|
|
 | | From: | AlanEdgey at aol.com | | Subject: | Re:_Feeding_the_needy/lonely(_was_Scottish_quake_donations_hit_£8m) | | Date: | 18 Jan 2005 01:35:34 -0800 |
|
|
 | >You miss the point. The debate is not about the actual spelling of the
words
Ah! Your references to the word 'man' threw me. Silly of me to think
you were questioning the spelling 'maun' for 'man'.
>"Standardised", Scottish Dictionary Association publication:
Surely just a record of usage and no "standardisation" intended?
Where can I find out about the "standardised version
of Scots used in more literary usage"?
Is it taught anywhere?
Alan
|
|
| | From: | Richard Caley | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:46:18 GMT |
|
|
| In article <1106040934.814823.241690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, AlanEdgey (a) writes:
a> Where can I find out about the "standardised version
a> of Scots used in more literary usage"?
I did a quick search on www.iso.org and they unaccountably don't seem
to have it. Maybe it's an ITU thing.
There is always the possibility of a varient on RFC 1149, IP datagrams
by haggis, though this would be subject to the well known limit of
having to choose clockwise or widdershins for each connection.
--
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:56:29 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Richard Caley" wrote in message
news:87is5vjcnj.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article <1106040934.814823.241690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> AlanEdgey (a) writes:
>
> a> Where can I find out about the "standardised version
> a> of Scots used in more literary usage"?
>
> I did a quick search on www.iso.org and they unaccountably don't seem
> to have it. Maybe it's an ITU thing.
>
> There is always the possibility of a varient on RFC 1149, IP datagrams
> by haggis, though this would be subject to the well known limit of
> having to choose clockwise or widdershins for each connection.
>
>
> --
> Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
>
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Which only goes to show you that you are far from being as sensible as you
consider yourself to be. If you had attempted to think before making your
silly attempt to show someone else in a bad light you may just have found
out that every reasonable dictionary does indeed classify each and every
word that it contains.
For example.
standardize // v. (also -ise)
1 tr. cause to conform to a standard.
2 tr. determine the properties of by comparison with a standard.
3 intr. (foll. by on) adopt as one's standard or model.
standardizable adj.
standardization / n.
standardizer n.
Perhaps you may consider definition, "2". Here it tells you that the word
is, "v", and thus compares it with a standard for verbs.
Furthermore, every word that can be traced to a derivation has the
derivation stated and thus is the a classification of its origins which is
also a standard.
Next, if the word is colloquial, slang, obsolete, archaic, or regional it is
classified as such and again this is using a standard to compare it with.
There are many, many other standardisations for the words in dictionary.
gizmo / n. (also gismo) (pl. -os) slang
a gadget.
[20th c.: origin unknown]
Word classified within the standard that is slang.
glad rags n.pl. colloq.
best clothes; evening dress.
A word classed as. "colloq", and thus standardised as such.
glaive // n. archaic poet.
1 a broadsword.
2 any sword.
[Middle English from Old French, apparently from Latin gladius 'sword']
This word placed in a standard as both archaix and poetic.
Do you really need me to show you as any more of a fool than you are showing
youreself to be? Every dictionary classifies and thus standardises the words
it contains. It is, though, only current on the day it is printed for most
languages are alive, changing and growing. This does not change the simple
fact that they all place the words they contain into standard
classifications, i.e., they standardize them.
Noo awa an bile yir heid.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Richard Caley | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:16:19 GMT |
|
|
| In article , Robert Peffers (rp) writes:
>> There is always the possibility of a varient on RFC 1149, IP datagrams
>> by haggis, though this would be subject to the well known limit of
>> having to choose clockwise or widdershins for each connection.
rp> Which only goes to show you that you are far from being as sensible as you
rp> consider yourself to be. If you had attempted to think before making your
rp> silly attempt to show someone else in a bad light you may just have found
rp> out that every reasonable dictionary does indeed classify each and every
rp> word that it contains.
That must be non-seqitur of the month.
rp> Every dictionary classifies and thus standardises the words it
rp> contains.
A classification is not a standard. I might classify people into Scots
and English, but that does not mean there is a defined standard
Scotsman (perhaps a mixture of Sean Connery, John Laurie and Andie
Stewart).
Even if someone were to consider a dictionary to be a standard, it would
only be a standard for one corner of a language (the words).
--
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:41:31 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Richard Caley" wrote in message
news:874qheh7ra.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article , Robert Peffers (rp)
> writes:
>
>>> There is always the possibility of a varient on RFC 1149, IP datagrams
>>> by haggis, though this would be subject to the well known limit of
>>> having to choose clockwise or widdershins for each connection.
>
> rp> Which only goes to show you that you are far from being as sensible as
> you
> rp> consider yourself to be. If you had attempted to think before making
> your
> rp> silly attempt to show someone else in a bad light you may just have
> found
> rp> out that every reasonable dictionary does indeed classify each and
> every
> rp> word that it contains.
>
> That must be non-seqitur of the month.
>
> rp> Every dictionary classifies and thus standardises the words it
> rp> contains.
>
> A classification is not a standard. I might classify people into Scots
> and English, but that does not mean there is a defined standard
> Scotsman (perhaps a mixture of Sean Connery, John Laurie and Andie
> Stewart)
Oh! Dear! Oh! Dear! Oh! Dear! That, ** must** be the non-seqitur of the
month, perhaps even the year.
If anyone classifies people into Scots and English they have indeed set them
into standard categories. Guess what those standards are? Their country of
birth, (or perhaps adoption). You have just created two classes, or
categories, and then proceeded to classify people into one or other of those
classes. That is, "Classification". In order to be able to recognize which
class the person falls into they must meet your standard, that's,
"Standardization"
So, what if they are a mixture of John Lawrie, Big Tam and Andy Stewart?
They might also be a mixture of Jack McConnell, Gordon Brown and Shirley
Henderson who also fit the same standard that YOU set down - i.e., the are
all Scottish as opposed to your other criterion, i.e., English.
However, the fact that they could, if so desired, be further classified into
further sub-sets as MSP, MP and actress/actor. This could even be further
sub-divided as McConnell is also a First Minister, Brown is a Cabinet
Minister, and a Chancellor, and Ms Henderson may also act on TV, Radio or
the stage.
You know, if you kept your typing fingers in your pockets, you would not
fall into certain categories and find yourself standardised.
>
> Even if someone were to consider a dictionary to be a standard, it would
> only be a standard for one corner of a language (the words).
Have you actually examined a Dictionary? Any real Dictionary will have much
more than the meaning of any particular word. It will have the phonetic
pronunciation, it will give the part of speech, the derivation and will
classify the word with an abbreviation such as colloc, diall, Sc, Wsh, I,
slang, course slang, Obs, or several other groups. If there are no such
classifications, such as Obs, then by implication the word is of current
usage. Further to this the Dictionary will also have a page or two on the
grammatical structure of the language, the parts of speech and, in most
cases, a brief history of the language.
Here is a small example for you, (with notes)
gadzooks / int. archaic -("int.", the word is an interjection)(archaic), the
word is also archaic, i.e., the word is no longer in use).
an expression of asseveration etc., (this is the meaning, and use, of the
word).
[gad2 + zooks of unknown origin], (this the origins or derivation of the
wordIif known)).
There was another part to this example, (but my news-reader does not have
the special phonetics font to print it here), that shows you how the word
should be pronounced.
So, there you are, the Dictionary lays out the words in a standardised
manner, places words into defined classified groups, indicates the part of
speech, quotes the meanings and tells you how to pronounce and use itt.
Seems pretty clear to me that it does indeed standardise the language.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Richard Caley | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit | | Date: | Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:01:18 GMT |
|
|
| In article , Robert Peffers (rp) writes:
rp> If anyone classifies people into Scots and English they have
rp> indeed set them into standard categories.
But thatis just wordplay. That we may agree standard categories has
nothing to do with their being a standard for the objects being
classified. There is no standard issue scotsman.
>> Even if someone were to consider a dictionary to be a standard, it would
>> only be a standard for one corner of a language (the words).
rp> Have you actually examined a Dictionary? Any real Dictionary will
rp> have much more than the meaning of any particular word.
i didn't say anything about `meaning'.
rp> So, there you are, the Dictionary lays out the words in a standardised
rp> manner,
Even more word games. You are now being so abstract you are getting
silly. If someone somewhere writes some information about a small
corner of a subject in a consistant way, you take that to mean there
is a standard?
rp> Seems pretty clear to me that it does indeed standardise the language.
Then tell me how that dictionary will tell me whether
``cat on mat sat the the''
or
``Auld Bob need a new dictionary''
are standard English or Scots English.
--
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:17:41 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Richard Caley" wrote in message
news:87oeflefnk.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article , Robert Peffers (rp)
> writes:
>
> rp> If anyone classifies people into Scots and English they have
> rp> indeed set them into standard categories.
>
> But thatis just wordplay. That we may agree standard categories has
> nothing to do with their being a standard for the objects being
> classified. There is no standard issue scotsman.
>
>>> Even if someone were to consider a dictionary to be a standard, it would
>>> only be a standard for one corner of a language (the words).
>
> rp> Have you actually examined a Dictionary? Any real Dictionary will
> rp> have much more than the meaning of any particular word.
>
> i didn't say anything about `meaning'.
I didn't say you had.
>
> rp> So, there you are, the Dictionary lays out the words in a standardised
> rp> manner,
>
> Even more word games. You are now being so abstract you are getting
> silly. If someone somewhere writes some information about a small
> corner of a subject in a consistant way, you take that to mean there
> is a standard?
In no way have I done that.
>
> rp> Seems pretty clear to me that it does indeed standardise the language.
>
> Then tell me how that dictionary will tell me whether
>
> ``cat on mat sat the the''
> or
> ``Auld Bob need a new dictionary''
>
> are standard English or Scots English.
>
> --
> Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
For Goodness sake!!
How many examples do you need to see just how wrong you are?
In the first place a dictionary will be a lexicon of only one particular
language and will not thus, generally, show words from other languages.
Thus any words inclusion is the very first major classification of that word
as belonging to the language of that dictionary.
So in answer to your question, "will it tell you if it is standard English
or Standard Scots. Of course it will. If your dictionary is an English
Dictionary then it will show you English words. It will not mention other
languages unless the particular word is used in the English AND the other
language. It will, though tell you it is an English word, (if you are
consulting an English dictionary), derived from another language.
Likewise a Scots dictionary will be Scots words and a French one French
words, ad infinitum.(that's an example of Latin adopted into English).
Ach weel!
Here is one more cut and paste from the COD to show you that the English
dictionary does indeed classify those words, used in English, either in
common with the Scots language or derived from the Scots language, This
instance is of words with a common Germanic root :-
mickle / adj. & n. (also muckle) archaic or Sc.,(this wee bit means archaic
English or current Scots).
adj. much, great., (this is the meaning of the word used as an adjective,
(that's the grammatical classification)).
n. a large amount., (That's its meaning as a noun, (More classification).
many a little makes a mickle (also erroneous many a mickle makes a muckle)
many small amounts accumulate to make a large amount., (this is an example
of its usage).
[Middle English from Old Norse mikell, from Germanic]
The actual correct, (Scots), saying is, "Mony a puckle maks a muckle". and a
puckle in Scots is a small amount, a grain of corn or a particle. Scots
usage of this word is normally, "Muckle", rather than, "mickle".
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Richard Caley | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:46:18 GMT |
|
|
| In article , Robert Peffers (rp) writes:
rp> Seems pretty clear to me that it does indeed standardise the language.
>> Then tell me how that dictionary will tell me whether
>>
>> ``cat on mat sat the the''
>> or
>> ``Auld Bob need a new dictionary''
>>
>> are standard English or Scots English.
rp> How many examples do you need to see just how wrong you are?
One.
rp> In the first place a dictionary will be a lexicon of only one particular
rp> language and will not thus, generally, show words from other
rp> languages.
There are no non English words in the above two examples, unless you
count `Auld', which I'm taking a s proper noun in this context.
rp> So in answer to your question, "will it tell you if it is standard English
rp> or Standard Scots. Of course it will.
That is a claim. I want you to show us just where your dictionary
would tell you the answer to the above two very simple questions about
English.
rp> If your dictionary is an English Dictionary then it will show you
rp> English words.
So, any sequence of words containing only English words is in your
mind an example of standard English?
bizzare a What idea!
--
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:42:16 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Richard Caley" wrote in message
news:874qhcdpcu.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article , Robert Peffers (rp)
> writes:
snip
>
> So, any sequence of words containing only English words is in your
> mind an example of standard English?
Considering that the above words are your own words, not mine. Considering
that the conclusions drawn from your own words, by you, are also yours, the
really bizzare thing is that you have put your words into my mouth, make a
deduction from your words in my mouth and then proceed to asign both the
words and the conclusions to me.
>
> bizzare a What idea!
>
> --
> Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
> |<
>
Just take a little time to re-trace the thread, read and comprehend what I
did actually say. Take a deep breath and realise that I take no
responsibility for either your faulty reading, your faulty comprehension of
what you have read or the wrong conclusions you have drawn due to both those
faults.
Whether you like it or not a dictionary of the English language deals with
English, not French, not German, not Spanish and not Scots.
Therefore, the whole work comprises an alphabetical arranged lexicon of
words used in English language. It may, or rather will, quote words used in
English that are from other languages. It will also show established English
words derived from another language. It will quote the part, or parts, of
speech. The work will also include a section about the proper grammar,
punctuation and construction of the English language. Every word will be
classified as English, slang, colloquial, coarse language and all variations
will be shown. There will also be a phonetic spelling of each word.
Now let this be clear to you - an English dictionary will not list words
from other languages that have no direct link to English words. Instead of
making yourself look like a fool why not open a dictionary and examine it in
detail. Once more I will show you another example of a word from the
dictionary. The only thing missing will be the phonetic spelling that my
news-reader does not reproduce. --- --- ---
Childermas // n. archaic
the feast of the Holy Innocents, 28 Dec.
[Old English cildramęsse, from cildra, genitive pl. of cild child + męsse
Mass]
Now study that entry and see just how much information it actually gives,
(remember that I could not reproduce the print for the phonetics).
It tells me what the word means, that it is no longer used, that it is only
used as a noun and where it is derived from. From elsewhere in the
dictionary I can find out how to properly construct the various parts of
speech into phrases, sentences, paragraphs and so on.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Richard Caley | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 09:51:17 GMT |
|
|
| In article , Robert Peffers (rp) writes:
>> So, any sequence of words containing only English words is in your
>> mind an example of standard English?
rp> Considering that the above words are your own words, not mine.
They are my words but your proposal. You proposed a dictionary as a
definition of standard English, then when that idea was laughed at
went off to say that because a dictionary told you if a word was
English (false of course), it therefore defined standard English.
Ie you said any sequence of English words was standard English.
rp> From elsewhere in the dictionary I can find out how to properly
rp> construct the various parts of speech into phrases, sentences,
rp> paragraphs and so on.
Three obvious problems:
First, if someone were to bind a dictionary and a grammar and a so on
into one binding, the result would not be a dictiony, but a book one
part of which was a dictionary, so your case would fall.
Second no one anywhere has written a grammar which will match all and
only the sentences of standard English.
Thirdly, of course, if a huge 1000 volume work containsing all the
above plus agreement, semantics, pragmatics morphology etc. was
produced, all it would take was one Standard English user writing one
novel sentence structure which others accepted without comment to make
the whole massive thing obsolete.
Because, as everyone but you seems to apreciate, a dictionary doesn't
define, it records.
--
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 18:47:30 -0000 |
|
|
|
"Richard Caley" wrote in message
news:87mzv3cdwf.fsf@pele.r.caley.org.uk...
> In article , Robert Peffers (rp)
> writes:
>
>>> So, any sequence of words containing only English words is in your
>>> mind an example of standard English?
>
> rp> Considering that the above words are your own words, not mine.
>
> They are my words but your proposal. You proposed a dictionary as a
> definition of standard English, then when that idea was laughed at
> went off to say that because a dictionary told you if a word was
> English (false of course), it therefore defined standard English.
Exactly, they are YOUR words - not mine. That means they are YOUR
interpretation of what YOU THINK I said.A standard English Dictionary is
indeed a printed standard for the English Language.
No doubt the English language Dictionary will have words in it that came
from other languages. For instance some French words and, "vice versa",
(Also Latin
words as in, "Vise Versa").
However, in all cases those words will have become, "standard", English
usage if shown in the English dictionary.
>
> Ie you said any sequence of English words was standard English.
No! I did not say, "any sequence of English words was standard English ", -
you did.
Perhaps you might care to scan through the, "Google Groups", archives at:-
http://www.google.co.uk/grphp
and produce the exact post where you claim I made such a statement?
What I do claim is an English dictionary is a standard for the English
language.
What I do not claim is it an English dictionary is a text book for English
Grammar.
It does, though, is indicate the part of speech of every word it lists
within the alphabetically listed words and the rules of English grammar are
stated elsewhere in good dictionaries. Furthermore, within the
alphabetically listed words it includes a definition of every part of
speech and every grammatical rule. As such it is a standard for the English
language.
>
> rp> From elsewhere in the dictionary I can find out how to properly
> rp> construct the various parts of speech into phrases, sentences,
> rp> paragraphs and so on.
>
> Three obvious problems:
>
> First, if someone were to bind a dictionary and a grammar and a so on
> into one binding, the result would not be a dictiony, but a book one
> part of which was a dictionary, so your case would fall.
Excuse me, once again, but I did not state anywhere that the dictionary
included, what you describe above as, "a Grammar", whatever that term is
supposed to mean in this context. I know, offhand, about five noun
definitions of a, "grammar", and those which best fits are a grammar primer
or a grammar text book. Neither of which I claimed a dictionary to be. None
the less a dictionary will classify each and every word it contains in the
list with its proper part of speech. It will also describe those parts of
speech.
Please don't be ridiculous. Every reasonable dictionary, (i.e. not, "Pocket
Dictionaries"), will have quite a lot of things besides an alphabetical list
of
words. I cannot, just now, lay my hands on any of my English printed
English dictionaries, one
American English and the other the COD, as my Grand-Son has borrowed them. I
have retained my computerised version of the COD/Thesaurus/quotations, that
for convenience, I transferred from a CD to a hard disk. I do though still
have my printed Scottish language CSD and this has an index:-
Dedications.
Acknowledgments.
CSD Staff.
A History of Scots, (parts I - IV.
How to use the CSD, (parts 2 - 15).
The Dictionary, (alphabetically arranged list of words).
Appendices, (which include, Scottish currency, weights and measures, and
Churches in Scotland)..
Over and above these both inside covers list all the abbreviations used
within the dictionary.
> produced, all it would take was one Standard English user writing one
> novel sentence structure which others accepted without comment to make
> the whole massive thing obsolete.
What Rubbish! First, it takes time for any word to be accepted into English
by common usage and many always will remain slang, even if they do get into
the dictionary. These, and several other categories, are marked to show them
as not being standard English. i.e, The cockney's, "Boat-race". Incidentally
the word cockney is derived from a derogatory term, "Cocks egg", adopted to
mean a town dweller.
Secondly, you seem to have some confusion between proper grammatical usage
and stylistic differences. No matter what else, a sentence has a basic
structure and laid down rules of construction. Anyone who does not comply
with those rules is not writing standard English. This still leaves plenty
of slack for writers to apply their own style. As a matter of fact it is a
desirable thing for authors to develop their own style. It is even a fact
that rules should not be strictly adhered to and that there are exceptions
to every rule. This should be applied very sparingly, though.
Thirdly much of what you assign as my words seem to be your own
interpretations of my words. I cannot be held
responsible for your erroneous interpretations of the standard English
language that seems to be your very own interpretation of standard English.
>
> Because, as everyone but you seems to apreciate, a dictionary doesn't
> define, it records.
Now you also claim that you are speaking for everyone who posts to all of
these newsgroups contained in your headers,
"scot.politics,uk.local.ayrshire,uk.local.scot-highlands,ed.general".
Just where did you acquire your debating skills? You quote me as saying
words that are strictly your own interpretation of them, you also claim to
speak for everyone on several newsgroups yet you expect to be taken
seriously? Let's face it - if you claim I said something and the text proves
I did not say it then the plain fact remains that there is a serious fault
in either your comprehension of the written English language or I have a
serious problem writing the English language.
To answer your above points, however, indeed a dictionary does record. It
records the accepted standards of the English words and language at the time
it was published. Furthermore it also records many slang, dialect and
regional variations that have not become part of that
standard at the date of publication. Furthermore, some of these will never
enter the English language. For example. one is not likely to ever see the
term, "boat race", as used in the cockney dialect, enter into the language
proper. It may be listed in an English dictionary, however, and bear the
abbreviations, "slang", "dial", and perhaps a few more.
Perhaps you may like to attempt to critically analyze this little snatch of
written language:-
"To very boldly go with the company's office division and search for a
treasure in a bottle in a chest in the hold of a ship at the bottom of the
sea".
This does not contain a single word that does not comply with being a
standard English word. It is, of course, a very poor example of English
Grammar and breaks several grammatical rules.
It will be interesting to see your slant on it. One of the grammatical
faults, in particular, is an example of a grammatical fault that has a very
well known exception. More of this later, if you can even be bothered to
criticise and post your slant upon it.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Richard Caley | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit 8m) | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 13:41:18 GMT |
|
|
| In article , Robert Peffers (rp) writes:
rp> A standard English Dictionary is indeed a printed standard for the
rp> English Language.
And your evidence for this bizzare claim is?
rp> No doubt the English language Dictionary will have words in it that came
rp> from other languages.
See, you're back to claiming that all that defines a language is the words.
rp> What I do not claim is it an English dictionary is a text book for English
rp> Grammar.
If it doesn't define the garmamar it can't define the language.
rp> Please don't be ridiculous. Every reasonable dictionary,
rp> (i.e. not, "Pocket Dictionaries"), will have quite a lot of things
rp> besides an alphabetical list of words.
But notn will contain a fraction of the amount fo information which
would be needed to define the language.
>> all it would take was one Standard English user writing one
>> novel sentence structure which others accepted without comment to make
>> the whole massive thing obsolete.
rp> What Rubbish!
You may like living in fantasy land, but linguists study language as
it actually exists in use.
rp> First, it takes time for any word to be accepted into English
rp> by common usage [...]
See, you're back to obsessing about words again.
rp> Secondly, you seem to have some confusion between proper grammatical usage
rp> and stylistic differences. No matter what else, a sentence has a basic
rp> structure and laid down rules of construction.
And where are those rules `layed down'? In your fantasy world no doubt.
>> Because, as everyone but you seems to apreciate, a dictionary doesn't
>> define, it records.
rp> Now you also claim that you are speaking for everyone who posts to all of
rp> these newsgroups contained in your headers,
OK, Anyone here believe the OED people define the language rather than
recording it?
rp> You quote me as saying words that are strictly your own
rp> interpretation of them,
This is a lie, and a deliberate one, it can't be a slip. Retract or we
end the thread here and you're in my killfile with the rest of the scum.
--
Mail me as MYFIRSTNAME@MYLASTNAME.org.uk _O_
|<
|
|
| | From: | Deirdre Sholto Douglas | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:25:41 -0600 |
|
|
|
Richard Caley wrote:
> Even if someone were to consider a dictionary to be a standard, it would
> only be a standard for one corner of a language (the words).
At a given instant in time (the date published).
Deirdre
|
|
| | From: | Magnus | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:55:31 GMT |
|
|
| Deirdre Sholto Douglas wrote :
>
>
> Richard Caley wrote:
>
>> Even if someone were to consider a dictionary to be a standard, it
would
>> only be a standard for one corner of a language (the words).
>
> At a given instant in time (the date published).
>
> Deirdre
Unless, of course, it's Burchfield, in which case it's the
absolute authority for all time in all possible universes
on the topic of whether "Scotch" is the correct animate
adjective.
The gospel accoring to mad Hattie Hendroid.
:-)
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:24:45 -0000 |
|
|
|
wrote in message
news:1106040934.814823.241690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >You miss the point. The debate is not about the actual spelling of the
> words
>
> Ah! Your references to the word 'man' threw me. Silly of me to think
> you were questioning the spelling 'maun' for 'man'.
>
>>"Standardised", Scottish Dictionary Association publication:
>
> Surely just a record of usage and no "standardisation" intended?
>
> Where can I find out about the "standardised version
> of Scots used in more literary usage"?
> Is it taught anywhere?
>
> Alan
>
Frae Auld bob Peffers:
As stated already from any good dictionary for they almost all give not only
the meanings for words but also class them as to usage, derivation, and
their current, obsolete or archaic usage. Most will also give the part of
speech, the phonetic pronunciation and regional variations. Noo Ah'm awa ben
the keitchin tae mak ma tea, (ye'll hae hid yir tea,but).
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Robert Peffers | | Subject: | Re: Feeding the needy/lonely( was Scottish quake donations hit £8m) | | Date: | Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:12:29 -0000 |
|
|
|
wrote in message
news:1106040934.814823.241690@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >You miss the point. The debate is not about the actual spelling of the
> words
>
> Ah! Your references to the word 'man' threw me. Silly of me to think
> you were questioning the spelling 'maun' for 'man'.
>
>>"Standardised", Scottish Dictionary Association publication:
>
> Surely just a record of usage and no "standardisation" intended?
>
> Where can I find out about the "standardised version
> of Scots used in more literary usage"?
> Is it taught anywhere?
>
> Alan
>
Frae Auld bob Peffers:
How about trying the Scottish National Dictionary? In this, as in most
dictionaries, the particular word is usually classed as, (arch), for
archaic;(colloq) for colloquial[ly];(derog) for derogatory;(dial) for
dialect{al};DOST for dictionary of the older Scottish tongue; (e) for
early;(erron) for erroneous[ly]. There are a great many more such
abbreviations that usually indicate the older, obsolete, archaic and
regional usage. So to answer your question shortly, "Yes it is taught
somewhere", as are the phonetic pronunciations and even the regional
variations of both words and their phonetics, look in the CSD and note the
small print and the abbreviations.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
|
|
|
