Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Seeking schematics/plans for decimal to binary (microswitch/relay)selector/controller

---
Slightly less of a mess, I'd say,  since we're not saddled with
those 'ou's and 're's which are really pronounced the way we spell
them.
---

According to one of the six sets of character to phoneme transciption
rules ...
Slightly less of a mess is still a mess.
---
Well, according to your cite, his dictionary included words which
originated here and weren't included in any English English
dictionary.  There are also words which we use differently from you,
like 'bonnet', 'hood', and 'trunk', so using one of your
dictionaries would just have been confusing and rather limiting as
our version of English evolved.
---

The words weren't different when Noah Webster wrote his dictionary -
the U.S. and the U.K. chose to use different words (all from the same
common vocabulary) when they developed cars (automobiles) and started
talking about them. The Complete Oxford lists ten slternative meanings
for "bonnet"and eight for "hood", none of which directly refer to the
part of the car you get your head under when you are working on the
engine/motor though both include definitions which would include this
usage.

I've never said that, though it is true that the yokel element of the
American population does seem to be over-represented on this user-
group, but even here there are decidedly non-yokel Americans - Fred
Blogs is nobody's idea of a yokel.Your yokel-like enthusiasm for
idiotic over-generalisation has led you astray - not for the first
time.
Curiously, even though you also profess great disdain for the
Republic of Texas, your wife took her doctorate here, at the
University of Texas.  

Surprising, to say the least, when there must be so many "better"
schools around.

I happen to a fan of the "obstacle course" theory of post-graduate
education, which sees the Ph.D. as evidence that the person who earns
it has been able to do significant research despite the numerous
obstacles placed in their way by the universities who barely support
the research, but taek credit for it once it is done. One of the first
things I had to do for my Ph.D. research project was make my own
silica glass windows for my reaction cell - my supervisor gave me a
sheet of cast silica, and I had to cut out the circular windows, grind
them flat, then polish them until they were optically smooth.

It took me about a week, and I've never used that particular skill
since then - unlike the electronics I had to learn in order to build
my own measuring gear. Happily, we did have a big enough budget to let
me buy discrete transistors, so I wasn't obliged to learn to diffuse
my own.

The University of Texas happened to be one of the better obstacle
courses around in my wife's area - she did clean out a few of the
obstactes on her way through the course, which probably made it a
better educational institution - not that it ever seems to have been
all that good, but a poorer obstacle course.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
According to one of the six sets of character to phoneme transciption
rules ...
Slightly less of a mess is still a mess.

---
Of course, but slightly less of a mess is still better than slightly
more of a mess.
---
The words weren't different when Noah Webster wrote his dictionary -

---
Nor did I say they were. I didn't think it would be necessary to
list them, but your cite refers to words like 'skunk' and 'squash'
which weren't in your dictionaries at the time.
---
the U.S. and the U.K. chose to use different words (all from the same
common vocabulary) when they developed cars (automobiles) and started
talking about them. The Complete Oxford lists ten slternative meanings
for "bonnet"and eight for "hood", none of which directly refer to the
part of the car you get your head under when you are working on the
engine/motor though both include definitions which would include this
usage.

---
Precisely.

My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine."

Which seems to nicely allay any confusion, and it seems strange to
me that that meaning, being in popular use for quite some time,
wouldn't be attributed to the word with all the others.

Is the OED frozen?
---
I've never said that, though it is true that the yokel element of the
American population does seem to be over-represented on this user-
group, but even here there are decidedly non-yokel Americans - Fred
Blogs is nobody's idea of a yokel.Your yokel-like enthusiasm for
idiotic over-generalisation has led you astray - not for the first
time.

---
I find that over-generalization is often necessary when trying to
communicate with you in that you have a marked propensity to preach
that the forest is made up solely of Oak trees.
---
I happen to a fan of the "obstacle course" theory of post-graduate
education, which sees the Ph.D. as evidence that the person who earns
it has been able to do significant research despite the numerous
obstacles placed in their way by the universities who barely support
the research, but taek credit for it once it is done. One of the first
things I had to do for my Ph.D. research project was make my own
silica glass windows for my reaction cell - my supervisor gave me a
sheet of cast silica, and I had to cut out the circular windows, grind
them flat, then polish them until they were optically smooth.

It took me about a week, and I've never used that particular skill
since then - unlike the electronics I had to learn in order to build
my own measuring gear. Happily, we did have a big enough budget to let
me buy discrete transistors, so I wasn't obliged to learn to diffuse
my own.

The University of Texas happened to be one of the better obstacle
courses around in my wife's area - she did clean out a few of the
obstactes on her way through the course,

---
Hmm... The way I heard it earlier is that she had some kind of a
tiff with her instructor about the rules and was required to follow
them, much to her chagrin.
---
which probably made it a better educational institution

---
Yeah, right...
---
Not that it ever seems to have been all that good,

---
Well, we do have a few Nobel laureates.
---
but a poorer obstacle course.

---
Geez, Bill, first it was:

"The University of Texas happened to be one of the better obstacle
courses around in my wife's area"

and then, at the end:

"Not that it ever seems to have been all that good, but a poorer
obstacle course."

LOL, which was it?
 
Not really. It is now two essentially identical messes, serviced by
two sets of dictionaries, when one set would have worked just as well.
---
Nor did I say they were. I didn't think it would be necessary to
list them, but your cite refers to words like 'skunk' and 'squash'
which weren't in your dictionaries at the time.
---


---
Precisely.

My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine."

Which seems to nicely allay any confusion, and it seems strange to
me that that meaning, being in popular use for quite some time,
wouldn't be attributed to the word with all the others.

Is the OED frozen?
---

Far from it. There's now a BBC program - "Balderdash and Piffle"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/wordhunt/

where the BBC invites its viewers to help up-date the Oxford
Dictionary of the English Language. Victoria Coren, who presents the
program, managed to include her father - Allan Coren, one-time editor
of Punch - in one of the earlier programs.

It's great fun if you like that sort of thing.

Incidentally, does the Webster's definition work for the Volkswagen
and other rear-engined cars? As far as I'm concerned, they keep their
engine/motor in the trunk/boot and you put your luggage under the hood/
bonnet.

The OED is scrupulous about that sort of thing.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Not really. It is now two essentially identical messes, serviced by
two sets of dictionaries, when one set would have worked just as well.

---
Stop being disingenuous.

On the one hand you admit that our dictionaries tend to clear up
messes which existed earlier, while in the same breath you seem to
wish that we'd not have done that, and that we should have adhered
to, presumably, the old rules with which you feel comfortable.

On top of that, I'm sure there are words in Australian English which
are peculiar to that language and aren't part of the OED.

Should they not have been coined as well?
---

Far from it. There's now a BBC program - "Balderdash and Piffle"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/programmes/wordhunt/

where the BBC invites its viewers to help up-date the Oxford
Dictionary of the English Language. Victoria Coren, who presents the
program, managed to include her father - Allan Coren, one-time editor
of Punch - in one of the earlier programs.

It's great fun if you like that sort of thing.

Incidentally, does the Webster's definition work for the Volkswagen
and other rear-engined cars?

---
Of course. From an earlier post you must have missed:

" My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine.""

Notice that no distinction is made as to the hood's location on the
car.
---
As far as I'm concerned, they keep their
engine/motor in the trunk/boot and you put your luggage under the hood/
bonnet.
 
---
Stop being disingenuous.

On the one hand you admit that our dictionaries tend to clear up
messes which existed earlier, while in the same breath you seem to
wish that we'd not have done that, and that we should have adhered
to, presumably, the old rules with which you feel comfortable.

The "mess" is the fact that English spelling reflects six indepedents
sets of rules relating the phonemes we hear and produce and the
alphabetic characters that we use to represent them. Noah Webster
switched the spelling of a few words from one set of rules to another,
further complicating an already complicated situation, by
institionalising two different sets of spellings for what is - in fact
- a single language.

I'm not aware that Noah Webster coined any new words, and I wouldn't
care if he did - all languages coin new words all the time, and lose
old ones. Dictionaries try to keep up, but not even the complete
Oxford expects to incorporate every new word as it is coined. Many of
the new words don't last and there is little point in incorporating
them in a dictionary.
On top of that, I'm sure there are words in Australian English which
are peculiar to that language and aren't part of the OED.

Should they not have been coined as well?
---

Dictionaries reflect the language - and should include those new words
that end up being used by appreciable numbers of people. This has
nothing to do with Noah Webster's half-baked ventures into spelling
reform, which had the incidental - but surely not unwelcome - effect
of protecting his market from U.K.-based competition.

It doesn't work for me.
From an earlier post you must have missed:

" My Webster's lists ten different meanings for 'hood', one of which
is: "3. the hinged movable part of an automobile body covering the
engine.""

Notice that no distinction is made as to the hood's location on the
car.
---

Which means that it doesn't reflect popular usage - at least in the
places I've been

Can you cite an example of somebody using the word "hood" to describe
the engine-cover of a Volkswagen?
I've done a little Googling, and the nearest I've got to something
unambiguous was somebody advertisng a VW "hood emblem" that went on
the front of the Beetle, not the engine cover.

They just give - as one particular meaning of the word - a phrase
covering any kind of external protective cowl for any mechanism.

It is non-ambiguous, but not specific.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
The "mess" is the fact that English spelling reflects six indepedents
sets of rules relating the phonemes we hear and produce and the
alphabetic characters that we use to represent them. Noah Webster
switched the spelling of a few words from one set of rules to another,
further complicating an already complicated situation, by
institionalising two different sets of spellings for what is - in fact
- a single language.

---
Really?

http://www.krysstal.com/ukandusa.html

Actually, he made it simpler for us by more closely paralleling the
spelling we read with the phonemes we "hear" when we read.

Whether he made it simpler for you is of little concern since you
have your precious traditions and habits and, good or bad, you're
certainly not going to break them for any American "yokel" who shows
you a better way.
---
I'm not aware that Noah Webster coined any new words, and I wouldn't
care if he did - all languages coin new words all the time, and lose
old ones. Dictionaries try to keep up, but not even the complete
Oxford expects to incorporate every new word as it is coined. Many of
the new words don't last and there is little point in incorporating
them in a dictionary.

---
Yes, but that's all rather well known and banal, so why bother with
an unnecessary "exposition"?
---
Dictionaries reflect the language - and should include those new words
that end up being used by appreciable numbers of people. This has
nothing to do with Noah Webster's half-baked ventures into spelling
reform, which had the incidental - but surely not unwelcome - effect
of protecting his market from U.K.-based competition.

---
Well, the way I read it was not spelling reform for the sake of
quelling competition, but spelling corrected to be concomitant with
pronouncication.

You, of course, always see evil in everyone's intentions but your
own, so the little tale you dreamed up in order to cast Webster in
the light of a charlatan is hardly unexpected.
---
It doesn't work for me.

---
Well, of course it doesn't. Webster _was_ American, wasn't he?
---
Which means that it doesn't reflect popular usage - at least in the
places I've been.

---
Probably not, if the people in the places you frequent are as
stilted as you are.
---
Can you cite an example of somebody using the word "hood" to describe
the engine-cover of a Volkswagen?

---
Of course. Me:

"The engine of a 1964 Volkswagen Beetle I once owned was under the
hood."

How's that?
 
L

Lostgallifreyan

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in [email protected]:
The "mess" is the fact that English spelling reflects six indepedents
sets of rules relating the phonemes we hear and produce and the
alphabetic characters that we use to represent them.

The 'mess' is the fact that we all have diverse history. Simplifications are
a way to take convergent points at the expense of detailed history bound into
the language. Whether this is bad or not is not my business, I get urges
toward either view at times, but the fact remains that life is not as orderly
as a digital model and it might be better if we let language reflect that.
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in [email protected]:


The 'mess' is the fact that we all have diverse history. Simplifications are
a way to take convergent points at the expense of detailed history bound into
the language. Whether this is bad or not is not my business, I get urges
toward either view at times, but the fact remains that life is not as orderly
as a digital model and it might be better if we let language reflect that.

My only take on that is that I'd like to see some sort of "standard"
"English" language, just like we have the "standard" inch, the "standard"
ohm, and so on. At least then we'd all be speaking the same language!
(Well, in the US, of course. Other countries speak their own respective
languages, but for some reason English seems to be a popular second
choice. ;-) )

Cheers!
Rich
 
L

Lostgallifreyan

Jan 1, 1970
0
My only take on that is that I'd like to see some sort of "standard"
"English" language, just like we have the "standard" inch, the "standard"
ohm, and so on. At least then we'd all be speaking the same language!
(Well, in the US, of course. Other countries speak their own respective
languages, but for some reason English seems to be a popular second
choice. ;-) )

Good point, given that it's becoming a kind of technical Lingua Franca,
expected of many who would otherwise not wish to speak it.

To that end, the best way is probably not to try to omit the history though,
but to just omit un-needed words. Similar things are done when writing small
computer languages. A lot of times it's the arrangement of simple elements
that elegantly tells a complex story. If we get that right, people care that
much less about how the words are spelt because they understand them anyway.
 
And what do you expect your readers to learn from that web-site?
Actually, he made it simpler for us by more closely paralleling the
spelling we read with the phonemes we "hear" when we read.  

Like I said, English spellings are derived from one of six different
sets of rules for doing that. Noah Webster just switched the spelling
of a lmited number of words from one set of rules to another. This
doesn't represent a significant or particularly useful simplification.
Serious spelling reform would involve fixing on one set of rules and
using that set without exception
Whether he made it simpler for you is of little concern since you
have your precious traditions and habits and, good or bad, you're
certainly not going to break them for any American "yokel" who shows
you a better way.
---

Noah Webster's changes aren't "better" in any practical sense -
Americans don't learn to read or write better or faster than English
speakers in other countries who use the traditional spellings.

You introduced the subject of new words - which strikes me as totally
irrelevant to Noah Webster's contribution (such as it was) - and your
suggestion that the OED might be "frozen" did imply that you needed an
exposition of this well known and banal aspect of language.

Since there are six sets of pronounciation rules for written English,
all that Webster was doing was switching from one set of rules to
another - his dictionary still contains examples of words spelled/
pronounced according to all six sets of rules, so his corrections were
partial and arbitrary.
You, of course, always see evil in everyone's intentions but your
own, so the little tale you dreamed up in order to cast Webster in
the light of a charlatan is hardly unexpected.

I didn't claim that he was a charlatan - he only had to be
idiosyncratic and ill-informed to behave as he did and it is possible
that he never noticed that he was freezing out U.K. publishers, though
he seems to have been too much a publisher for that to be all that
likely.

He died in 1843, so it wouldn't have worked for him either.
---
Probably not, if the people in the places you frequent are as
stilted as you are.
---



---
Of course. Me:  

"The engine of a 1964 Volkswagen Beetle I once owned was under the
hood."

How's that?
---

That's funny - everybody else's 1964 Volkwagen had a boot/trunk under
the hood, because the engine/motor was in the back of the car.

None of them showed where the hood was supposed to be fitted on the
car, and none of the hoods I saw had the ventilation slots I seem to
remember seeing in the engine covers on the Beetles I knew.

No, it doesn't - according to them both "bonnet" and "hood" can refer
to external protective cowls.
 
[email protected] wrote in [email protected]:


The 'mess' is the fact that we all have diverse history. Simplifications are
a way to take convergent points at the expense of detailed history bound into
the language. Whether this is bad or not is not my business, I get urges
toward either view at times, but the fact remains that life is not as orderly
as a digital model and it might be better if we let language reflect that.

Language reflects the way people use it - we automatically let
language reflect that, since our use of words is entirely driven by
our urge to say what we mean in such a way that other people will
understand what we mean.

Organisations that attempt to reform or purify languages are effective
as King Canute was when he told the tide to stop rising.
 
Good point, given that it's becoming a kind of technical Lingua Franca,
expected of many who would otherwise not wish to speak it.

To that end, the best way is probably not to try to omit the history though,
but to just omit un-needed words. Similar things are done when writing small
computer languages. A lot of times it's the arrangement of simple elements
that elegantly tells a complex story. If we get that right, people care that
much less about how the words are spelt because they understand them anyway.

People do understand words which are spelt unconventionally, but they
do understand them somewhat more slowly than they understand them when
spelt conventionally, and they do tend to regard unconventional
spellings as wrong, and as evidence that the author is either stupid
or poorly educated.
 
My only take on that is that I'd like to see some sort of "standard"
"English" language, just like we have the "standard" inch, the "standard"
ohm, and so on. At least then we'd all be speaking the same language!
(Well, in the US, of course. Other countries speak their own respective
languages, but for some reason English seems to be a popular second
choice. ;-) )

Sadly, any attempt to impose a "standard" language is doomed to fail -
humans are perfefctly capable of inventing their own languages if they
aren't satisfied with the one they've got.

Adults invent pidgins, which do tend to be crude and inadequate, but
children invent creoles, which are complete languages.
 
L

Lostgallifreyan

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] wrote in [email protected]:
Language reflects the way people use it - we automatically let
language reflect that, since our use of words is entirely driven by
our urge to say what we mean in such a way that other people will
understand what we mean.

Trehe are cnncvioing dtisnmatreoons taht wtnirig lkie tihs lavees the
sntenece prfteecly inelibligtle. :) Perhaps the spellings that give most
trouble are those with unexpected start and end letters. I also suspect that
as the maximum human capacity for instant grouping (unless you're a Beduoin
herder) tends to be around 7 items per group, that words longer than 7
letters might also be troublesome.
Organisations that attempt to reform or purify languages are effective
as King Canute was when he told the tide to stop rising.

I'm a great fan of King Canute. He found his courtiers' demands so
intractably silly that he set up that little act to show them how daft they
were. History shows that HE was stupid, but is that history, or a later
revision of it by a majority who couldn't admit to themselves that they'd
been shown up by a smartarse? :)
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
And what do you expect your readers to learn from that web-site?

---
That English isn't, pure-and-simple, a single language. Ever since
we left England, American and British English have been evolving in
different ways, what with the independent addition and deletion of
new words, idioms, and grammatical constructs on both sides of the
pond.

Taken one step further, Australian English is different from both
American and British English and I suspect each language will
continue to evolve as the needs/wants of its users change over time.
---
Like I said, English spellings are derived from one of six different
sets of rules for doing that. Noah Webster just switched the spelling
of a lmited number of words from one set of rules to another.

---
Fine, and by so doing he left us with a pronunciation guide for some
words which clearly minimizes ambiguities and simplifies the
spelling of those words. In my book, simplification is a good
thing. I suspect that in your book it would also be a good thing
had not some American come up with it.
---
This doesn't represent a significant or particularly useful simplification.
Serious spelling reform would involve fixing on one set of rules and
using that set without exception

---
At the expense of ridding the language of its delicious subtleties
for the sake of homogeneity?
---
Noah Webster's changes aren't "better" in any practical sense -
Americans don't learn to read or write better or faster than English
speakers in other countries who use the traditional spellings.

---
Now, now, Bill...

Even you shouldn't have a problem with realizing that it takes
longer to type 'colour' than it does to type 'color'.

Quantitatively, if we say it takes an extra 100 milliseconds to type
the unnecessary 'u' and that 'colour' is typed a few million times a
day, we wind up with a waste of time of over 8300 hours per day just
for 'color'. Add in the rest of the words containing the
unnecessary 'u' and the waste of time...

Well, you get the point, yes?
---
You introduced the subject of new words

---
Nope, I introduced the fact that Webster's content is different from
the OED's and that if you were interested in learning the nuances of
American English you would do well to buy a copy of it. [Webster's]

Matter of fact, it was you who introduced the subject of new words
with your calumny of Webster and Americans in general:


"You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that
well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American"
than the correct spellings. Your ancestors bought the story and you
have been spelling like yokels ever since."
---
which strikes me as totally
irrelevant to Noah Webster's contribution (such as it was) - and your
suggestion that the OED might be "frozen" did imply that you needed an
exposition of this well known and banal aspect of language.

---
So you missed that it was rhetorical question?

Why am I not surprised?
---
Since there are six sets of pronounciation rules for written English,
all that Webster was doing was switching from one set of rules to
another - his dictionary still contains examples of words spelled/
pronounced according to all six sets of rules, so his corrections were
partial and arbitrary.

---
His dictionary also contains examples of deprecated and archaic
words no longer in common use. So what?
---
I didn't claim that he was a charlatan - he only had to be
idiosyncratic and ill-informed to behave as he did and it is possible
that he never noticed that he was freezing out U.K. publishers, though
he seems to have been too much a publisher for that to be all that
likely.

---
Then you deny writing:

"You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that
well

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American"
than the correct spellings."


and:

"- as it is all he did - and
all he probably intended to do - was to make it difficult for U.K.
publishers to sell their dictionaries in the U.S.A." ?

---
He died in 1843, so it wouldn't have worked for him either.

---
And yet, the salient definition in his dictionary is that of a
hinged automobile engine cover with no restriction as to its
location, so it seems he had _something_ going for him.
---
That's funny - everybody else's 1964 Volkwagen had a boot/trunk under
the hood, because the engine/motor was in the back of the car.

---
Not _everybody_ else. We who use Webster's dictionary call the
engine cover a 'hood' and don't concern ourselves with whether it's
located on the front or the rear of the car.

Since you call an engine cover a 'bonnet' doesn't its location also
follow the engine?
---
None of them showed where the hood was supposed to be fitted on the
car, and none of the hoods I saw had the ventilation slots I seem to
remember seeing in the engine covers on the Beetles I knew.

---
Yeah, right!

Here's the first hit I got:

http://www.partstrain.com/ShopByDepartment/Hood/VOLKSWAGEN

Notice the ventilation slots.

The reason they don't show where it's supposed to be fitted on the
car is because they're not selling maintenance manuals, they're
selling parts and, ostensibly, if you buy parts from them you know
where they're supposed to go. YMMV.
 
---
That English isn't, pure-and-simple, a single language.  Ever since
we left England, American and British English have been evolving in
different ways, what with the independent addition and deletion of
new words, idioms, and grammatical constructs on both sides of the
pond.

Oddly enough, the differences in the spoken language on either side of
the pond are smaller than the regional differences between the North
and South of England - I've never had any trouble understanding what
an American speaker had to say, while I have found people speaking
Scouse - the dialect of Newcastle-on-Tyne - rather difficult to
follow. All languages have regional differences but as long as the
speakers find one another mutually comprehensible it's still one
language - though the linguist's rule of thumb, that a language is a
dialect with an army and a navy is nicely illustrated by the
distinction between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language

Norway became independent of Sweden in 1905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905

Paradoxically, while Dutch is officially a single language spoken both
in the Netherlands and the Fleming provinces of Belgium, in Belgian
progams shown on Dutch TV, the Flemish Dutch is usually under-titled
to help the Dutch understand the Fleming pronunciations.
Taken one step further, Australian English is different from both
American and British English and I suspect each language will
continue to evolve as the needs/wants of its users change over time.
---

Australian English does have its own dictionary, the Macquarie
dictionary of Australian English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_Dictionary

It doesn't go in for spelling reform, though it does differe from the
OED in listing "realise" as the more common spelling of the word
"realize".
---
Fine, and by so doing he left us with a pronunciation guide for some
words which clearly minimizes ambiguities and simplifies the
spelling of those words.  In my book, simplification is a good
thing.  I suspect that in your book it would also be a good thing
had not some American come up with it.

It is scarcely a simplication to end up with half the world using
"colour" and the other half "color".

Spelling is a mechanism for representing the spoken language as text -
it has no perceptible effect on the subtleties of the spoken language.
People have looked for such effects and they don't seem to exist.
---
Now, now, Bill...

Even you shouldn't have a problem with realizing that it takes
longer to type 'colour' than it does to type 'color'.

Quantitatively, if we say it takes an extra 100 milliseconds to type
the unnecessary 'u' and that 'colour' is typed a few million times a
day, we wind up with a waste of time of over 8300 hours per day just
for 'color'.  Add in the rest of the words containing the
unnecessary 'u' and the waste of time...

Well, you get the point, yes?
---

The point being that you can invent a hypothetical time-saving to
justify Noah Webster's meddling?
Americans don't - in fact - type better or faster than English
speakers who use the OED spellings. Copy-typing is an obsolete skill
and everybody else types at a rate that is determined by the speed at
which they can think up the text, where a letter here or there doesn't
make any difference at all.
You introduced the subject of new words

---
Nope, I introduced the fact that Webster's content is different from
the OED's and that if you were interested in learning the nuances of
American English you would do well to buy a copy of it. [Webster's]

Matter of fact, it was you who introduced the subject of new words
with your calumny of Webster and Americans in general:

"You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that
well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American"
than the correct spellings. Your ancestors bought the story and you
have been spelling like yokels ever since."
---

And where does that mention new words? If Noah Webster had confined
himself creating a dictionary which included words and word usages
peculiar to the U.S.A. nobody would have had anything to object to. I
was objecting to his amateurish and half-baked efforts at spelling
reform.
Since there are six sets of pronounciation rules for written English,
all that Webster was doing was switching from one set of rules to
another - his dictionary still contains examples of words spelled/
pronounced according to all six sets of rules, so his corrections were
partial and arbitrary.

It is useful to have deprecated and archaic words in a dictionary -
precisely because they are no long in common use, people find it
necessary to consult a dictionary when they run into them in old
texts.

Arbitrary and half-baked spelling reform is the last thing you want in
your dictionary - precisely because it makes it more difficult to deal
with old or foreign text.
---
Then you deny writing:

"You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that
well

 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American"
than the correct spellings."

and:

"- as it is all he did - and
all he probably intended to do - was to make it difficult for U.K.
publishers to sell their dictionaries in the U.S.A." ?

---

That doesn't make him a charlatan. A charlatan intends to deceive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan

My claim was that Noah Webster became a spelling reformer by
immortalising his own spelling mistakes, and opted to persist with
them when he realised that they were mistakes, on the basis that as
they were American mistakes. an American Nationalist had a duty to use
them to squeeze out British publishers from his American market. A
self-serving stance, but one that he got away with.
 
J

John Fields

Jan 1, 1970
0
Oddly enough, the differences in the spoken language on either side of
the pond are smaller than the regional differences between the North
and South of England - I've never had any trouble understanding what
an American speaker had to say,

---
As far as the spoken language goes, that may be true.

However, when it comes to written English, there have been many
occasions when you responded inappropriately to written American
English and/or seemed to have entirely missed the point.
---
while I have found people speaking
Scouse - the dialect of Newcastle-on-Tyne - rather difficult to
follow. All languages have regional differences but as long as the
speakers find one another mutually comprehensible it's still one
language

---
No, it isn't.

I speak Spanish almost as well as I speak English and yet, when I
speak Spanish with someone who speaks English well but whose first
language is Spanish and we both understand each other, we both
become aware of our cultural differences and their reflections in
our _separate_ languages.

That's not to say that we haven't found common ground, just that it
belies your claim that "as long as the speakers find one another
mutually comprehensible it's still one language."
---

- though the linguist's rule of thumb, that a language is a
dialect with an army and a navy is nicely illustrated by the
distinction between Swedish, Norwegian and Danish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_language

Norway became independent of Sweden in 1905

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_union_between_Norway_and_Sweden_in_1905

Paradoxically, while Dutch is officially a single language spoken both
in the Netherlands and the Fleming provinces of Belgium, in Belgian
progams shown on Dutch TV, the Flemish Dutch is usually under-titled
to help the Dutch understand the Fleming pronunciations.


Australian English does have its own dictionary, the Macquarie
dictionary of Australian English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_Dictionary

It doesn't go in for spelling reform, though it does differe from the
OED in listing "realise" as the more common spelling of the word
"realize".

---
"differe"???

Bill, here we are arguing about spelling and you allow yourself to
be knocked off with 'differe'?

Truly, I'm embarrassed for you even though I've been wont to your
foibles for quite some time.

I'm sure you eschew spell-checkers as being beneath you, yet by
refusing them their due you make the most telling blunders.
---
It is scarcely a simplication to end up with half the world using
"colour" and the other half "color".

---
It's a "simplication" for us, since we no longer have to include the
useless 'u', and as long as you understand what we're talking about
and it makes us happy to use it, why are you bitching about it?
---
 
Spelling is a mechanism for representing the spoken language as text -
it has no perceptible effect on the subtleties of the spoken language.
People have looked for such effects and they don't seem to exist.
---
Really?



The point being that you can invent a hypothetical time-saving to
justify Noah Webster's meddling?

---
Meddling???

Oh, you must mean simplifying what you consider to be sacrosanct.
---
Americans don't - in fact - type better or faster than English
speakers who use the OED spellings. Copy-typing is an obsolete skill
and everybody else types at a rate that is determined by the speed at
which they can think up the text, where a letter here or there doesn't
make any difference at all.

---
I see... It takes a proficient typist who can touch-type just as
long to type a five-letter word as it does to type a six-letter
word?

That's amazing, Bill!

You just taught me a new way to add: 5 + 1 = 5.

Thank you!
---
I'm not aware that Noah Webster coined any new words, and I wouldn't
care if he did - all languages coin new words all the time, and lose
old ones. Dictionaries try to keep up, but not even the complete
Oxford expects to incorporate every new word as it is coined. Many of
the new words don't last and there is little point in incorporating
them in a dictionary.
You introduced the subject of new words

---
Nope, I introduced the fact that Webster's content is different from
the OED's and that if you were interested in learning the nuances of
American English you would do well to buy a copy of it. [Webster's]

Matter of fact, it was you who introduced the subject of new words
with your calumny of Webster and Americans in general:

"You should keep in mind that Noah Webster couldn't spell all that
well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

which he covered by claiming that his errors were more "American"
than the correct spellings. Your ancestors bought the story and you
have been spelling like yokels ever since."
---

And where does that mention new words?

---
'Skunk' and 'squash' come to mind, as do 'color' and 'center' which
were new text because of their spelling, not because of their
pronunciation.
---
If Noah Webster had confined
himself creating a dictionary which included words and word usages
peculiar to the U.S.A. nobody would have had anything to object to. I
was objecting to his amateurish and half-baked efforts at spelling
reform.

---
As far as I know, his dictionary _was_ designed to be peculiar to
the US, and he correctly simplified the spelling of some words which
were pronounced differently from the way in which they were
originally spelled.

Your assburn seems to be based on the fact that some American
"yokel" came along and trimmed some of the useless fat from your
language in order to make it easier for us to use, and was
successful at it.

Sour grapes, Sloman.[/QUOTE]
Since there are six sets of pronounciation rules for written English,
all that Webster was doing was switching from one set of rules to
another - his dictionary still contains examples of words spelled/
pronounced according to all six sets of rules, so his corrections were
partial and arbitrary.
[/QUOTE]

It is useful to have deprecated and archaic words in a dictionary -
precisely because they are no long in common use, people find it
necessary to consult a dictionary when they run into them in old
texts.[/QUOTE]

---
So then you admit that his dictionaries are worthwhile even though
Webster's spelling repairs aren't to your liking?
---
Arbitrary and half-baked spelling reform is the last thing you want in
your dictionary - precisely because it makes it more difficult to deal
with old or foreign text.

---
Hardly arbitrary, since he went after, and changed the spelling of,
words like 'colour' where the 'u' was silent and words like 'centre'
where the 'e' and 'r' were pronounced in reverse of their appearance
on the page.

And hardly half-baked, since we're about 180 years downstream from
the publication of his "American Dictionary of the English Language"
and 'color' and 'center' are still in there.

Also, since the etymology of a word is usually included as part of
its entry in a dictionary, I fail to see why you consider new words
with links to their precursors to be a problem.
---
That doesn't make him a charlatan. A charlatan intends to deceive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlatan

---
You stated that Webster couldn't spell all that well and that he
covered his mistakes by claiming that his errors were more
"American" than the "correct" spelling.

That, to my ears, sounds like you were claiming that he was being
deceptive, with a little slur thrown in there implying that his
attempt at deception was deliberate, and that you, Your Majesty,
caught him at it with his hand in the cookie jar.

According to your cite nothing could be farther from the truth,
which makes my claim that you were trying to make him look like a
charlatan true.

In addition, your attempt at fabricating facts in order to try to
disgrace Webster is truly shameful.
---
My claim was that Noah Webster became a spelling reformer by
immortalising his own spelling mistakes, and opted to persist with
them when he realised that they were mistakes,

---
Like your claim matters?

Noah Webster changed the archaic spelling when it became apparent
that the pronunciation no longer matched the old spelling and, as a
result, gave us the more modern American English.

You, it seems, would prefer to wallow in antiquity.
 
---
As far as the spoken language goes, that may be true.

However, when it comes to written English, there have been many
occasions when you responded inappropriately to written American
English and/or seemed to have entirely missed the point.
---

You are in no position to complain about inappropriate responses from
other people.
 
Top