home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Path: sparky!uunet!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!ens
- From: ens@ccu.umanitoba.ca ()
- Subject: Re: quite unique
- Message-ID: <Bxy9Gy.How@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
- Sender: news@ccu.umanitoba.ca
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ccu.umanitoba.ca
- Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
- References: <1992Nov16.182859.25273@Princeton.EDU> <28246@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1992Nov17.163733.4389@Princeton.EDU> <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk>
- Distribution: alt
- Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 06:17:22 GMT
- Lines: 50
-
- In <28361@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
- [...]
- >The specialisation of originally synonymous terms to express finer
- >distinctions, or to remove ambiguity, for example. An instance of this
- >is the British adoption of the US spelling "program" to designate a
- >computer program, and the specialisation of "programme" for such cases
- >as "programme of research".
-
- 'Program' is not just the US spelling; it was the regular British
- spelling until the 19th century.
-
- In any case the word has pretty much the same meaning in both cases.
- Would you consider it an improvement to adopt yet another spelling for
- a TV programn? The possibility for ambiguity between a computer
- program and a program of research is negligible, certainly too small
- to require separate spellings. Or perhaps the British should introduce
- schematic 'diagramme' for use in the electronics industry.
-
- >Another improvement is the adoption in
- >Britain of the US meaning of "billion", rather than fostering
- >ambiguity by continuing to fight a losing battle in favour of the
- >British "billion".
-
- At last! Before you know it, we'll have you spelling 'favor' correctly.
-
- >[...]I challenge you to cite a history of the English language which does
- >not think that the efforts of Johnson have had a considerable
- >influence. Most, for example, blame Johnson and his ilk for the silly
- >"don't split infinitives" rule which still bedevils English -- and
- >discussions on this group.
-
- So his influence was negative.
-
- >[...]Not only
- >were there many well-educated word-coiners at work in the literary
- >arena of [Shakespeare's] time, the common people of the time were capable of
- >understanding much more complex language than they are today, and the
- >arts of story-telling, repartee, witticism, and general word-play were
- >much more widespread, and of a much higher standard, among ordinary
- >people, than they are today. The modern Irish "gift of the gab" is a
- >archaic survival from times of much greater linguistic skills in the
- >common people.
-
- I don't know your source for these bold claims, but if your comparing
- the repartee and witticisms from literature of an earlier time with
- the repartee you hear in your local pub, you should apply a correction
- factor. (They're probably too busy arguing about split infinitives
- to be witty.)
-
- Werner
-