|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Dec 1, 2021 0:13:02 GMT
I have been trying for a little while, without real success, to think of something linguistically interesting with which to begin this month’s thread but, having failed, I have decided to share a couple of gentle rants. And that sentence, at first seemingly unexceptional, might be linguistically interesting in itself.
First. Little while. Can one legitimately say this? The word “little” should perhaps only be applied to an object. One can have a “brief while” but perhaps not a little while?
Secondly. Real success. Surely something is either a success or not a success. One cannot have an unreal success. Can one?
Thirdly. Couple. Strictly, this means “two” or “a pair” but it is often applied to several things particularly by politicians who say they want to mention a couple of things and proceed to mention four or five. And I am, myself, going to mention more than two.
Fourthly. Gentle rant. I am not sure that rant is truly a word. Rather like “dog”, it sounds more like just a little noise. Nevertheless, it is attested from the 16th century and, whether a noun or verb, refers to a bombastic or aggressive tirade. So one can’t have “a gentle rant”.
The first thing about which I wish to rant is the use of “CH4” to refer to the currently topical subject of methane and “CO2” to refer to carbon dioxide. I understand that this is because many modern “platforms” (Ugh!) do not provide for subscripts but it is scientifically illiterate and, frankly, wrong.
I also want to rant about voice recognition software. I have just dictated “H2SO4 for sulphuric acid” only to be presented with “H2 S044 so if you’re at acid”. This is just perhaps the worst example I have encountered of the lack of any grammatical or lexical context in these systems. I later read what I had dictated half an hour before and was completely bamboozled for a “little while” as to what I could possibly have said.
The third of my two rants is the practice of contributors to this forum of using a small font size. It means that I have to scrabble around to find my reading glasses; an unwanted and exhausting physical exercise on a par with the effort of using the remote control for the television.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 1, 2021 2:19:16 GMT
LJH: I'm glad that you started the month.
Having had nothing interesting to share of late I was loth to (yet again) start the month's discussion.
Font size
When posting, I always leave the ProBoards settings at their default. If you have problems reading that, almost all devices (and certainly all Apple devices) allow for readers' custom settings; so do browsers on all platforms. One may set minimum font-rendering sizes for both fixed-width typefaces and proportional ones. If that's insufficient, just hit the Command and + (Apple) keys or Control (Windoze) + keys to increase font size on any page.
Super- / subscript
It's true that some platforms (yes, I know you dislike the term, but what else to use?) don't allow for superscript and subscript, but many more do; it's more often a case of posters being ignorant of the possibilities, or lazy.
At least ProBoards allows s/scripts: CH4, CO2, 122, etc.
Voice (mis)recognition
“H2 S044 so if you’re at acid” – are you sure your device isn't tripping? I rarely venture into voice recognition but when I do (on Apple devices) it mostly comes out as intended. One of the worst, in my experience, is the voicemail messages converted from vocals to SMS as used by Australia's Telstra telco. It makes a right balls-up of many words, and really garbles personal names more complex than Bill or Bob.
At least we now have a December thread.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Dec 1, 2021 8:34:39 GMT
I note your concern over font size, LJH. Like Vv, I’ve been leaving the board’s settings at their default … and then cursing the absolutely tiny script presented as I type. At least the presented version once posted is a little larger and I’ve been known to post first and then make corrections, just so that I could see what I was doing.
Your “gentle rant” has caused me to investigate and I’ve discovered that I can in fact see what I’m typing if I:- Choose “reply” rather than “quick reply” (I often do that, to get the offered typographical choices)
- Change the font size (never previously done it, but I knew it was there), and
- Choose “preview” at the bottom of the box (a new adventure, which I now find does indeed change the size of what’s being typed - rather than just showing, in the embedded coding, the size I want things to be).
Progress and Hooray for it!
On the other hand, whatever is the opposite of “hooray”, for the fate of the word font. My partner, an ex-printer, insists that one cannot select a font, and then its size. One can select a typeface and then its size. Having made both choices, one has selected the font (that is, in the old days, the box or drawer from which the relevant characters would come).
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 1, 2021 9:43:08 GMT
Dec 1, 2021 19:34:39 GMT 11 Dave Miller said: […] one cannot select a font, and then its size. One can select a typeface and then its size. Having made both choices, one has selected the font (that is, in the old days, the box or drawer from which the relevant characters would come).
I agree, Dave. Font includes the typeface, its size, and its variants such as bold, italic, light, narrow … . Helvetica 12 pt light is a font; Helvetica 12 pt narrow is a different font.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 1, 2021 20:53:05 GMT
Dubious headline How Magdalena Andersson became Sweden's first female PM twiceCan one really become the same 'first' thing twice? Yes, I read the whole article and can see what the writer was getting at, but I think the headline writer (usually not an article's author) was playing at being too smart by half.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Dec 1, 2021 21:40:12 GMT
Vv - I thought exactly that … but then realised the writer was right! The first time round, she became Sweden’s Prime Minister and was the first woman to be so. The second time she became Prime Minister, she was still the first woman to be so: no other woman had done it before.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 2, 2021 1:06:42 GMT
Vv - I thought exactly that … but then realised the writer was right! The first time round, she became Sweden’s Prime Minister and was the first woman to be so. The second time she became Prime Minister, she was still the first woman to be so: no other woman had done it before. Indeed, Dave. I just wish headline writers wouldn't mess with my head so. They can write funny, punny, cute, attention-grabbing, or 'smart' headlines but please, not headlines that cause my brain to do somersaults. PS (to all): My keyboard is having conniptions and adding unwanted glyphs all over the place (I've probably fed it too much toast over the years), so should you find weird inserts, please forgive. Below is an unedited example (save for highlighting) of what's happening. ==P U}S (to all &) +J: " My keyboard is having connip u]tions and adding u ]nwanted glyp u]hs all over the p u]lace (I j;'ve p u]robably fed it too mu ]ch toast over the years &) +, so shou ]ld you ] find weird inserts, p u]lease forgive. This is an u ]nedited examp u]le of what j;'s hap u]p u]pu]ening J. Until I can get to town and buy a new keyboard, I might resort to using the voice-to-text facility.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Dec 2, 2021 22:31:30 GMT
I had an e-mail from Paul D today to say that he's going into hospital soon for open-heart surgery. He'll be admitted on the 16th, will undergo the surgery two days later, and should be back home by Christmas. He's adding me to a list of e-mail contacts to whom his wife will send news, and I'll relay any details to this forum as soon as I receive them.
As I mentioned to Paul, what with a stroke, a perforated bowel and open-heart surgery he seems determined to get value for money from the NHS.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Miller on Dec 2, 2021 23:23:59 GMT
Thanks for letting us know, Twod. Do keep us informed. I miss Paul’s postings, but still remember and admire (perhaps the right word is envy) his ability to explain calmly.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 3, 2021 0:20:59 GMT
Thanks for the news, Twod. Please pass on my best wishes to Paul for a rapid and complete recovery.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 3, 2021 21:35:09 GMT
What is a Luddite?Meghan, that infamous ‘royal’ with a victim mentality and a big chip on her shoulder, is reported to have said that she’s a ‘Luddite’. Meghan's iPhone e-mail sign-off is reported to have been: " Please excuse all technological mishaps. I'm a Luddite". The definitions (American Oxford) of Luddite include: * a person opposed to new technology or ways of working
* a member of any of the bands of English workers who destroyed machinery, especially in cotton and woollen mills, that they believed was threatening their jobs (1811–16) .Clarification of modern usage is given in Wikipedia: According to a manifesto drawn up by the Second Luddite Congress (April 1996; Barnesville, Ohio), neo-Luddism is "a leaderless movement of passive resistance to consumerism and the increasingly bizarre and frightening technologies of the Computer Age".Given that she manages to (mis?)use digital and social media a lot, and appears to relish appearing on mindless television talk shows – not to mention her apparently gross consumerism (what is the cost of her ‘fabulous’ wardrobe?) – I very much doubt that Ms Markle is in fact a Luddite. Does she go about destroying iPhones, televisions, fabric mills, printing presses, etc.? Like much of what she claims, I think her declaration of Luddism is nonsense. And I doubt that she even qualifies as a techno-klutz, which could be what she meant. She's just so full of (**)it (and herself). PS: I'm not an anti-royalist, but I do despise grifting second-rate-actor opportunists and those who use others as rungs in their ladder of social climbing. (Okay, I've donned my flak jacket and hard hat! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) )
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Dec 3, 2021 22:03:30 GMT
What is a Luddite?(Okay, I've donned my flak jacket and hard hat! ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png) ) No flak from me. After its second unsuccessful attempt at it I hope the Royal Family's finally learnt that it's a bad idea for its members to marry American socialite divorcées. Oil and water don't mix.
|
|
|
Post by Twoddle on Dec 3, 2021 22:07:01 GMT
A slight setback with Paul's operation. Owing to a complication he may now need to have a minor op next week, followed by the main one later on - possibly on Christmas Eve. I've sent him our best wishes for a rapid recuperation.
|
|
|
Post by Verbivore on Dec 4, 2021 1:14:13 GMT
Word of the week?
As I was reading a news article about the International Day of People with Disability, I learned a new word that describes (rather unnecessarily in our case, I think) my partner’s and my relationship: interabled. We each have different abilities but those differences don't get in the way; maybe our differences even enhance what we have.
Although he is of short-ish stature (born with a relatively minor global developmental delay being the formal term), we don’t feel the need for the description interabled.
Perhaps fine for those who do, but Lee has never felt the need for such a description as disabled (or even the more PC differently abled), and our relationship therefor also doesn't need the term.
I suppose interabled is an improvement on the term used when I was a youngster, though: spastic – applied universally, not just to people with cerebral palsy, which was it official usage.
The labelling phenomenon brings to mind one of my favourite quotations.
From D H Lawrence:
What is he? – A man, of course. Yes, but what does he do? – He lives and is a man. Oh quite. But he must work. He must have a job of some sort. – Why? Because obviously he's not one of the leisured classes. – I don't know. He has lots of leisure. And he makes quite beautiful chairs. There you are then! He's a cabinet maker. – No, no! Anyhow a carpenter and joiner. – Not at all. But you said so. – What did I say? That he made chairs, and was a joiner and carpenter. – I said he made chairs, but I did not say he was a carpenter. All right then, he's just an amateur. – Perhaps! Would you say a thrush was a professional flautist, or just an amateur? I'd say it was just a bird. – And I say he is just a man. All right! You always did quibble.
|
|
|
Post by Little Jack Horner on Dec 6, 2021 18:16:46 GMT
I wonder what does define someone other than just being a person? To describe me as “a man“ is fine for me but there are other people, as Vv well knows, who cannot, and probably should not, be defined by their sex or gender. I think we really need something else.
For most of my childhood I was “a child“ And then I trained as, and worked as, a social worker for many years although for most of those years I actually worked as a supervisor or administrator or manager. Latterly, indeed for more years than I was in paid work, I have been retired but I don’t identify as “a retired person”. I suppose I could be described as a heterosexual person rather than a man but that has got nothing to do with anybody else and I see no reason for being identified by anybody as such.
I can’t think of anything which would define me as a human being in a way which would acceptable to everyone. Maybe as a good person? But that would be wrong because I have flaws and I certainly don’t want to be described as a flawed person. I could be defined by my stature, which might be all right by me but is not very helpful to anybody else and could lead to stigmatisation of people who are globally developmentally delayed.
So far as I can see, any description of a person is likely to provide opportunities for people who are not described in that way to be stigmatised. An athlete? What about those people who not athletic? A millionaire? That certainly describes someone but is neither something of which to be proud or to be ashamed.
I have been tuning in to many webinars recently. Often they are hosted by a university and the presenter usually speaks at great length about the academic antecedents of the main speaker. Assumably it is thought that we need to know something about the speaker (although not so much as we are told). I agree but I do like to know more than just that this is “a person”.
I am at a loss to know where this is going.
|
|