|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 30, 2020 20:55:55 GMT
LJH wrote at the end of the September thread:
It will be October tomorrow and a year after your retirement,Vv, I think you should start us off. Perhaps you could update us on this:
“Brooklands and the Nürburgring are still in my sights, as well as a little cruise from St Petersburg to Vladivostok ... ”
Unfortunately, all those plans have been disCOVIDrupted. The guide I had arranged for the major part of the trip (the drive across Russia) cancelled all his operations until he's sure that COVID-19 is history (if ever it will be). That, in league with my country's external travel restrictions (no flights out of Oz for AU nationals – unless they happen to be disgraced cardinals fleeing to Rome) mean there's little chance that trip will happen this side of 2022, if at all.
It's disappointing, but life goes on (sorta kinda). At least I received full refunds of all moneys paid in advance.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 30, 2020 22:36:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Sept 30, 2020 22:39:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Oct 1, 2020 11:17:38 GMT
Thank you, Vv, for your posts. One hopes we will have a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine soon and that you will be able to resume your “Brooklands ambitions” before 2022. It is astonishing, is it not, to realise that barely eight months ago the word “covid” had not entered the lexicon. Now, it is scarcely possible to have a half-hour conversation with family, friend or stranger without its entering, even dominating, the conversation and here in the UK the news media hardly talk of anything else. We are often told that we are living in “strange” times. “Strange” really seems an insufficient descriptor.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Oct 1, 2020 21:30:17 GMT
Newspeak raises its head again?
From an article on ABC News this morning:
"This information is provided in accordance with [state] Police Transparency Guidelines and no further information will be provided," the statement said.
Presumably, the guidelines on transparency include keeping mum.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Oct 4, 2020 3:55:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Oct 4, 2020 8:22:40 GMT
Interesting, LJH. Thanks. In light of that, I might consider transparency in the above to be metaphor. The chap's final mention of " knowledge is power" took me back to the '60s and my high-school motto – the first one in my state not to be in Latin. Or transparency there might be a bit of "war is peace" Newspeak. Not unlike in AU's Freedom of Information laws, when the information requested is withheld, redacted, or "lost" – and for a considerable non-refundable fee. Even a "lack of information" result costs $$, so there's neither information nor "free". Doublespeak rules! Here is an example of mixed metaphors, something I often find amusing. "Nigel said (using, to my mind, an excessive amount of metaphor), 'You've taken a rare orchid and shut her away in a dark outhouse. You haven't nourished her or paid her enough attention. Is it any wonder that her roots are struggling to survive? Daisy is a trapped bird whose wings have been broken, she is a Fabergé egg that you have boiled for four minutes and eaten for your breakfast.'
"I stopped him just as he was embarking on a new metaphor to do with Daisy being a submerged volcano."
(Sue Townsend, Adrian Mole: The Prostrate Years. Penguin, 2010)The whole page can be found here.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Oct 5, 2020 21:52:31 GMT
I found this trivium in a piece by the New Yorker's (now retired) Comma Queen, Mary Norris.
The Greek word for newspaper is related to English's ephemeral.
The Greek is efimerida, and it just means, “this is only going to be interesting for a single day” — ephemera.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Oct 5, 2020 23:22:57 GMT
Thank you. That is not obvious but journal and several other Romance language cognates meaning newspaper also derive from words meaning “day”.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Oct 8, 2020 2:19:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Oct 8, 2020 5:34:37 GMT
>. Dr is their title, not their name. <
Mmmm, yes, in a very strict sense, but in general use - the way English is normally written and spoken - I’d say such titles as Miss and Dr are part of the name. Is “The Great Escape” the name of the film, or its title? In technical discussion, the latter, but it’s normal to use the former. Consider “what is the film called?”. That opens a wider discussion (because we must include slang and derogatory choices, for example) but the straight answer would be “The Great Escape”, taking that to be its name.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Oct 8, 2020 13:10:42 GMT
I was taught by mother decades ago that one should never include any kind of title when introducing oneself but I notice that this advice seems frequently to be ignored these days. James Bond has it right: “My name is Bond, Commander Bond”. Too often one hears, “I’m Doctor Wotsit” or “I’m Inspector Someone” and I always cringe. I have never heard anyone with a “proper” title using theirs. When being shown round a stately home by the owner, one hears, “I’m Charles Surname” never, “I’m the Earl of Wherever”. There are ways of clarifying if needed, “I’m Charles Surname, my father was the fourth earl of Wherever”. But custom and practice changes and not everyone has the advantage of my mother’s sense of etiquette. I find it particularly irritating when medical practitioners introduce themselves with the title of “doctor” when so few of them have a doctorate — most only have a lesser degree. The British National Health Service is careful to be correct. Another common practice, even from the BBC, is that of calling the wife of a knight “Lady Penelope Somebody”, for example, instead of “Lady Somebody”. Of course, as a lad, in the 1960s, I wouldn’t have dreamt of going to the theatre unless wearing a lounge suit (evening dress was already generally outdated). Nowadays, Covid-19 permitting, even smart casual is almost over-dressed. Nothing to be done, I am afraid! P.S. Don’t know what has happened to the qoutation from Vv ☹️
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Oct 8, 2020 17:16:44 GMT
I know what your mother meant, LJH, and why you cringe, but I suppose there are times when it’s useful to include the title. For example, where a patient has been dealt with by various ambulance staff, paramedics and then nurses, it will be relevant, useful, and quick for a more senior person who is taking over to establish the situation with the patient by saying “I’m Doctor Whoever”.
Similarly, a policeman in a situation where he needs to announce that he is a policeman will do so in a quick way, by stating the rank: “I’m PC Thingy / Sergeant Whatsit / Chief Inspector Bloggs”. The formal situation will mean it’s better to avoid the too-matey use of a given name. The alternative would seem cumbersome: “My name is Whatsit and I’m a Police Constable”.
I used to work with someone who thought it sensible always to answer the phone by saying “Mister Barlow” (I’ve changed the name). He perhaps thought it was impressive, but I doubt the callers thought so!
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Oct 8, 2020 19:55:55 GMT
Dave and LJH: I don't have a problem with someone introducing him/herself as Dr Soandso; my issue is with the announcement "My name is Dr Soandso". No issues with "I am Dr Soandso", just "My name is [title …]".
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Oct 8, 2020 23:10:07 GMT
So who is entitled to “claim” the use of these elevated honorifics? Plumbers? Refuse collectors? School teachers? Social workers? Journalists? Lawyers? Members of Parliament? By what right do medical practitioners without a doctorate or police inspectors without a degree claim the entitlement? I am retired, can I claim to be “Retiree Horner”?
|
|