Pedants' Paradise

[gurnemanz]

In my teens (c1958-60) we all had 'duffel bags' - with a cord that doubled as drawstring around the neck of the bag and as the shoulder strap.

This took me back to my trainspotting days at Clapham Junction - 1960-61, aged 11. The duffle was an essential accessory.

I googled duffle bag, either spelling seems acceptable, and most modern examples do not look like the type we remember. I did find some for sale that look more like the the 60s prototype

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/141919275239?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338956843&toolid=10049&customid=777_777_777

[french frank]

In my teens (c1958-60) we all had 'duffel bags' - with a cord that doubled as drawstring around the neck of the bag and as the shoulder strap.

I'm glad to see the OED lists duffle as 'a variant of duffel' A coarse woollen cloth having a thick nap or frieze. I still have a duffel coat made of duffel, but my old tartan duffel bag was not made of duffel and consequently disintegrated, along with all the little fabric badges, sewn on and indicating the places I had visited in foreign parts. As a schoolchild I had a satchel.

Montgomery England explain why they are dufflecoats.uk rather than duffelcoats.uk (nb they would prefer to be duffelcoats).

As well as grip, I might use holdall, rather than hold for the bag. Most of the bags which they call duffle [sic] bags are different from what kb describes (and I had), the nearest one is this. I associate duffel with the Navy.

PS What's going on? Post has just arrived with a gift offer of a Puma backpack if I buy a packet of copy paper. Who's been spying on this forum ?

[gurnemanz]

I'm glad to see the OED lists duffle as 'a variant of duffel' A coarse woollen cloth having a thick nap or frieze. I still have a duffel coat made of duffel, but my old tartan duffel bag was not made of duffel and consequently disintegrated, along with all the little fabric badges, sewn on and indicating the places I had visited in foreign parts. As a schoolchild I had a satchel.

Montgomery England explain why they are dufflecoats.uk rather than duffelcoats.uk (nb they would prefer to be duffelcoats).

Re dufflegate: I have only ever thought of it as "duffle", and will now admit the error of my ways. To an ignorant schoolchild, unaware of the derivation (OED: origin mid 17th century: from Duffel, the name of a town in Belgium where the cloth was originally made), this would have seemed the natural way to spell it, by analogy with ruffle or scuffle. Presumably that is why the inauthentic alternative caught on.

The Montgomery site justifies its choice of "duffle" by stating that they "decided on duffle as the correct spelling based on the fact that keyword statistics prove without doubt that the majority spell duffle like so." They don't reveal the statistical source of their research. If you google "duffle" (with the quotation marks to get an exact match) you get 41 million results, but "duffel" wins with 63 million. Many of those entries will probably contain both spellings but this seems to contradict their assertion.

I definitely need to get out more, maybe to buy myself a duffle bag (sorry, old habits...)

[french frank]

I definitely need to get out more

We might bump into each other!

[kernelbogey]

What's going on? Post has just arrived with a gift offer of a Puma backpack if I buy a packet of copy paper.

There are more things in heaven and earth....

[french frank]

Right-hand sidebar under Elsewhere on the BBC (File on 4):

Was Britain's wonkiest pub purposefully set ablaze?

It is fascinating to witness predominantly generational changes in usage affected by the globalisation of American culture. It appears that this is a topic not dealt with in schools as being in any way significant (or even interesting?). And perhaps it isn't There's also the issue of 'direct input' resulting from what was known as 'new technology' some decades back in connection with newspapers, where the role of revise sub disappeared and what was written by A was never checked by anyone.

[AuntDaisy]

Right-hand sidebar under Elsewhere on the BBC (File on 4):

Was Britain's wonkiest pub purposefully set ablaze?

It is fascinating to witness predominantly generational changes in usage affected by the globalisation of American culture. It appears that this is a topic not dealt with in schools as being in any way significant (or even interesting?). And perhaps it isn't There's also the issue of 'direct input' resulting from what was known as 'new technology' some decades back in connection with newspapers, where the role of revise sub disappeared and what was written by A was never checked by anyone.

Thanks French Frank. I had to think about that one - reading it out aloud helped.
Purposely? Purple-prose-ely?

[smittims]

I suspect one reason why the subject isn't taught is that teachers and educational theorists are sensitive about political-correctness. Resisting colloquial changes may be seen as elitist and even racist. What A hears as an error in English B regards as an inviolable expression of his culture.

I've often felt that American English evolved to serve people for whom English was a second language and who originally spoke Italian, Polish, Russian , etc. and that this explained the apparent simplicity of American diction compared with English ('killer' instead of 'murderer'). I sense that this may be happening in English now. I think this is distinct from (but simultaneous with) the lazy habit of copying someone else's incorrect use of a word because it sounds smart (saying 'cathartic' when you mean 'therapeutic' or 'misogyny' when you mean 'male chauvinism').

I've always been on the side of having rules in language, in the interests of precision in communication. After all, it has been argued that the Pearl Harbor attack was planned because of a mistranslation of 'China'.

[french frank]

Thanks French Frank. I had to think about that one -

To quote Bing (Crosby): "You must be one of the younger guys!" There are other examples where the Americanism adds the suffix -fully and for us (older guys ) that changes the meaning. Rightfully for rightly is another one. We have purposely, on purpose, deliberately, referring to something which has been done. It would be very odd to say I am going to do that on purpose, purposely, deliberately just as it would be odd to say I'm going to that accidentally. Purposefully describes how something is being done: He set out purposefully - meaning with a particularly goal in sight, with a defined purpose.

reading it out aloud helped.
Purposely? Purple-prose-ely?

It says: "...any one with an ear for lauguage can be taught". Did it mean laughage, I wonder - the contents of a comedian's joke book? What everyone needs a helping of each morning to set them up for the day? What is limited to 23kg when you take it on your package holiday flight?

[AuntDaisy]

To quote Bing (Crosby): "You must be one of the younger guys!" There are other examples where the Americanism adds the suffix -fully and for us (older guys ) that changes the meaning. Rightfully for rightly is another one. We have purposely, on purpose, deliberately, referring to something which has been done. It would be very odd to say I am going to do that on purpose, purposely, deliberately just as it would be odd to say I'm going to that accidentally. Purposefully describes how something is being done: He set out purposefully - meaning with a particularly goal in sight, with a defined purpose.

Not that young, just struggling with English (C at O level, I'm afraid). Thanks for the examples, very helpful.

It says: "...any one with an ear for lauguage can be taught". Did it mean laughage, I wonder - the contents of a comedian's joke book? What everyone needs a helping of each morning to set them up for the day? What is limited to 23kg when you take it on your package holiday flight?

Poor Keith Waterhouse, he'd be spinning in his grave over that typo.
I think it's really a legal term... https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/lauguage (I love the "dully executed" example)

[oddoneout]

The increasing purposefully/purposely issue is one I find irritating as the two words, for me and rightly or wrongly, have different functions. If I do something purposefully it is done with commitment, deliberately, not casually, and is generally positive. If I do something purposely I've chosen a course of action, but it may be something I don't agree with, or about which I have no great interest, indeed it can have considerable negative implications, as in acting spitefully.

It would be very odd to say I am going to do that on purpose,

I disagree, I don't think there is anything odd about it, especially in the negative context to which I refer.

[french frank]

I disagree, I don't think there is anything odd about it, especially in the negative context to which I refer.

But if you announce that you are going to do something ("I am going to do sthg"), you are stating an intention. You are going to do it intentionally i.e. on purpose, purposely or deliberately. It is tautological, in my view, to add the words 'on purpose'. You might possibly use it negatively ("I am not going to do it on purpose") the implication then is that if "it" happens - and it may very well do - it will be an accident, not intended.

I agree with your definition of purposefully. That would tend to be used in the present or future; though if it were a narrative, part of a story, it would be usually in the past tense because most narratives (= storytelling) are.

[Serial_Apologist]

But if you announce that you are going to do something ("I am going to do sthg"), you are stating an intention. You are going to do it intentionally i.e. on purpose, purposely or deliberately. It is tautological, in my view, to add the words 'on purpose'. You might possibly use it negatively ("I am not going to do it on purpose") the implication then is that if "it" happens - and it may very well do - it will be an accident, not intended.

I agree with your definition of purposefully. That would tend to be used in the present or future; though if it were a narrative, part of a story, it would be usually in the past tense because most narratives (= storytelling) are.

We had an expression at junior school, which, thanks to this discussion, I've just now remembered: "It was done accidentally on purpose". Surprising how sophisticated some of us were aged 11!

[oddoneout]

But if you announce that you are going to do something ("I am going to do sthg"), you are stating an intention. You are going to do it intentionally i.e. on purpose, purposely or deliberately. It is tautological, in my view, to add the words 'on purpose'. You might possibly use it negatively ("I am not going to do it on purpose") the implication then is that if "it" happens - and it may very well do - it will be an accident, not intended.

I agree with your definition of purposefully. That would tend to be used in the present or future; though if it were a narrative, part of a story, it would be usually in the past tense because most narratives (= storytelling) are.

It may be tautological but it adds emphasis to an action which may well not be a positive one - yah boo sucks, dares (familiar in the world of children), or in the context of something done out of spite or similar sentiment.

[french frank]

We had an expression at junior school, which, thanks to this discussion, I've just now remembered: "It was done accidentally on purpose".

Yes. Wasn't it usually the sceptical reply to the plea of "I did it accidentally"?