Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    	Yes, techno-geeks who have their heads so far up their manuals
    	they have no idea how to interact on any other level.
    
    	They bore the hell out of me.
    
    	Carla
    

RE: .0,

Like, when some of us mistake the HR notefile for the MOANS 
notefile?

-- Ron

    .0
    
    Have you considered that you may be talking to a non-native speaker
    of english or american-english to be precise?
    
    Dictionary often does not list all the shades of meanings of a word
    or some connotations.

	 It's really aggravating to me to have people use definitions
	 of words that are not commonly used.....especially when there
	 IS a common, widely used definition!

	 Like the other day, someone used "catholic" on me....not
	 "Catholic", but "catholic."  Now, I pride myself in knowing
	 quite a few definitions to words, but without a context to
	 associate with it, or perhaps an ambiguous context......

	 where, pray tell does it leave me?

	 

	 Making the wrong assumption, most definitely.

	 kath

    Re: .6
    
    Well, technically speaking, "Catholic" and "catholic" are different
    words.  However, "catholic" doesn't crop up in everyday conversation
    (at least not among the people I converse with every day).

    RE: .8
    
         Obliviously you are a man of great extinction.  You were highly
    observatory to catch the ingratious error therein.
    
                                     Greg

I like to use the odd turn of phrase occasionally... it exercises my vocabulary
and often gives what I want to say a nuance which I couldn't express with a 200
word vocabulary.  Then again, I often bastardize a word into a difference
context to give it multiple meanings.

I understand that it can be frustrating, but oh! the butchery of someone
adamantly stating that being objective is when all the people involved reach a
consensus! *sigh*  Black is White!  Slavery is Freedom!  Evil is Good!

Once you've confused the issue to the point that you can't tell opposites apart
you are hopelessly lost.  And you can't get out of the mess because you can't
tell right from left.

Jim.

	 It's funny how the two people that harped on me reading a
	 capital letter are the two people arguing semantics.

	 I was illustrating a POINT, not continuing to discuss the
	 issue.  You know d@mn well what point I'm making.....

	 There are alternative definitions to words that people don't
	 commonly know.....using those definitions without definition
	 what you mean is an abuse of the language.

	 Almost like a European saying.... "I need a fag." or "I'm
	 p*ssed."  Totally different meanings than the meanings others
	 use...unless they are defined, who knows?

	 kath

re: .0

Having parents who learned English as a second language, it is possible for them
to be misunderstood in a conversation.  The best course of action is to ask.
Perhaps I'm making a generalization here (please, forgive me) but most people
will not be too offended if they are asked to clarify a statement.  Maybe it's
that I'm not too proud to admit that I am not a human dictionary. I remember
getting "husband" as in "to husband one's accounts" wrong on my SAT's. 

I still think they made that word up!!!  :-) 

     - Larry

I agree entirely with the base note--it is very difficult to
communicate (writing or speaking) without a common language or 
some kind of common understanding.  I also agree entirely with
an old textbook I have that says the reader [or listener] is not
to blame for lack of interest or misunderstanding--the writer
[or speaker] is.  

When I fail to effectively communicate my message it's usually
due to the following oversights:

    I don't make my message clear enough.  I thrown in the big,
glitzy words and phrases (and don't define or adequately convey what I 
mean by them), instead of using simple, common words and sentences 
that I know are more likely to be understood.

    I forget to consider the reader.  I don't look at what I've
written and try to imagine how a reader might interpret it--and
then rewrite anything I think could be easily misconstrued.

    I don't know my subject well enough.  Am I saying what I want
to say?  In a dialogue this means I don't make sure I understand
what the other person said before I respond with my opinion.   I
don't ask enough questions.  And if I do ask, I don't listen to
the answers (because I'm so dazzled by my own ideas and rhetoric).

Don't blame the other person.  Be frustrated with yourself 
and then make the effort to become a more effective communicator.  
I think it's worth the effort. 

Nancy
        

re: .14

Nancy,

   I agree with you that you should always strive to become a more effective
communicator, but unless I KNOW the person I'm speaking to (or a little bit
of their background), I have to look for signs that tell me that I'm not being
understood.  Dazed or confused looks, lack of attention (person is not looking
at me), or lack of participation (I'm doing all of the talking) give me an
idea that I'm either boring as h*ll or I'm not being understood.  Apart from
that, without some form of verbal communication, I have to assume that my
thoughts and ideas are understood.  I had a similar problem vacationing in Italy
and speaking to some friends and relatives.  Even though I speak Italian, I had
trouble understanding and being understood.  Usually, my aunt, uncle or cousin
would bail me out and "translate" what was said into a simpler form of Italian.
For all intents and purposes, I was probably speaking in the language at the 
junior high school level.  I don't really mind since it's not my native language.

 
   Anyway, there is a big distinction between verbal and written communication.
The latter (for me) being the most difficult, especially when you never know
who might be reading what you've written.

    - Larry

    re. 15
    
    Larry,
    
    You said what are (to me) the magic words.  You said your 
    relatives "translated" your message into a simpler form.
    You can do the same thing when you're writing--that's the
    first rule of good writing.  Simplify.  That increases your
    chances of being understood.
    
    Nancy
         

     Re: .0
     
	  Actually, quite a few people use dictionaries.  But dictionaries
     are descriptive, not prescriptive:  if the language as it is used does
     not agree with the dictionary, it is the dictionary that is wrong.
     
	  Generally, I have had relatively little trouble with listeners or
     readers not knowing common English.  I have far more trouble with
     listeners or readers knowing a politicized or jargonized English --
     one in which the words are used in a jargon-like way.  Fortunately,
     jargon tends to use large words and clumsy phrases, such as "radical
     lesbian separatist" [which does _not_ mean 'an extremist homosexual
     female advocate of disunity', but explaining what it _does_ mean would
     take a book], "revenue enhancement" [which means 'new, increased
     taxes'], and "enterprise solution system" [which means 'the most
     expensive bunch of computers I can convince you to buy'].
     Unfortunately, these large and clumsy phrases are often useful when
     discussing the subject area in which they are jargonized, which is how
     they got jargonized in the first place.
     
     Re: .6
     
	  The word 'catholic' has fallen into some disfavor in the last few
     centuries -- I can remember only two current common phrases that use
     it, "the holy catholic and apostolic church" (where the big-C Catholic
     church and some derivative churches describe themselves as little-c
     catholic), and "catholic tastes."  I would call it moderately unusual,
     but not rare.
     
     Re: .9
     
	  Once upon a time, in my high school, one of the teachers gave one
     of the girls a scathing reprimand.  It seems the girl had unbuttoned
     _two_ buttons at the top of her blouse, while the teacher thought
     _one_ button would be more proper.  Throughout the five minute tirade,
     the teacher's fly was unzipped.  The teacher thought the students were
     turning purple with rage.  We were not.
     
     Re: .17
     
	  Basically, I have to agree, with one minor difference.  The
     speaker or writer has an obligation to make an extraordinary effort to
     be understood -- but the listener or reader has an obligation to make
     a reasonable effort to understand.  But defining "reasonable" is
     subject to substantial debate.
     
				  Brian Hetrick

"If my vision of the cosmos is that all earthly matters are simply  illusion,
then words like "subjective" and "objective" begin to  carry very different
meanings"

If that is the case, then what you are doing is subjectiv-izing the terms to
mean something different then what they are defined as.  Even if you don't
believe in objectivity, you should still have some understanding of the concept,
and be able to keep the two opposite concepts straight in a conversation or I
can't see how you could possibly know what you are arguing for or against!

Worse yet is when *I* am told I'm subjectiv-izing when I inist on a dictionary
definition instead of some personal definition where there's very little
difference between "objective" and "subjective".

As for not understanding words...  If I read a word that I don't understand, I
look it up!  Is that too much to expect?  Does wonders for your vocabulary, and
increases my ability to understand others.  Don't people who don't look up
unknown words *want* to understand?  

Actually, I don't always look the word up; usually I can get a pretty good idea
from the context.  I get the feeling that there are people out there who don't
even have an idea what "context" is, let alone being able guess a word's meaning
from context.

Worse yet are the people who, regardless of the fact that you don't have a clue
as to what you are talking about, blaze away off on some wild goose chase
tangent that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Why is it that they
don't say, 'huh?  What do you mean?'

If someone can't be bothered to look up a word, guess from context, or say
'What?', I'd say that classifies them as functionally illiterate.  

Yes, the writer has to be able to write understandably.  But the reader has to
be able to read what's on the screen at least!  I don't know how many times
someone's come to me with a computer problem, and they DIDN'T READ THE SCREEN. 

Either a massive error occured and they blithely ignored it, or a small error
was handled correctly and the instructions for proceeding were on the screen. 
It's not that they couldn't understand what was on the screen, it was that they
didn't didn't bother to read the screen, or they didn't bother to engage their
brain while doing so.  I didn't have to tell them anything in addition to what
was on the screen, or explain it to them, all I had to do was say 'read this,
and think at the same time'.

Typical dialogue:  (problem has been trivialized for the sake of berevity)

User:  The Computer did something weird to me.
Me  :  What did it say?
User:  Uh... I don't know...
Me  :  What did it do...?  (trying a different tactic)
User:  It gave me some kind of error about file not found...
Me  :  Let's go look at your terminal... (giving up on getting )
...                                      (information from user)
Me  :  What does it say?
User:  It says "File Not Found"
Me  :  And what command is that in response to?
User:  DIR ... <sheepishly>  Oh, I misspelled the file name, Gee... thanks...

RE: using ''big' words

Maybe that's my problem, trying to cram too much meaning into them there
words...  More Bandwidth!  More Bandwidth!  I suppose that I'm supposed to stop
using words like: blithely, nuance, subjectiv-izing, berevity, relevant, etc...?

RE: 'this isn't GROANS'

No, but it is HUMAN_RELATIONS.  I realize that this is a bit of a nit for me,
but it is relevant to HUMAN_RELATIONS.

Jim.

Jim, when you started this note, I hoped that it could be conducted on a
high level and that you would be willing to stick to the issues.  Unfortunately,
you have decided to be tractable instead - to indulge in unequivocal language,
to eschew the use of outright lies in your notes, and even to make repeated
veracious statements about other noters.

I am trying to ignore these scrupulous, unvarnished fidelities.  The facts
speak for themselves.

					Steve

    re: .16
    
    Nancy,
    
       There is, however, a point where simplifying ceases to increase
    clarity and the writing becomes cumbersome.  I agree that it is
    important for the writer to write clearly and avoid words and phrases
    that are not easily understood.  I would, however, rather read some
    material at my reading level or greater, than to read a simplified
    version that "insults" my intelligence.  I don't wish to appear cocky
    or conceited, but I would probably feel somewhat insulted if someone
    simplified their writing under the false assumption that it is "over my
    head".
    
       - Larry  

    Thank you, Steve for that wonderful bit of obfuscated irrelevance.
    
    But I'm still confused by Jim's question/topic.  Are we talking about
    the way in which words change by common (or uncommon) usage, such as
    "gay" or even "terminal"?
     Are we talking about the way in which people use the wrong word,
    such as "principle engineer" ? 
     Or are we talking about the "propaganda" uses of words, by which
    terrorist become "freedom fighter", abortion becomes "baby killing",
    and so on??
    
    				Confused in Tewksbury
    					Nigel

Nigel,

I started with a nit about the intentional misuse and redefinition of words.
Other people have other things going on.  Far be it for me to tell them to shut
up.

Good Joke, Steve!

Jim.

	 Yea..well, since the title is simply "abuse of the English
	 language"...I assume any abuse is valid in this note.



	 kat

    My Lord, I don't understand what the bloody topic of this discussion. 
    Since the word "English" is mentioned, may I ask for some help?
    
    What is the difference between two phrases:
      "I couldnot care less" and
      "I could care less"
    
    Ann Landers explained it once, but I still don't understand it at all.
    I thought the first phrase is grammatically illegal, but according to
    her it is ok.

    The "I could care less" is used by people who remember things
    phonetically.  The contraction portion of "couldn't" is often
    forgotten.  If they thought about what they were saying, they would
    realize that something was left out.
    
                                      Greg

    Steve, I couldn't fail to disagree with you less.
    
    Ray

    And Ray is even more ambiguous than he thought, because "bloody"
    (in this sense) is a contraction of "By Our Lady", yet he is using
    it with "My Lord".
    
    							Ann B.

Could someone explain the difference between flamable and inflamable and why
they seem to mean the same thing, even when gramatically they should be
opposites because of the in- prefix?

Jim.

.0> Doesn't anyone ever use a dictionary anymore?
    
.31> Could someone explain the difference between flamable and inflamable
    
    Hummm...
    

    Oh, ye persecuted pundits, hie ye hence to VISA::JOYOFLEX, wherein
    discussions and debates such as this have been raging for lo! these
    many a year...
    
    (Or keep on discussing HATEOFLEX here, if you like; it don't signify to
    _me_!)
    
    ;-)
    
    -b

    Re: .12
    
    >It's funny how the two people that harped on me reading a capital
    >letter are the two people arguing semantics.
    
    Harping is in the eye of the beholder.  I explained the difference
    between the two words.  I said nothing about *you*.  (Reread 54.1154 if
    you like.)
    
    And I *always* argue semantics....
    
    Re: in general
    
    I've heard a couple of implications that uncommon or "fancy" words
    should not be used.  Sure, it eases communication but it makes things
    boring, boring, boring (especially for those who really *like* words). 
    They should be used like spices -- sparingly, with craft and intention.

    Jim, you certainly are waxing philosophic lately!
    
    Jim
    

I've been communicating poorly again.  Let me explain what I mean
by simplify.  To simplify is to get rid of clutter--words that
serve no purpose, big words that can be replaced by shorter
words, redundant words, confusing construction.

Simple does not equal boring.  William Zinsser in On_Writing_Well
[Zinsser and Strunk and White (The_Elements_of_Style) are the
source of many of my views on good writing] uses passages from
many fine writers to illustrate his point; if I remember correctly,
Thoreau (one of my favorites) is the example for simple, orderly
writing.  I don't think Thoreau is always easy to comprehend, but
it's his *ideas* I have trouble with, not his writing.

Why simplify?  Not to talk down or insult the reader, but because it's 
insulting and presumptuous to do otherwise.  Why should you wade 
through a lot of inflated rhetoric to find the point of my writing?  
I'm not only wasting your time, but also running the risk of losing 
your interest.  More importantly, by obscuring my message, I weaken 
it.  

Of course this doesn't mean we shouldn't use wonderful words such as 
blithely and nuance (although I prefer never to see "subjectiv-izing" 
again 8-)), but we should use them only when they're appropriate
or, as someone so eloquently said, "like spices -- sparingly, with
craft and intention."

Nancy

Jerry, :-)  I should have known that you'd point out any errors.  I thank you
for it.  Have to use spell more often, I guess, or get a new set of fingers...

"I could care less"

I've heard that statement used, and the times I've gotten an explanation, it
seems like it really was a negatation of "I couldn't care less", in that they
did care a little, but not much, so they could care less, but not much less. Got
me?

I don't mind back formation when there is no available word for the tense/
adjective/verb/noun that I want for the word root that I want.

Jim.

    Flammable comes from the Latin word 'flamma' meaning flame.
    
    Inflammable comes from the Latin word 'inflammare' meaning to inflame.
    
    Source:  The American Heritage Dictionary.

    
    
    Berevity :DEF: a brief bereavement. (They got better.)
    

    
    Well, my pet peeve is when people do things like this:
    
    1. "Bare with me for a moment..."
                                      
    and
    
    2. "One reason we don't consistently build from an existing base is
       that we aren't goaled that way."
       
    I found both of these in another conference today.  When I come
    across phrases like the first one, with a key word replaced with a
    sound-alike/spelled-differently word, I wonder whether the writer 
    knows the meaning of the phrase s/he is using.  And the second 
    example is classic "verbing" a noun behavior (what kind of a mind 
    thinks of "goaled" before "motivated"?). 
    
    RE: a few back.  Zinsser is excellent!

    
    Oh yeah.  I also hate it when people spell Marlborough "Marlboro".
    

    RE: .44
    
         How about those folks who consistently misspell "definitely"
         as "definately"?
    
         Or those who say "give me a couple days" instead of "give me
         a couple of days".
    
         Or use "your" instead of "you're".
    
              Actually, noters who have been around for a while will
         realize how fruitless it is to even worry about this stuff.  Heck,
         even the OR's in my sentences (above) are not grammatically
         correct. This is a rather correction-resistant strain of
         ignorance, and it is rarely worth concern.
    
                                       Greg

     The one that makes me cringe is when I see the word "affect" used where
    "effect" should be, and vice versa... Unfortunately I fear it will be
    a long time before people stop misusing those two.
    
    ("That movie sure had a lot of sound affects." Aaaargh!)
    
    

    I humbly request that further examples of "misuse" be taken to
    the JOYOFLEX conference.  Further replies relevant to "human relations"
    are welcome.
    
    				Steve

RE: .43

    
>    Well, my pet peeve is ... "Bare with me for a moment..."

I know what you mean. The last time I asked my pet to bare with me,
she refused. 


I wonder why no one has yet mentioned the oft made mixup between
its, it's and eats. Or there, their and they're. Or sight, site
and cite. I have a few more, just bare with me for a moment... 

-- Ron 

    re:.43
    
    "Bare with me for a moment..."
    
    Maybe they're trying to hint that they are interested in having
    a quickie... :-)
    
    --- jerry
    
    (Now that I've made a comment relative to Human Relations, I'll
    note that *my* pet peeve is seeing "copywrite" instead of "copyright".)

re a few:

"A tough road to haul" is a mining phrase, not a gardening one. It dates from 
the precursors of modern rail roads when coal and ore wagons were pulled by 
mules or often by the miners themselves. If the gradient was steep or the 
plateway badly maintained it became, literally, a "tough road to haul [along]".

"could care less" v. "couldn't care less". When I was growing up in the North of
England I learned a lot of these phrases - it is normal practice to use the
grammatical opposite of your desired meaning as emphasis, so "I could care less"
is much stronger than "I couldn't care less".

flammable v. inflammable: easy - flammable is yank-speak and inflammable is
brit-speak. The opposite of inflammable is non-inflammable and flammable is
only used in American literature... (maybe this paragraph warrants a smiley).

Unfortunately it is often not a case of totally different meanings applying to
words, but rather a case of words with multiple meanings diverging as to which 
is the most common (as in fag, which of course is a servant in Britain, and we 
all know what most Americans think it means), or simply dropping out of use (as 
in "Fall", which before the 17th century meant the autumnal season when leaves 
fall throughout the English speaking world, but now only means that in America 
and some small backward rural areas of England.)

Unfortunately this problem will continue as long as (a) words in English have
multiple meanings, and (b) English continues to be spoken by people from 
different linguistically isolated cultural backgrounds. And you don't need the 
width of the Atlantic ocean to create different backgrounds: consider the 
difference between a silver-spoon yuppie with an Ivy League education and a 
street-wise gutter-urchin from the same big [American] city...

/. Ian .\

    I believe   it's  Strunk  and  White  that  distinguishes  between
    inflammable and flammable thus:

    "Inflammable means  capable  of  being  inflamed.  ...  If you are
    driving a gasoline truck and are concerned for the safety of small
    children   and   illiterates   use   flammable,   otherewise,  use
    inflammable."

--David

Ah yes: if you are driving a gasoline truck and worried for the safety of small
children and illiterates use flammable ...

but if you are driving a petrol tanker and worried about the safety of small
children and illiterates use inflammable.

/. Ian .\

We were listening to 'My Fair Lady' again and I was reminded of 
this discussion concerning the English language.

In Professor's Higgins famous words:

	"In America, they haven't used it for years"...

    BTW- The Gasoline tanker would be (by NFPA definition) hauling a
    flammable liquid. NFPA=National Fire Protection Association a group
    of apparent illiterates based in Boston
    
    -j(Who's degree is in Fire Science)
    

Without turning this into an adjunct to JOYOFLEX I think "inflammable" kinda
gets close to the heart of the point here.

Accordiong to my Webster's Dictionary it has two meanings: [paraphrased 
slightly] [A] easily ignited: FLAMMABLE, and [B] easily inflamed: IRRASCIBLE
whilst Flammable has only a single meaning and they use the exact same words as 
the first definition of inflammable, but add the comment that today "Flammable 
is technically better" (or words to that effect).

It seems to me that this hits the point: imagine an Englishman and an American
talking: the Englishman would describe a liquid that was easily ignited as
inflammable, and the American who is becoming airiated (colloq: "angry") over
this usage as being "jolly irrascible". It appears that the American would
describe the liquid as flammable (a word that doesn't even appear in my English
dictionary incidentally) and the increasingly annoyed Englishman as being
inflammable.

We agree of course on the joyoflex points: inflammable is from a French root, in 
turn from the latin inflammare: to ignite, and flammable is from the latin 
flamma, a flame: it is just that we (the Brits) take the literal point, and 
apply inflammable to things that are LITERALLY capable of being set in flames. 
Webster's of course also omits the third obvious definition: "tissue capable of 
becoming inflamed (a medical definition)".

Incidentally I have seen tankers on the road here bearing the phrase 
"ignitable liquid" ...

/. Ian .\

    flammable - a. inflammable; hence ~ABILITY n. [f. L flammare (flamma
    flame)+ -ABLE
    
    	_The Concise Oxford Dictionary_ - Seventh Edition

    Ian, this isn't a matter of British English vs. American English. It's
    a matter of a basic ambiguity of the language.
    
    You've actually stated the problem yourself -- it's that we have two
    prefixes in English that are spelled "in-" but mean different things.
    One is an intensive meaning "into" that you find in "inflame" --
    "inflame" means to put something in flames, simply enough, whether
    literally (like a candle) or figuratively (like tissue). The other
    "in-" prefix means "not" as in "indivisible."
    
    Normally, this isn't a problem because potential ambiguities are
    settled by context. The problem comes with a word like "inflammable."
    If you break apart the word like they taught us to in school, it could
    potentially mean either "capable of being put in flames" or "not
    capable of being put in flames." It so happens that it is the former,
    not the latter, but this is really no quibble about whether you're
    holding a lit fag near a lorry full of petrol or a lit cigarette near a
    gasoline truck. It's a quibble about being torched, and silly to flame
    people over it. "Inflammable" means the same thing on both sides of the
    pond, and it gets confused on both sides of the pond, too.
    
    If there were a place to send SPRs about the English language, this
    would be a prime candidate. Some people sniff about "illiterates" who
    can't tell the difference between inflammable and non-flammable, but
    this is really a serious matter. Consequently, people on both sides of
    the Atlantic who are more concerned with public safety than a game of
    guess-the-right-Latin-prefix (yup, both are from Latin) have come up
    with alternate words -- "flammable" or "ignitable." I've seen both on
    both sides of the Atlantic, but "flammable" more than "ignitable" here
    on the west end of the pond (meaning both the US and Canada). The
    purpose of each is the same, though: to have an unambiguous word so
    that it can be effectively used as a warning.
    
    	Jon

Re English Language SPRs - amazingly there is a group of academics that have
such a function: they are preparing a dictionary of correct English Usage, and
have grants from Encyclopaedia Brittannica and others. They got a short spot on
TV a while back but unfortunately I missed the address (it was some college at 
Oxford University).

As for the rest I take your point: I learned English as a second language (my
'language of the hearth' was Irish Gaelic), and I sometimes fall over the 
structure of English. Intrinsic ambiguity can be amusing since the mental
gymnastics I sometimes go through to try all all possible [known to me] meanings
to find the best contextual fit is a bit like n-dimensional topology diagrams
from high school textbooks - it all gets to look like figurative spaghetti :-)

/. Ian .\

>Re English Language SPRs - amazingly there is a group of academics that have
>such a function: they are preparing a dictionary of correct English Usage, and
>have grants from Encyclopaedia Brittannica and others. They got a short spot on
>TV a while back but unfortunately I missed the address (it was some college at 
>Oxford University).
    
    I wonder what their comments will be for the following passage:
    
    The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
    Petals on a wet, black bough.
    
                                           --Ezra Pound
                                                       

    Obviously, a basket case of bad grammar :-) :-).
    
    Eugene

    Jim - I was born in the U.K. and have only lived in the U.S. for a
    year.  During that short time I have been amazed at the amount and
    variety of words that are so different;  how many times I have "put my
    foot in it" I cannot recall - even to write a letter, I dare not let
    it be sent until it has gone through the spell checker!  But which is
    right, English English, or American English?  I am not going to comment
    on this one, on this basis that my husband might read this message -
    he's an American!
    
    Jo

Larry,

I would contend that you are probably right with respect to words that are 
*uniquely* American.

The problem arises in two classes of cases.

1) words with multiple dictionary meanings were the default meaning is different
in American and English ("inflammable" for example).

2) colloquiallisms that are used in both languages but with different meanings
("bomb" for example).

/. Ian .\

    re .66:
    
    Ian, "inflamamable" means the same thing in both American and British
    English. It is mistaken for its exact opposite on both sides of the
    pond.
    
    	Jon

Not quite: inflammable has (Webster's) two meanings:

A) capable of being easily ignited [:FLAMMABLE]

B) easily inflamed [:IRRASCIBLE]

I believe I am correct in saying that many Americans default to the latter 
meaning and many Britons to the former meaning. If it's a bad example then I
apologise.

/. Ian .\

    re:.68
    
    Sorry, Ian, but you're wrong. It's far more often used for the
    first meaning, not the second.
    
    --- jerry

    I know this is a bit out of context, since it's more about
    pronunciation than meaning - and I don't really want to
    wake this topic up again...but here goes! 
    

    
    The following verses were written after the war by a Hollander 
    whose knowledge of English, it will be noted, was extensive.
    From The Sunday Times some years back - without permission...
    
    Dearest creature in creation,
    Studying English pronunciation,
    I will teach you in my verse
    Sounds like corpse, corps, horse and worse.
    I will keep you, Susy, busy
    Make your head with heat grow dizzy;
    Tear in eye, your dress you'll tear.
    So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
    Pray console your loving poet,
    Make my coat look new, dear, sew it!
    Just compare heart, beard and heard,
    dies, diet, lord and word.
    Sword and sward, retain and Britain
    (Mind the latter, how it's written).
    Made has not the sound of bade;
    Say - said; pay - paid; laid, but plaid.
    Now I surely will not plague you
    With such words as vague and ague,
    But be careful how you speak,
    Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
    Previous, precious, fuchsia, via,
    Pipe, snipe, recipe, choir,
    Cloven, oven; how and low;
    Script, receipt, shoe, poem, toe.
    Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
    Daughter, laughter and Terpsichore,
    Typhold, measles, topsails, aisles,
    Exiles, similes, reviles;
    Wholly, holly, signal, signing;
    Thames, examining, combining;
    Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
    Solar, mica, war and far.
    From desire, desirable, admirable from admire,
    Lumber, plumber, bier but brier;
    Chatham, brougham, renown, but known,
    From knowledge; done, but gone and tone;
    One, anemone, Balmoral;
    kitchen, lichen; laundry, laurel;
    Gertrude, German; wind and mind;
    Scene, Melpomene, mankind;
    Tortoise, turquoise, chamois - leather,
    Reading, reading, heathen, heather;
    This phonetic labyrinth
    gives moss, gross, brooch, ninth and plinth.
    Billet does not sound like ballet;
    bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet;
    Blood and flood are not like food,
    Nor is mould like should and would.
    Banquet gives no clue to parquet,
    Which is said to rhyme with darky.
    Viscous, viscount; load and broad;
    Toward, to forward, to reward.
    Your pronunciation's okay
    When you say, correctly, croquet.
    Rounded, wounded; live and grieve;
    Friend and fiend; alive and sleeve;
    Liberty, library, heave and heaven;
    Rachel, ache, moustache; eleven.
    We say hallowed but allowed;
    People, leopard; towed but vowed.
    Mark the d'fference, moreover,
    'Twixt mover, plover and then Dover.
    Leeches, breaches, wise, precise,
    Chalice, but police and lice;
    Camel, constable, unstable;
    Principle, disciple, label;
    Petal, penal and canal;
    Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal;
    Suit, suite, ruin; circuit, conduit,
    Rhymes with "shirk it" and "beyond it".
    And it's very hard to tell
    Why it's pall, mall but Pall Mall.
    Muscle, muscular; gaol, iron;
    Timber, climber; bullion, lion;
    Worm and storm; chaise, chaos, chair;
    Senator, spectator, mayor;
    Ivy, privy; famous; clamour
    And enamour rhyme with hammer.
    Pussy, hussy an possess;
    Desert, dessert and address.
    Golf, wolf; countenance; lieutenants;
    Hoist, in lieu of flags, left pennants.
    River, rival; tomb, bomb, comb;
    Doll and roll and some and home.
    Stranger does not sound like anger,
    Neither does devour like clangour.
    Soul but foul, and gaunt but aunt;
    Font, front, wont; want, grand and grant;
    Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
    Then say singer, ginger, linger.
    Real and zeal; mauve, gauze and gauge;
    Marriage, foliage, mirage, age.
    Query does not rhyme with very,
    Nor does fury sound like bury.
    Dost, lost, post; doth, cloth and loth;
    Job, job; blossom, bosom; oath.
    Though the difference seems little, 
    We say actual but victual;
    Seat and sweat; chaste, paste and caste;
    Leigh and eight and freight and height;
    Put, nut; granite, unite.
    Feoffer does not rhyme with heifer,
    Nor does reefer rhyme with zephyr.
    Dull, bull; Geoffrey, George; ate, late;
    Hint, pint; senate and sedate.
    Scenic, phrenic, and pacific;
    Science, conscience,; scientific;
    Tour, but our; and succour, four;
    Core provides a rhyme for door.
    Gas, alas, and pass, and was -
    Dickens started off as "Boz".
    Sea, idea, guinea, area;
    Psalm and charm; Maria, malaria;
    Youth, south, southern; cleanse and clean;
    Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
    Look up alien and Italian;
    Dandelion and battalion.
    Sallied, allied; yea and ye -
    Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, key, quay!
    Say aver, but ever, fever;
    Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
    Never guess - it is not safe;
    We say calves, valves, half, but Ralph.
    Heron, granary, canary,
    Crevice, and device, and eyrie;
    Face, but preface and efface;
    Phlegm, phlegmatic; ass, glass, bass;
    Large, but target; gin, give, verging,
    Ought, out, joust and scour; and urging.
    Ear, but earn; and wear and tear
    Do not rhyme with here but there.
    Seven is right and so is even,
    Hyphen, roughen, nephew, Stephen,
    Monkey, donkey, clerk and jerk;
    Tunnel surely rhymes with funnel?
    Yes it does - and so does gunwale.
    Islington and Isle of  Wight,
    Housewife, verdict and indict.
    Aren't you mixed up, reader, rather,
    saying lather, bather, father?
    Finally, what rhymes with tough -
    Though, through, plough or cough? Enough!
    Hiccough has the sound of "cup" -
    My advice is - give it up!

    This is beautiful... :-)
    
    Mind you it's only because we Dutch pronounce everything exactly
    the way we write it... :-)
    
    Ad$rolling_under_his_desk

" It means exactly what I want it to mean "

or words to that effect (and in fact, probably affect as well)

says/wrote  someone to Alice, Lewis or was it Carrol, Alice? 

Manyways, the pint is the same. 

" Ye gawketh hence back forth and wouldst discover". 

Language is a social phenomenon. It is not a static set of well formed 
formula and axioms for turning out sentences with unambiguous meanings. 

A grammatical structure has been forced on top of an evolutionary growth 
by pedantic conservatives. (Please note, if use of the previous noun or
adjective gives offence this is not the intention. In other historical times
and perhaps for many people still, to be described as a pedantic conservative 
would be a complement to sour grapes). 

In reality the English language is as uniform as a barnacle, I mean, ok, it 
has an overall discernible shape but that's as far as one should go. If one
starts to smooth the edges and remove the bumps then you will lose some of 
the essential barnacle-ness of the thing.

Many words change their meaning. Many words change there spelling through 
time. Many words fall out of usage. New  words are constantly borrowed from 
other languages or created asair. (from the Gaelic pronoun "as" prefixed to 
the English noun "air" meaning out of the blue, completely irreverently or 
without due attention to the sensitivities of others).

Why is it that one accepts the creation of a verb from one noun (or should I
say the verbification of a noun) and not from another? 

Where did these words come from in the first place? (this is a rhetorical 
question I don't want to get involved in a polemic discourse concerning
the origin of language, well not in this notes file anyway ! ) <- please note
this is not an attempt at a funny face but an exclamation mark followed by
a closing bracket with an arrow pointing to it, thank you for your 
understanding.

Now back to the point, IMNSHO, for the sake of Human Relations, nit pickers 
and spell checkers, and others of such elk should try to remember that often
more is said between the lines than on the lines.

If the intention of a sentence is to communicate an idea to someone and 
that someone understands a sentence enough to correct a misspelling then 
the purpose of the sentence has usually been achieved. If the receiving person
now continues the communication by pointing out a misspelling then they have
usually diverted the communication to another topic. (the exception to this
would be if the initial communication was about misspellings). 
  
Thanks for your corroboration on this one.

    Americans talking about English language abuse?!!?
    
    *8-) <-- a british smile!
    
    Lisa