Oxford dictionary and ize/ise

[DavidW]

I'm confused by the online OED entry for, e.g., 'organize'
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/organize

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

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

I like to use 'ize' and then point to the OED's practice, which is
correctly based on etymology and pronunciation, if I'm accused of using
the American spelling, but now that won't work. Now the accuser will
just say that the 'ize' given must be the American spelling if the
British speling is 'ise', proving his point!

[Peter Moylan]

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

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

[DavidW]

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

I thought most had that derivation, with the exceptions pretty obvious
(e.g. surprise, televise). I haven't had that problem, or if I have I've
been blissfully ignorant of it.

[occam]

Post by DavidW

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

I thought most had that derivation, with the exceptions pretty obvious
(e.g. surprise, televise). I haven't had that problem, or if I have I've
been blissfully ignorant of it.

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by occam

Post by DavidW

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

I thought most had that derivation, with the exceptions pretty obvious
(e.g. surprise, televise). I haven't had that problem, or if I have I've
been blissfully ignorant of it.

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

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

There is in fact no z in any Latin root. The letter z was introduced into
Latin in Late Republic - Early Imperial time so that Greek loanwords could
be spelled more like the Greek originals.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

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

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

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

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

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

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

But how is "televi[sz]e" formed from that root? Is it the "s" from
"television" or the "z" from "-ize"?
If it meant "to look from afar" then "televise" would be natural,
like "advise" or "revise".
But it means "to make into a television broadcast" - suggesting a use
of the "-ize" suffix. Really I think it's a sort of pun - using the
form of other vision words like "revise" but taking advantage of the
sound being the same as "-ize".

"televise" would be a back-formation from "television" (which was coined
in French in 1907) from Lat. visio < video 'I see'.

[CDB]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels

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

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

But how is "televi[sz]e" formed from that root? Is it the "s" from
"television" or the "z" from "-ize"?
If it meant "to look from afar" then "televise" would be natural,
like "advise" or "revise".
But it means "to make into a television broadcast" - suggesting a
use of the "-ize" suffix. Really I think it's a sort of pun - using
the form of other vision words like "revise" but taking advantage of
the sound being the same as "-ize".

The problem for me is that there is no element "telev-".

[Steve Hayes]

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

Well you could always have "televlep".

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Steve Hayes

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

Well you could always have "televlep".

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

[Steve Hayes]

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

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

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Steve Hayes

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

I used -ize in most cases where the ending except in words like despise
and circumcise which did not end in -ize.
But Microsoft's spell(ing) checker forced me to use -ise in all cases,
though the Pan newsreader disagrees. But I type more stuff in MS Word
than in Pan, so Microsoft wins.

You can download an "English (US)" spellchecker for MSWord, and it's not
improbable that they also offer an "English (South Africa)" one.

[RH Draney]

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

What happens when you search for "vocalize" and "vocalise"?...you should
get two different entries....r

[Richard Tobin]

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.
-- Richard

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

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

[DavidW]

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

[Richard Tobin]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin
oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

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

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin
oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

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

And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

[occam]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin
oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

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

And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin
oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

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

And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin
oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

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

And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

In music scores.

OTOH, in barrels the singular is stave.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

In music scores.

And stick fighting.

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

[RH Draney]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

In music scores.

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

In this country we call those wands....r

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

In music scores.

And stick fighting.

Indeed.

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

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

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin
oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

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

And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

Would "staves" be better?

That would be grand.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by occam

Post by Peter T. Daniels
And, more importantly, different editorial staffs.

'staffs'?

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

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.

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

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

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

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

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

[DavidW]

Thanks for that.

[John Varela]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

Post by John Varela
you
have access to your library's subscription.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

Jan

[John Varela]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

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

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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by John Varela

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

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

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

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

Jan

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by John Varela

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

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

<chuckle>

[J. J. Lodder]

[snip]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by John Varela

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

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

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

<chuckle>

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

Jan

[Richard Yates]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:25:52 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by John Varela

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

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

<chuckle>

It's a good joke, except that it gets the important part completely
wrong. The Mormons believe that when Jesus returns he will rule from,
no joke, Jackson County, Missouri. Must be true, it's Scripture.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Richard Yates
On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 20:25:52 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by John Varela

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

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

<chuckle>

It's a good joke, except that it gets the important part completely
wrong. The Mormons believe that when Jesus returns he will rule from,
no joke, Jackson County, Missouri. Must be true, it's Scripture.

Well everybody has to be somewhere!

[Peter Moylan]

Post by John Varela

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

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

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

/Anders, Denmark.

[Lewis]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

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

[Lewis]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

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

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

[Snidely]

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:27:06 UTC, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by DavidW

Post by Richard Tobin

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

oxforddictionaries.com is not the OED.

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

Oxford Dictionaries is a product of the OUP. It is not the OED, also
published by the OUP.
I'm sure information will be shared by the creators/editors of the OED
and those of the other Oxford English dictionaries.
https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
has online dictionaries in various languages: English, Spanish,
Gujarati, Hindi, Indonesian and isoXhosa
There are two English dictionaries: "British & World English" and "US
English".
Some of those dictionaries are completely free to use. There is also
"Premium Content" available only to subscribers.
The OED is on a completely separate website and the dictionary contents
is accessible to subscribers only.
http://www.oed.com

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

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

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

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

/dps

[Quinn C]

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

You

Post by Quinn C

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis
are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
results, right?

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

Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
that the #dobs part was ignored.
It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.
As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."

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

[Quinn C]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Quinn C

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

You

Post by Quinn C

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis
are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
results, right?

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

Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
that the #dobs part was ignored.
It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.
As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."

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

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Quinn C

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

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

You

Post by Quinn C

Post by Snidely

Post by Lewis
are aware that your google results are not the same as my Google
results, right?

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

Well, I don't see it. The first hit here is dictionary.com. I concluded
that the #dobs part was ignored.
It's possible that that special entry is suppressed by a plugin.
As for the original question, I heard many years ago that "they're not
really BrE and AmE spellings, but Oxford and Cambridge spellings."

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

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

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

[Jerry Friedman]

...

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries, including
mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

...

Land of sunshine and sharks, right?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a
library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

...
Land of sunshine and sharks, right?

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

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

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have a
library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

...
Land of sunshine and sharks, right?

We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for "God's
own country".
Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born in
Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
winter appears to be over.

You passed the equinox in March and won't do so again until
September, same as everybody else on the planet. Shall we
assume you mean 'solstice' or are you operating on a strange
new astronomical calendar?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have
a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

...
Land of sunshine and sharks, right?

We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for
"God's own country".
Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born
in Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
winter appears to be over.

You passed the equinox in March and won't do so again until
September, same as everybody else on the planet. Shall we assume you
mean 'solstice' or are you operating on a strange new astronomical
calendar?

Bugger. I always mix up those two words.

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

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
...

Post by Lewis

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by John Varela
For those who don't already know, many local libraries,
including mine, subscribe to the on-line OED. If you have
a library card,

and live in God's country,

That must mean something different to you than to me.

...
Land of sunshine and sharks, right?

We sometimes refer to Australia as Godzone, an abbreviation for
"God's own country".
Local legend says that Jesus was originally scheduled to be born
in Australia, but they couldn't find three wise men or a virgin.
P.S. It's Spring weather today. Now that we've passed the equinox,
winter appears to be over.

You passed the equinox in March and won't do so again until
September, same as everybody else on the planet. Shall we assume you
mean 'solstice' or are you operating on a strange new astronomical
calendar?

Bugger. I always mix up those two words.

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

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

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

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

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:55:39 GMT, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

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

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

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Thu, 05 Jul 2018 13:55:39 GMT, Peter Moylan

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

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

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

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

-- Richard

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

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

[Lewis]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

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

No, that is not the reason at all.

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

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

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

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

No, that is not the reason at all.
Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the
sun and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the
days when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and the two days
in between.

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

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

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

No, that is not the reason at all.
Astronomically the year is divide up based on the position of the
sun and the length of the days. The astronomical seasons start on the
days when the day is shortest, the day is longest, and the two days
in between.

That's of interesting theoretical interest, and I don't deny that many
countries have adopted it to define their seasons.
In Australia, however, the official definition uses meteorological
seasons rather than astronomical seasons. The astronomical seasons are
too badly misaligned with the annual temperature cycle to be of any use
to anyone.

Damn the traditions, full speed ahead!

The astronomical seasons in fact tell you when the days change from
getting longer to getting shorter, information useful to everyone who
isn't actually in the tropics.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Moylan

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

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

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

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan

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

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

I doubt that many countries have adopted official definitions of seasons
at all. What would purpose would it serve?
I suspect the notion that summer "officially" starts on the solstice is
more likely to be an invention of the news media than anything in law.
--

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

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

Meteorological: determined by the local official meteorological body.
In the UK the Met Office designates June 1st as the start of summer.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

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

-- Richard

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

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

What's Eris, chopped liver?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

[the Omrud]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

Thousands? Inestimable trillions, I would say.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.

What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

[s***@gmail.com]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

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

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

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

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

Post by s***@gmail.com
With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?

Not for me, thank you.

Post by s***@gmail.com
/dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"

Tapioca pudding, maybe? Sweet potato pie?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

I haven't heard of grape or raisin sauce. Raisins can be included in a
sort of sauce often served with ham. Applesauce isn't a sauce.
I'm pretty sure I have never been in the presence of either a quince or a
gooseberry.

Post by s***@gmail.com
With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?

Not for me, thank you.

Post by s***@gmail.com
/dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"

Tapioca pudding, maybe? Sweet potato pie?

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

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

... does it fail to meet? (Or should that be 'fail to meat?)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@gmail.com

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

I haven't heard of grape or raisin sauce. Raisins can be included in a
sort of sauce often served with ham. Applesauce isn't a sauce.
I'm pretty sure I have never been in the presence of either a quince or a
gooseberry.

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

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

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

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by s***@gmail.com
With all the emphasis these days on STEM classes, should we move on to rhubarb?

Not for me, thank you.

Post by s***@gmail.com
/dps "now for root desserts, what do we have?"

Tapioca pudding, maybe? Sweet potato pie?

Apple sauce isn't a sauce?

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

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

You must have not looked up "applesauce."

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.

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

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

You may have overlooked "and" and "principal."

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

What do you do with tomatoes other than cut them into nice wedges or slices
for a green salad, or as a topping on a burger, or puree them into any
of a vast array of sauces? Or dice them for salsa, but maybe you don't
have salsa Over There yet (not long ago it passed ketchup as the US's
best-selling condiment). Those are all vegetable, not fruit, functions.

Tomato juice/Bloody Mary not served in American bars then? And I didn't
deny that it had vegetable like uses, only that other fruits serve exactly
the same purposes without being redefined as vegetables.

Unlike any fruit juice.

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

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter T. Daniels
What non-vegetable fruits appear in salads, as condiments, and as the
principal component of sauces?

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

You may have overlooked "and" and "principal."

Or I may not. You may have overlooked that there are cuisines other
than American some of which have never been introduced to the
tomato and have therefore always relied on other fruits for the purposes
described.

[Janet]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

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

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

Janet.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Janet

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

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

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

Tomatoes are fruits and there are 3805 known planets and
thousands more as yet unknown.

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

Are they? Or are they used in savoury dishes in much the same way
as other fruits? Cucumber, I'll grant you, but tomato, it seems to
me, has very little in the way of usage that justifies even suggesting
that it is a vegetable.

Grilled tomatoes are an essential part of the traditional cooked
breakfast.
https://www.bbc.com/food/recipes/stressfreefullenglis_67721

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

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

In any case I'm pretty certain, unless eggs have been reclassified,
that being part of a Full English does not make anything a vegetable.
Apart from bubble and squeak (essential for me), quite the opposite
in fact.

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits

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

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

For some reason, people like to talk about tomatoes being fruits, not
vegetables, but I've never heard anyone say the same thing about the
many other fruits that are vegetables, such as eggplant, bell peppers
(capsicum), zucchini (courgette), butternut squash, acorn squash,
peas, cucumber, corn (maize), pumpkin, etc.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits

Yes, and like many other fruits, they are vegetables. Vegetables are
edible plants or parts of plants (leaves, stems, flowers, fruits,
etc).
As far as I'm concerned, saying tomatoes are fruits not vegetables is
like saying spinach is a leaf not a vegetable.
For some reason, people like to talk about tomatoes being fruits, not
vegetables, but I've never heard anyone say the same thing about the
many other fruits that are vegetables, such as eggplant, bell peppers
(capsicum), zucchini (courgette), butternut squash, acorn squash,
peas, cucumber, corn (maize), pumpkin, etc.

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

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

[Ken Blake]

On Fri, 06 Jul 2018 21:16:35 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018 09:56:17 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Richard Tobin
Also, tomatoes are vegetables, and there are nine planets.

Tomatoes are fruits

Yes, and like many other fruits, they are vegetables. Vegetables are
edible plants or parts of plants (leaves, stems, flowers, fruits,
etc).
As far as I'm concerned, saying tomatoes are fruits not vegetables is
like saying spinach is a leaf not a vegetable.
For some reason, people like to talk about tomatoes being fruits, not
vegetables, but I've never heard anyone say the same thing about the
many other fruits that are vegetables, such as eggplant, bell peppers
(capsicum), zucchini (courgette), butternut squash, acorn squash,
peas, cucumber, corn (maize), pumpkin, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_versus_vegetable
Botanically, a tomato is a fruit, a berry, consisting of the ovary,
together with its seeds, of a flowering plant.

Yes.

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

Yes, you said much the same thing I did. Thanks for the Wikipedia
citation.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

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

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Lewis

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

It is the point when winter starts, astronomically speaking.

Why does astronomy need to have a definition of winter?

It just does. There are four salient moments during the year, known as
the equinoxes and the solstices, which are determined by Universal forces,
and the first people to take an interest in such things -- long, long
before Stonehenge and its ilk were created -- welcomed the return of the
sun from its decline, and marked the midpoint of its career when days
started getting shorter again,and rejoiced when days started getting
longer again.
If Europeans were meant to live in tropical or semi-tropical latitudes,
they would have dark skin. Is melanoma the national disease of Australia?

New Zealand currently leads the melanoma stakes but that is as much
to do with ozone layer depletion as position relative to the tropics, most
of the country being in similar position to Northern Spain and Southern
France.

[Peter Moylan]

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

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

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

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

You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
is not. The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
to suggest that this is the only proper spelling. The citations include
references to the 'ise' spelling dating back centuries and this is no surprise
as this is the spelling transmitted from Middle French 'organiser' which
would therefore be the form prevalent amongst the nobility of England.
There is no question of OED 'holding out' at all. The two spellings have
always co-existed in BrE without causing any apoplexy. OED simply chose
one as its headword and has maintained it for ease rather than any great
polemic purpose.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 03:56:52 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

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

You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
is not. The OED entry is still headed by 'organize' but there is no intention
to suggest that this is the only proper spelling. The citations include
references to the 'ise' spelling dating back centuries and this is no surprise
as this is the spelling transmitted from Middle French 'organiser' which
would therefore be the form prevalent amongst the nobility of England.
There is no question of OED 'holding out' at all. The two spellings have
always co-existed in BrE without causing any apoplexy. OED simply chose
one as its headword and has maintained it for ease rather than any great
polemic purpose.

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

[DavidW]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
is not.

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

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

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

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

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

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
and has maintained it for ease

I don't believe that either.

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by DavidW

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
You assume that there is some great controversy here which there clearly
is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post by DavidW

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
and has maintained it for ease

I don't believe that either.

Entirely your prerogative. Doesn't mean it's not true though!

[Mark Brader]

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

[DavidW]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

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

[Mark Brader]

Post by DavidW

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

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

Why do you think it says that?

[DavidW]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

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

Why do you think it says that?

Because it says (British 'organise'), i.e. in Britain that's how you
spell it.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by DavidW

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

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

Why do you think it says that?

Because it says (British 'organise'), i.e. in Britain that's how you
spell it.

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

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

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

Why do you think it says that?

Because it says (British 'organise'), i.e. in Britain that's how you spell it.

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

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

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by DavidW

Post by Mark Brader

Post by DavidW

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

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

It doesn't say it's "the" "correct" spelling.

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

It says no such thing. Dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive
nor prescriptive. The alternative spellings are simply matters of
fact ... they exist. Neither approval nor disapproval is implied in
any way.

[DavidW]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by DavidW
(British 'organise') says, whether it was intended or not, that
'organise' is the spelling that should be used in Britain, IOW the
correct spelling in that country.

It says no such thing. Dictionaries are descriptive not proscriptive
nor prescriptive. The alternative spellings are simply matters of
fact ... they exist. Neither approval nor disapproval is implied in
any way.

Yes, I know. I don't mean "correct" in the eyes of the dictionary, but
widely considered correct in that country. You could equally argue that
'organise' wouldn't be wrong in an American newspaper, but many readers
would think so, and there's just no reason to spell it that way when
'organize' is the accepted spelling in the U.S..

[s***@my-deja.com]

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

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