|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 8, 2021 10:56:00 GMT
For any fans of Oscar Wilde, I recommend Rupert Everett's film The Happy Prince, which I discovered online this evening. It was on a geoblocked Aussie site, so there's no use giving the link, but I'm sure there will be other places to find it. Cast includes some of Britain's finest: Everett (as Wilde; also writer and director), Colin Firth, and Emily Watson among others.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 8, 2021 20:37:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 8, 2021 22:42:02 GMT
I know of “root” in that meaning, Vv, but it’s not in popular use in British English, so I wouldn’t have noticed anything odd in the sentence you quote. Perhaps also because “root of the problem” is a well-known fixed phrase?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 9, 2021 6:18:10 GMT
I know of “root” in that meaning, Vv, but it’s not in popular use in British English, so I wouldn’t have noticed anything odd in the sentence you quote. Perhaps also because “root of the problem” is a well-known fixed phrase? Dave: Root was common language of 1950s–70s Australia (though both word and act were forbidden to good Methodist farm lads, as were all profanities – even damn or shut up). Its use has long been eclipsed by the now near-universal and much over-used [voiceless labiodental fricative + <open-mid back unrounded vowel> + voiceless velar stop] monosyllabic much decried by increasingly fewer wowsers. (Note #1: < > = strong emphasis.)
(Note #2: Despite a lifelong search for expletives sufficiently strong to express one's dismay, discomfort, distress … on finger-slammed-in-car-door occasions, I've yet to find an adequately satisfying synonym for that most versatile word that can be anything in an emergency.)In my note to the news article's author / ABC, I suggested that any aversion to amending a quoted statement easily could have been countered with [editorial brackets + synonym (e.g.)] to replace the root. When I wielded the blue pencil at my paper I took such liberties when I considered them justified (though on principle never employed grawlixes). I'd have probably dealt with it thus: "The castration policy demonstrates a way of thinking that is not oriented towards solving the [base] / [cause] / […] of the problem." (Not that I'm sure one can solve a root, a base, or a cause in any case. I wonder what the long-late Sir Ernest Gowers would say about the muddle and pudder – word #7 of the quotation here.) My sensitivity to such thoughtless usages, through experiences both personal and occupational-other, is perhaps heightened. Journos work under pressure and don't always have the time for a rewrite; editors rarely seem to bother any more. Proofreaders and copyeditors are history. My evidentiary involvement in Australia's 5-year royal commission into the sexual abuse of minors, after my earlier occupational field of youth counselling, sex ed, HIV/AIDS, and abuse-victim support, leaves me somewhat hyper-aware of nuance in reporting such matters.
|
|
|
January
Jan 9, 2021 11:32:14 GMT
via mobile
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 9, 2021 11:32:14 GMT
I’m intrigued at your use of “#1”, “#7”, etc, Vv. Although I can translate # to “number”, because I’ve met such use in American English, I’m not familiar enough with it to read it directly as that (there’s still a mental pause while I work it out). It’s just not yet established as part of British English. Is it general within Oz?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 9, 2021 19:43:07 GMT
I’m intrigued at your use of “#1”, “#7”, etc, Vv. Although I can translate # to “number”, because I’ve met such use in American English, I’m not familiar enough with it to read it directly as that (there’s still a mental pause while I work it out). It’s just not yet established as part of British English. Is it general within Oz? Dave, I think it's well enough established in Oz. It's become habit for me because it was the house style of the university where I used to design / typeset / edit learning materials in the '90s. I do see it fairly frequently in other Oz contexts, though I recall earlier times when I eschewed its use because it seemed an unnecessary import. Another "number" habit I picked up at that job was to use Nr rather than No. The head lecturer in Pure Mathematics insisted on the Nr style, and as it saves (a) a period and (b) potential confusion with the word No I took it up. I do not, however, use it very much these days as I rarely find the contextual need. No., Nr, or #?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 9, 2021 21:35:05 GMT
What's in a name? After reading a news article about the current Thai King Thingumajig I decided to look up the style and nature of those long Thai names. This is what I found. There was also this site. I had often wondered why so many Thai names seemed to end with ~porn, ~horn, or ~korn.
Following links, I also found this site giving a list of family name affixes (non-language-specific).
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 10, 2021 11:11:46 GMT
I have commented here before on the “new” use of # instead of no to indicate number. I suspect it originated with the advent of texting as it uses one less character. I find it irritating nonetheless/nevertheless (true synonyms?’).
Of course, I am often irritated. I am irritated by the practice of inserting @ before keywords. Surely computers are clever enough to identify important words without having to identify them in this ugly way? I would have thought a hidden tag would be so much more elegant. Or have I misunderstood something?
I am not sure it is a propos but I have noticed that the British abbreviation for “telephone”, especially in printed advertisements, is tel whereas in Australia it is ph. I enjoy noticing these trivial differences when on holiday in other countries.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 10, 2021 11:22:44 GMT
[...] I am not sure it is a propos but I have noticed that the British abbreviation for “telephone”, especially in printed advertisements, is tel whereas in Australia it is ph. I enjoy noticing these trivial differences when on holiday in other countries. And long may those differences remain! I'm not in favour of homogenised cultures, though we are at risk of that, I fear.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 10, 2021 12:30:49 GMT
[...] ... I have noticed that the British abbreviation for “telephone”, especially in printed advertisements, is tel whereas in Australia it is ph. I enjoy noticing these trivial differences when on holiday in other countries. I’ve never seen “ph” used in that way - but then I’ve never been to Australia! The more I think about it, though, the more I think neither “tel” nor “ph” are necessary. Can’t we see a number for what it is? Edit: As an afterthought, I suppose there was a time when it was necessary to distinguish between the numbers for telephone and for fax ... but with one number, nowadays, we could assume telephone, couldn’t we?
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 17, 2021 0:57:37 GMT
Adverbial form of anaphylaxis?
I needed the term yesterday to describe my violent reaction to lentils in a "Mexican beef" pie, and it exists in none of my dictionaries.
Might it be anaphylaxicaly, anaphylaxically, anaphylacticly, or anaphylactically?
Meanwhile, you can bet your life I'm off lentils, and heading to the pharmacy for an Epi-pen.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Jan 17, 2021 11:08:00 GMT
Avoid the lentils ... and avoid that sentence construction, Vv!
Use “through anaphylaxis” or “by anaphylactic shock” or whatever fits.
Sorry to hear about the reaction - must be scary.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Jan 17, 2021 11:41:57 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 17, 2021 20:04:57 GMT
Aha! Thanks, LJH! My first instinct was correct, but in uncertainty I played around with it and became confused. And thanks, Dave. Curiously, the anaphylaxis occurred at lunchtime, yet by afternoon tea all was well and I consumed a normal meal at dinnertime. But yes, lentils are now complete no-nos. Which is a bit of a bugger, given my love of dhal dishes (I ought to have been born or raised in India).
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Jan 20, 2021 22:06:03 GMT
Two for the price of one: unwholesome food and unwholesome apostrophisation. Source: Wikipedia
|
|