Discussion:
Wot the toffs speak
(too old to reply)
Tony Cooper
2019-11-26 20:55:40 UTC
Permalink
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.

Wiki has a great deal to say about it at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".

His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.

Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Spains Harden
2019-11-26 21:21:50 UTC
Permalink
You are taking it a bit too seriously. Whilst one waits
for athel to come through:


Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-26 21:24:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
"In a subsequent edition (EPD3 [1926]) he was responsible for reviving
and popularizing the phrase "Received Pronunciation". This term had
originally been used by Ellis (1869-89: 23) in his _Early English
pronunciation_ ... at a time when "received" was in general use as a
synonym of "socially accepted". In the EPD3, Jones also coined the
abbreviation "RP", which has remained the only widely recognized term
by which linguists refer to this type of speech -- despite other more
recent suggestions.[fn] He was undoubtedly influenced here by Wyld's
(1914: 235-236) use of the phrase "Received Standard" to refer to the
same kind of pronunciation; Jones was not particularly happy with the
term, saying that it was only "for want of a better" (EPD3: viii). For
discussion, see Windsor Lewis (n.d.)" --Beverley Collins & Inger M.
Mees, *The Real Professor Higgins: The Life and Career of Daniel Jones*
(1999), 166-67.

Windsor Lewis n.d. is an "unpublished manuscript."
Katy Jennison
2019-11-26 22:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this, but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
--
Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper
2019-11-27 00:26:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:53:27 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did. A very complete answer that contained the key answer of
"received" meaning "socially accepted". I've never come across that
meaning, but I'll accept it.
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.

The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2019-11-27 03:20:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:53:27 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation and
attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public
School Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses
"Received Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The
general definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can
say that certain people were given that type of pronunciation by
their upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more
logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not
considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did. A very complete answer that contained the key answer
of "received" meaning "socially accepted". I've never come across
that meaning, but I'll accept it.
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which had changed over the past
century, like everything else) is not toff-speak as such. Some
toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are not toffs at all. I
should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers
in linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think
of the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to use.
It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the sense
that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We now call it
"educated Australian".
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
RH Draney
2019-11-27 09:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to use.
It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the sense
that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We now call it
"educated Australian".
Or "posh", to save time....r
Peter Moylan
2019-11-27 12:26:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to
use. It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the
sense that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We
now call it "educated Australian".
Or "posh", to save time....r
No, that's a different version of Australian. I believe that linguists
use the term "cultivated" for the posh version.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 14:57:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to
use. It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the
sense that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We
now call it "educated Australian".
Or "posh", to save time....r
No, that's a different version of Australian. I believe that linguists
use the term "cultivated" for the posh version.
Does Kate Burridge still have a daily(?) five-minute program on language
in Australia? Cambridge has published three volumes of her radio essays,
and they're delightful.
Ross
2019-11-27 20:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to
use. It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the
sense that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We
now call it "educated Australian".
Or "posh", to save time....r
No, that's a different version of Australian. I believe that linguists
use the term "cultivated" for the posh version.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
A.G.Mitchell (1940s) originally proposed a two-way division into
"Broad" and "Educated" Australian accents. In the 60s this
was refined to "Broad", "General" and "Cultivated", terms which
linguists continue to find roughly useful.
s***@gmail.com
2019-11-30 17:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to
use. It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the
sense that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We
now call it "educated Australian".
Or "posh", to save time....r
No, that's a different version of Australian. I believe that linguists
use the term "cultivated" for the posh version.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
A.G.Mitchell (1940s) originally proposed a two-way division into
"Broad" and "Educated" Australian accents. In the 60s this
was refined to "Broad", "General" and "Cultivated", terms which
linguists continue to find roughly useful.
Goodness gracious !!!!!! Ross lets the linguists' "non-judgemental" cat out of the bag. linguists recognizing "cultivated" speech?

now that value judgements are in in linguistics (they always were - but academicians have pretended otherwise from "science envy") We need another category of speech - "Trumpy" - a way of speaking that conveys callous cruelty even while saying "good morning."

So non-Punjabi Indians can now say scientifically what has been known for a long time - even the evening news in Punjabi sounds like teenage male locker-room talk.
s***@gmail.com
2019-11-30 17:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Ross
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter Moylan
I have very vague memories of hearing of an Australian received
pronunciation, which was what radio broadcasters were supposed to
use. It wasn't the same as British RP, but it was "received" in the
sense that that was how an educated non-rural Australian spoke. We
now call it "educated Australian".
Or "posh", to save time....r
No, that's a different version of Australian. I believe that linguists
use the term "cultivated" for the posh version.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
A.G.Mitchell (1940s) originally proposed a two-way division into
"Broad" and "Educated" Australian accents. In the 60s this
was refined to "Broad", "General" and "Cultivated", terms which
linguists continue to find roughly useful.
Goodness gracious !!!!!! Ross lets the linguists' "non-judgemental" cat out of the bag. linguists recognizing "cultivated" speech?
now that value judgements are in in linguistics (they always were - but academicians have pretended otherwise from "science envy") We need another category of speech - "Trumpy" - a way of speaking that conveys callous cruelty even while saying "good morning."
So non-Punjabi Indians can now say scientifically what has been known for a long time - even the evening news in Punjabi sounds like teenage male locker-room talk.
Actually a lot of Pakistani Punjabis regard their native tongue as crude and mostly speak Urdu which indeed is a language of Gods.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-27 06:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:53:27 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did. A very complete answer that contained the key answer of
"received" meaning "socially accepted". I've never come across that
meaning, but I'll accept it.
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
True once, but no longer. Curiously, John Reith, later Lord Reith, who
insisted that speakers on the BBC speak RP, didn't speak it himself.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 14:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
True once, but no longer. Curiously, John Reith, later Lord Reith, who
insisted that speakers on the BBC speak RP, didn't speak it himself.
TC hasn't given us any reason to suppose that he listens to BBC
Radio (where the presence of non-RP speakers is unmissable). He
must be referring to his beloved costume dramas.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-27 15:51:22 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:55:56 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
True once, but no longer. Curiously, John Reith, later Lord Reith, who
insisted that speakers on the BBC speak RP, didn't speak it himself.
TC hasn't given us any reason to suppose that he listens to BBC
Radio (where the presence of non-RP speakers is unmissable). He
must be referring to his beloved costume dramas.
Evidently you are unaware that BBC World News America is carried on
NPR and PBS stations. One of the presenters, Katty Kay, is regularly
seen on TV being interviewed about her books and life. She has what
is described as speaking "standard RP with a very slight twinge of
American".

However, the use of "BBC Pronunciation" goes back to when more BBC
speakers were of the type who spoke RP. Your observation about
non-RP-speakers is very current in the longer scheme of things. Some
of us heard BBC voices presenting news about world events five decades
ago or more.

But, no, I don't listen to BBC Radio 1 or BBC Radio 4. There was a
time when BBC World Service could be heard on our Zenith multi-band
radio, though.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 18:31:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 06:55:56 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
True once, but no longer. Curiously, John Reith, later Lord Reith, who
insisted that speakers on the BBC speak RP, didn't speak it himself.
TC hasn't given us any reason to suppose that he listens to BBC
Radio (where the presence of non-RP speakers is unmissable). He
must be referring to his beloved costume dramas.
Evidently you are unaware that BBC World News America is carried on
NPR and PBS stations.
Nor has TC given any reason to suppose that he listens to NPR or watches
PBS ews programming.
Post by Tony Cooper
One of the presenters, Katty Kay, is regularly
seen on TV being interviewed about her books and life. She has what
is described as speaking "standard RP with a very slight twinge of
American".
What does that have to do with being unaware that non-RP accents are
rife on the BBC these days?
Post by Tony Cooper
However, the use of "BBC Pronunciation" goes back to when more BBC
speakers were of the type who spoke RP. Your observation about
non-RP-speakers is very current in the longer scheme of things. Some
of us heard BBC voices presenting news about world events five decades
ago or more.
But, no, I don't listen to BBC Radio 1 or BBC Radio 4. There was a
time when BBC World Service could be heard on our Zenith multi-band
radio, though.
It can be heard on WNYC-FM every weekday from 9 to 10 am and from 2 am
to 5 am. It can be heard on WNYC-AM every weekday from 3 to 4 pm and
from midnight to 6 am.

I don't know the hours of its broadcast on weekend days, but it is on
WNYC-FM from 1 am on Saturday night and from midnight on Sunday night.
RH Draney
2019-11-27 19:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
But, no, I don't listen to BBC Radio 1 or BBC Radio 4. There was a
time when BBC World Service could be heard on our Zenith multi-band
radio, though.
It can be heard on WNYC-FM every weekday from 9 to 10 am and from 2 am
to 5 am. It can be heard on WNYC-AM every weekday from 3 to 4 pm and
from midnight to 6 am.
I don't know the hours of its broadcast on weekend days, but it is on
WNYC-FM from 1 am on Saturday night and from midnight on Sunday night.
You can listen to BBC Radio 4 any time by going through this page:

http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgibin/station.pl?stationid=2504

Other BBC streaming services can be reached by following the "1 of 91
streams" link at the top of the page....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 20:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
But, no, I don't listen to BBC Radio 1 or BBC Radio 4. There was a
time when BBC World Service could be heard on our Zenith multi-band
radio, though.
It can be heard on WNYC-FM every weekday from 9 to 10 am and from 2 am
to 5 am. It can be heard on WNYC-AM every weekday from 3 to 4 pm and
from midnight to 6 am.
I don't know the hours of its broadcast on weekend days, but it is on
WNYC-FM from 1 am on Saturday night and from midnight on Sunday night.
But I'm listening to everything else on WNYC during the day.
Post by RH Draney
http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgibin/station.pl?stationid=2504
Other BBC streaming services can be reached by following the "1 of 91
streams" link at the top of the page....r
RH Draney
2019-11-27 20:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But I'm listening to everything else on WNYC during the day.
Post by RH Draney
http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgibin/station.pl?stationid=2504
Other BBC streaming services can be reached by following the "1 of 91
streams" link at the top of the page....r
Then I don't suppose it would help to know that they're also available
on the TuneIn app (as is WNYC, both AM and FM)....r
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 21:41:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by RH Draney
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But I'm listening to everything else on WNYC during the day.
Post by RH Draney
http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgibin/station.pl?stationid=2504
Other BBC streaming services can be reached by following the "1 of 91
streams" link at the top of the page....r
Then I don't suppose it would help to know that they're also available
on the TuneIn app (as is WNYC, both AM and FM)....r
No, I have radios. Why would I use an app? (They're now advertising, "Or
just tell your smart speaker 'play WNYC!'" Like it's going to know whether
you want AM or FM, which diverge for several hours every day.)

For a few weeks I tried to watch (or listen to) the Channel 2 News at 11
on the computer while I did night-time email. But the signal (over what
Verizon FIOS insists is a "perfect" connection, even using a cable not
WiFi) is erratic (to be kind), often falling silent for minutes at a time.
And it interrupted unpredictably to show commercials that weren't the ones
being shown on WCBS-TV.
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-28 10:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
But, no, I don't listen to BBC Radio 1 or BBC Radio 4.  There was a
time when BBC World Service could be heard on our Zenith multi-band
radio, though.
It can be heard on WNYC-FM every weekday from 9 to 10 am and from 2 am
to 5 am. It can be heard on WNYC-AM every weekday from 3 to 4 pm and
from midnight to 6 am.
I don't know the hours of its broadcast on weekend days, but it is on
WNYC-FM from 1 am on Saturday night and from midnight on Sunday night.
  http://www.publicradiofan.com/cgibin/station.pl?stationid=2504
or:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-27 22:51:12 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 07:29:03 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 22:53:27 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did. A very complete answer that contained the key answer of
"received" meaning "socially accepted". I've never come across that
meaning, but I'll accept it.
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
True once, but no longer. Curiously, John Reith, later Lord Reith, who
insisted that speakers on the BBC speak RP, didn't speak it himself.
In the early days of the BBC the pronuncation received by listeners was
Received Pronunciation.The first non-RP-ist on BBC was Wilfred Pickles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Pickles#Early_life_and_personal_life

Pickles was born in Halifax in the West Riding of Yorkshire. He
moved to Southport, Lancashire, with his family in 1929, and worked
with his father as a builder. He joined an amateur dramatic society,
and in a local production there met Mabel Celilia Myerscough
(1906–1989), all of whose family had been connected with the stage.

He remained a proud Yorkshireman, and having been selected by the
BBC as an announcer for its North Regional radio service, he went on
to be an occasional newsreader on the BBC Home Service during the
Second World War. He was the first newsreader to speak in a regional
accent rather than Received Pronunciation, "a deliberate attempt to
make it more difficult for Nazis to impersonate BBC
broadcasters",[1] and caused some comment by wishing his fellow
northerners "Good neet".

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/voices/yourvoice/accent2.shtml

In 1941, the BBC first allowed a Northern accent onto the air waves
in the shape of news reader Wilfred Pickles.
Some listeners were less inclined to believe the news when Pickles
was reading it.

This was not an early attempt at appealing more to the general
public, but actually a move to make it more difficult for Nazis to
impersonate BBC broadcasters!

Wilfred Pickles became a hero for some, but others were outraged:
there was no place for regional accents on the BBC! It was even said
that some listeners were less inclined to believe the news when
Pickles was reading it.

It's been mentioned here sometime ago that prior to WW2 all BBC
newsreaders and announcers were anonymous. During the war they
introduced themselves. One with a memorable name was Alvar Lidell:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvar_Lidell

It was during the Second World War that the BBC named its previously
anonymous announcers and newsreaders - to distinguish them from
enemy propagandists. During the war, "Here is the news, and this is
Alvar Lidell reading it" became an inadvertent catchphrase.
Announcing the British victory at El Alamein, he said "Here is the
news, and cracking good news it is too!" In 1943 he served with the
RAF as an intelligence officer (some of the time at Bletchley
Park), but returned to the BBC a year later. In 1946 he was
appointed chief announcer on the new BBC Third Programme, where he
remained for six years, maintaining the highest standards,
particularly over pronunciation and phrasing.[citation needed]
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Paul Carmichael
2019-11-27 08:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers in
linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think of
the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
My wife watches Brit TV. Last night I heard a presenter with a broad brummy accent.

What is the world coming to?
--
Paul.

https://paulc.es
CDB
2019-11-27 12:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation and
attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public
School Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses
"Received Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The
general definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can
say that certain people were given that type of pronunciation by
their upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more
logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not
considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did. A very complete answer that contained the key answer
of "received" meaning "socially accepted". I've never come across
that meaning, but I'll accept it.
It is invited to dinner -- or comes in the evening, at any rate.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which had changed over the past
century, like everything else) is not toff-speak as such. Some
toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are not toffs at all. I
should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers
in linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think
of the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian novel or
other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the House of Lords.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
Katy Jennison
2019-11-27 12:44:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation and
attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones.  In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public
School Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses
"Received Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible.  RP, though, isn't.  The
general definition of "Received" is "was given".  I guess you can
say that certain people were given that type of pronunciation by
their upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more
logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not
considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did.  A very complete answer that contained the key answer
of "received" meaning "socially accepted".  I've never come across
that meaning, but I'll accept it.
It is invited to dinner -- or comes in the evening, at any rate.
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which had changed over the past
century, like everything else) is not toff-speak as such.  Some
toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are not toffs at all.  I
should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers
in linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think
of the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian novel or
other, and voila!  A toff's father sits in the House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort of thing
that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you, Charles.
--
Katy Jennison
CDB
2019-11-27 16:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of
"received pronunciation", the reason for it being called that
eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation and
attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In
his 1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term
"Public School Pronunciation", but in the second edition
(1926) he uses "Received Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The
general definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you
can say that certain people were given that type of
pronunciation by their upbringing, but the original term
used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not
considering?
I think PTD has answered this,
Yes, he did. A very complete answer that contained the key
answer of "received" meaning "socially accepted". I've never
come across that meaning, but I'll accept it.
It is invited to dinner -- or comes in the evening, at any rate.
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Katy Jennison
but I'd just like to add that RP (which had changed over the
past century, like everything else) is not toff-speak as such.
Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are not toffs at
all. I should know, I speak it.
I rather surmised that, but I needed a good Subject Line.
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or
dabblers in linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but
we don't think of the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian novel or
other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort of
thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you, Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but there was
a confusion of centuries.
Quinn C
2019-11-27 22:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian novel or
other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort of
thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you, Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but there was
a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
CDB
2019-11-28 00:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the House
of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but there
was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
Where, exactly? There are ambiguities in that pairing, caused by the
widespread use of "lady" to mean "woman of good reputation" or,
latterly, "woman". "Here comes the cleaning lady with her husband the
garbage lord", if you see what I mean. Anyway, male-and-female is not
the pairing I would have expected you to favour. "House of Aristx", maybe.

I think we, and the Parent of Parliaments, should wait and see how
current concerns play out.

By "we", of course, I mean other people: not me, and maybe not you.
Peter Moylan
2019-11-28 04:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Janet
2019-11-28 12:12:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <qrniph$v7v$***@dont-email.me>, ***@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had increased
so that those facilities were seriously inadequate and they had to
campaign for improvement.

Janet UK
Peter Moylan
2019-11-28 12:24:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the
Ladies in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual
complaint that in the House of Lords there were only toilets for
men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had
increased so that those facilities were seriously inadequate and
they had to campaign for improvement.
Of course that problem can arise whenever a male-only club admits female
members. (I am thinking of our very own Newcastle Club, a club that
admits only the crème de la crème.) But surely that should imply special
urgency for peers, who pee.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-28 12:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the
Ladies in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual
complaint that in the House of Lords there were only toilets for
men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had
increased so that those  facilities were seriously inadequate and
they had to campaign for improvement.
Of course that problem can arise whenever a male-only club admits female
members. (I am thinking of our very own Newcastle Club, a club that
admits only the crème de la crème.) But surely that should imply special
urgency for peers, who pee.
Ah, you beat me to it by ten minutes. (Same joke, slightly different
presentation.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-28 12:34:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had increased
so that those facilities were seriously inadequate and they had to
campaign for improvement.
By 1979, in fact, the number of women peers had increased to the point
where the staff in Annie's Bar decided to lay out some fresh straw.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
charles
2019-11-28 12:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had increased
so that those facilities were seriously inadequate and they had to
campaign for improvement.
Janet UK
Do you mean that hereditary female peers (there were some) could not sit in
the House of Lords?
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Janet
2019-11-28 15:33:26 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@candehope.me.uk>, ***@candehope.me.uk
says...
Post by charles
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had increased
so that those facilities were seriously inadequate and they had to
campaign for improvement.
Janet UK
Do you mean that hereditary female peers (there were some) could not sit in
the House of Lords?
The 1958 Life Peerages Act gave HOL seats to female life peers.

Hereditary peeresses continued to be excluded from the HOL until the
Peerage Act 1963.

Janet
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-28 16:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Janet
says...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Until 1958, only men had seats in the House Of Lords, and only when
female peers were admitted were facilities first installed for their
very small number. By the 1970's the number of women peers had increased
so that those facilities were seriously inadequate and they had to
campaign for improvement.
Somebody didn't realize that if ladies had seats, they needed thrones?
--
Jerry Friedman
Quinn C
2019-11-28 13:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Not much surprises me about such an old-fashioned institution, but I
once heard a female journalist talk about the long long walk she had to
take to get to one of the few women's rooms in the Canadian Parliament
not that long ago - 1980s?
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
Cheryl
2019-11-28 14:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by CDB
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian
novel or other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the
House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort
of thing that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you,
Charles.
In this modern age I should have said "father or mother", but
there was a confusion of centuries.
Is it called House of Lords and Ladies in this century? No? There.
I can still mentally hear a comedian (or comedienne, for those who
maintain that distinction) singing "Where is the Ladies' for the Ladies
in the Lords?" As I recall it, that referred to an actual complaint that
in the House of Lords there were only toilets for men.
Not much surprises me about such an old-fashioned institution, but I
once heard a female journalist talk about the long long walk she had to
take to get to one of the few women's rooms in the Canadian Parliament
not that long ago - 1980s?
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement. The building, quite an attractive one although a
bit run-down, was constructed by the Masons, who were at the time, I
believe, an all-male group. They must have added the women's toilets at
some point when women began attending their events, or when they started
renting out the place to assorted groups in order to pay the probably
horrendous costs of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to a group
that runs very popular entertainments with meals, and neither that group
nor their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a women's
bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor without
reducing the size of the large room used for the entertainments, the
kitchen or the bar. I think this is a common problem when updating old
buildings. The Masons moved to a much smaller and more modern building,
probably with a collective sigh of relief at getting rid of the white
elephant (as I said, I like the building, but then, I'm not paying for
maintenance). I have never been in their new building, but I expect it's
toilet facilities comply with current codes and current ideas of
convenience.
--
Cheryl
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-28 14:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
[ … ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement. The building, quite an attractive one although a
bit run-down, was constructed by the Masons, who were at the time, I
believe, an all-male group. They must have added the women's toilets at
some point when women began attending their events, or when they
started renting out the place to assorted groups in order to pay the
probably horrendous costs of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to
a group that runs very popular entertainments with meals, and neither
that group nor their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a
women's bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
Post by Cheryl
I think this is a common problem when updating old buildings. The
Masons moved to a much smaller and more modern building, probably with
a collective sigh of relief at getting rid of the white elephant (as I
said, I like the building, but then, I'm not paying for maintenance). I
have never been in their new building, but I expect it's toilet
facilities comply with current codes and current ideas of convenience.
--
athel
Spains Harden
2019-11-28 15:34:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
[ … ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement. The building, quite an attractive one although a
bit run-down, was constructed by the Masons, who were at the time, I
believe, an all-male group. They must have added the women's toilets at
some point when women began attending their events, or when they
started renting out the place to assorted groups in order to pay the
probably horrendous costs of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to
a group that runs very popular entertainments with meals, and neither
that group nor their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a
women's bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
Bizarre isn't it - since we all maintain unisex toilets in our own
homes. You have taken me back to some unsavory memories. In top-down
order of quality:

1) Spanish unisex toilets in the 1960s that were merely a hole in the
floor with no furniture whatsoever.

At least that could cope with No 2s - and likewise:

2) Dug latrines in the soaking, slippery mud of Epsom Downs, to
cope with the enormous Derby crowds. These had wooden trestles
which you could sit on - as well as canvas/hessian? "stalls" to
protect your dignity.

These facilities were so awful that most people used the surrounding
woods. Walk through long grass anywhere on Epsom Downs on Derby Day
- even today - and expect to come away with wet trouser-legs.

3) Country pubs. In the 1970s - when drink-driving was normal - we'd
drive out to pubs such as The Plough at Blackbrook near Dorking.
A man's urinal - small room in which you pissed against a wall -
was the only facility.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-28 15:54:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:34:57 -0800 (PST), Spains Harden
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
Bizarre isn't it - since we all maintain unisex toilets in our own
homes.
While we have unisex toilets in our own homes, the unisex aspect is
"used by" but not "used by at the same time". In some homes it might
be, but not in all homes.

Some public toilets locations are unisex, but have a lockable door so
only one person at a time can use the facilities.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-28 20:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:34:57 -0800 (PST), Spains Harden
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
Bizarre isn't it - since we all maintain unisex toilets in our own
homes.
While we have unisex toilets in our own homes, the unisex aspect is
"used by" but not "used by at the same time". In some homes it might
be, but not in all homes.
Some public toilets locations are unisex, but have a lockable door so
only one person at a time can use the facilities.
Because they are built to accommodate only one person at a time.

Airplane toilets have been unisex since the invention of airplane toilets.

Unisex toilets in malls would be a lot more hospitable to the sort of
activity that gets one admitted to the Mile-High Club.
Tony Cooper
2019-11-28 15:49:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 15:45:57 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
I think my own reaction to a unisex toilet would be short of apoplexy,
but I would certainly feel uncomfortable.

Often, in movies and TV shows, I see scenes where one person is using
the toilet with the door open or the person's other-gender partner is
in the room. That is not done in this house.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2019-11-29 00:43:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
[ … ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various
community events in a building in which the men's room was on the
main floor and the women's at the bottom of a long flight of
stairs and then across part of the basement. The building, quite
an attractive one although a bit run-down, was constructed by the
Masons, who were at the time, I believe, an all-male group. They
must have added the women's toilets at some point when women began
attending their events, or when they started renting out the place
to assorted groups in order to pay the probably horrendous costs
of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to a group that runs
very popular entertainments with meals, and neither that group nor
their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a women's
bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
This was recently done in Parliament House, Canberra, in the department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet. When the Prime Minister found out about
it he ordered the changes to be reversed. The new signs saying "we
respect diversity" have not been removed, though.

He's been heavily criticised for tackling petty problems while ignoring
some much more serious problems.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Spains Harden
2019-11-29 07:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
[ … ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various
community events in a building in which the men's room was on the
main floor and the women's at the bottom of a long flight of
stairs and then across part of the basement. The building, quite
an attractive one although a bit run-down, was constructed by the
Masons, who were at the time, I believe, an all-male group. They
must have added the women's toilets at some point when women began
attending their events, or when they started renting out the place
to assorted groups in order to pay the probably horrendous costs
of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to a group that runs
very popular entertainments with meals, and neither that group nor
their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a women's
bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
This was recently done in Parliament House, Canberra, in the department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet. When the Prime Minister found out about
it he ordered the changes to be reversed. The new signs saying "we
respect diversity" have not been removed, though.
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female, can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-29 08:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
[ … ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various
community events in a building in which the men's room was on the
main floor and the women's at the bottom of a long flight of
stairs and then across part of the basement. The building, quite
an attractive one although a bit run-down, was constructed by the
Masons, who were at the time, I believe, an all-male group. They
must have added the women's toilets at some point when women began
attending their events, or when they started renting out the place
to assorted groups in order to pay the probably horrendous costs
of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to a group that runs
very popular entertainments with meals, and neither that group nor
their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a women's
bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
This was recently done in Parliament House, Canberra, in the department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet. When the Prime Minister found out about
it he ordered the changes to be reversed. The new signs saying "we
respect diversity" have not been removed, though.
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female, can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
That is hardly news. I guess you haven't been following the posts in
which Quinn tries to dictate what everyone should do and say.
--
athel
Garrett Wollman
2019-11-30 05:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
That is hardly news. I guess you haven't been following the posts in
which Quinn tries to dictate what everyone should do and say.
Are you *trying* to be obtuse?

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Garrett Wollman
2019-11-30 04:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Spains Harden
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female,
*Herself*. Don't be a jackass.
Post by Spains Harden
can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
Because apparently the British left is full of TERFs. (Also full of
antisemites, but that's another issue.)

You wouldn't think a famously prudish people would be so incredibly
interested in what's between other people's legs, but I guess it's not
so.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Paul Wolff
2019-11-30 20:15:41 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, at 04:59:35, Garrett Wollman
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Spains Harden
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female,
*Herself*. Don't be a jackass.
Post by Spains Harden
can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
Because apparently the British left is full of TERFs. (Also full of
antisemites, but that's another issue.)
You wouldn't think a famously prudish people would be so incredibly
interested in what's between other people's legs, but I guess it's not
so.
That makes two of you, not being able to think beyond what's between
people's legs. Who's a jackass now? Don't we aim higher in aue?

Six weeks ago I wrote Message-ID: <PKi+Y+j1idqdFA+***@wolff.co.uk>.

And despite brave moral resistance, I've again looked up a definition of
that acronym that's worming its way into this thread. It's so convoluted
that I shall be only to happy to forget it by tomorrow, and leave it in
the territory of those who like nothing better than a good conceptual
battle with their socio-political enemies. Me, I just get along with
everyone as best I can, until my patience snaps - I even spoke politely
to the poor woman who knocked on my door this morning to ask me if I'd
support her party: I explained that they'd forfeited my support three
years ago for their abandonment of principle in espousing a cause that
only a minority of their MPs thought was right for the country. We
exchanged smiles and she toddled off. I doubt if I was the first, and
surely wouldn't be the last, to take such a line with the poor woman.
This used to be such a safe seat.
--
Paul
Tony Cooper
2019-11-30 20:47:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 20:15:41 +0000, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, at 04:59:35, Garrett Wollman
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Spains Harden
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female,
*Herself*. Don't be a jackass.
Post by Spains Harden
can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
Because apparently the British left is full of TERFs. (Also full of
antisemites, but that's another issue.)
You wouldn't think a famously prudish people would be so incredibly
interested in what's between other people's legs, but I guess it's not
so.
That makes two of you, not being able to think beyond what's between
people's legs. Who's a jackass now? Don't we aim higher in aue?
Could be, but I'm not sure of how many here are "tit men".
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Quinn C
2019-11-30 22:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, at 04:59:35, Garrett Wollman
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Spains Harden
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female,
*Herself*. Don't be a jackass.
Post by Spains Harden
can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
Because apparently the British left is full of TERFs. (Also full of
antisemites, but that's another issue.)
You wouldn't think a famously prudish people would be so incredibly
interested in what's between other people's legs, but I guess it's not
so.
That makes two of you, not being able to think beyond what's between
people's legs. Who's a jackass now? Don't we aim higher in aue?
A surprising interpretation of Garrett's rejection of focusing on
bodily differences.
In which you state some beliefs about the ramifications of chromosomes
and hormones. I've in the past pointed out that these may seem
plausible - because that's what society has told us for ages - but
there's no scientific proof for any of it; for any psychological
difference, in fact, which is what I find important ("gender is between
the ears.")

So what I think you're saying there, restated in my vocabulary, is that
you believe that sex causes gender. And I'll fight this belief as long
as there's no proof.
Post by Paul Wolff
And despite brave moral resistance, I've again looked up a definition of
that acronym that's worming its way into this thread. It's so convoluted
that I shall be only to happy to forget it by tomorrow,
"TERF" gets thrown around as a vague insult, and I'm not fond of that.
That's why when I mentioned it, I explicitly stated the one point
that's important to me: they are (among those) people who believe
feminist and trans concerns are at odds with each other. I think
they're tragically wrong in that, and harm both parties by believing
it. To me, trans rights are a logical extension of feminism, they're
the liberté that goes with the egalité of gender.
--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)
Paul Wolff
2019-11-30 23:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019, at 04:59:35, Garrett Wollman
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Spains Harden
"Respecting diversity" has its own problems. Some head-scratching in
the UK over whether somebody born a male, who now declares himself to
be female,
*Herself*. Don't be a jackass.
Post by Spains Harden
can use the ladies changing rooms or not.
Because apparently the British left is full of TERFs. (Also full of
antisemites, but that's another issue.)
You wouldn't think a famously prudish people would be so incredibly
interested in what's between other people's legs, but I guess it's not
so.
That makes two of you, not being able to think beyond what's between
people's legs. Who's a jackass now? Don't we aim higher in aue?
A surprising interpretation of Garrett's rejection of focusing on
bodily differences.
Really? Garrett asserted, in the context of sexually-distinguished
changing rooms, that the British were "incredibly interested" in
genitalia. I think we're more concerned about innate biology, and to
hell with whatever dangly bits there currently are under the clothing.
Post by Quinn C
In which you state some beliefs about the ramifications of chromosomes
and hormones. I've in the past pointed out that these may seem
plausible - because that's what society has told us for ages - but
there's no scientific proof for any of it; for any psychological
difference, in fact, which is what I find important ("gender is between
the ears.")
And long may it stay there.
Post by Quinn C
So what I think you're saying there, restated in my vocabulary, is that
you believe that sex causes gender. And I'll fight this belief as long
as there's no proof.
No, I'm not saying that. I don't talk about it at all, if I can help it,
or unless I'm careless enough to answer a post on the subject when my
guard is down.

But I do say that there can be no gender without sex. Gender, in the
modern sense that divorces it from language, would have no meaning
whatsoever in the absence of sex. Gender chases after sex. How can it
not be so?
Post by Quinn C
Post by Paul Wolff
And despite brave moral resistance, I've again looked up a definition of
that acronym that's worming its way into this thread. It's so convoluted
that I shall be only to happy to forget it by tomorrow,
"TERF" gets thrown around as a vague insult, and I'm not fond of that.
That's why when I mentioned it, I explicitly stated the one point
that's important to me: they are (among those) people who believe
feminist and trans concerns are at odds with each other. I think
they're tragically wrong in that, and harm both parties by believing
it. To me, trans rights are a logical extension of feminism, they're
the liberté that goes with the egalité of gender.
Actually, I don't have any dispute there, given the premises. But as for
getting involved, Hamlet is my guide - trans rights lie in that
undiscover'd country, from whose bourn no traveller returns.
--
Paul
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-01 14:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Wolff
Garrett asserted, in the context of sexually-distinguished
changing rooms, that the British were "incredibly interested" in
genitalia. I think we're more concerned about innate biology, and to
hell with whatever dangly bits there currently are under the clothing.
How is "genitalia" not "innate biology"?

At best your slogan could have invoked "innate psychology."
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-01 14:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
"TERF" gets thrown around as a vague insult,
Not by anyone who's never heard of it. It must be a purely intra-group
vague insult.
Post by Quinn C
and I'm not fond of that.
That's why when I mentioned it, I explicitly stated the one point
that's important to me: they are (among those) people who believe
feminist and trans concerns are at odds with each other. I think
they're tragically wrong in that, and harm both parties by believing
it. To me, trans rights are a logical extension of feminism, they're
the liberté that goes with the egalité of gender.
(What about fraternité?)

Trying to tie "gay rights" to "women's lib" in the 70s wasn't all that
great a tactic, either.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-29 07:40:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
[ … ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various
community events in a building in which the men's room was on the
main floor and the women's at the bottom of a long flight of
stairs and then across part of the basement. The building, quite
an attractive one although a bit run-down, was constructed by the
Masons, who were at the time, I believe, an all-male group. They
must have added the women's toilets at some point when women began
attending their events, or when they started renting out the place
to assorted groups in order to pay the probably horrendous costs
of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to a group that runs
very popular entertainments with meals, and neither that group nor
their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a women's
bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
This was recently done in Parliament House, Canberra, in the department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet. When the Prime Minister found out about
it he ordered the changes to be reversed. The new signs saying "we
respect diversity" have not been removed, though.
He's been heavily criticised for tackling petty problems while ignoring
some much more serious problems.
What I've been wondering is how, in the days before there were women
peers, Brenda managed if she was taken short after the Queen's Speech.
Maybe they installed a Portaloo for the occasion.
--
athel
Janet
2019-11-29 12:45:51 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@imm.cnrs.fr
says...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Cheryl
[ ? ]
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various
community events in a building in which the men's room was on the
main floor and the women's at the bottom of a long flight of
stairs and then across part of the basement. The building, quite
an attractive one although a bit run-down, was constructed by the
Masons, who were at the time, I believe, an all-male group. They
must have added the women's toilets at some point when women began
attending their events, or when they started renting out the place
to assorted groups in order to pay the probably horrendous costs
of maintaining it. They eventually sold it to a group that runs
very popular entertainments with meals, and neither that group nor
their predecessors seem to have figured out how to put a women's
bathroom of anything near the necessary size on the main floor
without reducing the size of the large room used for the
entertainments, the kitchen or the bar.
If it were in France they'd probably make the men's toilets unisex.
However, that might cause apoplexy in your part of the world.
This was recently done in Parliament House, Canberra, in the department
of Prime Minister and Cabinet. When the Prime Minister found out about
it he ordered the changes to be reversed. The new signs saying "we
respect diversity" have not been removed, though.
He's been heavily criticised for tackling petty problems while ignoring
some much more serious problems.
What I've been wondering is how, in the days before there were women
peers, Brenda managed if she was taken short after the Queen's Speech.
Maybe they installed a Portaloo for the occasion.
She gets changed in the Robing Room, which contains the delicately
named Chair of State. Maybe it doubles as a commode.

<https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/building/cultural-
collections/historic-furniture/the-collection/chairs-chairs-
chairs/robing-room-chair-of-state-/>

Janet.
Mark Brader
2019-11-29 20:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
--
Mark Brader I'm not pompous; I'm pedantic.
Toronto Let me explain it to you.
***@vex.net --Mary Kay Kare
Tony Cooper
2019-11-29 21:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.

The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number. They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.

What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men. Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.

The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-30 07:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number. They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men. Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
That is something I've wondered about for many years, all my life,
really. Why are architects unable to grasp that women need not just the
same amount of toilet facilities as men, but more? I once raised this
question here (probably about five years ago), and PTD commented that
architects must be very backward in Europe, and in France in
particular, because in the USA everything was perfect. I guess he was
thinking of Jersey City rather than where you live. He has probably
never lived with a woman (other than his mother) so he may have had no
occasion to notice what you and I have noticed. Nonetheless, I find it
surprising that all the architects only know about men's needs: surely
some of them must have lived with women.

As for everything being perfect in the USA, I remember once flying with
Avianca (the Colombian national airline) from Bogotá to Paris, when we
made a stop of an hour in San Juan, Puerto Rico. (I realize that Puerto
Rico isn't exactly in the USA, but the chaps who live there are
American, even if no one has explained that to Mr Trump.) We were
confined to a single room in the airport and not allowed to wander
about or visit the shops (at that time most Americans were terrified of
Colombia, seeing everybody from there as a potential murderer or drug
trafficker, so you couldn't let them mix with decent clean-living
Americans). It wasn't exactly the Black Hole of Calcutta, but cramped
all the same. Anyway, like all the other men I was able to satisfy my
peeing needs in less than five minutes, but the line for the women's
toilet snaked around the entire room.

Of course, the problems disappear if you have unisex toilets. For those
of you who have never experienced these, I can assure you that the
opportunities for voyeurism etc. are non-existent.
--
athel
Katy Jennison
2019-11-30 12:22:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number.  They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men.  Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
That is something I've wondered about for many years, all my life,
really. Why are architects unable to grasp that women need not just the
same amount of toilet facilities as men, but more?
[snip]

I find it surprising that all
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
the architects only know about men's needs: surely some of them must
have lived with women.
It's not just that: there are algorithms for this, there's endless
research published, there are recommended, defined standards widely
available to architects' practices on both sides of the Atlantic. No
excuse.
--
Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper
2019-11-30 14:26:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:22:55 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number.  They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men.  Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
That is something I've wondered about for many years, all my life,
really. Why are architects unable to grasp that women need not just the
same amount of toilet facilities as men, but more?
[snip]
I find it surprising that all
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
the architects only know about men's needs: surely some of them must
have lived with women.
It's not just that: there are algorithms for this, there's endless
research published, there are recommended, defined standards widely
available to architects' practices on both sides of the Atlantic. No
excuse.
It would be difficult to write a set of standards on this. The need
for the number of toilets available for a building such as this - a
performing arts center - is much different than the need in a building
of comparable size used for some other purpose.

Grabbing a figure out of thin air, I would say that 95% of the need
for a toilet is in 75 minutes of the day: the 30 minutes prior to a
performance, the 30 minutes after a performance, and the 15 minutes of
the intermission of a performance.

In a building used for other purposes the need is spaced out during
the open hours.

I am reminded of a person I knew that was applying for permits to
build an automotive body shop. The property on which the building was
to be constructed was fenced in with limited parking space. He was
required to set aside a certain number of parking places for
handicapped parking, and that number was a percentage of the available
parking space.

The percentage is the same for a retail establishment and an
automotive body shop. The need for available handicapped parking is
not the same, though, and the use of a parking spot is not the same.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-30 14:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 12:22:55 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number.  They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men.  Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
That is something I've wondered about for many years, all my life,
really. Why are architects unable to grasp that women need not just the
same amount of toilet facilities as men, but more?
[snip]
I find it surprising that all
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
the architects only know about men's needs: surely some of them must
have lived with women.
It's not just that: there are algorithms for this, there's endless
research published, there are recommended, defined standards widely
available to architects' practices on both sides of the Atlantic. No
excuse.
It would be difficult to write a set of standards on this. The need
for the number of toilets available for a building such as this - a
performing arts center - is much different than the need in a building
of comparable size used for some other purpose.
Grabbing a figure out of thin air, I would say that 95% of the need
for a toilet is in 75 minutes of the day: the 30 minutes prior to a
performance, the 30 minutes after a performance, and the 15 minutes of
the intermission of a performance.
In a building used for other purposes the need is spaced out during
the open hours.
I am reminded of a person I knew that was applying for permits to
build an automotive body shop. The property on which the building was
to be constructed was fenced in with limited parking space. He was
required to set aside a certain number of parking places for
handicapped parking, and that number was a percentage of the available
parking space.
I visited the Bodega Marine Laboratory of the University of California,
Davis, in Bodega Bay. There was a small amount of sleeping
accommodation for people like me, outside which there were three
parking spaces, two of which were reserved for handicapped people.

It used to be worse on our campus (it may still be, but I haven't
checked recently). There are plenty of parking spaces as a whole, not
necessarily well located, but from one vantage point you can see six
spaces, five of them reserved for handicapped people.
Post by Tony Cooper
The percentage is the same for a retail establishment and an
automotive body shop. The need for available handicapped parking is
not the same, though, and the use of a parking spot is not the same.
--
athel
Peter Moylan
2019-12-01 00:39:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It used to be worse on our campus (it may still be, but I haven't
checked recently). There are plenty of parking spaces as a whole, not
necessarily well located, but from one vantage point you can see six
spaces, five of them reserved for handicapped people.
For most of my time at Newcastle University, parking was a sore point.
The campus was not well served by public transport, so most staff and
students came by car. It used to take me 20 minutes each morning to find
a parking spot, and sometimes another 10-15 minutes to walk from there
to my office.

One day the management, with much fanfare, put out an announcement with
the "proof" that the complaints about parking were not justified. They
had, at great expense, sent up a helicopter, and were able to see over
20 empty parking spaces.

What they didn't mention - this came out only later, when somebody did
the check - was that all of those empty spaces were reserved, mostly for
senior management.

There was also the detail that none of the drivers crawling about the
campus had access to helicopter results.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
s***@gmail.com
2019-12-01 02:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
It used to be worse on our campus (it may still be, but I haven't
checked recently). There are plenty of parking spaces as a whole, not
necessarily well located, but from one vantage point you can see six
spaces, five of them reserved for handicapped people.
For most of my time at Newcastle University, parking was a sore point.
The campus was not well served by public transport, so most staff and
students came by car. It used to take me 20 minutes each morning to find
a parking spot, and sometimes another 10-15 minutes to walk from there
to my office.
One day the management, with much fanfare, put out an announcement with
the "proof" that the complaints about parking were not justified. They
had, at great expense, sent up a helicopter, and were able to see over
20 empty parking spaces.
What they didn't mention - this came out only later, when somebody did
the check - was that all of those empty spaces were reserved, mostly for
senior management.
There was also the detail that none of the drivers crawling about the
campus had access to helicopter results.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
the reason this is worth sharing with the world is?
Garrett Wollman
2019-12-01 17:52:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
There was also the detail that none of the drivers crawling about the
campus had access to helicopter results.
The latest thing now for parking garages is occupancy sensors for
every space.[1] Signs direct visitors to where the unoccupied spaces
are, and overhead lights illuminate green if there are available
spaces nearby and red if not. (Sucks to be red-green colorblind, I
guess.) Shopping centers and airports have particular incentives to
get customers into the available spaces as quickly as possible.

-GAWollman

[1] This used to be considered too expensive, because the owner would
have to lay an inductive loop detector under every space, which is a
lot of labor and materials. Nowadays an overhead-mounted camera can
monitor half a dozen spaces with machine vision.
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-01 19:13:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Peter Moylan
There was also the detail that none of the drivers crawling about the
campus had access to helicopter results.
The latest thing now for parking garages is occupancy sensors for
every space.[1] Signs direct visitors to where the unoccupied spaces
are, and overhead lights illuminate green if there are available
spaces nearby and red if not. (Sucks to be red-green colorblind, I
guess.) Shopping centers and airports have particular incentives to
get customers into the available spaces as quickly as possible.
We have that at the station. Very useful it is too. I'm not absolutely
sure, but I think the red ones stay on whereas the the green ones
alternate between on and off, so colourblind people should be able to
cope.
Post by Garrett Wollman
-GAWollman
[1] This used to be considered too expensive, because the owner would
have to lay an inductive loop detector under every space, which is a
lot of labor and materials. Nowadays an overhead-mounted camera can
monitor half a dozen spaces with machine vision.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-01 20:26:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Garrett Wollman
The latest thing now for parking garages is occupancy sensors for
every space.[1] Signs direct visitors to where the unoccupied spaces
are, and overhead lights illuminate green if there are available
spaces nearby and red if not. (Sucks to be red-green colorblind, I
guess.) Shopping centers and airports have particular incentives to
get customers into the available spaces as quickly as possible.
We have that at the station. Very useful it is too. I'm not absolutely
sure, but I think the red ones stay on whereas the the green ones
alternate between on and off, so colourblind people should be able to
cope.
they "blink"?
Garrett Wollman
2019-12-02 16:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Garrett Wollman
The latest thing now for parking garages is occupancy sensors for
every space.[1] Signs direct visitors to where the unoccupied spaces
are, and overhead lights illuminate green if there are available
spaces nearby and red if not. (Sucks to be red-green colorblind, I
guess.) Shopping centers and airports have particular incentives to
get customers into the available spaces as quickly as possible.
We have that at the station. Very useful it is too. I'm not absolutely
sure, but I think the red ones stay on whereas the the green ones
alternate between on and off, so colourblind people should be able to
cope.
The ones here don't blink, that I've seen -- but colorblindness is not
considered a legal disability under US law so they wouldn't
necessarily have to accommodate.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Snidely
2019-12-06 10:21:27 UTC
Permalink
On Monday, Garrett Wollman pointed out that ...
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Garrett Wollman
The latest thing now for parking garages is occupancy sensors for
every space.[1] Signs direct visitors to where the unoccupied spaces
are, and overhead lights illuminate green if there are available
spaces nearby and red if not. (Sucks to be red-green colorblind, I
guess.) Shopping centers and airports have particular incentives to
get customers into the available spaces as quickly as possible.
We have that at the station. Very useful it is too. I'm not absolutely
sure, but I think the red ones stay on whereas the the green ones
alternate between on and off, so colourblind people should be able to
cope.
The ones here don't blink, that I've seen -- but colorblindness is not
considered a legal disability under US law so they wouldn't
necessarily have to accommodate.
Long ago (the Jurassic, when I was a teenager), Oregon screened
driver's license applicants for red-green. I don't know if California
does or if Oregon has stopped doing it, and I haven't had a license in
any other state.

Trivia: ODOT but CalTrans (but then again, dot.ca.gov as well as
caltrans.gov)


/dps "the first O is long (AmE sense), like the vocative"
--
"That's a good sort of hectic, innit?"

" Very much so, and I'd recommend the haggis wontons."
-njm
Garrett Wollman
2019-12-06 17:05:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Long ago (the Jurassic, when I was a teenager), Oregon screened
driver's license applicants for red-green. I don't know if California
does or if Oregon has stopped doing it, and I haven't had a license in
any other state.
I believe that at least used to be universal. I assume if you tested
color-blind they'd make you do additional tests.

The only eye tests the Mass. Registry of Motor Vehicles made me do
when I renewed my license last month were (corrected) acuity and
peripheral vision tests.
Post by Snidely
Trivia: ODOT but CalTrans (but then again, dot.ca.gov as well as
caltrans.gov)
Not every state has a "department" of transportion, or even a
"department of transportation", although most do. Vermont Agency of
Transportation ("VTrans") is the one I remember, for obvious reasons.

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) just
celebrated its 10th birthday; it was formed by merging several
existing state agencies. Maryland, Michigan, and Mississippi all have
"MDOT"s, but Missouri's is "MoDOT" and Maine's is appartently just
"Maine DOT". Like many agencies in New York, the state DOT is
"NYSDOT" to avoid confusion with the similarly-named department in the
city of the same name, "NYCDOT". And so on....

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
RH Draney
2019-12-06 21:06:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by Snidely
Long ago (the Jurassic, when I was a teenager), Oregon screened
driver's license applicants for red-green. I don't know if California
does or if Oregon has stopped doing it, and I haven't had a license in
any other state.
I believe that at least used to be universal. I assume if you tested
color-blind they'd make you do additional tests.
My color vision was tested the first time I renewed my license in
Arizona after moving from New Mexico...the result didn't seem to have
any effect on the license I was issued....r

Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-06 19:13:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Snidely
Long ago (the Jurassic, when I was a teenager), Oregon screened
driver's license applicants for red-green. I don't know if California
does or if Oregon has stopped doing it, and I haven't had a license in
any other state.
The three where I've done it -- IL, NY, NJ -- don't.
Tony Cooper
2019-12-06 19:43:32 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 11:13:18 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Snidely
Long ago (the Jurassic, when I was a teenager), Oregon screened
driver's license applicants for red-green. I don't know if California
does or if Oregon has stopped doing it, and I haven't had a license in
any other state.
The three where I've done it -- IL, NY, NJ -- don't.
I renewed my driver's license yesterday to effect an address change. I
had to take an eye test that *may* have included a red-green test. The
test is done looking in a device, not at a chart on the wall. The
letters/numbers I had to read *may* have been in red and green, but I
didn't notice. Too bad this didn't come up the day before.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-06 20:37:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 11:13:18 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Snidely
Long ago (the Jurassic, when I was a teenager), Oregon screened
driver's license applicants for red-green. I don't know if California
does or if Oregon has stopped doing it, and I haven't had a license in
any other state.
The three where I've done it -- IL, NY, NJ -- don't.
I renewed my driver's license yesterday to effect an address change. I
had to take an eye test that *may* have included a red-green test. The
test is done looking in a device, not at a chart on the wall. The
letters/numbers I had to read *may* have been in red and green, but I
didn't notice. Too bad this didn't come up the day before.
That suggests colorblindness -- but that wouldn't be a test for
colorblindness. A typical one is an array of dots of different
sizes and colors, and if you see one symbol when you look at it,
you're not distinguishing some distinction, and if you see some
other one, you're fine. I suppose a single such design might
manage to identify more than one kind of color vision problem.

Goodness, if you want to be thorough, there are 38 plates to look at!

https://www.color-blindness.com/ishiharas-test-for-colour-deficiency-38-plates-edition/

Interesting that more than the first pageful of google hits was for
companies that sell test kits.
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-30 15:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Cheryl
It takes time and money to fix things. I've gone to various community
events in a building in which the men's room was on the main floor and
the women's at the bottom of a long flight of stairs and then across
part of the basement...
I am reminded of the 2016 movie "Hidden Figures", where the same issue
arises for a different reason, presumably because it did in real life.
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number. They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men. Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
That is something I've wondered about for many years, all my life,
really. Why are architects unable to grasp that women need not just the
same amount of toilet facilities as men, but more? I once raised this
question here (probably about five years ago), and PTD commented that
architects must be very backward in Europe, and in France in
particular, because in the USA everything was perfect.
Citation, please.

Books of architectural standards in fact recommend the appropriate
proportion of men's and women's facilities. Hopefully they have been
incorporated into building codes.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I guess he was
thinking of Jersey City
Your Tony Cooper imitation ill becomes you.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
rather than where you live. He has probably
never lived with a woman (other than his mother)
Is ignorance bliss?

Maybe the concept of opposite-sex roommates is too much for your elderly
brain to encompass.
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
so he may have had no
occasion to notice what you and I have noticed. Nonetheless, I find it
surprising that all the architects only know about men's needs: surely
some of them must have lived with women.
"all"? Evidence?
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
As for everything being perfect in the USA,
Your fantasies are tiring.
Bill Day
2019-11-30 16:26:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:04:06 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number. They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men. Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
The problem still persists, I see.
At my university, in the early 1960s, two building were added... a
new Fine Arts building had a lovely dance studio with all the glitzy
benefits... mirrored walls and hand rails for ballet...etc... and 2
sparkling new 'bathrooms'. However, after about 2 years, they realized
that 90% of dance students were women, and the lines were long. So...
they finally decided to make devote them both to women, because there
was a men's room not far away..up a ramp and down the hall.
It seemed like a fine solution... but one day the head of the
plumbing department walked into the maintenance building where I
worked part time. He had a strange grin on his face and a piece of
paper in his hand.
He explained that he had just gotten a request from the new (female)
dance instructor asking for modifications. It said: (I quote almost
exactly)

"In the dance studio, the girls really like the foot-washers, but we
wonder if it would be possible to pipe warm water to them?"

The plumber was trying to figure out how to gently explain.... with a
straight face... that it was really not possible.

---------------------------------

At almost the same time, a new Student Union was built. Lovely
building, but on the main floor there was a very large women's
facility where some committee had approved the latest innovation...
wall-hung female urinals! Naturally, the lines at the closed stalls
were lengthy as protests were filed explaining about ...various
issues. If I remember correctly, the next Summer, the room was totally
rebuilt with 4-5 more regular stalls.
--
remove nonsense for reply
Tony Cooper
2019-11-30 21:14:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 11:26:38 -0500, Bill Day
Post by Bill Day
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:04:06 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
A recently constructed building in this area has been the subject of
numerous complaints about the lack of toilet facilities for women. The
building is a "Performing Arts" center where plays and concerts are
held.
The architects defended the design stating that they determined the
number of women's bathrooms by estimating the percentage of women who
would attending events, and providing for that number. They further
defended their design by pointing out that there were more women's
facilities than men's.
What they did not take into account was the duration of use by women
compared to men. Men are in and out faster, so a toilet can
accommodate more men during the breaks than a woman's toilet can.
The architects must have been men who have never lived with a woman.
The problem still persists, I see.
At my university, in the early 1960s, two building were added... a
new Fine Arts building had a lovely dance studio with all the glitzy
benefits... mirrored walls and hand rails for ballet...etc... and 2
sparkling new 'bathrooms'. However, after about 2 years, they realized
that 90% of dance students were women, and the lines were long. So...
they finally decided to make devote them both to women, because there
was a men's room not far away..up a ramp and down the hall.
It seemed like a fine solution... but one day the head of the
plumbing department walked into the maintenance building where I
worked part time. He had a strange grin on his face and a piece of
paper in his hand.
He explained that he had just gotten a request from the new (female)
dance instructor asking for modifications. It said: (I quote almost
exactly)
"In the dance studio, the girls really like the foot-washers, but we
wonder if it would be possible to pipe warm water to them?"
The plumber was trying to figure out how to gently explain.... with a
straight face... that it was really not possible.
Which reminds me of story of the Indiana University coeds who were
first placed in former men's dormitory. It was said that thought the
hair-washing fixtures were quite nice, but placed a little low and the
lever produced only a short burst of water.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-11-27 17:06:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:44:26 GMT, Katy Jennison
[toff/tuft]
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by CDB
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian novel or
other, and voila!  A toff's father sits in the House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
How very educational this group is! It's because of this sort of thing
that I'm still here, despite the trolls. Thank you, Charles.
Perhaps even the trolls get they're language improved a little.
</bad-grammer troll>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Madhu
2019-11-27 17:23:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Tony Cooper
The unwashed among us - those who are not practitioners or dabblers
in linguistics - think of it as BBC Pronunciation, but we don't think
of the people behind the BBC voices as toffs.
"Toff" made me think of "tuft-hunter", from some Victorian novel or
other, and voila! A toff's father sits in the House of Lords.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/toff
John Creasey was apparently a popular author in India. I remember
seeing his "Toff" paperbacks all over the place in the last
century. (people's fiction collections, lending libraries)
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-27 06:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this, but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
+1
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 14:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this, but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
I can attest to that (both points). The contrast with Laura's London-speak
(I won't attempt to specify further) was most striking.
Katy Jennison
2019-11-27 16:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Pronunciation
and attributes the introduction of the term to Daniel Jones. In his
1917 _English Pronouncing Dictionary_ he used the term "Public School
Pronunciation", but in the second edition (1926) he uses "Received
Pronunciation".
His first choice is, to me, sensible. RP, though, isn't. The general
definition of "Received" is "was given". I guess you can say that
certain people were given that type of pronunciation by their
upbringing, but the original term used by Jones is more logical to me.
Is there something about the word "Received" that I'm not considering?
I think PTD has answered this, but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
I can attest to that (both points). The contrast with Laura's London-speak
(I won't attempt to specify further) was most striking.
Laura's what? I'm astonished. Any particular words or phrases? I
don't say you're wrong, but I'd have said that any vestigial London in
Laura's speech was virtually undetectable.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-27 18:33:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Katy Jennison
I think PTD has answered this, but I'd just like to add that RP (which
had changed over the past century, like everything else) is not
toff-speak as such. Some toffs do speak it, but most RP speakers are
not toffs at all. I should know, I speak it.
I can attest to that (both points). The contrast with Laura's London-speak
(I won't attempt to specify further) was most striking.
Laura's what? I'm astonished. Any particular words or phrases? I
don't say you're wrong, but I'd have said that any vestigial London in
Laura's speech was virtually undetectable.
Isn't that interesting! I thought it would be impolite to say something
at the time, in case non-RP pronunciation is still somehow stigmatized.
It's been more than a year, so I can't point to specific features that
stood out, but that you don't hear it at all bespeaks long familiarity
with her speech.
J. J. Lodder
2019-11-27 10:29:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
While I have long been familiar with the meaning of "received
pronunciation", the reason for it being called that eludes me.
It is the same 'received' as in 'received wisdom',

Jan
Loading...