Pedants' Paradise

[Nick Armstrong]

Imagine the look on Mme Vinteuil's face when this parcel arrived,

"Another of your bright ideas from the pages of Exchange & Mart, beloved?"

http://images6.fanpop.com/image/phot...3-766-1190.jpg

Perfect, ams!

The Admiralty memo is a doozie, vinrouge!

[Serial_Apologist]

so people actually went to the trouble of physically removing seeds from grapes ? - how laborious

More mysterious however is, how did they manage to remove the pips without first cutting open the grapes???

Almost as mysterious as how did jam get into the middle of doughnuts...

()

[french frank]

More mysterious however is, how did they manage to remove the pips without first cutting open the grapes???

I think they could be sucked out through the hole where they are stemmed or destemmed. But as with the trampling of grapes in the wine-making process, there has to be a note saying it has been done entirely by mechanical means.

[Serial_Apologist]

I think they could be sucked out through the hole where they are stemmed or destemmed. But as with the trampling of grapes in the wine-making process, there has to be a note saying it has been done entirely by mechanical means.

[jean]

As a youth I learned that "seeded grapes" were grapes from which the seeds had been removed.

Now my local "shop" applies the label "seeded" to grapes from which the seeds have not been removed.

Is it my duty to go around crossing out all the labels?

I think you are probably thinking of seeded raisins.

However that may be, you will be disappointed to learn that the OED cites examples of seeded meaning furnished with a seed or seeds which predate by some centuries the examples they cite of seeded meaning having the seeds removed.

So I would leave those labels exactly as they are.

[mercia]

Professor Horobin says the grammar police should relax
and spelling is not a reliable indication of intelligence

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10086135/Hay-Festival-2013-Oxford-professor-asks-for-grammar-pedants-to-relax.html

I've been trying to find Mr Gove's list of 162 words that all 11-year olds should be able to spell, ....... without suckseggs

[gurnemanz]

Professor Horobin says the grammar police should relax
and spelling is not a reliable indication of intelligence

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10086135/Hay-Festival-2013-Oxford-professor-asks-for-grammar-pedants-to-relax.html

I always take a middle line on this issue. Languages obviously do change over time, so it is pointless to take a rigid approach. However, at any given time it is necessary for practical purposes to lay down a standard for spelling and grammatical usage and there is no point in having a standard unless people are told about it and encouraged to adhere to it. However, it is also necessary to be flexible and bear in mind that languages move forward and develop when deviations from this standard gradually become valid and accepted. As with evolution by natural selection in animals and plants, the fittest language forms will survive. I suspect the professor is agitating against the rigid approach by being deliberately controversial. He surely doesn't advocate the anarchy of spelling words any way you like, as with his example of "through" in the Middle Ages (pre-printing).

[french frank]

Yes, he is overegging his argument to suggest that it's "not sacrilegious to suggest that “they’re”, “their”, “there” could be spelt [spelled?] in the same way". Well, of course they could be - and are, without loss of communication of meaning! It may (or may not) involve intelligence but the quoted 'they're, their and there' involve understanding certain fundamental points: not merely spelling (factual), but grammar (comprehension).

But aren't there a number of areas of knowledge where the discipline of 'rote learning' is important, going hand in hand with the practice of applying that knowledge intelligently? Already we know that our ability to remember things is much less good than that of our ancestors - often that doesn't matter, but it can be very inconvenient when it does.

"I am not saying we should just spell freely, but sometimes we have to accept spellings change.” Sometimes? How and when are children to be taught whether it does or doesn't matter? And why? Isn't that the answer to the simplistic Gove?

[Sir Velo]

Following the Horobin line presumably, then, E=MC³; water= HO; 9*9 = 80; New York is the capital of the USA; Henry VII had six wives etc; are all OK? They're near enough right, and we all know what is meant don't we? A little bit of thought and we can all understand.

Anyone care to explain why approximation in linguistics is considered OK but not in any other subject? When you come to think of it it's actually a classic case of inverse snobbery and does no one any favours. Whether we like it or not, the world over we look down on those who make linguistic gaffes. Companies vet job applicants at a very early stage according to grammatical and spelling ability. To pretend grammar doesn't matter is a recipe for a communications disaster.

[MrGongGong]

Following the Horobin line presumably, then, E=MC³; water= HO; 9*9 = 80; New York is the capital of the USA; Henry VII had six wives etc; are all OK? They're near enough right, and we all know what is meant don't we? A little bit of thought and we can all understand.

Anyone care to explain why approximation in linguistics is considered OK but not in any other subject?

Context innit
My philosopher friends would probably have something to say about "classes" (I think ?)

Maybe a parallel in music is that there is a difference between

a note
a pitch
a frequency

they CAN be the same and they can be different
not right vs wrong

BUT some things ARE constants, its just a matter of working out which are and which aren't , and surely these change over time.
Mathematicians (not simpleton politicians who understand only "sums" ) would tell you that many things we think are exact are far from it.

"Approximation" in differing degrees is "acceptable" in many areas ......... for example

[jean]

BUT some things ARE constants, its just a matter of working out which are and which aren't...

That's the answer, isn't it?

If you believe your formulations are accurately mapping an ultimate reality, then there's a right and a wrong way of doing it. If not, not.

As for spelling and intelligence - my sister is dyslectic and has never been able to spell, but she's at least as intelligent as I am and far more creative.

[jean]

Perhaps this is the place for more on Mr Gwynne.

[mercia]

He surely doesn't advocate the anarchy of spelling words any way you like, as with his example of "through" in the Middle Ages (pre-printing).

yes, I hadn't thought of that - printing forced/encouraged standardisation (to an extent ?)

I must admit I hadn't appreciated that there had been 500 different spellings of "through". Were they all pronounced the same and were there 500 spellings of every word ? If people spelt as they spoke it rather puts the question in my mind - would a person travelling around England at the time have been able to make himself understood ?

[jean]

If people spelt as they spoke it rather puts the question in my mind - would a person travelling around England at the time have been able to make himself understood ?

This one did, eventually - though it was a question of two different dialect words rather than different pronunciations of the same one:

For we Englysshe men ben borne under the domynacyon of the mone, whiche is never stedfaste but ever waverynge, wexynge one season and waneth and dyscreaseth another season. And that comyn Englysshe that is spoken in one shyre varyeth from a-nother, in so moche that in my dayes happened that certayn marchauntes were in a ship in Tamyse for to have sayled over the see into Zelande, and, for lacke of wynde, thei taryed atte Forlond, and wente to lande for to refreshe them. And one of theym named Sheffelde, a mercer, cam in to an hows and axed for mete and specyally he axyd after eggys, and the goode wyf answerde that she could speke no Frenshe. And the marchaunt was angry, for he also coude speke no Frenshe, but wolde have hadde egges; and she understode hym not. And thenne at laste a-nother sayd that he wolde have eyren. Then the good wyf sayd that she understod hym wel. Loo, what sholde a man in thyse dayes now wryte, egges, or eyren? Certaynly it is hard to playse every man, by-cause of dyversite and chaunge of langage.

[mangerton]

This one did, eventually - though it was a question of two different dialect words rather than different pronunciations of the same one:

For we Englysshe men ben borne under the domynacyon of the mone, ..............

That is fascinating. What is the source, please?

It reminds me of this, which I read somewhere, but I can't remember where:

It concerns a Scottish regiment in the trenches in WW1. A private said, "Speaking French? It's nae bother. Ye gang tae the fairm, and ye ask the wifie for twa oofs. She gi'es ye three, and ye gi'e her yin back."