Discussion:
surprisingly or unsurprisingly?
(too old to reply)
Yurui Liu
2021-01-26 14:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi,

I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following dialogue makes sense.

I'd appreciate your help.


Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last year?
Me: Wow, that's a lot.
Ron: But remember that the airline handled 80 million passengers that year.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really low, unsurprisingly.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-26 16:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last year?
Me: Wow, that's a lot.
Ron: But remember that the airline handled 80 million passengers that year.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.

"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky. Occasionally they happen
on the ground, when two aircraft collide at speed.

Thus there's nothing surprising about the lowness of the number
(except they apparentlty weren't operating at anywhere near capacity),
and no reason to remark on it.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-27 09:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Occasionally they happen
on the ground, when two aircraft collide at speed.
Yes, but that is a -very- rare event.
The worst ever was a Dutch-American collision.
The Dutch took most of the blame for it,
(but not all)
Some lucky Americans survived it,

Jan

PS Learned a new word last week, 'hardover' as in 'rudder hardover'
It was mentiond as a possible cause
of that Indonesian 737 falling out of the sky.
It is a servo failure that causes the rudder to lock
in the max out position.
Known, and supposed to have been fixed long ago, but...
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-27 10:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Occasionally they happen
on the ground, when two aircraft collide at speed.
Yes, but that is a -very- rare event.
The worst ever was a Dutch-American collision.
That was in Tenerife? Or am I thinking of another accident where one
aircraft taxied into the other?
Post by J. J. Lodder
The Dutch took most of the blame for it,
(but not all)
Some lucky Americans survived it,
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-27 13:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Occasionally they happen
on the ground, when two aircraft collide at speed.
Yes, but that is a -very- rare event.
The worst ever was a Dutch-American collision.
That was in Tenerife? Or am I thinking of another accident where one
aircraft taxied into the other?
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
KLM mistakenly believed they had clearance for take-off.
Pan-Am's captain rammed the throttles forward and swerved,
but couldn't make speed rapidly enough.
KLM's captain tried to hop over Pan-Am, but couldn't for lack of speed.

The accident led to many changes, in communication protocols,
and in Crew/Cockpit Resource Managment, aka CRM.

Emphasis has been placed on captain and first officer being collegues,
who can and must learn from each other,
and who can (and must if necessary) criticise each other,
rather than being boss and underling.

BTW, some science departments could profit from the application
of the same ideas, just imho of course,

Jan

[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-01-27 13:27:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Occasionally they happen
on the ground, when two aircraft collide at speed.
Yes, but that is a -very- rare event.
The worst ever was a Dutch-American collision.
That was in Tenerife? Or am I thinking of another accident where one
aircraft taxied into the other?
Yes, Tenerife.
I've always been a bit nervous landing and taking off at Tenerife
Norte, for that reason, and also because it's quite small with
mountains nearby, but it's pretty much the only bit of flat land (on a
dried up lake) in the north of the island. Once I mentioned to someone
that I thought it was a bit dangerous. She said "You wouldn't say that
if you'd ever landed at Quito."

Reina Sofía in the south is much safer, but also much more boring.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
KLM mistakenly believed they had clearance for take-off.
Pan-Am's captain rammed the throttles forward and swerved,
but couldn't make speed rapidly enough.
KLM's captain tried to hop over Pan-Am, but couldn't for lack of speed.
The accident led to many changes, in communication protocols,
and in Crew/Cockpit Resource Managment, aka CRM.
Emphasis has been placed on captain and first officer being collegues,
who can and must learn from each other,
and who can (and must if necessary) criticise each other,
rather than being boss and underling.
BTW, some science departments could profit from the application
of the same ideas, just imho of course,
Not just your opinion. Mine also.
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
Probably taxiing, but I chickened out of making the choice in my post.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-27 15:15:52 UTC
Permalink
On Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 6:04:13 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
--
Jerry Friedman
musika
2021-01-27 16:33:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
And "skying" is already a word.
--
Ray
UK
Quinn C
2021-01-27 17:24:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
Also not related to "taxonomy". I don't assume it was intended, but your
post could, how do I say that, incite? this misconception.
--
If you kill one person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go
to an institution for the insane; if you kill 20,000, you get
political asylum. -- Reed Brody, special counsel
for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-27 20:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
Also not related to "taxonomy". I don't assume it was intended, but your
post could, how do I say that, incite? this misconception.
I did think about writing "taxionomy".
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-27 17:55:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-28 09:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
Skiing was already common in Europe (for those who could afford it)
between the world wars.

I remember having seen a photograph somewhere
showing British troops with skis in Norway, 1940,
to help the Norwegians fight Hitler.
So enough ski-capable manpower was available,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-28 15:36:47 UTC
Permalink
[spelling of [i] at word ends]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
Skiing was already common in Europe (for those who could afford it)
between the world wars.
I remember having seen a photograph somewhere
showing British troops with skis in Norway, 1940,
to help the Norwegians fight Hitler.
So enough ski-capable manpower was available,
Does that have anything to do with the early spelling -ee? Or the
possible sh-. which suggests a variant of the word might have
come via Swedish?

As for 1940, pish-tush: one of the two postage stamps the
US issued for the 1932 Winter Olympics depicts a skier in
the crouching take-off position, and they wouldn't have used
an image that wasn't instantly familiar to the millions of people
who would be sticking the stamps onto letters.

Pictures of the Norwegian campaign are widespread and well known.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-28 18:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[spelling of [i] at word ends]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy
fog, [1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
Skiing was already common in Europe (for those who could afford it)
between the world wars.
I remember having seen a photograph somewhere
showing British troops with skis in Norway, 1940,
to help the Norwegians fight Hitler.
So enough ski-capable manpower was available,
Does that have anything to do with the early spelling -ee? Or the
possible sh-. which suggests a variant of the word might have
come via Swedish?
No, merely with skiing being less of 'an exotic sport'
in Europe than it was in the USA.

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-28 19:50:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[spelling of [i] at word ends]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy
fog, [1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
Skiing was already common in Europe (for those who could afford it)
between the world wars.
I remember having seen a photograph somewhere
showing British troops with skis in Norway, 1940,
to help the Norwegians fight Hitler.
So enough ski-capable manpower was available,
Does that have anything to do with the early spelling -ee? Or the
possible sh-. which suggests a variant of the word might have
come via Swedish?
No, merely with skiing being less of 'an exotic sport'
in Europe than it was in the USA.
As if the difference between 1920 and 1932 and 1940
means nothing to you.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-29 10:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[spelling of [i] at word ends]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy
fog, [1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
Skiing was already common in Europe (for those who could afford it)
between the world wars.
I remember having seen a photograph somewhere
showing British troops with skis in Norway, 1940,
to help the Norwegians fight Hitler.
So enough ski-capable manpower was available,
Does that have anything to do with the early spelling -ee? Or the
possible sh-. which suggests a variant of the word might have
come via Swedish?
No, merely with skiing being less of 'an exotic sport'
in Europe than it was in the USA.
As if the difference between 1920 and 1932 and 1940
means nothing to you.
Ah, yes, I must have completely forgotten
about that famous American ski regiment
that fought Hitler in the snows of the Battle of the Bulge,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-29 13:54:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
[spelling of [i] at word ends]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy
fog, [1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
A children's reader from ca. 1920 described an exotic sport being
imported from Scandinavia as "skeeing." I have a vague feeling
that it might even have been given as "sheeing."
Skiing was already common in Europe (for those who could afford it)
between the world wars.
I remember having seen a photograph somewhere
showing British troops with skis in Norway, 1940,
to help the Norwegians fight Hitler.
So enough ski-capable manpower was available,
Does that have anything to do with the early spelling -ee? Or the
possible sh-. which suggests a variant of the word might have
come via Swedish?
No, merely with skiing being less of 'an exotic sport'
in Europe than it was in the USA.
As if the difference between 1920 and 1932 and 1940
means nothing to you.
Ah, yes, I must have completely forgotten
about that famous American ski regiment
that fought Hitler in the snows of the Battle of the Bulge,
Neither a children's reader from ca. 1920 nor the 1932 Olympics
was about battling Nazis.

The battling of Nazis in 1940 simply has nothing whatsoever to
do with the fact that "ski" was a new loanword in English ca. 1920
whose spelling had not yet settled on a single option.

Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-30 10:48:04 UTC
Permalink
Peter T. Daniels <***@verizon.net> wrote:

[-]
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.

That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-30 12:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?

It would be pretty stupid if newspapers used spellings that were
unfamiliar to the young people whose purchases they will rely on
for their continued existence.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-30 17:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be pretty stupid if newspapers used spellings that were
unfamiliar to the young people whose purchases they will rely on
for their continued existence.
Thats a strange comment, coming from you.
Surely kiddies from Anglosaxonia must be exposed
to far more variant spellings,

Jan
Tony Cooper
2021-01-30 17:28:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
How do you think it is funded in the US?

US Public schools are funded by the federal government, the states
government, and local governments. The percentage of funding from
each of those depends on the state and the local school system.

Each of those is "state funding" in the sense that that each level of
government is a "state" source.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-01-30 22:28:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think
spelling is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding. Decrees about spelling only
apply to documents that the government has (perhaps partially)
paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example, and there are
indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own, which
may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
How do you think it is funded in the US?
US Public schools are funded by the federal government, the states
government, and local governments. The percentage of funding from
each of those depends on the state and the local school system.
Each of those is "state funding" in the sense that that each level
of government is a "state" source.
What about those charter schools that were set up to protect the
children from standard spelling?
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW
Tony Cooper
2021-01-30 23:21:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 09:28:37 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think
spelling is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding. Decrees about spelling only
apply to documents that the government has (perhaps partially)
paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example, and there are
indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own, which
may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
How do you think it is funded in the US?
US Public schools are funded by the federal government, the states
government, and local governments. The percentage of funding from
each of those depends on the state and the local school system.
Each of those is "state funding" in the sense that that each level
of government is a "state" source.
What about those charter schools that were set up to protect the
children from standard spelling?
I don't know anything about the charter schools' position on spelling,
but charter schools are also "state funded". They receive the same
funding as public schools, but do not have the same restrictions on
them that public schools have.

The rules for charter schools - as with about everything else in this
country - vary by state. It's dangerous to make a blanket statement
about anything in the US, but students at charter schools do not pay
tuition. Charter schools can be non-profit, but do not confuse
"non-profit" with "not profitable for the owners or controlling
organization".


There are three basic types of schools in the US: public, private,
and charter. Most of the private schools in the US are
religion-affiliated. Catholic schools, for example.

The above pertains to schools from Pre-K to 12th Grade (high school).
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Rich Ulrich
2021-01-31 20:27:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 18:21:37 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 09:28:37 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think
spelling is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding. Decrees about spelling only
apply to documents that the government has (perhaps partially)
paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example, and there are
indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own, which
may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
How do you think it is funded in the US?
US Public schools are funded by the federal government, the states
government, and local governments. The percentage of funding from
each of those depends on the state and the local school system.
Each of those is "state funding" in the sense that that each level
of government is a "state" source.
What about those charter schools that were set up to protect the
children from standard spelling?
I don't know anything about the charter schools' position on spelling,
but charter schools are also "state funded". They receive the same
funding as public schools, but do not have the same restrictions on
them that public schools have.
One of the big fights is at the state level among proponents of
charter schools. The churchy-est of the advocates want funding
without infringing on a church-school curriculum. Others insist on
mandatory "standards" -- like the public schools.

No-standards affects science in the teaching of Creationism or sex
education. If they can keep out teachers' unions (tenure and
other job protection), they also can keep down the number
of objections to what they sneak into the curriculumn.

Or it affects social science and literature, if they want every
lesson to condemn homosexuality and (maybe, still) race-mixing.

The non-churchy advocates can be looking for an alternative
to public schools which sometimes have fallen into disarray. In
some states, a local charter school might also be able to gain
significant extra funding by inviting cash contributions.
Post by Tony Cooper
The rules for charter schools - as with about everything else in this
country - vary by state. It's dangerous to make a blanket statement
about anything in the US, but students at charter schools do not pay
tuition. Charter schools can be non-profit, but do not confuse
"non-profit" with "not profitable for the owners or controlling
organization".
There are three basic types of schools in the US: public, private,
and charter. Most of the private schools in the US are
religion-affiliated. Catholic schools, for example.
The above pertains to schools from Pre-K to 12th Grade (high school).
Schools are expensive... I know that there were campaigns to get
government money, even before the Charter school movement.
Haven't some religious schools gained funding for textbooks and
transportation (bussing)? More than that?
--
Rich Ulrich
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-30 18:38:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
Your ignorance really knows no bounds, does it.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be pretty stupid if newspapers used spellings that were
unfamiliar to the young people whose purchases they will rely on
for their continued existence.
Thats a strange comment, coming from you.
Surely kiddies from Anglosaxonia must be exposed
to far more variant spellings,
Imposed standardization is not "variant spellings."

And no, literate English-readers are not "exposed to far more
[than what?] variant spellings," because published English spelling
follows one of two international standards. Those standards have
been arrived at by centuries of experience, and they do a very fine
job of representing a very wide variety of accents.

You initiated the discussion of NZ/Aus accents. Those are quite
distinctive (and distinct), but English spelling records both just as
well as it records every other dialect: there are different, consistent
interpretations of the spelling for each dialect.

Now address your false claim that government meddling in spelling
only affects government publications.

(Theodore Roosevelt imposed "simplified spelling" on the Government
Printing Office, so presumably for a few years all government documents
spelled "thru" and such. The order was immediately rescinded by Taft,
and even during TR's time had no effect at all on US spelling.)
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-31 11:17:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
Your ignorance really knows no bounds, does it.
So does yours. The equivalent of the Dutch system for the USA
would be to have all education federally funded,
and for all schools equally.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be pretty stupid if newspapers used spellings that were
unfamiliar to the young people whose purchases they will rely on
for their continued existence.
Thats a strange comment, coming from you.
Surely kiddies from Anglosaxonia must be exposed
to far more variant spellings,
Imposed standardization is not "variant spellings."
And no, literate English-readers are not "exposed to far more
[than what?] variant spellings," because published English spelling
follows one of two international standards. Those standards have
been arrived at by centuries of experience, and they do a very fine
job of representing a very wide variety of accents.
You initiated the discussion of NZ/Aus accents. Those are quite
distinctive (and distinct), but English spelling records both just as
well as it records every other dialect: there are different, consistent
interpretations of the spelling for each dialect.
Now address your false claim that government meddling in spelling
only affects government publications.
False quote. It is government funded.
And yes, that includes all education,
not just in the Netherlands, also in Belgium.

Individuals, and all organisations that do not receive govt money,
such as newspapers for example, can spell as they like,

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-31 14:28:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Oh, that's right, you're in one of those countries that think spelling
is a matter of government decree
That is a common misunderstanding.
Decrees about spelling only apply to documents
that the government has (perhaps partially) paid for.
That doesn't apply the newspapers for example,
and there are indeed newspapers that have style guides of their own,
which may include variant spellings,
It doesn't apply to schools?
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
Your ignorance really knows no bounds, does it.
So does yours. The equivalent of the Dutch system for the USA
would be to have all education federally funded,
and for all schools equally.
There were some Brits here who didn't seem tp grasp the nature
of the US system. They, but somehow not you, have overcome that.
The Federal government has VERY LITTLE POWER. Education is the
business of STATE and LOCAL governments. It is publicly funded
and locally overseen.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It would be pretty stupid if newspapers used spellings that were
unfamiliar to the young people whose purchases they will rely on
for their continued existence.
Thats a strange comment, coming from you.
Surely kiddies from Anglosaxonia must be exposed
to far more variant spellings,
Imposed standardization is not "variant spellings."
And no, literate English-readers are not "exposed to far more
[than what?] variant spellings," because published English spelling
follows one of two international standards. Those standards have
been arrived at by centuries of experience, and they do a very fine
job of representing a very wide variety of accents.
You initiated the discussion of NZ/Aus accents. Those are quite
distinctive (and distinct), but English spelling records both just as
well as it records every other dialect: there are different, consistent
interpretations of the spelling for each dialect.
Now address your false claim that government meddling in spelling
only affects government publications.
False quote. It is government funded.
"Decrees about spelling only apply to documents that the government
has (perhaps partially) paid for."

If that wasn't what you meant, then that isn't what you should have said.
Post by J. J. Lodder
And yes, that includes all education,
not just in the Netherlands, also in Belgium.
Ah yes, now I'm remembering stories of religious discrimination
in schools. Are your schools too, as in some German-speaking
countries, also sites of religious indoctrination? Was it Austria .
where the only options were Catholic or Protestant, and Jews
and nonreligious -- let alone Muslims or Hindus -- were S.O.L.?
Post by J. J. Lodder
Individuals, and all organisations that do not receive govt money,
such as newspapers for example, can spell as they like,
You failed to acknowledge how stupid that would be
Tony Cooper
2021-01-31 14:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by J. J. Lodder
It does. Amost all education is (at least in part) state-funded.
(wouldn't be a bad idea for the US of A either)
So does yours. The equivalent of the Dutch system for the USA
would be to have all education federally funded,
and for all schools equally.
Two words that absolutely, unequivocally, prove that a school system
in the US under federal control could be a disaster: Betsy DeVos.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-28 09:15:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
Meriam Webster lists it.
Wikipedia says: taxiing, rarely spelled taxying,

Jan
Jerry Friedman
2021-01-28 16:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Jerry Friedman
[taxonomy of plane crashes]
Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, Tenerife. Pan-Am, taxiing, [1] missed their turn-off in heavy fog,
...
Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] Do you use taxying, or taxiing? Or is that pondial?
"Taxiing", like "skiing". I've never seen either spelled with a "y".
Meriam Webster lists it.
Wikipedia says: taxiing, rarely spelled taxying,
OK, it exists. Here's the ngram comparison:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=taxying%2Ctaxiing&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=26&smoothing=3&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ctaxying%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Ctaxiing%3B%2Cc0

shorturl.at/uwyMP

As I said, I've never seen it (that I remember).
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-27 13:33:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
If there are fatalities, we hear about them.

People do not die when planes are just sitting there.

During takeoff, a plane has moved into the air.

During landing, a plane is moving from the air,

They fall out of the air.

Maybe your news is censored so you only get happy news
about the airline industry.

Tenerife is in fact what I was thinking of with my "occasionally."
The labels on the planes were of no interest.

Something very dissimilar happened at LaGuardia not long
ago, but there was little real damage and no injuries.
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-27 14:49:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
If there are fatalities, we hear about them.
In small print, and I guess for you only if Americans are hurt.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
People do not die when planes are just sitting there.
During takeoff, a plane has moved into the air.
During landing, a plane is moving from the air,
They fall out of the air.
Really, there are limits to how far you can twist the language
to avoid being seen as having been wrong.
The most common accidents of these kind
are technically known as 'runway excursions'.
Planes landing before the touch-down point,
or veer off the runway, or overshoot it.

There is no way that those events can be described
as 'falling out of the air',

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-01-27 15:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following
dialogue makes sense.
I'd appreciate your help.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last
year? Me: Wow, that's a lot. Ron: But remember that the airline handled
80 million passengers that year. Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the
number into perspective, that's actually surprisingly low. Me: Ohhh, now
that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really
low, unsurprisingly.
The people who fly planes are the pilots, not the passengers.
"Me" seems awfully naive. Passenger deaths tend to be over 100 at a
time, because that's how many people a plane holds, and passenger
deaths relate to planes falling out of the sky.
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
If there are fatalities, we hear about them.
In small print, and I guess for you only if Americans are hurt.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
People do not die when planes are just sitting there.
During takeoff, a plane has moved into the air.
During landing, a plane is moving from the air,
They fall out of the air.
Really, there are limits to how far you can twist the language
to avoid being seen as having been wrong.
The most common accidents of these kind
are technically known as 'runway excursions'.
Planes landing before the touch-down point,
or veer off the runway, or overshoot it.
There is no way that those events can be described
as 'falling out of the air',
I'm sorry you don't understand what airplanes do.
Tony Cooper
2021-01-27 17:04:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by J. J. Lodder
Well, no.
Actually most accidents happen during take-off and landing.
In many of those cases there are survivors.
Planes falling out of the skies just get -much- more publicity.
If there are fatalities, we hear about them.
In small print, and I guess for you only if Americans are hurt.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
People do not die when planes are just sitting there.
During takeoff, a plane has moved into the air.
During landing, a plane is moving from the air,
They fall out of the air.
Really, there are limits to how far you can twist the language
to avoid being seen as having been wrong.
The most common accidents of these kind
are technically known as 'runway excursions'.
Planes landing before the touch-down point,
or veer off the runway, or overshoot it.
There is no way that those events can be described
as 'falling out of the air',
NEWS ITEM: "NJ SOURCE REVEALS THOUSANDS OF TODDLERS FALLING OUT OF
THE AIR IN PLAYGROUNDS"

The story reveals that these horrific accidents were previously buried
in statistics about playground bumps and bruises resulting from falls
from swings and jungle gyms.

A sidebar story reclassifies teeter-totter injuries as "rough
landings".
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
J. J. Lodder
2021-01-27 09:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yurui Liu
I'd like to know which version of the last sentence in the following dialogue makes sense.
Ron: Did you hear that at least 50 people died flying this airline last year?
Me: Wow, that's a lot.
Ron: But remember that the airline handled 80 million passengers that year.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's actually
surprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's unsurprisingly low.
Me: Ohhh, now that you've put the number into perspective, that's really low,
unsurprisingly.
Being surprising or unsurprising depends on your expectations,
so it can't be a matter of language use.
Apart from that, this is a conversation that you can only hear
from Chinese language learners,

Jan
Loading...