Pedants' Paradise

[vinteuil]

.

On his own website Mr Crystal has : "He held a chair at the University of Reading for 10 years, and is now Honorary Professor of Linguistics at the University of Wales, Bangor."

http://www.davidcrystal.com/biography

[ .... I share French Frank's dubiety. "... regarded him sidelong..." is delightful. ]

[Serial_Apologist]

Obligated? Or Obliged?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Obligated? Or Obliged?

Utilise or use?

Donator or donor?

[french frank]

Oriented or orientated?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Mister, Mr. or Mr ?

¿Usted or Vd?

[Pulcinella]

Oriented or orientated?

I always thought that oriented faced east and orientated could face any other (specified) direction, but my Chambers does not make that distinction.

[french frank]

I always thought that oriented faced east and orientated could face any other (specified) direction, but my Chambers does not make that distinction.

No, orienteering is great fun but it doesn't involve travelling in an easterly direction all the time. I've often wondered how the directional idea of east and west is thought of in the Far East. Since 'oriens' means rising, we must be in the orient. Do they have equivalent words?

[jean]

I think it's only when you're talking about churches that the specific direction is important.

Both verbs are formed ultimately from oriens, the present participle of Latin orior, to rise. Orientate looks like a backformation from the past participle of a verb orientare, which never existed in Latin as far as I know.

Unusually, perhaps, the simpler version is preferred in US English

(Orientis partibus
Adventavit Asinus
Pulcher et fortissimus
Sarcinis aptissimus
Hez, sir asne, hez!)

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No, orienteering is great fun but it doesn't involve travelling in an easterly direction all the time.

No, but it does have the advantage of being assisted by the prevailing wind - rather like Wainwright's Coast to Coast.

[french frank]

No, orienteering is great fun but it doesn't involve travelling in an easterly direction all the time.

No, but it does have the advantage of being assisted by the prevailing wind - rather like Wainwright's Coast to Coast.

You mean if you are always travelling east?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You mean if you are always travelling east?

Yes - from St Bees Head to Robin Hood's Bay.

[Nick Armstrong]

[Serial_Apologist]

I'm having an argument with myself over the difference in meaning (if any) between DELEGATE and REPRESENTATIVE, in their noun forms. This comes following Roger Screwball's homily on yesterday's A Point of View. In it he argued his case for the superior character of British democracy by saying that here, we voters send our political representatives to parliaments and local authorities as representatives, not delegates: the difference consisting, in his view, in allowing representatives leeway to hear debates and make up their own minds on which way to vote, taking general account as they see fit of his or their constituents' views and interests as much their or her own opinions and principles, whereas delegates are mandated to carry out policy previously agreed by the mandating meeting, committee or whatever policy-making body is sending them to vote on its behalf.

As someone who was on several occasions the delegate from my local workplace branch to the union's annual conference, I can vouchsafe that there were occasions on which I voted on motions on subjects which had only arisen in the interim between being elected as delegate and conference taking place. And to be honest, in the light of fresh evidence, I also changed the view I had expressed at the meeting, and voted acordingly. On my return I had to justify each voting decision before the branch, and on both occasions had to take considerable flak from members who accused me of abusing my delegatory rights, though, fortunately for me, votes of confidence were then put and my reputation survived intact!

The whole experience did, however, lead me to think about the whole business of representation and delegation, and the conclusion I draw is that there is no Berlin wall between the two roles, which are in reality one and the same. And this is probably just as well, considering the impracticalities raised by insisting on rigid adherence to policies made by delegating bodies in the light new evidence or circumstantial changes, and I've concluded that Mr Scruton is wrong to differentiate the two.

What do others think?

[french frank]

Broadly speaking, I think Sir RS is correct: the idea of being 'delegated' does imply a certain amount guidance from a wider group and binds them to speak or vote according to the agreed wishes of the wider group. At union conferences there will be a much narrower range of topics than, for instance, in Parliament. The topics will have probably been discussed and a line agreed/voted on - the delegate should stick to that.

A wider group might appoint or vote for someone who they expect to follow a slightly vaguer 'party line' where subjects have not been agreed, but who they would expect to speak and vote in a particular way which represents the view of a majority or substantial part of the wider group. Where there have been no fixed instructions the representative decides according to the arguments heard. Parliament would come under the second - and obviously, not even everyone who voted for them would agree on everything - but you 'represent' your constituents, not your party.

I'm having an argument with myself over the difference in meaning (if any) between DELEGATE and REPRESENTATIVE, in their noun forms. This comes following Roger Screwball's homily on yesterday's A Point of View. In it he argued his case for the superior character of British democracy by saying that here, we voters send our political representatives to parliaments and local authorities as representatives, not delegates: the difference consisting, in his view, in allowing representatives leeway to hear debates and make up their own minds on which way to vote, taking general account as they see fit of his or their constituents' views and interests as much their or her own opinions and principles, whereas delegates are mandated to carry out policy previously agreed by the mandating meeting, committee or whatever policy-making body is sending them to vote on its behalf.

As someone who was on several occasions the delegate from my local workplace branch to the union's annual conference, I can vouchsafe that there were occasions on which I voted on motions on subjects which had only arisen in the interim between being elected as delegate and conference taking place. And to be honest, in the light of fresh evidence, I also changed the view I had expressed at the meeting, and voted acordingly. On my return I had to justify each voting decision before the branch, and on both occasions had to take considerable flak from members who accused me of abusing my delegatory rights, though, fortunately for me, votes of confidence were then put and my reputation survived intact!

The whole experience did, however, lead me to think about the whole business of representation and delegation, and the conclusion I draw is that there is no Berlin wall between the two roles, which are in reality one and the same. And this is probably just as well, considering the impracticalities raised by insisting on rigid adherence to policies made by delegating bodies in the light new evidence or circumstantial changes, and I've concluded that Mr Scruton is wrong to differentiate the two.

What do others think?

[Serial_Apologist]

Broadly speaking, I think Sir RS is correct: the idea of being 'delegated' does imply a certain amount guidance from a wider group and binds them to speak or vote according to the agreed wishes of the wider group. At union conferences there will be a much narrower range of topics than, for instance, in Parliament. The topics will have probably been discussed and a line agreed/voted on - the delegate should stick to that.

A wider group might appoint or vote for someone who they expect to follow a slightly vaguer 'party line' where subjects have not been agreed, but who they would expect to speak and vote in a particular way which represents the view of a majority or substantial part of the wider group. Where there have been no fixed instructions the representative decides according to the arguments heard. Parliament would come under the second - and obviously, not even everyone who voted for them would agree on everything - but you 'represent' your constituents, not your party.

Many thanks for your reply, ff - and my apologies for having missed it before now!

What one more often than not finds at union conferences is that compositing takes place, whereby motions on a particular subject, whether broad in nature or not, and/or amendments to them, from different branches, become in effect the substantive motion on which one may have been delegated (or not) to vote. Quite often, for sometimes if not always nefarious reasons to do with the political bias of the EC or compositing committee, the substantiveness effectively alters the original intention of one's own original uncomposited motion (indeed, all the motions being aggregated) or the terms on which the debate is to be conducted and voted, thus making it impossible for a mandate to apply. The frequency with which this occurs is, for me, the overriding factor in determining if it is ever really possible for mandation as a democratically guiding principle of accountability to be applied - this being one reason as far as i can see for non-distinguishing between delegation and representation. It would clearly be difficult to cite hard instances of this.