Strange Word…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by David Noble on 15/11/2020 09:37:24:

.

I realise that I'm off topic here but the above post reminded me of a book which I have. In my previous life, I performed as a magician and collected some old magic books. One of which is 'The Boy's Book of Conjuring' It describes how to make a bowl of fire appear. Are you ready?

Solder a flat plate over half a metal bowl to form a pocket. Half fill this with petrol and slip it into the waistband of your trousers. When you are ready to produce the fire, take out the bowl and drop a small pellet of sodium into it.

…

and you lived to tell the tale

THAT’S MAGIC !

MichaelG.

[Gary WoodingParticipant @garywooding25363]

Have you noticed that pgk pgk's puzzle sentence can be extended by 4 more hads to read

James, while John had had "had had", had had "had had had had"; "had had had had" had had a better effect on the teacher.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 15/11/2020 09:50:18:

Posted by David Noble on 15/11/2020 09:37:24:

.

I realise that I'm off topic here but the above post reminded me of a book which I have. In my previous life, I performed as a magician and collected some old magic books. One of which is 'The Boy's Book of Conjuring' It describes how to make a bowl of fire appear. Are you ready?

Solder a flat plate over half a metal bowl to form a pocket. Half fill this with petrol and slip it into the waistband of your trousers. When you are ready to produce the fire, take out the bowl and drop a small pellet of sodium into it.

…

and you lived to tell the tale

THAT’S MAGIC !

MichaelG.

OMG it sure is!

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by David Noble on 15/11/2020 09:37:24:

…

…

Solder a flat plate over half a metal bowl to form a pocket. Half fill this with petrol and slip it into the waistband of your trousers. When you are ready to produce the fire, take out the bowl and drop a small pellet of sodium into it.

David

 

Don't do this at home, kids.

(Even in the 1950s, what chemist would've had metallic sodium to sell, never mind to a schoolboy?)

 

But actually, it doesn't work unless you add water to the petrol: –

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC-cBTfwlzE

 

Edited By Mick B1 on 15/11/2020 14:29:52

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 14/11/2020 22:24:04:

That book by the way, if not complete detours, is an eye-opener.

It contains instructions for making a basic ridge tent. Fair enough. And then a simple scow – then not content with that, a more boat-shaped rowing-dinghy (i.e. with a sharp end). No nonsense about asking your Dad to saw the wood for you – it implies just getting on and cutting it. Perhaps Dad was assumed to be busy on his Drummond lathe, or planting spuds. Then off to the local water with the un-plimmed craft and no life-jackets, for your Swallows & Amazons adventures. And when you return home, turn to the sweet-making chapter and make some toffee, now that sugar has come off-ration ( mid-1950s). No nonsense about asking your Mum to boil the molten sugar and butter for you… How did my generation survive?

Nigel's book from the 1950's is positively wet compared with my copy of 'The Handy Boy's Book'. Undated, but an advert at the back and pictures of aircraft reveal it's circa 1910.

The book describes how to make an X-ray machine, including the high-voltages needed to work it, and pictures a boy viewing his hand through a home-made fluoroscope. X-ray tube to eyes distance about 12 inches.

The model steamboat chapter recommends running the home-made boiler at 85psi. (Real men don't need boiler inspectors!)

'To Set Fire to a Newspaper By Merely Breathing On It' involves two chemicals, both independently responsible for a long list of accidents, and now banned because they're ideal for mad-bombing and terrorism.

As a normal boyhood activity the section on Wireless Telegraphy describes how to set off an explosive charge and recommends earthing the transmitter to a gas pipe. It doesn't mention the high-voltage dangers of spark-transmitters, or that the coherer used to fire the fuse reacts to thunderstorms and electric trams as well as home-made transmitters!

An influence machine and experiments with Leyden Jars are described without mentioning that wiring several jars together can be fatal.

The Book's not totally blind to health and safety: it suggests boys should never use Potassium or Ammonium Cyanide in their Butterfly Killing Bottles.

There were no Brylcreemed wuss-boys making toffee in 1910!

Dave

[GeorgineerParticipant @georgineer]

Posted by pgk pgk on 14/11/2020 15:12:11:

Hyphenate for clarity since it is a single sub-component…

Who remembers this terrible punctuation exercise: I was plagued by it at school…

James while John had had had had had had had had had had had a better effect on the teacher

I came across it at school in the early sixties, with different wording to the top and tail. One difference was that John wasn't called John but Galahad.

On the topic of hyphens, when I was writing Army Support Publications in the 1980s we were officially discouraged from using them except to avoid ambiguity. For example, there is a difference between a man eating tiger and a man-eating tiger, though I don't remember that particular instance cropping up in my own writing.

George B.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by Mick B1 on 15/11/2020 09:36:59:

Posted by John Olsen on 15/11/2020 06:23:13:

The responsibility is pretty much in Neil's court, since the only authority for what is correct in English is usage. The problem is that usage comes down to what editors allow to be used in their publications. The editors all look up dictionaries and grammar guides, which are based on what editors permitted in the past, so it all proceeds in a vicious circle, with no reform being possible. Hence English spelling and grammar is and will remain a nightmare, not helped by the Latin scholars attempting to impose Latin rules on a non Latin language.

John

The basic structure of the language may be non-Latin, but it's comprehensively riddled with Latin-based vocabulary. It'd be practically useless without it.

There might be a few Latin based words, but the majority of English vocabulary is anglo-saxon. Even when we pinch words from other languages we don't use the grammar that goes with them, when did you last use 'omnibi' as the plural of 'omnibus'.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by duncan webster on 15/11/2020 16:53:27:

Posted by Mick B1 on 15/11/2020 09:36:59:

Posted by John Olsen on 15/11/2020 06:23:13:

The responsibility is pretty much in Neil's court, since the only authority for what is correct in English is usage. The problem is that usage comes down to what editors allow to be used in their publications. The editors all look up dictionaries and grammar guides, which are based on what editors permitted in the past, so it all proceeds in a vicious circle, with no reform being possible. Hence English spelling and grammar is and will remain a nightmare, not helped by the Latin scholars attempting to impose Latin rules on a non Latin language.

John

The basic structure of the language may be non-Latin, but it's comprehensively riddled with Latin-based vocabulary. It'd be practically useless without it.

There might be a few Latin based words, but the majority of English vocabulary is anglo-saxon. Even when we pinch words from other languages we don't use the grammar that goes with them, when did you last use 'omnibi' as the plural of 'omnibus'.

It wouldn't be right to do so except in pretend Latin – 'omnibus' is a plural dative, meaning 'for all', with copy–variants in other languages.

(I've italicised the words above I recognise as of Latin origin, possibly via Norman French/Middle English)

Edited By Mick B1 on 15/11/2020 17:31:54

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

S Duncan says. I'm no student of Latin grammar but it's utterly distinct to English grammar.

Difference the main to be seems word order not important, is. Eh Yoda?

Neil

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 15/11/2020 17:33:56:

S Duncan says. I'm no student of Latin grammar but it's utterly distinct to English grammar.

Difference the main to be seems word order not important, is. Eh Yoda?

Neil

'Crossslide' is of course a true bastard word, with the first half of Latin-derived origin and the other of Old English/ Anglo-Saxon. Nowt wrong with that AFAICS!

[John Paton 1Participant @johnpaton1]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 15/11/2020 14:34:46:

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 14/11/2020 22:24:04:

That book by the way, if not complete detours, is an eye-opener.

It contains instructions for making a basic ridge tent. Fair enough. And then a simple scow – then not content with that, a more boat-shaped rowing-dinghy (i.e. with a sharp end). No nonsense about asking your Dad to saw the wood for you – it implies just getting on and cutting it. Perhaps Dad was assumed to be busy on his Drummond lathe, or planting spuds. Then off to the local water with the un-plimmed craft and no life-jackets, for your Swallows & Amazons adventures. And when you return home, turn to the sweet-making chapter and make some toffee, now that sugar has come off-ration ( mid-1950s). No nonsense about asking your Mum to boil the molten sugar and butter for you… How did my generation survive?

Nigel's book from the 1950's is positively wet compared with my copy of 'The Handy Boy's Book'. Undated, but an advert at the back and pictures of aircraft reveal it's circa 1910.

The book describes how to make an X-ray machine, including the high-voltages needed to work it, and pictures a boy viewing his hand through a home-made fluoroscope. X-ray tube to eyes distance about 12 inches.

The model steamboat chapter recommends running the home-made boiler at 85psi. (Real men don't need boiler inspectors!)

'To Set Fire to a Newspaper By Merely Breathing On It' involves two chemicals, both independently responsible for a long list of accidents, and now banned because they're ideal for mad-bombing and terrorism.

As a normal boyhood activity the section on Wireless Telegraphy describes how to set off an explosive charge and recommends earthing the transmitter to a gas pipe. It doesn't mention the high-voltage dangers of spark-transmitters, or that the coherer used to fire the fuse reacts to thunderstorms and electric trams as well as home-made transmitters!

An influence machine and experiments with Leyden Jars are described without mentioning that wiring several jars together can be fatal.

The Book's not totally blind to health and safety: it suggests boys should never use Potassium or Ammonium Cyanide in their Butterfly Killing Bottles.

There were no Brylcreemed wuss-boys making toffee in 1910!

Dave

Yes Dave, I have that book too and marvel at the thought. I have another similar book showing how to make an aqualung using a gas pressure reducing valve as a regulator. I think both are attempts to capture a Darwin Award (for ensuring the foolhardy do not get to breed!).

How times change but I cannot help feeling that we miss something as todays youngsters appear not to be as extended in science and engineering.

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm. This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?
Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

**LINK**

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

AND!!!

I should have noticed that I'd loaded it twice.

Cud try betta.

[Martin WhittleParticipant @martinwhittle67411]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 15/11/2020 17:33:56:

S Duncan says. I'm no student of Latin grammar but it's utterly distinct to English grammar.

Difference the main to be seems word order not important, is. Eh Yoda?

Neil

Sorry Neil but I cannot agree with that. Despite arguably falling educational standards, most English people still can put a sentence together, in a logical word order!

Different order to Latin, but the order of a Latin sentence could be argued to be more logical. A bit like the difference between Reverse Polish versus Algebraic notataion for computer./calculator operation: introduce the numbers / nouns in the correct order, then state the operator.

The latin words have endings added (remembering school recitations of declensions and conjugations which indicate the nominative, accusative, future present or past, singular or plural etc) which further make the make the sentence unambiguous, and render words such as 'the' defunct.

Martin

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 14/11/2020 14:11:42:

I usually add a hyphen or space for clarity, but is there a case for 'crossslide' being valid..?

Neil

On the analogy of "crossword", "crossbreed", and [one for us ornithologists] "crossbill", quite a strong one, I'd say, Neil. The hyphen improves clarity, but there isn't really any possibility of confusion without it, I don't think, assuming the reader knows what a crossslide is in the first place.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Bill Phinn on 15/11/2020 22:16:16:

,,, The hyphen improves clarity, …

Then it should be used. Clarity is paramount in writing.

[Dr. MC BlackParticipant @dr-mcblack73214]

Posted by David Noble on 15/11/2020 09:37:24:

Solder a flat plate over half a metal bowl to form a pocket. Half fill this with petrol and slip it into the waistband of your trousers. When you are ready to produce the fire, take out the bowl and drop a small pellet of sodium into it.

I don't think I understand why the fire would NOT melt the solder.

Reverting to the original query, I think it's for the editor to decide what is the House Style – and then ensure that everybody conforms.

MC

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

Posted by Hopper on 15/11/2020 23:28:45:

Posted by Bill Phinn on 15/11/2020 22:16:16:

,,, The hyphen improves clarity, …

Then it should be used. Clarity is paramount in writing.

I suspect a crosssectional* study would find most people favouring a hyphen there, but arguably less forgiveable examples of clarity-impairing hyphen-neglect appear to get a free pass, the almost universal use of "predate" for "pre-date" [as well as for the other "predate"] being one: https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=142031&p=3

*Multiple instances of this spelling exist on the Web.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Bill Phinn on 16/11/2020 02:24:22:

Posted by Hopper on 15/11/2020 23:28:45:

Posted by Bill Phinn on 15/11/2020 22:16:16:

,,, The hyphen improves clarity, …

Then it should be used. Clarity is paramount in writing.

I suspect a crosssectional* study would find most people favouring a hyphen there, but arguably less forgiveable examples of clarity-impairing hyphen-neglect appear to get a free pass, the almost universal use of "predate" for "pre-date" [as well as for the other "predate"] being one: https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=142031&p=3

*Multiple instances of this spelling exist on the Web.

Well, if it's on the Web it must be right! Hmm,

Reputable dictionaries including the Cambridge and Merriam-Webster list it as cross-sectional. That in itself supports the argument for a hyphen in the triple-S sequence in cross-slide.

They also list predate as one word, to mean existing at an earlier time. One of those ones that has become one word and lost the hyphen after years of general usage and a total lack of ambiguity provided by common usage and context. Much like backyard and closer to home, tailstock and headstock.

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Hopper on 15/11/2020 23:28:45:

Posted by Bill Phinn on 15/11/2020 22:16:16:

,,, The hyphen improves clarity, …

Then it should be used. Clarity is paramount in writing.

Only if you believe clarity is the issue here, which I don't.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The problem with predate and pre-date is that they mean different things.

As, incidentally, do content and contents, a difference deemed unacceptable by Silicon Valley which finds it far easier to string 2 digits than 26 letters, together.

Whereas terms like headstock have only one meaning hyphen or not, even if the two words alone can be used for many different things!

I do wonder what if any English Language is now taught in schools. It seems to exclude understanding words and etymology! The Oxford English Dictionary has been criticised for encouraging ignorance, by such things as calling the specific geological term epicentre a synonym for the common word centre, and expunging many nature words.

[Kiwi BlokeParticipant @kiwibloke62605]

Ever been had?

Long, long ago, in my youth, I came across a highly contrived string of 14 'had's in the Guinness Book of Records. The scenario is something like two printers, differently interpreting instructions regarding bold face and italics. The resulting confusion was reported:

'Tom, where John had had 'had had', had had 'had had'; had 'had had' had 'had had' printed over it in the final proof, no-one would have been surprised.'

Enough of this time-wasting! I'm getting on, and time's running out!

[Dr. MC BlackParticipant @dr-mcblack73214]

Sadly, I fear that the OED reflects usage rather that setting a standard.

During my lifetime "alright" has crept into written English replacing "all right" (on the lines, I suppose, of "always&quot.

When I was a Physics teacher (now 30 years ago), colleagues in the English Department felt that not more than one or two wrong spellings in a piece of work should be corrected, since it discouraged the boys from using "new words"!

MC

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I'm sure it does and that would be the OED editors' excuse, but it does the language no good and shows the speaker trying to use technical terms metaphorically as ignorant and can change the meanings of their messages.

They have no excuse whatsoever for omitting many names for common plants and animals.

Allegedly or by claim, that censorship was merely to create space for IT-related terms – but looks as if a result of that dreaded arty-flatulency nonsense about 'relevance'. Obviously, both IT and Nature words should be included (needing two entries each for some trade-names), and I hope the lost words are restored in the next revision, irrespective of a few more pages and ink.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Thank God the physics teachers dont run the world. We'd still all be speaking like Chaucer if dictionaries were prescriptive rather than descriptive. Newton's first law may be set in stone but language is a constantly evolving artifact.

I'm not a fan of alright either but it has been with us since 1880 and James Joyce used it — supposedly the world's leading practitioner of the English language. But he used all right as well.

My current pet peeve is decimated increasingly being used to mean devastated. I know it's in the dictionary and there are strong etymological arguments for it. But it still has overtones of one in ten from the decim as in decimal.To use it otherwise is to display a completely tin ear for the language.

Whereas the metaphorical use of epicentre to describe say a hospital that originated an outbreak of Covid works just fine for me. Metaphor is a legitimate part of language and its meaning is clear.

But a family decimated by Covid to me means one in 10 of them died.

Then don't get me started on razed to the ground…

[Author]

Posts