Something Strange

[ahinton]

Yes, the general point's fine, I was just questioning your actual numbers. Even the most exacting requirement for 'pure blood' must give a rather higher number than 1,500 - did you perhaps miss a few naughts of the end of it?

No - not even a few "noughts", even! (and let's leave just one of those Scots, James Naughtie, out of this!).

I referred to a proportion, not an actual number, of Scots!

[ahinton]

When I was at school I learned that there were around 5,000,000 Scots living in Scotland. I doubt it has changed much even in that long time.

Yes, but when you were at school all that long time ago, what was the world's population? and, on the basis of whatever figure that might have been, what proportion of that population would have been Scots?

[ahinton]

But only one thousand, three hundred and fifty Scots in the whole world?! There's more than that just in Skipton!

And Skipton's not even in Scotland (or at least it wasn't when I attended school all that long time ago)!

But that, as I hope will have become clear by now, wasn't what I'd claimed! (the clue's in the word "proportion")...

[Flosshilde]

OK, but the 'proportion' didn't appear in the original post - only in the one you made a couple of minutes ago

[ahinton]

No, you are simply wrong. If homosexuality (once again your choice, not mine) is 'not the norm' it cannot possibly be described as 'normal' surely?

How do you work that one out? Assuming that there are considerably more heterosexuals than homosexuals, homosexuality is not "the norm" (i.e. a vast majority) purely for statistical reasons; by what bizarre perversion of logic does that make homosexuality "abnormal"?

I haven't checked the latest official statistics which may well reveal that heterosexual marriage itself is increasingly becoming 'abnormal' compared to cohabitation. It certainly has been heading in that direction in recent times.

Again, no, it hasn't, on the same grounds as above; whatever the variations over time of "official statistics" of numbers of heretosexual marriages and those of cohabitation might be, those statistics do not reveal, or indeed purport to reveal, that either is or is becoming "abnormal". Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony is not far short of twice the length of the longest of the 31 that followed it (i.e. his second symphony); do either that fact or the sheer forces called for in its performance make it "abnormal"?

This is not a judgement on lifestyles simply statements of fact.

Whilst it neverthless sounds akin to the former it cannot be the latter because the statisticians are not alleging the "abnormality" of either group.

That is why dictionaries and definitions are so important.

Just as it is important to understand what the dictionary tells you rather than impose your own interpretations thereon.

You assumed that I meant 'abnormal' in a derogatory sense when I simply employed the literal meaning of the word, ie "atypical".

I'm perfectly happy to use 'atypical' instead of 'abnormal' if you prefer?

Then why don't you and why didn't you?

[ahinton]

OK, but the 'proportion' didn't appear in the original post - only in the one you made a couple of minutes ago

I sit corrected and apologise accordingly; what I intended to write and indeed should have written was "only around 1 in 1,500 people in the world are Scots so, whilst being one of them is clearly not the "norm", it's not "abnormal" per se..."

[P. G. Tipps]

Havergal Brian's Gothic Symphony is not far short of twice the length of the longest of the 31 that followed it (i.e. his second symphony); do either that fact or the sheer forces called for in its performance make it "abnormal"?

Yes.

.. as it is important to understand what the dictionary tells you rather than impose your own interpretations thereon.

I have. It seems to be only you who continues to argue with my official dictionary definition.

Then why don't you and why didn't you?

Maybe because the word I used was perfectly valid? I've already said if others have "a thing" about the term "abnormal" I'm now quite content to use an alternative.

Do keep up, ahinton!

[MrGongGong]

I have. It seems to be only you who continues to argue with my official dictionary definition.

And here is the heart of your delusion

Just because something is written in a book (and there are some wonderful ones) doesn't make it "official", and even if it was widely understood to be "official" by most people, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is anything "correct" about it at all.
Go on, embrace the chaos and live a little

[ahinton]

Yes.

Well, from this one could only conclude that you might regard quite a few, if not all, of Brian's symphonies as "abnormal", since they're all different in various ways (I'd referred only to the duration and forces when mentioning the Gothic); likewise, Mahler's second, fourth and eight symphonies are "abnormal" because they include voices whereas the other seven don't and the second, third, fifth, seventh and tenth are "abnormal" beause they're each cast in five or more movements whereas the others are not - and so on and so on. I trust that you get my drift.

I have. It seems to be only you who continues to argue with my official dictionary definition.

From this I can only conclude that you have either not bothered to read or have somehow failed to grasp those several other questionings of your "dictionary definition"; I cannot be certain which.

Maybe because the word I used was perfectly valid?

It's a valid word, of course; all that several members here appear to have felt cause to question is its validity in the specific context concerned.

I've already said if others have "a thing" about the term "abnormal" I'm now quite content to use an alternative.

Do keep up, ahinton!

Ah, so now you accept that it's not just me! None of those of us who have challenged your use of it in this context has a "thing" about the word "abnormal" per se - only with your particular use of it. You have indeed said that you'd be happy to use a particular alternative but I posted to accept that and think that it's a good idea. Do keep up, TippScot!

[ahinton]

Go on, embrace the chaos and live a little

Oh, mon Dieu! WHAT an invitation to offer to our resident Tippster! Had you stopped to consider the possible outcome thereof before so doing? - or are you just fascinated by whatever the prospect might bring about if said invitation's accepted?(!)...

[P. G. Tipps]

I have re-consulted my trusty dictionary and duly noted synonyms for the word 'abnormal'.

In exact order these are listed as:

Unusual, uncommon, atypical, untypical, non-typical, unrepresentative, rare, isolated, irregular, anomalous, deviant, deviating, divergent, wayward, aberrant, freak, freakish ... ... and there's more if requested.

Which of those alternative words would ahinton prefer me to use in the context of 'Something Strange', I wonder?

Over to you, ahinton!

[P. G. Tipps]

Go on, embrace the chaos and live a little

I certainly seem to have arrived at the right place for the former but have seriously grave doubts about the latter, Mr GG!

[MrGongGong]

I have re-consulted my trusty dictionary and duly noted some fairly accurate and "official" definitions for myself

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/377443?redirectedFrom=Knobhead#eid

Because "The definitive record of the English language" says so

[ahinton]

I have re-consulted my trusty dictionary and duly noted synonyms for the word 'abnormal'.

In exact order these are listed as:

Unusual, uncommon, atypical, untypical, non-typical, unrepresentative, rare, isolated, irregular, anomalous, deviant, deviating, divergent, wayward, aberrant, freak, freakish ... ... and there's more if requested.

Which of those alternative words would ahinton prefer me to use in the context of 'Something Strange', I wonder?

Over to you, ahinton!

Oh, for heaven's sake! In your post #99 you wrote

"I'm perfectly happy to use 'atypical' instead of 'abnormal' if you prefer?"

The question appeared to be directed to me (although it's not just about my personal preference). In my post #110 in response thereto I wrote

"Then why don't you and why didn't you?"

which you have chosen not to answer.

Now, despite my having accepted your alternative, you ask me once again what my preference would be!

DO KEEP UP, SIR MICHAEL!

[ahinton]

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/377443...m=Knobhead#eid

Because "The definitive record of the English language" says so

But who can say what that language - still less a "definitive record" thereof - might mean to P. G. Scots?