs on
it.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Robin Bignall
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
I've got two quite nice direct-drive turntables, one on my Hi-Fi
system and the other connected permanently to the PC via line-in. Both
have Shure cartridges. I've copied many old 45s and 33s to CDs quite
successfully.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
John Varela
wrote:
> Why would anyone go to all the trouble of converting hundreds of LPs,
> with their limited dynamic range, pops and scratches in a few cases,
> poorer frequency response and higher distortion levels to DVDS?
Because many of the LPs are not available on CD. Because I am
retired and have time to do it. Because my tape collection was
recorded from the radio and in most cases I don't know who the
artists are so couldn't replicate them in CD if I wanted to.
Because there's the challenge of recovering an old favorite and
cleaning it up digitally. Because they're there.
R H Draney
And commercial unavailability of the content in any sort of digital media...I'll
name just two: "Dreams" by Grace Slick, and "The Ballad of Calico" by The First
Edition....r
Maria Conlon
> James Silverton wrote:
>>
>>Have you converted your 33s to DVDs yet? Again, converters are not
>>very
>>expensive. I am trying to decide how good a job they do and even
>>whether
>>it is worthwhile at all, tho' a number of the 33s have a lot of
>>sentimental vlue.
Yes, they do. I'm getting ready to try converting some tapes and LPs to
CDs. I've also been looking for CDs of my favorite old records and
tapes -- but they are, for the most part, unavailable: never produced on
CDs. That, or the songs are by different artists or use different lyrics
or arrangements (to modernise them and get around the fact that the
original artists are no longer with us).
The thing (for Chuck's benefit) is that I want to be able to listen to
my faves, whenever I want, until the day I die. Most of those favorites
are not only good, but they bring back good memories. Many of them were
what my now-deceased parents loved and played from my childhood until
their passing. (Not all their records are from the "old days." They kept
buying certain records/tapes when they liked them. The same applies to
Brian and me.)
> Why would anyone go to all the trouble of converting hundreds of LPs,
> with their limited dynamic range, pops and scratches in a few cases,
> poorer frequency response and higher distortion levels to DVDS?
Ah. I just answered that, not noticing the next paragraph when typing.
Note: I felt very "wronged" when I bought (or leased?) a car a while
back and found that a CD player was still present but the tape player
was dumped. Phooey. The option for both should have been available. But
that's just me.
> Instead, I've been building up a new collection of CDs for years. I am
> happy with it, even if there are still many holes.
> This morning, I listened to a beautiful performance of Bach's B Minor
> Mass. I believe it was done by John Gardner and the Chorus of St
> Martin in the Fields.
>
So will dump the collection when some new technology comes along? Buy
new versions which may or may not be as good?
Progress is wonderful, of course, but it has its downsides.
--
Maria Conlon