Discussion:
Oxford dictionary and ize/ise
Add Reply
DavidW
2018-06-29 02:19:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize

If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
believe). Yet below that it says:
(British organise)

When did the OED start giving the British spelling as 'ise'? I don't
recall any printed Oxford dictionary from decades past saying that. Are
they saying that 'ize' is still preferred but Britain is now an
exception? Have they finally caved in to popular use after stubbornly
holding out against it for 100+ years?

I like to use 'ize' and then point to the OED's practice, which is
correctly based on etymology and pronunciation, if I'm accused of using
the American spelling, but now that won't work. Now the accuser will
just say that the 'ize' given must be the American spelling if the
British speling is 'ise', proving his point!
Peter Moylan
2018-06-29 03:42:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/06/18 12:19, DavidW wrote:
> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>
> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
> I believe). Yet below that it says: (British organise)
>
> When did the OED start giving the British spelling as 'ise'? I don't
> recall any printed Oxford dictionary from decades past saying that.
> Are they saying that 'ize' is still preferred but Britain is now an
> exception? Have they finally caved in to popular use after stubbornly
> holding out against it for 100+ years?
>
> I like to use 'ize' and then point to the OED's practice, which is
> correctly based on etymology and pronunciation, if I'm accused of
> using the American spelling, but now that won't work. Now the accuser
> will just say that the 'ize' given must be the American spelling if
> the British speling is 'ise', proving his point!

I was taught that -ize should be used for words where the suffix
ultimately derives from Greek -izein, and -ise otherwise. As time went
on, though, I found that there were too many words whose etymology I
didn't know or had forgotten, so I settled for using -ise in all cases.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
DavidW
2018-06-29 04:41:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/06/2018 1:42 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> I was taught that -ize should be used for words where the suffix
> ultimately derives from Greek -izein, and -ise otherwise. As time went
> on, though, I found that there were too many words whose etymology I
> didn't know or had forgotten, so I settled for using -ise in all cases.

I thought most had that derivation, with the exceptions pretty obvious
(e.g. surprise, televise). I haven't had that problem, or if I have I've
been blissfully ignorant of it.
occam
2018-06-30 11:57:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/06/2018 06:41, DavidW wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 1:42 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>> I was taught that -ize should be used for words where the suffix
>> ultimately derives from Greek -izein, and -ise otherwise. As time went
>> on, though, I found that there were too many words whose etymology I
>> didn't know or had forgotten, so I settled for using -ise in all cases.
>
> I thought most had that derivation, with the exceptions pretty obvious
> (e.g. surprise, televise). I haven't had that problem, or if I have I've
> been blissfully ignorant of it.

Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be spelt
'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree however,
televise is more common and looks more... familiar.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-30 12:08:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 7:57:39 AM UTC-4, occam wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 06:41, DavidW wrote:
> > On 29/06/2018 1:42 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >> I was taught that -ize should be used for words where the suffix
> >> ultimately derives from Greek -izein, and -ise otherwise. As time went
> >> on, though, I found that there were too many words whose etymology I
> >> didn't know or had forgotten, so I settled for using -ise in all cases.
> > I thought most had that derivation, with the exceptions pretty obvious
> > (e.g. surprise, televise). I haven't had that problem, or if I have I've
> > been blissfully ignorant of it.
>
> Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be spelt
> 'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree however,
> televise is more common and looks more... familiar.

? There is no z in the Latin root. "Television" is the sort of word that
used to be characterized as bastard -- Greek prefix, Latin base.

There is in fact no z in any Latin root. The letter z was introduced into
Latin in Late Republic - Early Imperial time so that Greek loanwords could
be spelled more like the Greek originals.
Richard Tobin
2018-06-30 14:46:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <d2fea412-466f-4ce2-800c-***@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be spelt
>> 'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree however,
>> televise is more common and looks more... familiar.

>? There is no z in the Latin root. "Television" is the sort of word that
>used to be characterized as bastard -- Greek prefix, Latin base.

But how is "televi[sz]e" formed from that root? Is it the "s" from
"television" or the "z" from "-ize"?

If it meant "to look from afar" then "televise" would be natural,
like "advise" or "revise".

But it means "to make into a television broadcast" - suggesting a use
of the "-ize" suffix. Really I think it's a sort of pun - using the
form of other vision words like "revise" but taking advantage of the
sound being the same as "-ize".

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-30 15:49:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 10:50:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <d2fea412-466f-4ce2-800c-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be spelt
> >> 'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree however,
> >> televise is more common and looks more... familiar.
>
> >? There is no z in the Latin root. "Television" is the sort of word that
> >used to be characterized as bastard -- Greek prefix, Latin base.
>
> But how is "televi[sz]e" formed from that root? Is it the "s" from
> "television" or the "z" from "-ize"?
>
> If it meant "to look from afar" then "televise" would be natural,
> like "advise" or "revise".
>
> But it means "to make into a television broadcast" - suggesting a use
> of the "-ize" suffix. Really I think it's a sort of pun - using the
> form of other vision words like "revise" but taking advantage of the
> sound being the same as "-ize".

"televise" would be a back-formation from "television" (which was coined
in French in 1907) from Lat. visio < video 'I see'.
CDB
2018-06-30 19:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/30/2018 10:46 AM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>>> Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be
>>> spelt 'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree
>>> however, televise is more common and looks more... familiar.

>> ? There is no z in the Latin root. "Television" is the sort of word
>> that used to be characterized as bastard -- Greek prefix, Latin
>> base.

> But how is "televi[sz]e" formed from that root? Is it the "s" from
> "television" or the "z" from "-ize"?

> If it meant "to look from afar" then "televise" would be natural,
> like "advise" or "revise".

> But it means "to make into a television broadcast" - suggesting a
> use of the "-ize" suffix. Really I think it's a sort of pun - using
> the form of other vision words like "revise" but taking advantage of
> the sound being the same as "-ize".

The problem for me is that there is no element "telev-".
Steve Hayes
2018-07-07 08:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:57:34 +0200, occam wrote:

> Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be spelt
> 'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree however,
> televise is more common and looks more... familiar.

Well you could always have "televlep".

--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
Peter Moylan
2018-07-07 11:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 07/07/18 18:56, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:57:34 +0200, occam wrote:
>
>> Ahem, 'televise' should, according to Peter's criterion, be spelt
>> 'televize'. 'Tele' is Greek for 'at a distance'. I do agree
>> however, televise is more common and looks more... familiar.
>
> Well you could always have "televlep".

It's not always obvious which consonant combinations are acceptable to
speakers of a given language. (And it's remarkable how much that
judgement varies from one language to another.) Still, I suspect that a
lot of English speakers would choke on "vl", despite their acceptance of
things like "skr".

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Steve Hayes
2018-07-07 08:55:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:42:34 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I was taught that -ize should be used for words where the suffix
> ultimately derives from Greek -izein, and -ise otherwise. As time went
> on, though, I found that there were too many words whose etymology I
> didn't know or had forgotten, so I settled for using -ise in all cases.

I used -ize in most cases where the ending except in words like despise
and circumcise which did not end in -ize.

But Microsoft's spell(ing) checker forced me to use -ise in all cases,
though the Pan newsreader disagrees. But I type more stuff in MS Word
than in Pan, so Microsoft wins.


--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-07 13:26:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 4:55:06 AM UTC-4, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:42:34 +1000, Peter Moylan wrote:
>
> > I was taught that -ize should be used for words where the suffix
> > ultimately derives from Greek -izein, and -ise otherwise. As time went
> > on, though, I found that there were too many words whose etymology I
> > didn't know or had forgotten, so I settled for using -ise in all cases.
>
> I used -ize in most cases where the ending except in words like despise
> and circumcise which did not end in -ize.
>
> But Microsoft's spell(ing) checker forced me to use -ise in all cases,
> though the Pan newsreader disagrees. But I type more stuff in MS Word
> than in Pan, so Microsoft wins.

You can download an "English (US)" spellchecker for MSWord, and it's not
improbable that they also offer an "English (South Africa)" one.
RH Draney
2018-06-29 06:03:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6/28/2018 7:19 PM, DavidW wrote:
>
> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
> believe). Yet below that it says:
> (British organise)

What happens when you search for "vocalize" and "vocalise"?...you should
get two different entries....r
Richard Tobin
2018-06-29 09:51:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:

>I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>
>If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>believe). Yet below that it says:
>(British organise)

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-29 10:50:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:51:39 +0000 (UTC), ***@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:

>In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>
>>I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>
>>If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>believe). Yet below that it says:
>>(British organise)
>
>oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>
>-- Richard

The OED entry for "organize" gives "organise" as an alternative spelling
since the 1500s.

It says of the word:
Of multiple origins. Partly a borrowing from French. Partly a
borrowing from Latin. Etymons: French organiser; Latin organizare.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
DavidW
2018-06-29 17:43:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>
>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>
>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>> (British organise)
>
> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
Richard Tobin
2018-06-29 19:15:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ph5r3k$ghf$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:

>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

>Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.

No, it's published by Oxford University Press, but they publish many
dictionaries, which have different audiences and different policies.

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-29 21:25:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <ph5r3k$ghf$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:

> >> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>
> >Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>
> No, it's published by Oxford University Press, but they publish many
> dictionaries, which have different audiences and different policies.

And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
occam
2018-06-30 12:06:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <ph5r3k$ghf$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>
>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>
>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>
>> No, it's published by Oxford University Press, but they publish many
>> dictionaries, which have different audiences and different policies.
>
> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
>

'staffs'?
Peter Moylan
2018-06-30 13:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/06/18 22:06, occam wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <ph5r3k$ghf$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>
>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>
>>> No, it's published by Oxford University Press, but they publish many
>>> dictionaries, which have different audiences and different policies.
>>
>> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
>
> 'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-06-30 14:16:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 30/06/18 22:06, occam wrote:
> > On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <ph5r3k$ghf$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:

> >>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
> >>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
> >>> No, it's published by Oxford University Press, but they publish many
> >>> dictionaries, which have different audiences and different policies.
> >> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
> > 'staffs'?
>
> Would "staves" be better?

In music scores.

OTOH, in barrels the singular is stave.
Steve Hayes
2018-07-07 09:02:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 07:16:21 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 30/06/18 22:06, occam wrote:
>> > On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> >> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
>> > 'staffs'?
>>
>> Would "staves" be better?
>
> In music scores.

And stick fighting.

And if you're playing bridge with tarot cards, "I raise you four staves."




--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com
RH Draney
2018-07-07 12:37:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/7/2018 2:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 07:16:21 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 30/06/18 22:06, occam wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
>>>> 'staffs'?
>>>
>>> Would "staves" be better?
>>
>> In music scores.
>
> And stick fighting.
>
> And if you're playing bridge with tarot cards, "I raise you four staves."

In this country we call those wands....r
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-07 13:57:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/7/18 3:02 AM, Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 07:16:21 -0700, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 9:16:24 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 30/06/18 22:06, occam wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
>>>> 'staffs'?
>>>
>>> Would "staves" be better?
>>
>> In music scores.
>
> And stick fighting.

Indeed.

> And if you're playing bridge with tarot cards, "I raise you four staves."

I don't know any games where you could say that. In bridge, you could
raise your partner's four staves to five, though you'd do so just by
saying "Five staves." (Since I don't think anyone makes bidding boxes
for tarot decks.)

--
Jerry Friedman
Adam Funk
2018-07-02 12:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-30, Peter Moylan wrote:

> On 30/06/18 22:06, occam wrote:
>> On 29/06/2018 23:25, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:20:03 PM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>> In article <ph5r3k$ghf$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's published by Oxford University Press, but they publish many
>>>> dictionaries, which have different audiences and different policies.
>>>
>>> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.
>>
>> 'staffs'?
>
> Would "staves" be better?

That would be grand.


--
We seem to understand the value of oil, timber, minerals, and
housing, but not the value of unspoiled beauty, wildlife,
solitude, and spiritual renewal. --- Calvin
Richard Tobin
2018-06-30 14:50:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
occam <***@invalid.nix> wrote:

>> And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

>'staffs'?

"Staff" and "staffs" both work. They correspond to "different
employees" and "different sets of employees" respectively.

-- Richard
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-29 19:27:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:

>On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>
>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>>> (British organise)
>>
>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>
>Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>
Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.

I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.

Oxford Dictionaries:
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa

There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".

Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.

The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
DavidW
2018-06-29 19:40:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Thanks for that.
John Varela
2018-07-01 17:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>
> >On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> >>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
> >>>
> >>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> >>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
> >>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
> >>> believe). Yet below that it says:
> >>> (British organise)
> >>
> >> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
> >
> >Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
> >
> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
> published by the OUP.
>
> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>
> Oxford Dictionaries:
> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>
> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
> English".
>
> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>
> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
> is accessible to subscribers only.
> http://www.oed.com

For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card, you
have access to your library's subscription.

--
John Varela
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-01 17:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>
>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>>>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>>>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>
>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>
>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>
>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>> published by the OUP.
>>
>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>
>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>
>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>> English".
>>
>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>
>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>> http://www.oed.com
>
> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

> you
> have access to your library's subscription.


--
athel
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-01 19:04:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> > <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> >>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> >>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
> >>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
> >>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
> >>>>> (British organise)
> >>>>
> >>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
> >>>
> >>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
> >>>
> >> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
> >> published by the OUP.
> >>
> >> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
> >> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
> >>
> >> Oxford Dictionaries:
> >> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
> >> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
> >> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
> >>
> >> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
> >> English".
> >>
> >> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
> >> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
> >>
> >> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
> >> is accessible to subscribers only.
> >> http://www.oed.com
> >
> > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
> > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>
> and live in God's country,

Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
(we have covered this before)

Jan
John Varela
2018-07-02 16:48:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
> >
> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> > > <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > >>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> > >>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> > >>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
> > >>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
> > >>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
> > >>>>> (British organise)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
> > >>>
> > >> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
> > >> published by the OUP.
> > >>
> > >> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
> > >> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
> > >>
> > >> Oxford Dictionaries:
> > >> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
> > >> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
> > >> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
> > >>
> > >> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
> > >> English".
> > >>
> > >> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
> > >> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
> > >>
> > >> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
> > >> is accessible to subscribers only.
> > >> http://www.oed.com
> > >
> > > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
> > > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
> >
> > and live in God's country,
>
> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
> (we have covered this before)

I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:

A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
City."

--
John Varela
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-02 18:14:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
John Varela <***@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> > > > <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > > >>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> > > >>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> > > >>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
> > > >>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
> > > >>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
> > > >>>>> (British organise)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
> > > >> published by the OUP.
> > > >>
> > > >> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
> > > >> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
> > > >>
> > > >> Oxford Dictionaries:
> > > >> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
> > > >> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
> > > >> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
> > > >>
> > > >> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
> > > >> English".
> > > >>
> > > >> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
> > > >> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
> > > >>
> > > >> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
> > > >> is accessible to subscribers only.
> > > >> http://www.oed.com
> > > >
> > > > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
> > > > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
> > >
> > > and live in God's country,
> >
> > Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
> > (we have covered this before)
>
> I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:
>
> A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
> he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
> first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
> hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
> of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
> City."

God being an Englishman can't be doubted:
it was in print long before the internet. (1970)
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/372852.God_Is_an_Englishman>

OTOH, 'Living like god in France, and similar expressions
in Dutch, German, French and perhaps other languages
is a standing expression.
It means enjoying the good life, without worries,

Jan
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-02 19:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2 Jul 2018 16:48:05 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>Lodder) wrote:
>
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>
>> > On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> > > <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> > >>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>> > >>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>> > >>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
>> > >>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
>> > >>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
>> > >>>>> (British organise)
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>> > >>>
>> > >> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>> > >> published by the OUP.
>> > >>
>> > >> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>> > >> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>> > >>
>> > >> Oxford Dictionaries:
>> > >> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>> > >> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>> > >> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>> > >>
>> > >> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>> > >> English".
>> > >>
>> > >> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>> > >> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>> > >>
>> > >> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>> > >> is accessible to subscribers only.
>> > >> http://www.oed.com
>> > >
>> > > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>> > > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>> >
>> > and live in God's country,
>>
>> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
>> (we have covered this before)
>
>I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:
>
>A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
>he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
>first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
>hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
>of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
>City."

<chuckle>

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
J. J. Lodder
2018-07-02 20:43:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Peter Duncanson [BrE] <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

> On 2 Jul 2018 16:48:05 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >Lodder) wrote:
> >
> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
[snip]
> >> > > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
> >> > > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
> >> >
> >> > and live in God's country,
> >>
> >> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
> >> (we have covered this before)
> >
> >I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:
> >
> >A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
> >he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
> >first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
> >hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
> >of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
> >City."
>
> <chuckle>

Guess that means we are safe here.
They should be capable there of shooting him,

Jan
Richard Yates
2018-07-02 21:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:25:52 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On 2 Jul 2018 16:48:05 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>>Lodder) wrote:
>>
>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>> >
>>> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> > > <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> > >>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>> > >>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>> > >>>>>
>>> > >>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>> > >>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
>>> > >>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
>>> > >>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
>>> > >>>>> (British organise)
>>> > >>>>
>>> > >>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>> > >>>
>>> > >> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>> > >> published by the OUP.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>> > >> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>> > >> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>> > >> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>> > >> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>> > >>
>>> > >> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>> > >> English".
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>> > >> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>> > >> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>> > >> http://www.oed.com
>>> > >
>>> > > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>> > > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>> >
>>> > and live in God's country,
>>>
>>> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
>>> (we have covered this before)
>>
>>I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:
>>
>>A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
>>he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
>>first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
>>hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
>>of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
>>City."
>
><chuckle>

It's a good joke, except that it gets the important part completely
wrong. The Mormons believe that when Jesus returns he will rule from,
no joke, Jackson County, Missouri. Must be true, it's Scripture.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-02 22:53:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 2 July 2018 22:00:32 UTC+1, Richard Yates wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:25:52 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2 Jul 2018 16:48:05 GMT, "John Varela" <***@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >>Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
> >>> >
> >>> > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
> >>> > > <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > >> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> > >>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> >>> > >>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
> >>> > >>>>>
> >>> > >>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> >>> > >>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
> >>> > >>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
> >>> > >>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
> >>> > >>>>> (British organise)
> >>> > >>>>
> >>> > >>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
> >>> > >>>
> >>> > >> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
> >>> > >> published by the OUP.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
> >>> > >> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Oxford Dictionaries:
> >>> > >> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
> >>> > >> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
> >>> > >> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
> >>> > >> English".
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
> >>> > >> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
> >>> > >>
> >>> > >> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
> >>> > >> is accessible to subscribers only.
> >>> > >> http://www.oed.com
> >>> > >
> >>> > > For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
> >>> > > mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
> >>> >
> >>> > and live in God's country,
> >>>
> >>> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
> >>> (we have covered this before)
> >>
> >>I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:
> >>
> >>A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
> >>he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
> >>first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
> >>hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
> >>of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
> >>City."
> >
> ><chuckle>
>
> It's a good joke, except that it gets the important part completely
> wrong. The Mormons believe that when Jesus returns he will rule from,
> no joke, Jackson County, Missouri. Must be true, it's Scripture.

Well everybody has to be somewhere!
Peter Moylan
2018-07-03 06:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 03/07/18 02:48, John Varela wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 19:04:51 UTC, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:

>> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France. (we
>> have covered this before)
>
> I guess I missed that. Old joke I heard from a Mormon:
>
> A Cardinal comes bursting into the Pope's chamber and announces that
> he has good news and bad news. The Pope opts for the good news
> first. "Jesus Christ has returned in glory, sitting at the right
> hand of God the Father, to judge the quick and the dead." "In view
> of that, what could possibly be bad news?" "He's in Salt Lake
> City."

We had a different version here in the 1980s. You have to be Australian
to appreciate it fully, but I'm sure everyone here is smart enough to
figure out the punchline.

God appeared to a meeting of Mikhail Gorbachev, Ronald Reagan, and Bob
Hawke. (Hawke was the Prime Minister of Australia at the time.) He told
them that the world was about to end, and that they should warn their
people.

Reagan went on television to say "I have good news. The Last Judgement
that we have been waiting for is at hand, and we're going to heaven."

Gorbachev made a different announcement. "I have bad news and even worse
news. The bad news is that the world is about to end. The worse news is
that we were wrong, and there is a god."

Bob Hawke called a press conference. "I have good news and even better
news. The good news is that God has recognised me as a world leader. And
the even better news is that no child will live in poverty in 1990."

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Anders D. Nygaard
2018-07-02 19:39:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Den 01-07-2018 kl. 21:04 skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
>>>>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
>>>>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>>
>>>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>>> published by the OUP.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>>>
>>>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>>>
>>>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>>> English".
>>>>
>>>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>>>
>>>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>>> http://www.oed.com
>>>
>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>
>> and live in God's country,
>
> Certainly not. God is an Englishman, and he lives in France.
> (we have covered this before)

Do you know something about Athel that the rest of us don't?

/Anders, Denmark.
Lewis
2018-07-01 22:45:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:

>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>>>>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>>>>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>>
>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>
>>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>> published by the OUP.
>>>
>>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>>
>>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>>
>>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>> English".
>>>
>>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>>
>>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>> http://www.oed.com
>>
>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

> and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

"God's Country" is that shitty middle-south part of the US I try to
avoid. It's also know as "Hurricane Alley" and "The Bible Belt", though
I've heard some people refer to the vast desolation of Utah by that
moniker. Not sure if that was ironic or not, but probably not.

Last I recall, the Denver Library did subscribe to the OED online, but
it was rather difficult to get access for some odd reason.

--
If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that
electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-02 18:39:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>>>>>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>>>>>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>>
>>>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>>> published by the OUP.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>>>
>>>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>>>
>>>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>>> English".
>>>>
>>>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>>>
>>>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>>> http://www.oed.com
>>>
>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>
>> and live in God's country,
>
> That must mean something different to you than to me.

https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country

>
> "God's Country" is that shitty middle-south part of the US I try to
> avoid. It's also know as "Hurricane Alley" and "The Bible Belt", though
> I've heard some people refer to the vast desolation of Utah by that
> moniker. Not sure if that was ironic or not, but probably not.
>
> Last I recall, the Denver Library did subscribe to the OED online, but
> it was rather difficult to get access for some odd reason.


--
athel
Lewis
2018-07-02 23:56:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:

>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>
>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>>> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>>>>>>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>>>>>>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>>>> published by the OUP.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>>>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>>>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>>>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>>>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>>>> English".
>>>>>
>>>>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>>>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>>>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>>>> http://www.oed.com
>>>>
>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>
>>> and live in God's country,
>>
>> That must mean something different to you than to me.

> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country

You are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
results, right?

--
I HAVE NEITHER BEEN THERE NOR DONE THAT Bart chalkboard Ep. AABF17
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-03 06:14:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-02 23:56:49 +0000, Lewis said:

> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>>>> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>>>>>>>>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>>>>>>>>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>>>>> published by the OUP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>>>>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>>>>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>>>>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>>>>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>>>>> English".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>>>>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>>>>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>>>>> http://www.oed.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>>
>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>
>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>
>> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country
>>
>
> You are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
> results, right?

I suppose I could get my daughter in Denver to check what URL would
work best for you, but it hardly seems worthwhile.


--
athel
Snidely
2018-07-03 08:41:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Lewis used thar keyboard to writen:
> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:
>
>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
>>>>> <***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 03:43:19 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29/06/2018 7:51 PM, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <ph44v8$1jqp$***@gioia.aioe.org>, DavidW <***@email.provided>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>>>>>>>>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>>>>>>>>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests
>>>>>>>>> that this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been,
>>>>>>>>> I believe). Yet below that it says:
>>>>>>>>> (British organise)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you mean there is no connection with OUP? That's nasty if so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
>>>>>> published by the OUP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
>>>>>> and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oxford Dictionaries:
>>>>>> https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
>>>>>> has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
>>>>>> Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
>>>>>> English".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
>>>>>> "Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
>>>>>> is accessible to subscribers only.
>>>>>> http://www.oed.com
>>>>>
>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>
>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>
>> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country
>
> You are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
> results, right?

The important issue is that the hits all seem to be for "dictionary",
except for the lead entry which is unattributed, and apparently out of
Google's own dictionary. Searching the French instantiation of the
search engine may or not change that, and from a quick test ... does
not.

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.
Quinn C
2018-07-04 21:37:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
* Snidely:

> Lewis used thar keyboard to writen:
>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:
>>
>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:

>>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>>
>>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>>
>>> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country
>>
>> You are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
>> results, right?
>
> The important issue is that the hits all seem to be for "dictionary",
> except for the lead entry which is unattributed, and apparently out of
> Google's own dictionary. Searching the French instantiation of the
> search engine may or not change that, and from a quick test ... does
> not.

Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
that the #dobs part was ignored.

It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.

As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."

--
The only BS around here is butternut squash, one of the dozens of
varieties of squash I grow. I hope you like squash.
-- Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, S01E10
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-05 13:00:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-04 23:37:14 +0200, Quinn C <***@crommatograph.info> said:

> * Snidely:
>
>> Lewis used thar keyboard to writen:
>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:
>>>
>>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>
>>>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>>>
>>>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>>>
>>>> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country

You
>>>>
>>> are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
>>> results, right?
>>
>> The important issue is that the hits all seem to be for "dictionary",
>> except for the lead entry which is unattributed, and apparently out of
>> Google's own dictionary. Searching the French instantiation of the
>> search engine may or not change that, and from a quick test ... does
>> not.
>
> Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
> that the #dobs part was ignored.
>
> It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.
>
> As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
> really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."

There is an implicit "respectively" there that is wrong.


--
athel
Quinn C
2018-07-05 17:19:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
* Athel Cornish-Bowden:

> On 2018-07-04 23:37:14 +0200, Quinn C <***@crommatograph.info> said:
>
>> * Snidely:
>>
>>> Lewis used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:
>>>>
>>>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>
>>>>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>>>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>>>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country
>
> You
>>>>>
>>>> are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
>>>> results, right?
>>>
>>> The important issue is that the hits all seem to be for "dictionary",
>>> except for the lead entry which is unattributed, and apparently out of
>>> Google's own dictionary. Searching the French instantiation of the
>>> search engine may or not change that, and from a quick test ... does
>>> not.
>>
>> Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
>> that the #dobs part was ignored.
>>
>> It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.
>>
>> As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
>> really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."
>
> There is an implicit "respectively" there that is wrong.

No, I ordered both pairs in the order that seems natural for them,
respectively. To hell with parallelism, long live chiasmus. No, I
didn't make that up now, I did actually go through these considerations
when I wrote it.

--
Bug:
An elusive creature living in a program that makes it incorrect.
The activity of "debugging," or removing bugs from a program, ends
when people get tired of doing it, not when the bugs are removed.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-07-06 06:36:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-07-05 17:19:03 +0000, Quinn C said:

> * Athel Cornish-Bowden:
>
>> On 2018-07-04 23:37:14 +0200, Quinn C <***@crommatograph.info> said:
>>
>>> * Snidely:
>>>
>>>> Lewis used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-07-01 22:45:01 +0000, Lewis said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>>>>>>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>>>>>>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>>>>>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.google.fr/search?rlz=1C5CHFA_enFR572FR580&q=Dictionary#dobs=God's%20country
>>>>>>
>>
>> You
>>>>>>
>>>>> are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
>>>>> results, right?
>>>>
>>>> The important issue is that the hits all seem to be for "dictionary",
>>>> except for the lead entry which is unattributed, and apparently out of
>>>> Google's own dictionary. Searching the French instantiation of the
>>>> search engine may or not change that, and from a quick test ... does
>>>> not.
>>>
>>> Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
>>> that the #dobs part was ignored.
>>>
>>> It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.
>>>
>>> As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
>>> really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."
>>
>> There is an implicit "respectively" there that is wrong.
>
> No, I ordered both pairs in the order that seems natural for them,
> respectively. To hell with parallelism, long live chiasmus. No, I
> didn't make that up now, I did actually go through these considerations
> when I wrote it.

When you are discussing something that everyone knows then there is no
confusion, so you can say "The biggest and smallest countries in
population are the Vatican and China" without provoking anything more
than mild surprise at the orders. However, when discussing something
like the conventions for -ise and -ize about which a great deal of
nonsense is written and carefully fostered by spell checkers from
Microsoft, parallelism serves a purpose.


--
athel
Jerry Friedman
2018-07-04 22:35:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 7/1/18 4:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
...

>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
>>> mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,
>
>> and live in God's country,
>
> That must mean something different to you than to me.
...

Land of sunshine and sharks, right?


--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Moylan
2018-07-05 02:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/07/18 08:35, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On 7/1/18 4:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
>> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
> ...
>
>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
>>>> including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a
>>>> library card,
>>
>>> and live in God's country,
>>
>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
> ...
>
> Land of sunshine and sharks, right?

We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for "God's
own country".

Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born in
Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.

P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
winter appears to be over.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-05 11:32:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 5 July 2018 03:12:02 UTC+1, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 05/07/18 08:35, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On 7/1/18 4:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
> >> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel Cornish-Bowden
> >> <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
> > ...
> >
> >>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
> >>>> including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a
> >>>> library card,
> >>
> >>> and live in God's country,
> >>
> >> That must mean something different to you than to me.
> > ...
> >
> > Land of sunshine and sharks, right?
>
> We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for "God's
> own country".
>
> Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born in
> Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
>
> P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
> winter appears to be over.
>

You passed the equinox in March and won't do so again until
September, same as everybody else on the planet. Shall we
assume you mean 'solstice' or are you operating on a strange
new astronomical calendar?
Peter Moylan
2018-07-05 11:35:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/07/18 21:32, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 July 2018 03:12:02 UTC+1, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 05/07/18 08:35, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On 7/1/18 4:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel
>>>> Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
>>>>>> including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have
>>>>>> a library card,
>>>>
>>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>>
>>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Land of sunshine and sharks, right?
>>
>> We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for
>> "God's own country".
>>
>> Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born
>> in Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
>>
>> P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
>> winter appears to be over.
>
> You passed the equinox in March and won't do so again until
> September, same as everybody else on the planet. Shall we assume you
> mean 'solstice' or are you operating on a strange new astronomical
> calendar?

Bugger. I always mix up those two words.

You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where winter
is almost over.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2018-07-05 12:49:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <phkvql$lu9$***@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/07/18 21:32, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>> On Thursday, 5 July 2018 03:12:02 UTC+1, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> On 05/07/18 08:35, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/18 4:45 PM, Lewis wrote:
>>>>> In message <***@mid.individual.net> Athel
>>>>> Cornish-Bowden <***@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2018-07-01 17:35:27 +0000, John Varela said:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
>>>>>>> including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have
>>>>>>> a library card,
>>>>>
>>>>>> and live in God's country,
>>>>>
>>>>> That must mean something different to you than to me.
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Land of sunshine and sharks, right?
>>>
>>> We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for
>>> "God's own country".
>>>
>>> Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born
>>> in Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
>>>
>>> P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
>>> winter appears to be over.
>>
>> You passed the equinox in March and won't do so again until
>> September, same as everybody else on the planet. Shall we assume you
>> mean 'solstice' or are you operating on a strange new astronomical
>> calendar?

> Bugger. I always mix up those two words.

How? Equinox is from "equal" and is the point where day and night are
equal.

> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where winter
> is almost over.

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

--
'Today Is A Good Day For Someone Else To Die!' --Feet of Clay
Peter Moylan
2018-07-05 13:55:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/07/18 22:49, Lewis wrote:
> In message <phkvql$lu9$***@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where
>> winter is almost over.
>
> It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Only if you're a long way from the equator. Near the equator, it's the
middle of winter.

At my latitude (approx 33 degrees south), winter officially starts on
the first of June, and ends at the end of August. Global warming is,
however, messing with our intuition. Last year summer started early in
August, and lasted about 9 months. The present indications are that this
will happen again this year. The top temperature today was about 24
degrees, which is abnormal for mid-winter.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Kerr-Mudd,John
2018-07-05 20:47:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:55:39 GMT, Peter Moylan
<***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 05/07/18 22:49, Lewis wrote:
>> In message <phkvql$lu9$***@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
>> <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where
>>> winter is almost over.
>>
>> It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
>
> Only if you're a long way from the equator. Near the equator, it's the
> middle of winter.
>
> At my latitude (approx 33 degrees south), winter officially starts on
> the first of June, and ends at the end of August. Global warming is,
> however, messing with our intuition. Last year summer started early in
> August, and lasted about 9 months. The present indications are that
this
> will happen again this year. The top temperature today was about 24
> degrees, which is abnormal for mid-winter.
>

Hah! We're lucky to get that in mid-summer (UK), but it's been a bit
hotter this year.

--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2018-07-06 02:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/07/18 06:47, Kerr-Mudd,John wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:55:39 GMT, Peter Moylan
> <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> At my latitude (approx 33 degrees south), winter officially starts
>> on the first of June, and ends at the end of August. Global
>> warming is, however, messing with our intuition. Last year summer
>> started early in August, and lasted about 9 months. The present
>> indications are that this will happen again this year. The top
>> temperature today was about 24 degrees, which is abnormal for
>> mid-winter.
>
> Hah! We're lucky to get that in mid-summer (UK), but it's been a bit
> hotter this year.

At the rate that our temperatures are going up, you should soon have a
tropical climate.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Tobin
2018-07-05 13:58:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@Snow.local>,
Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where winter
>> is almost over.

>It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

-- Richard
Peter Moylan
2018-07-05 14:09:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 05/07/18 23:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <***@Snow.local>, Lewis
> <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where
>>> winter is almost over.
>
>> It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
>
> Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

The definition was created by astronomers who lived way up near the
North Pole, where there's a huge lag in solar heating; a lag large
enough to delay the seasons by six weeks or more.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Lewis
2018-07-06 01:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <phl8r6$em8$***@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> On 05/07/18 23:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <***@Snow.local>, Lewis
>> <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where
>>>> winter is almost over.
>>
>>> It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
>>
>> Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

> The definition was created by astronomers who lived way up near the
> North Pole, where there's a huge lag in solar heating; a lag large
> enough to delay the seasons by six weeks or more.

No, that is not the reason at all.

Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the sun
and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the days
when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and the two days in
between.

South of the equator the seasons are delayed by two, so summer stars on
December 21 and is fallowed by fall/autumn in March. But the dates do not
change unless something has gone seriously wrong, in which case we have
far greater problems along the lines of "oh my, we're all about to die."

--
when you're no longer searching for beauty or love, just some kind of
life with the edges taken off. When you can't even define what it is
that you're frightened of...
Peter Moylan
2018-07-06 03:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/07/18 11:49, Lewis wrote:
> In message <phl8r6$em8$***@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>> On 05/07/18 23:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>> In article <***@Snow.local>, Lewis
>>> <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point
>>>>> where winter is almost over.
>>>
>>>> It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
>>>
>>> Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?
>
>> The definition was created by astronomers who lived way up near
>> the North Pole, where there's a huge lag in solar heating; a lag
>> large enough to delay the seasons by six weeks or more.
>
> No, that is not the reason at all.
>
> Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the
> sun and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the
> days when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and the two days
> in between.

That's of interesting theoretical interest, and I don't deny that many
countries have adopted it to define their seasons.

In Australia, however, the official definition uses meteorological
seasons rather than astronomical seasons. The astronomical seasons are
too badly misaligned with the annual temperature cycle to be of any use
to anyone.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-06 03:21:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 11:05:16 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/07/18 11:49, Lewis wrote:
> > In message <phl8r6$em8$***@dont-email.me> Peter Moylan
> > <***@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 05/07/18 23:58, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >>> In article <***@Snow.local>, Lewis
> >>> <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point
> >>>>> where winter is almost over.
> >>>
> >>>> It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
> >>>
> >>> Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?
> >
> >> The definition was created by astronomers who lived way up near
> >> the North Pole, where there's a huge lag in solar heating; a lag
> >> large enough to delay the seasons by six weeks or more.
> >
> > No, that is not the reason at all.
> >
> > Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the
> > sun and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the
> > days when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and the two days
> > in between.
>
> That's of interesting theoretical interest, and I don't deny that many
> countries have adopted it to define their seasons.
>
> In Australia, however, the official definition uses meteorological
> seasons rather than astronomical seasons. The astronomical seasons are
> too badly misaligned with the annual temperature cycle to be of any use
> to anyone.

Damn the traditions, full speed ahead!

The astronomical seasons in fact tell you when the days change from
getting longer to getting shorter, information useful to everyone who
isn't actually in the tropics.
Mark Brader
2018-07-06 06:53:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Lewis":
>> Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the
>> sun and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the
>> days when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and...

Peter Moylan:
> That's of interesting theoretical interest, and I don't deny that many
> countries have adopted it to define their seasons.

I doubt that many countries have adopted official definitions of seasons
at all. What would purpose would it serve?

I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Close your tag and give it a rest, Jason"
***@vex.net | --FoxTrot (Bill Amend)

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-06 10:16:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 July 2018 07:53:11 UTC+1, Mark Brader wrote:
> "Lewis":
> >> Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the
> >> sun and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the
> >> days when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and...
>
> Peter Moylan:
> > That's of interesting theoretical interest, and I don't deny that many
> > countries have adopted it to define their seasons.
>
> I doubt that many countries have adopted official definitions of seasons
> at all. What would purpose would it serve?
>
> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
> --

Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.

Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
the solstices.

Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
Richard Tobin
2018-07-06 13:43:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
>> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.

>Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
>
>Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
>the solstices.
>
>Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
>In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.

The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
usage.

Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

-- Richard
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-06 14:00:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 9:45:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:

> >> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
> >> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
> >Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
> >Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
> >the solstices.
> >Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
> >In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.

No one in the US uses anything but the astronomical dates. We have "the
unofficial start of summer" on Memorial Day, and "the unofficial end of
summer" on Labor Day.

> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
> usage.
>
> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

What's Eris, chopped liver?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-06 16:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
> >> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
>
> >Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
> >
> >Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
> >the solstices.
> >
> >Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
> >In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
>
> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
> usage.
>
> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
>

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.
the Omrud
2018-07-06 16:59:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/07/2018 17:56, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
>>>> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
>>
>>> Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
>>>
>>> Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
>>> the solstices.
>>>
>>> Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
>>> In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
>>
>> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
>> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
>> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
>> usage.
>>
>> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
>
> Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> thousands more as yet unknown.

Thousands? Inestimable trillions, I would say.

--
David
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-06 17:11:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
>> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
>> >> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
>>
>> >Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
>> >
>> >Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
>> >the solstices.
>> >
>> >Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
>> >In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
>>
>> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
>> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
>> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
>> usage.
>>
>> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
>>
>
>Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
>thousands more as yet unknown.

Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-06 17:22:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
> >> >> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
> >>
> >> >Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
> >> >
> >> >Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
> >> >the solstices.
> >> >
> >> >Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
> >> >In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
> >>
> >> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
> >> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
> >> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
> >> usage.
> >>
> >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> >>
> >
> >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> >thousands more as yet unknown.
>
> Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
>
>

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-06 19:44:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:

> > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
>
> Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-06 20:06:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> >
> > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > that it is a vegetable.
>
> What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-06 20:38:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> >
> > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > >
> > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > that it is a vegetable.
> >
> > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
>
> Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.

What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?
s***@gmail.com
2018-07-06 21:44:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > >
> > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > >
> > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> >
> > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
>
> Unlike any fruit juice.
>
> What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> principal component of sauces?

Would you count grapes (and raisins) and perhaps quince and gooseberry?

With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?

/dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-06 21:54:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:44:04 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:

> > > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> > > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
> > Unlike any fruit juice.
> > What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> > principal component of sauces?
>
> Would you count grapes (and raisins) and perhaps quince and gooseberry?

I haven't heard of grape or raisin sauce. Raisins can be included in a
sort of sauce often served with ham. Applesauce isn't a sauce.

I'm pretty sure I have never been in the presence of either a quince or a
gooseberry.

> With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?

Not for me, thank you.

> /dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"

Tapioca pudding, maybe? Sweet potato pie?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-07 12:01:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 July 2018 22:54:48 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:44:04 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > > > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> > > > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > > > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > > > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
> > > Unlike any fruit juice.
> > > What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> > > principal component of sauces?
> >
> > Would you count grapes (and raisins) and perhaps quince and gooseberry?
>
> I haven't heard of grape or raisin sauce. Raisins can be included in a
> sort of sauce often served with ham. Applesauce isn't a sauce.
>
> I'm pretty sure I have never been in the presence of either a quince or a
> gooseberry.
>
> > With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?
>
> Not for me, thank you.
>
> > /dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"
>
> Tapioca pudding, maybe? Sweet potato pie?

Apple sauce isn't a sauce? What is it then? Which part of the OED
definition ...

Any preparation, usually liquid or soft, and often consisting of
several ingredients, intended to be eaten as an appetizing
accompaniment to some article of food.

... does it fail to meet? (Or should that be 'fail to meat?)
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-07 13:51:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 8:01:41 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Friday, 6 July 2018 22:54:48 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 5:44:04 PM UTC-4, ***@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:38:58 PM UTC-7, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:

> > > > > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > > > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > > > > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > > > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > > > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > > > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > > > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> > > > > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > > > > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > > > > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
> > > > Unlike any fruit juice.
> > > > What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> > > > principal component of sauces?
> > > Would you count grapes (and raisins) and perhaps quince and gooseberry?
> > I haven't heard of grape or raisin sauce. Raisins can be included in a
> > sort of sauce often served with ham. Applesauce isn't a sauce.
> > I'm pretty sure I have never been in the presence of either a quince or a
> > gooseberry.

Gooseberry figured in last night's episode of The Great British Baking
Show, which is being shown (for the first time?) on Thirteen. Oddly, the
episode was dedicated simply to "Desserts," and the first task, the
"signature bake," was the same assignment as last week's show was devoted
to, namely, "a torte."

The "technical bake" was then a "crème caramel," which appears to be
identical to a flan (two contestants used only egg yolks instead of whole
eggs and their custards failed to solidify; Mary BarryBerryBurry mocked
them by saying "the assignment was crème caramel, not crème patisserie),
and the "showstopper" requested merely "meringue with lots of layers."

Turns out GBBS is identical in format to the Great American Baking Show,
which was on ABC for two seasons plus two episodes -- last summer's series
simply disappeared after the first two episodes were aired -- even being
short enough to accommodate commercials, which on PBS are not inserted.
But the two hosts aren't identified (just as Ian Gomez and Nia Vardalos
never identified themselves on GABS); I choose to imagine they're the two
women from AbFab.

> > > With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?
> > Not for me, thank you.
> > > /dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"
> > Tapioca pudding, maybe? Sweet potato pie?
>
> Apple sauce isn't a sauce?

I don't know what "apple sauce" may be -- sounds like something quite
different -- but applesauce is a preparation of apples that have been
cooked most of the way to mushiness (there are also "chunky" varieties)
and is fairly viscous that is mostly a dessert but is also served as a condiment with pork chops, for dipping. It is not a sauce that can be
poured over a dish.

> What is it then? Which part of the OED
> definition ...
>
> Any preparation, usually liquid or soft, and often consisting of
> several ingredients, intended to be eaten as an appetizing
> accompaniment to some article of food.
>
> ... does it fail to meet? (Or should that be 'fail to meat?)

You must have not looked up "applesauce."
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-07 11:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 6 July 2018 21:38:58 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > >
> > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > >
> > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > >
> > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> >
> > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
>
> Unlike any fruit juice.
>
> What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> principal component of sauces?

Lemon, orange, plum, banana. And then there's fermented fruit in the
guise of wine and its by-products such as balsamic vinegar. Mango,
pineapple, redcurrant. Mince pies were originally a savoury dish. The
question is rather which fruits don't!
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-07 13:29:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 7:56:37 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Friday, 6 July 2018 21:38:58 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:

> > > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> > > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
> > Unlike any fruit juice.

Surprisingly, no one has adduced the mimosa (or the tequila sunrise!) to
compare with the bloody mary.

> > What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> > principal component of sauces?
>
> Lemon, orange, plum, banana. And then there's fermented fruit in the
> guise of wine and its by-products such as balsamic vinegar. Mango,
> pineapple, redcurrant. Mince pies were originally a savoury dish. The
> question is rather which fruits don't!

You may have overlooked "and" and "principal."
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-07 13:53:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 7 July 2018 14:29:47 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Saturday, July 7, 2018 at 7:56:37 AM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > On Friday, 6 July 2018 21:38:58 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 4:06:03 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 20:44:24 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 at 1:22:24 PM UTC-4, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > > > > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
> > > > > > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > > > > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > > > > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > > > > > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > > > > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > > > > > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > > > > > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > > > > > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > > > > > that it is a vegetable.
> > > > > What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
> > > > > for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
> > > > > of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
> > > > > have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
> > > > > best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.
> > > > Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
> > > > deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
> > > > the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.
> > > Unlike any fruit juice.
>
> Surprisingly, no one has adduced the mimosa (or the tequila sunrise!) to
> compare with the bloody mary.
>
> > > What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
> > > principal component of sauces?
> >
> > Lemon, orange, plum, banana. And then there's fermented fruit in the
> > guise of wine and its by-products such as balsamic vinegar. Mango,
> > pineapple, redcurrant. Mince pies were originally a savoury dish. The
> > question is rather which fruits don't!
>
> You may have overlooked "and" and "principal."

Or I may not. You may have overlooked that there are cuisines other
than American some of which have never been introduced to the
tomato and have therefore always relied on other fruits for the purposes
described.
Janet
2018-07-07 11:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <ddc5aa84-4761-46cd-8e08-***@googlegroups.com>,
***@googlemail.com says...
>
> On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > >> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > >> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
> > >> >> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
> > >>
> > >> >Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
> > >> >
> > >> >Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
> > >> >the solstices.
> > >> >
> > >> >Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
> > >> >In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
> > >>
> > >> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
> > >> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
> > >> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
> > >> usage.
> > >>
> > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > >>
> > >
> > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> >
> > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> >
> >
>
> Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> that it is a vegetable.

Grilled tomatoes are an essential part of the traditional cooked
breakfast.

https://www.bbc.com/food/recipes/stressfreefullenglis_67721

Janet.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-07 12:07:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 7 July 2018 12:58:34 UTC+1, Janet wrote:
> In article <ddc5aa84-4761-46cd-8e08-***@googlegroups.com>,
> ***@googlemail.com says...
> >
> > On Friday, 6 July 2018 18:11:20 UTC+1, PeterWD wrote:
> > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
> > > <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > > >> In article <e1526aa0-7c4c-40f4-833a-***@googlegroups.com>,
> > > >> Madrigal Gurneyhalt <***@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> >> I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
> > > >> >> more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
> > > >>
> > > >> >Not exactly. There are two 'official' dates in most countries.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Astronomical: applies to the whole hemisphere and is determined by
> > > >> >the solstices.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
> > > >> >In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.
> > > >>
> > > >> The problem is that "official" is often interpreted to mean "correct".
> > > >> If astronomers or meteorologers need to define the seasons for their
> > > >> own purposes, that's fine, but they have no authority over English
> > > >> usage.
> > > >>
> > > >> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
> > > >thousands more as yet unknown.
> > >
> > > Tomatoes are botanically fruits, but in a culinary context they are
> > > treated as vegetables. The same with cucumbers.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
> > as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
> > me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
> > that it is a vegetable.
>
> Grilled tomatoes are an essential part of the traditional cooked
> breakfast.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/food/recipes/stressfreefullenglis_67721
>

Are they? The very first line of the article says ...

A proper fry-up is a very personal thing, so feel free to swap
in and out what you like best.

In any case I'm pretty certain, unless eggs have been reclassified,
that being part of a Full English does not make anything a vegetable.
Apart from bubble and squeak (essential for me), quite the opposite
in fact.
Ken Blake
2018-07-06 18:41:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:

>> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
>>
>
>Tomatoes are fruits




Yes, and like many other fruits, they are vegetables. Vegetables are
edible plants or parts of plants (leaves, stems, flowers, fruits,
etc).

As far as I'm concerned, saying tomatoes are fruits not vegetables is
like saying spinach is a leaf not a vegetable.

For some reason, people like to talk about tomatoes being fruits, not
vegetables, but I've never heard anyone say the same thing about the
many other fruits that are vegetables, such as eggplant, bell peppers
(capsicum), zucchini (courgette), butternut squash, acorn squash,
peas, cucumber, corn (maize), pumpkin, etc.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-07-06 20:16:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 11:41:22 -0700, Ken Blake <***@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>
>>> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
>>>
>>
>>Tomatoes are fruits
>
>
>
>
>Yes, and like many other fruits, they are vegetables. Vegetables are
>edible plants or parts of plants (leaves, stems, flowers, fruits,
>etc).
>
>As far as I'm concerned, saying tomatoes are fruits not vegetables is
>like saying spinach is a leaf not a vegetable.
>
>For some reason, people like to talk about tomatoes being fruits, not
>vegetables, but I've never heard anyone say the same thing about the
>many other fruits that are vegetables, such as eggplant, bell peppers
>(capsicum), zucchini (courgette), butternut squash, acorn squash,
>peas, cucumber, corn (maize), pumpkin, etc.

Wikip on Tomato - fruit or vegetable?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_versus_vegetable

Botanically, a tomato is a fruit, a berry, consisting of the ovary,
together with its seeds, of a flowering plant. However, the tomato
is considered a "culinary vegetable" because it has a much lower
sugar content than culinary fruits; it is typically served as part
of a salad or main course of a meal, rather than as a dessert.
Tomatoes are not the only food source with this ambiguity; bell
peppers, cucumbers, green beans, eggplants, avocados, and squashes
of all kinds (such as zucchini and pumpkins) are all botanically
fruits, yet cooked as vegetables. This has led to legal dispute in
the United States. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on
vegetables, but not on fruits, caused the tomato's status to become
a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled this
controversy on May 10, 1893, by declaring that the tomato is a
vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies
vegetables by use—they are generally served with dinner and not
dessert (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304)). The holding of this case
applies only to the interpretation of the Tariff of 1883, and the
court did not purport to reclassify the tomato for botanical or
other purposes.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ken Blake
2018-07-06 22:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 21:16:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
<***@peterduncanson.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 11:41:22 -0700, Ken Blake <***@invalid.news.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
>><***@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Friday, 6 July 2018 14:45:03 UTC+1, Richard Tobin wrote:
>>
>>>> Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Tomatoes are fruits
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes, and like many other fruits, they are vegetables. Vegetables are
>>edible plants or parts of plants (leaves, stems, flowers, fruits,
>>etc).
>>
>>As far as I'm concerned, saying tomatoes are fruits not vegetables is
>>like saying spinach is a leaf not a vegetable.
>>
>>For some reason, people like to talk about tomatoes being fruits, not
>>vegetables, but I've never heard anyone say the same thing about the
>>many other fruits that are vegetables, such as eggplant, bell peppers
>>(capsicum), zucchini (courgette), butternut squash, acorn squash,
>>peas, cucumber, corn (maize), pumpkin, etc.
>
>Wikip on Tomato - fruit or vegetable?:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_versus_vegetable
>
> Botanically, a tomato is a fruit, a berry, consisting of the ovary,
> together with its seeds, of a flowering plant.


Yes.


> However, the tomato
> is considered a "culinary vegetable" because it has a much lower
> sugar content than culinary fruits; it is typically served as part
> of a salad or main course of a meal, rather than as a dessert.
> Tomatoes are not the only food source with this ambiguity; bell
> peppers, cucumbers, green beans, eggplants, avocados, and squashes
> of all kinds (such as zucchini and pumpkins) are all botanically
> fruits, yet cooked as vegetables. This has led to legal dispute in
> the United States. In 1887, U.S. tariff laws that imposed a duty on
> vegetables, but not on fruits, caused the tomato's status to become
> a matter of legal importance. The U.S. Supreme Court settled this
> controversy on May 10, 1893, by declaring that the tomato is a
> vegetable, based on the popular definition that classifies
> vegetables by use—they are generally served with dinner and not
> dessert (Nix v. Hedden (149 U.S. 304)). The holding of this case
> applies only to the interpretation of the Tariff of 1883, and the
> court did not purport to reclassify the tomato for botanical or
> other purposes.



Yes, you said much the same thing I did. Thanks for the Wikipedia
citation.
Peter T. Daniels
2018-07-05 15:46:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> In article <***@Snow.local>,
> Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where winter
> >> is almost over.
>
> >It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
>
> Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

It just does. There are four salient moments during the year, known as
the equinoxes and the solstices, which are determined by Universal forces,
and the first people to take an interest in such things -- long, long
before Stonehenge and its ilk were created -- welcomed the return of the
sun from its decline, and marked the midpoint of its career when days
started getting shorter again,and rejoiced when days started getting
longer again.

If Europeans were meant to live in tropical or semi-tropical latitudes,
they would have dark skin. Is melanoma the national disease of Australia?
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-07-05 16:01:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thursday, 5 July 2018 16:46:14 UTC+1, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-4, Richard Tobin wrote:
> > In article <***@Snow.local>,
> > Lewis <***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >
> > >> You're right. It's the winter solstice that marks the point where winter
> > >> is almost over.
> >
> > >It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.
> >
> > Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?
>
> It just does. There are four salient moments during the year, known as
> the equinoxes and the solstices, which are determined by Universal forces,
> and the first people to take an interest in such things -- long, long
> before Stonehenge and its ilk were created -- welcomed the return of the
> sun from its decline, and marked the midpoint of its career when days
> started getting shorter again,and rejoiced when days started getting
> longer again.
>
> If Europeans were meant to live in tropical or semi-tropical latitudes,
> they would have dark skin. Is melanoma the national disease of Australia?

New Zealand currently leads the melanoma stakes but that is as much
to do with ozone layer depletion as position relative to the tropics, most
of the country being in similar position to Northern Spain and Southern
France.
Peter Moylan
2018-07-06 02:59:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 06/07/18 01:46, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> If Europeans were meant to live in tropical or semi-tropical
> latitudes, they would have dark skin. Is melanoma the national
> disease of Australia?

It is, although -- for reasons explained by Madrigal -- the highest-risk
area is Tasmania, which is the state furthest from the equator.

Our skins are gradually growing darker, but it takes a few generations.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-29 10:56:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 29 June 2018 03:19:26 UTC+1, DavidW wrote:
> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>
> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
> believe). Yet below that it says:
> (British organise)
>
> When did the OED start giving the British spelling as 'ise'? I don't
> recall any printed Oxford dictionary from decades past saying that. Are
> they saying that 'ize' is still preferred but Britain is now an
> exception? Have they finally caved in to popular use after stubbornly
> holding out against it for 100+ years?
>
> I like to use 'ize' and then point to the OED's practice, which is
> correctly based on etymology and pronunciation, if I'm accused of using
> the American spelling, but now that won't work. Now the accuser will
> just say that the 'ize' given must be the American spelling if the
> British speling is 'ise', proving his point!

You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
is not. The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
to suggest that this is the only proper spelling. The citations include
references to the 'ise' spelling dating back centuries and this is no surprise
as this is the spelling transmitted from Middle French 'organiser' which
would therefore be the form prevalent amongst the nobility of England.
There is no question of OED 'holding out' at all. The two spellings have
always co-existed in BrE without causing any apoplexy. OED simply chose
one as its headword and has maintained it for ease rather than any great
polemic purpose.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-29 12:05:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:56:52 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt
<***@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, 29 June 2018 03:19:26 UTC+1, DavidW wrote:
>> I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
>> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize
>>
>> If you search for either 'organize' or 'organise' you get the same
>> entry, which shows 'organize' in large letters first. This suggests that
>> this is the OED's preferred spelling (which it always has been, I
>> believe). Yet below that it says:
>> (British organise)
>>
>> When did the OED start giving the British spelling as 'ise'? I don't
>> recall any printed Oxford dictionary from decades past saying that. Are
>> they saying that 'ize' is still preferred but Britain is now an
>> exception? Have they finally caved in to popular use after stubbornly
>> holding out against it for 100+ years?
>>
>> I like to use 'ize' and then point to the OED's practice, which is
>> correctly based on etymology and pronunciation, if I'm accused of using
>> the American spelling, but now that won't work. Now the accuser will
>> just say that the 'ize' given must be the American spelling if the
>> British speling is 'ise', proving his point!
>
>You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
>is not. The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>to suggest that this is the only proper spelling. The citations include
>references to the 'ise' spelling dating back centuries and this is no surprise
>as this is the spelling transmitted from Middle French 'organiser' which
>would therefore be the form prevalent amongst the nobility of England.
>There is no question of OED 'holding out' at all. The two spellings have
>always co-existed in BrE without causing any apoplexy. OED simply chose
>one as its headword and has maintained it for ease rather than any great
>polemic purpose.

Some years (decades?) ago I heard the the OUP (Oxford University Press)
preferred "ize" in the works it published. But if so, that would be a
house rule applying to material other than its dictionaries.
https://global.oup.com/about/publishing?cc=gb


--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
DavidW
2018-06-29 18:09:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 29/06/2018 8:56 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
>
> You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
> is not.

No, I do not assume there is any controversy at all.

> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.

And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country, and how
confusing that appears.

> The citations include
> references to the 'ise' spelling dating back centuries and this is no surprise
> as this is the spelling transmitted from Middle French 'organiser' which
> would therefore be the form prevalent amongst the nobility of England.
> There is no question of OED 'holding out' at all. The two spellings have
> always co-existed in BrE without causing any apoplexy.

> OED simply chose one as its headword

So they just tossed a coin? I don't believe that. They chose 'ize' for
reasons. Fowler's MEU, for example, gives reasons to prefer 'ize'.

> and has maintained it for ease

I don't believe that either.
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-29 18:24:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, 29 June 2018 19:09:14 UTC+1, DavidW wrote:
> On 29/06/2018 8:56 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> >
> > You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
> > is not.
>
> No, I do not assume there is any controversy at all.
>
> > The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
> > to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.
>
> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country, and how
> confusing that appears.
>
> > The citations include
> > references to the 'ise' spelling dating back centuries and this is no surprise
> > as this is the spelling transmitted from Middle French 'organiser' which
> > would therefore be the form prevalent amongst the nobility of England.
> > There is no question of OED 'holding out' at all. The two spellings have
> > always co-existed in BrE without causing any apoplexy.
>
> > OED simply chose one as its headword
>
> So they just tossed a coin? I don't believe that. They chose 'ize' for
> reasons. Fowler's MEU, for example, gives reasons to prefer 'ize'.
>

Fowler is full of reasons for preferring all sorts of things. Many of them
are wrong, muddle-headed, or simply out of date. You might as well
have said that you read it on Wikipedia so it must be right!

> > and has maintained it for ease
>
> I don't believe that either.

Entirely your prerogative. Doesn't mean it's not true though!
Mark Brader
2018-06-29 21:11:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Barry Etheridge:
>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.

David Wall:
> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.
--
Mark Brader | "... there is no such word as 'impossible' in
Toronto | my dictionary. In fact, everything between
***@vex.net | 'herring' and 'marmalade' appears to be missing."
| -- Dirk Gently (Douglas Adams)
DavidW
2018-06-30 01:41:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/06/2018 7:11 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Barry Etheridge:
>>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.
>
> David Wall:
>> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
>> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
>> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...
>
> It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

(British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
correct spelling in that country.
Mark Brader
2018-06-30 05:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Barry Etheridge:
>>>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>>>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.

David Wall:
>>> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
>>> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
>>> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...

Mark Brader:
>> It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

David Wall:
> (British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
> 'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
> correct spelling in that country.

Why do you think it says that?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "This one isn't close. It's not even close to
***@vex.net | being close." --Adam Beneschan
DavidW
2018-06-30 09:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/06/2018 3:49 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
> Barry Etheridge:
>>>>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>>>>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.
>
> David Wall:
>>>> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
>>>> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
>>>> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...
>
> Mark Brader:
>>> It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.
>
> David Wall:
>> (British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
>> 'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
>> correct spelling in that country.
>
> Why do you think it says that?

Because it says (British 'organise'), i.e. in Britain that's how you
spell it.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2018-06-30 10:22:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:28:10 +1000, DavidW <***@email.provided> wrote:

>On 30/06/2018 3:49 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Barry Etheridge:
>>>>>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>>>>>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.
>>
>> David Wall:
>>>>> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
>>>>> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
>>>>> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...
>>
>> Mark Brader:
>>>> It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.
>>
>> David Wall:
>>> (British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
>>> 'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
>>> correct spelling in that country.
>>
>> Why do you think it says that?
>
>Because it says (British 'organise'), i.e. in Britain that's how you
>spell it.

It says that that spelling is used in BrE. It does not imply that it is
the only correct or acceptable spelling in BrE.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2018-06-30 13:59:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2018-06-30 09:28:10 +0000, DavidW said:

> On 30/06/2018 3:49 PM, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Barry Etheridge:
>>>>>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
>>>>>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.
>>
>> David Wall:
>>>>> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
>>>>> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
>>>>> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...
>>
>> Mark Brader:
>>>> It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.
>>
>> David Wall:
>>> (British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
>>> 'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
>>> correct spelling in that country.
>>
>> Why do you think it says that?
>
> Because it says (British 'organise'), i.e. in Britain that's how you spell it.

I don't read that as an instruction (though it can be taken that way).
I read it as meaning that the spelling "organise" is sometimes used in
British spelling. Not by me, however, and not in the serious paper
dictionaries published by Oxford. You can spell it like that if you
want, but there is no obligation.

Note that "should" is a word that you have added; likewise "correct".


--
athel
Madrigal Gurneyhalt
2018-06-30 10:49:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 30 June 2018 02:41:18 UTC+1, DavidW wrote:
> On 30/06/2018 7:11 AM, Mark Brader wrote:
> > Barry Etheridge:
> >>> The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
> >>> to suggest that this is the only proper spelling.
> >
> > David Wall:
> >> And I did not suggest that this is the only proper spelling. This is
> >> about preferred spelling (by the dictionary) versus what the entry
> >> claims is the correct spelling in the dictionary's own country...
> >
> > It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.
>
> (British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
> 'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
> correct spelling in that country.

It says no such thing. Dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive
nor prescriptive. The alternative spellings are simply matters of
fact ... they exist. Neither approval nor disapproval is implied in
any way.
DavidW
2018-06-30 18:59:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 30/06/2018 8:49 PM, Madrigal Gurneyhalt wrote:
> On Saturday, 30 June 2018 02:41:18 UTC+1, DavidW wrote:
>> (British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
>> 'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
>> correct spelling in that country.
>
> It says no such thing. Dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive
> nor prescriptive. The alternative spellings are simply matters of
> fact ... they exist. Neither approval nor disapproval is implied in
> any way.

Yes, I know. I don't mean "correct" in the eyes of the dictionary, but
widely considered correct in that country. You could equally argue that
'organise' wouldn't be wrong in an American newspaper, but many readers
would think so, and there's just no reason to spell it that way when
'organize' is the accepted spelling in the U.S..
s***@my-deja.com
2018-06-29 16:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 3:19:26 AM UTC+1, DavidW wrote:

>.....Have they finally caved in....?
>....... if I'm accused .............
>.......Now the accuser will.........

Would this be weaponisation, weaponization or just
another example of the hierarchy of equivalence?
Loading...