Pedants' Paradise

[french frank]

Surely Brizzle's more renowned for bistn't, casn't and the like, me babby?...

That's mixing your accents. The first two are Kangs'ood, the second is Bem. And I never heard Bristol called Brizzle, either :-P

[Lat-Literal]

He says that the stars were aligned when they met.

I am not sure about that but by my own calculations - correct me if I am wrong - this is more than just a marrying to a divorced woman in line with his father and in the American connection an earlier recalling of Mrs Wallis Simpson.

That is to say, Ms Markle appears to have been born in the week that Charles and Diana were married and at 36 is the same age as Diana was in death. If she were Diana and Harry were Charles the announcement could in that way represent that there had been no passing of Diana and indeed no divorce between her and Charles.

A son putting the world back to rights.

Diana Spencer and Meghan Markle - each 12 letters, of course, as is Harry Windsor if he were not Wales plus there is that placing of duplicate letters in the first two names - M and M first in the latter, n and n fourth in the former. Had she used her first name, Rachel to go with the Markle, that too would have been 12 letters with the duplicate placing being second rather than first and those letters being a and a.

But is Meghan a Welsh name and, if so, is that particular spelling of it Welsh?

(Incidentally, the two who are now engaged are both 16th Century Bowes if not Bowes-Lyons. How is it when almost everyone is supposed to be related to the Royal Family that access to the precise information is only afforded to the great and the good? Just as the information here was produced seemingly with ease, so it was for Boris and Dave and Sam Cameron.)

[Lat-Literal]

Anyhow, many congratulations to them. I hope it goes well. They seem like good people and it is far happier news than much of what we have had in this Century. Did I ever mention just how mine began - well, Nov 2001 - with problems while I was trying to be at my most helpful? Oh yes, that fateful night when I sat with pen and paper on my living room floor and decided to learn, if A equals 1 and Z equals 26 and all the other letters are given suitable numbers for their order in the alphabet, what it might mean, if anything, of Osama bin Laden.

The five letters of Osama turned out to be 49 and the eight letters of bin Laden were 61. Adding these two figures together, the total was 110. At that point, it immediately leapt out at me that if 110 were in fact an 11 and a 0, the 49 was divided so that the figure 9 was separate and 61 was similarly divided so that the 1 there was separate before being added to the 0, then it produced 11-9-01 or as the Americans would have it, 9-11-01. But what of the 4 in 49 and the 6 in 61? Yes, added together those were 10 which while not being 01 did indicate how the world had been thrown into confusion. In making similar discoveries yourselves, I suggest for many reasons and on the basis of experience keeping it to yourselves. "They" react by being the 10, switching the helpfulness into reverse, and wondering why anyone should be doing that sort of arithmetic. "It was just in my head" is rarely understood.

[Lat-Literal]

Ah, here we are:

"Megan (also spelled Meghan, Meagan, Meaghan etc.) is a Welsh female name, originally a pet form of Meg or Meggie, which is itself a short form of Margaret. Megan is one of the most popular Welsh names in Wales and England; it is commonly truncated to Meg. Nowadays, it is generally used as an independent name rather than as a nickname.

Megan was one of the most popular girls' names in the English-speaking world in the 1990s, peaking in 1990 in the United States and 1999 in the United Kingdom. Approximately 54 percent of people named Megan born in the US were born in 1990 or later."

But:

"Mehigan is an Irish language surname that has the variants Megan, Meaghan and Meighan."

[Lat-Literal]

In the past 24 hours, the definition of "alignment" appears by consensus (something has to be) to have been altered to mean "identical", "the same as", "under the same arrangements" etc. What it actually means is "arrangement in a straight line or in correct relative positions" (as in tiles on a roof or archaeological stones), "the proper adjustment of the components for coordinated functioning" (as in a circuit, a machine, the wheels of a car) and "the organization of activities or systems so that they match or fit well together" (as often in politics).

Frequently in politics an "alignment" is actually one of degrees so that "One of Trump’s priorities will be to bring South Korea and Japan into closer alignment with each other and the U.S., according to a White House official who asked not to be identified........" (David Tweed, Bloomberg.com, "One Man Trump Won't Meet on Asia Trip Looms Largest," 2 Nov. 2017).

[Pabmusic]

In the past 24 hours, the definition of "alignment" appears by consensus (something has to be) to have been altered to mean "identical", "the same as", "under the same arrangements" etc. What it actually means is "arrangement in a straight line or in correct relative positions" (as in tiles on a roof or archaeological stones), "the proper adjustment of the components for coordinated functioning" (as in a circuit, a machine, the wheels of a car) and "the organization of activities or systems so that they match or fit well together" (as often in politics).

Frequently in politics an "alignment" is actually one of degrees so that "One of Trump’s priorities will be to bring South Korea and Japan into closer alignment with each other and the U.S., according to a White House official who asked not to be identified........" (David Tweed, Bloomberg.com, "One Man Trump Won't Meet on Asia Trip Looms Largest," 2 Nov. 2017).

You had me worried that I'd been misusing the word, but Oxford and Collins both have "A position of agreement or alliance" (that's Oxford's) as a second meaning. So the usage must go back a few decades, because the dictionaries do.

[Lat-Literal]

You had me worried that I'd been misusing the word, but Oxford and Collins both have "A position of agreement or alliance" (that's Oxford's) as a second meaning. So the usage must go back a few decades, because the dictionaries do.

Ah well, Pabs, what you are saying, while correct, is not the same as "the same as".

You are agreeing with me.

(There - I've simplified it!)

(The SDP-Liberal Alliance was an Alliance precisely because the two parties weren't identical; the Conservative-DUP Agreement is an Agreement because those two aren't identical!)

[Lat-Literal]

.....I used to sit in Geneva working with international delegates on the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. It was an unusual affair because you would normally only have European countries meeting in Geneva while more wide-ranging UN Committees were based in New York. By a quirk of historical fate we had Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Australians, you name it, plus representatives from international bodies overseeing Aviation, Marine Transport and much more. Even the EU was there, albeit as a reluctant bystander.

The position has changed a bit since 1997 although in spirit it is much the same. Those Recommendations are now contained in the UN Model Regulations prepared by the Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). They are not obligatory or legally binding on all individual countries, but have gained a wide degree of international acceptance: they form the basis of several international agreements and many tailored national laws, all of which are more or less in alignment.

[Pabmusic]

Ah well, Pabs, what you are saying, while correct, is not the same as "the same as".

You are agreeing with me.

(There - I've simplified it!)

(The SDP-Liberal Alliance was an Alliance precisely because the two parties weren't identical; the Conservative-DUP Agreement is an Agreement because those two aren't identical!)

What I was clarifying (I thought) was that the usage was much older than 24 hours - which is what you originally said. I would not raise your blood pressure too much over an established usage.

[Lat-Literal]

What I was clarifying (I thought) was that the usage was much older than 24 hours - which is what you originally said. I would not raise your blood pressure too much over an established usage.

My blood pressure isn't being raised. However, it is important to highlight that I said "in the past 24 hours, the definition of "alignment" appears by consensus (something has to be) to have been altered to mean "identical", "the same as", "under the same arrangements" etc." It was meant cynically. The entire conundrum that is filling the airwaves appears to be based on the notion that "regulatory alignment" in Northern Ireland (and even elsewhere) means having the same regulations, or in other words identical regulations as the EU. That in terms of the definition is patently false. What it does mean, on the basis of definitions older than 24 hours, is "agreement" or "alliance" as you say or being able to "fit well together" as I said. None of these things imply sameness in the slightest respect. Indeed, they are all the clear recognition of differences that are in one way or another synchronised with mutual consent.

[jean]

How would you 'align' one set of regulations with another except by applying both of them equally to different situations?

[Lat-Literal]

How would you 'align' one set of regulations with another except by applying both of them equally to different situations?

Well I go back to my UN example.

Quote: "The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, (UNECE), is an important regulating body by which dangerous goods are classified/measured. Though there are variations in the applicable rules and regulations in each country, the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods serves as a standard template for its member states to follow."

There are at least three aspects.

One, I am not up to date on these matters having left it 20 years ago, but you could have bodies like the EU who design some of the regulations for all their member states based on the UN Recommendations (actually, I think the EU role is still at best limited because we probably do quite a lot of the transposing here via HSE etc). Two, individual UN countries can write the Recommendations into their own legislation. That is, in ways which make especial sense in that legislation (for every legal framework is different) - with or without policy variations.

Three, in the case of non UN countries (54 in all), the tome is accessible and they can do the same. Indeed in many cases they will not only wish to do the same but be grateful that there are Recommendations to enable them to be aligned with other countries when it comes to safety in trade. They don't have to find the people to work from scratch on that area.

Which are examples of alignment?

All of them - in different ways.

[Lat-Literal]

Whatever one thinks of the Isle of Man's independent tax regime and the conservative approach to law and order of its politically independent "Tynwald" - I'm not at all keen - aligned is a word used 32 times in the Ernst and Young report on its functioning including:

The Isle of Man economic growth strategy is aligned with and can support many of the goals of the UK‟s national growth strategy - to grow in a sustainable, balanced and shared way “across the country and between sectors of the economy” as suggested by the UK Department for Business Innovation and Skills.

The Isle of Man has led the way amongst IBCs in establishing a modern regulatory system aligned to world best practice international regulatory standards in both tax compliance and transparency, and the safeguarding and supervision of the financial system. It stands among the most well regulated jurisdictions in the world on the OECD‟s international compliance lists and has been a leader among IBCs in signing up to tax and transparency agreements with trade partners.

Most of the AIM and LSE companies‟ capitalisation is in sectors aligned to the UK growth strategy such as alternative energy, industrial engineering, industrial transportation, etc.

If anyone Irish, Scottish or otherwise is going to seriously suggest that "aligned" there means "the same as", then I am going to seriously put forward the idea that I'm Father Christmas.

[Padraig]

If anyone Irish, Scottish or otherwise is going to seriously suggest that "aligned" there means "the same as", then I am going to seriously put forward the idea that I'm Father Christmas.

It's another example of 'creative ambiguity', Lat, that we saw happening yesterday.

[Lat-Literal]

It's another example of 'creative ambiguity', Lat, that we saw happening yesterday.

Yes, quite, Padraig.

The most creatively ambiguous part of it is that the DUP, Ruth Davidson, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the SNP and the Labour Party (an unholy alliance if ever there was one) are all arguing over the phrase "no regulatory divergence" which while it was originally put forward by the Irish Government wasn't in the final statement anyway. In contrast, (for) "regulatory alignment" which is in that statement is acceptable to the Irish Government, Mrs May and the EU. Confused? You will be as they used to say in "Soap". The entire situation is becoming a circus.

Given that the main concern is about any separate treatment of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK (when it is already being treated separately in all manner of respects as are both Scotland and Wales in line with what the people there want) I suggest Mrs May returns to the EU and offers "regulatory alignment" for the whole of the UK. When asked what this means, she should simply say "just as what was about to be agreed for Northern Ireland by you the EU without the need for any detail". If they want more detail because it is now being proposed for the whole of the UK, then it they who should be criticised by all for having been more blasé about N Ireland than they are prepared to be on England, Scotland and Wales.

It's extremely annoying this because had they got "regulatory alignment" through, it would as I have suggested in all my posts above have meant almost nothing for the time being.

As for the detail on Northern Ireland at a later stage, I am no expert but surely it isn't beyond the wits of everyone involved to safeguard human rights there under a UN umbrella rather than ECHR and redraft the Good Friday Agreement accordingly? Further, it seems to me that there might be scope for agreeing to Northern Ireland trading with the Republic of Ireland only on broad EU lines although one senses it might be full of loopholes. And re tax constraints, Mr Trimble's worries are premature. They only potentially become an issue if the EU goes for tax harmonisation and NI gets caught up in it - two big ifs and by that time they will have to work within the new arrangements. What I think is important is that the EU is reminded very publicly whenever it wants to do x or y with Northern Ireland for its own purposes that it is also claiming that the GFA is paramount and only the latter of these things is right.