What is the ideal cycling jacket (for UK commuting)

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote on 28/10/2006 00:39 +0100:
> >
> > Ophthamologists are trained in ophtics.
>
> ITYM Ophthics

Point taken. Thanks for clarifying. I'm feeling a but phthick myself
these days.

 

[Tony Raven]

Tim McNamara wrote on 28/10/2006 16:56 +0100:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote on 28/10/2006 00:39 +0100:
>>> Ophthamologists are trained in ophtics.
>> ITYM Ophthics
>
> Point taken. Thanks for clarifying. I'm feeling a but phthick myself
> these days.

Don't menthion it ;-)

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:33:29 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>[email protected] wrote on 28/10/2006 02:00 +0100:
>>
>> Dear Tony,
>>
>> That's news that I could have done without, but it's the way of the
>> world.
>>
>> I try to be tolerant of spelling diversity after my mis-spent youth
>> grading freshman essays, but I still dread the day when "nickle"
>> becomes officially recognized as a legitimate variant of "nickel"--I
>> know that the word sounds the same either way, but somehow the
>> dyslexic spelling seems to debase the five-cent piece.
>>
>
>That is the way of language unless you would prefer to be reciting the
>Lord's Prayer as:
>
> Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum,
> Si þin nama gehalgod.
> To becume þin rice,
> gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.
> urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg,
> and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum.
> and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soþlice.
>
>which is how it would have been said and written in England a thousand
>years ago. UK spelling only started to standardise with Samuel
>Johnson's dictionary in 1755 and in the US with Noah Webster in 1828.
>Indeed many of the differences between UK and US English spelling are
>because of the different approaches to spelling that these two
>individuals took in their dictionaries of conservative etymological and
> and simplified phonetic respectively and the differences in meaning
>from the divergence of the languages from the c17th.
>
>Even as recently as 1996, the German speaking nations completely
>overhauled their spelling system.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spelling_reform_of_1996
>
>See what an education you get from visiting urc Carl ;-)

Dear Tony,

Well, it's roughly what Professors Ross and Tripp taught me in Old
English and linguistics classes circa 1980.

Tripp also commented that there was a widespread tendency among young
Germans to ignore the more complicated rules of pronouns and articles.

But a refresher is always interesting.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Andrew Price]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:33:29 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

[---]

>Even as recently as 1996, the German speaking nations completely
>overhauled their spelling system.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spelling_reform_of_1996

Which was a total mess, as you can see from reading that article,
which presents the situation as it was by mid 2005, and points out the
large amount of dissent from both the public, respected academics and
writers, as well as the press.

In later developments, most of the really silly changes proposed have
been dumped, and a more sensible set of rules is supposed to be ready
by 2007.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 29 Oct 2006 01:00:07 +0200, Andrew Price <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:33:29 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>[---]
>
>>Even as recently as 1996, the German speaking nations completely
>>overhauled their spelling system.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_spelling_reform_of_1996
>
>Which was a total mess, as you can see from reading that article,
>which presents the situation as it was by mid 2005, and points out the
>large amount of dissent from both the public, respected academics and
>writers, as well as the press.
>
>In later developments, most of the really silly changes proposed have
>been dumped, and a more sensible set of rules is supposed to be ready
>by 2007.

Dear Andrew,

ORTHOGRAPHY, n. The science of spelling by the eye instead of the ear.
Advocated with more heat than light by the outmates of every asylum
for the insane. They have had to concede a few things since the time
of Chaucer, but are none the less hot in defence of those to be
conceded hereafter.

A spelling reformer indicted
For fudge was before the court cicted.
The judge said: "Enough—
His candle we'll snough,
And his sepulchre shall not be whicted."

--Bierce

I never know which side I'm on, but I suspect that the mob cannot--

Er, the people cannot be ordered. They must be led.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Andrew Price]

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:24:23 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>ORTHOGRAPHY, n.

[---]

>I never know which side I'm on, but I suspect that the mob cannot--
>
>Er, the people cannot be ordered. They must be led.

I suspect you may be right, as long as they're led in the right
direction. The really silly thing about the failed German spelling
reform was that (at least in comparison with some other languages) it
*just wasn't necessary* . As it was, the spelling was already very
largely phonetic, like modern Italian, perhaps even more so.

In their mania to simply what wasn't really necessary, they
unnecessarily complicated one of the few rules which could be a
stumbling block to slow learners, the distinction between "ss" and "ß"
(which the Swiss had already unceremoniously sent packing the best
part of a century ago).