Conference thebay::joyoflex

>    My point will be proven one day, when I see someone spell "duty" as
>    "doody".
    
Does a greeter at a social function have "Howdy" doody?

Clay 

    Isn't this point mute?
    
    							Ann B.

    Dues and don'ts

    Another contender for the "fingers-on-the-blackboard" award for me:
    
    For all intensive purposes  
    
    (cringe, cringe)

    Not to mention all them legislatures up there in Washington.

It seems to me that most English-speaking Americans (I can't speak for other 
nations and tongues) tend to have a tripartite vocabulary:

	Words that they can both write and speak correctly.

	Words, learned from others' speach, that they can pronounce (more or 
	less correctly) but not spell.

	Words, learned from reading, that they can spell but not pronounce.

My late mother-in-law, for instance, was an educated woman (Ph.D. Biology), 
but insisteed on pronouncing "poigant" as POIG-NANT and "epitome" as EPI-TOME.
Her spelling (which my unfortunate wife inherited) was so generally atrocious
that I can't use it to support my thesis ;^) 


\dave

re .7:

>	Words, learned from others' speach, that they can pronounce (more or 
>	less correctly) but not spell.

You mean like speech?

>	Words, learned from reading, that they can spell but not pronounce.

	For moi, and before I actually studied the language, this was 
	everything en francaise.  I remember once trying to impress a
	girl by actually using "ennui" in conversation -- "'Uh-nooey'? 
	What's that?"  "Oh, it just means being bored."  "I think it's
	pronounced 'ahn-wee.'"  "No, it's 'uh-nooey.'"  "Are you sure?"  
	"Yes, positive."  "Huh, well, I didn't know that."  "Yup, 
	definitely 'uh-noeey.'"  "Boy, Cliff, you're so smart."  I'll 
	also never forget telling my mother she looked very "chick"
	in a new dress.  Let's see, what else ...

		-- Cliff

    We autodidacts spend a lot of time embarrassing ourselves.  Maybe
    that's why funding to public libraries is falling apart.  If we just
    learned everything from TV, we'd be OK.
    
    Ray

    Trying to pronounce those Greek names is just asking for trouble. "The
    ruler of the gods was ZAY-oos." "...and the god of the underworld
    kidnapped PURR-sea-phone..." 
    
    Oh, well. I generally got the English ones right. Though I did labor
    under the tutelage of a teacher who insisted that "reservoir" was
    pronounced "reser-voy" - and _she_ coached me for a spelling bee...
    
    Withal, do respect
    -b

    	I have in front of me a draft user's manual for one of our products.
    On the first page it contains "The main benefits in using <product-x>
    are four fold:". This is followed by a bulleted list of four items.
    
    	Could I deduce that the writer was a slow speaker, since he
    introduced a space in "fourfold"?  I think I could make other
    suggestions for the improvement of that sentence, but not relevant to
    pronunciation affecting writing. No technical writer would wish to be
    associated with the rest of the document either.

A word that has started to get to me is the word "intensity," used by sports 
announcers, reporters, and athletes.  In the newspaper this morning, I saw a 
new twist on the word.

	"His intensity led to tensity"

Clay

    re .0:  should of, would of, ect

    re .2:  nah, a mute point is inaudible, a bit like a pin dropping

    re .13: I wonder if `fourfold' was a victim of DECspell in that case;
    	    /MASTER=BRITISH accepts it, /MASTER=AMERICAN doesn't.

    Which reminds me: `accepts/excepts' is going the way of all homophones;
    people who don't pronounce them homophonically tend not to make this
    slip; people who do asked for it.
    
    b

    	If the manual had said "The main benefits in using <product-x> are
    fourfold increases in speed and fivefold increases in power
    consumption" at least it would have been a parseable sentence.
    My Oxford dictionary allows "fold" as a noun, a verb or a suffix.
    Presumably the American version of the dictionary does not recognise
    its use as a suffix in Biblical expressions such as "a hundredfold".

    
    The battle for allude/elude is already lost...
    
    JP

and I wish someone could insure me that they will ensure my car even when my 
daughter is old enough to drive the car.

Clay

>                      <<< Note 976.18 by POWDML::SATOW >>>
>
>and I wish someone could insure me that they will ensure my car even when my 
>daughter is old enough to drive the car.
>
>Clay

Is their an era in this, or is it just me?  This was once a hot topic in 
GRAMMAR, so I thought I'd get things rolling by including my response 
from that conference.  Enjoy!

	-- Cliff



            <<< JOKUR::ADMINSTORAGE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]GRAMMAR.NOTE;1 >>>
                              -< Grammar Hotline >-
================================================================================
Note 28.14                  ASSURE / ENSURE / INSURE                    14 of 14
ATLAST::ANDERSON "Give me a U, give me a T..."       12 lines   7-JUL-1988 19:12
                       -< Relax, give yourself a break >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	My dictionary (Webster's 9th) says that the three words are
	"interchangable in many contexts."  It seems that these words
	have gotten somewhat squashed together over the years, and that
	people no longer really see meaningful differences between (among,
	if you prefer) them.  And not too surprising, considering how 
	close they are in form and meaning.  I would make the extra
	effort to distinguish them only in the appropriate -- i.e.,
	more formal -- situations.  Otherwise, you're just wasting
	effort trying to stem the tide of a very logical and natural
	change in the language.

		-- Cliff (the grammar guerilla)

    re .9;
    
    :^(
    

    	You need the assurance that the broker will ensure that your car is
    insured when your daughter drives it? Or is that reassurance?

    Re ALLUDE/ELUDE: there's also `allusion/illusion' - related, I think.
    
    b

    I recently saw a notes entry headed "This is a letter we're sending
    to customers" which misused affect/effect.
    
    My current pet-peeve, however, is what seems to be an increasing
    confusion over there/their, and your/you're.
    
    
    regards...
    ...diane

    I know that when I type, I tend to type the wrong word, for example
    there/their, hear/here, due/do, etc.  It isn't that I don't know
    better.  It seems two have something too due with the weigh eye type.
    That part isn't sew bad, because proofreading will find those, but
    SPELL will not, and that is my primary correction tool these daze.
    So I blame it all on SPELL, and my use of it.

re: .19

Rest ensured, I had not forgotten about "assure."  But I don't see it
misused as much, so it doesn't irritate me as often.

>Otherwise, you're just wasting effort trying to stem the tide of a very
>logical and natural change in the language.

Does that mean I should abandon my other crusade, namely to get people to say
"zero" rather than "oh" when they are referring to the number "0?"  Or should
I only speak to people who care, like computers?

re: .23

>how to write affectively

Excellent!  I'll have to remember that one.  I can say "You're a very
affective writer/speaker," and they'll never know I've just insulted them.

Clay

    Re:  .24
    
    Simple solution.  Don't use SPELL.  :-)
    
    -dick

    re .24/.26
    
    Agreed. I only which I could get my SPE rep to think the same. As it
    is, they won't sign off anything I produce until I swear blind that
    I've used any applicable automatic checking tools. I live in fear
    of them finding out about a corporate-standard grammar checker.
    
    This sterile traipse through DECspell adze ours two my work lode.
    
    b

>             <<< Note 976.27 by MARVIN::KNOWLES "Caveat vendor" >>>
>    
>    I've used any applicable automatic checking tools. I live in fear
>    of them finding out about a corporate-standard grammar checker.
                               ^
                              the
    
    There is (or was) one.  Haven't heard much about it lately...

>    There is (or was) one.  Haven't heard much about it lately...
  
  Maybe it's a mute point.

	Re - [a few back] on French words 'n' phrases ....

	Don't you just love "deja vous"?

	Must mean "you-all already"?

	Another is "wala"

    
    My favorite is "viola!"
    
    JP
    

    Re .28 etc.
    
    Yes, I've heard of one too - isn't there a VAXgrammar or something
    horrid? I just didn't think it had been adopted as a corporate
    standard, which is why I hedged my bets.
    
    In my last line, about wasted effort, I missed a point worth making.
    As I sit in front of the terminal, bored out of my tiny mind, pressing
    either I or A, alternating with <RETURN>, there's a chance that I'll
    accidentally press too lightly on the I or A and accept a default
    `correction'. The test for this is the prompt when you reach the
    end of the document: if there's any change to the file, something's
    wrong. So the whole rigmarole starts again. Grrr.
    
    b

    I?  A?

    
    "I" is for 'ignore' (this and all other instances of the unrecognized
    word) and "A" is for 'add' it to the dictionary.
    
    Another favorite error message from the spelling corrector is "word too
    long to Ignore, use Pass instead." (I think this happens because there
    is only a limited amount of space to store words that will be
    ignored when encountered.)
    
    JP
    
    

    RE: DECspell
    
    My favorite misuse of DECspell was when a secretary sent us mail about
    a "payroll payout" and let DECspell blindly correct everything. 
    Excerpt follows:
    
         If you are going to be out of town, in training, or on
         vacation the day of the payroll peyote, you may come down to
         Finance at 1/M4 and pre-sign for your check.  Be sure to
         bring your badge as you will be required to show it.
         
         The secretary for your department may come down to Finance
         the afternoon of the peyote (after 2:00 m) or the day after
         the peyote (June 15) to pick up your check.  Do NOT send your
         secretary during the peyote.  It will be too hectic and time
         consuming to check sign up sheets at that time.
         
    :-)

    "This is another death nail in the coffin of..."
    

    Why is it that a lot of programmers seem to 
    think that "alot" is aword?

  >>  Why is it that a lot of programmers seem to 
  >>  think that "alot" is aword?

	I don't know, but you "definately" see "alot" of "occurances"
	of it.  "Allot" is a wonderful variation, too.  Gak.

It's a loosing proposition.

    I see "alot" in non-geekish writing as well.  As much as I love the
    goofy situations that our language falls into, "alot" stumps me. 
    What's going through the writers' minds?  I've never seen "abunch" or
    "adozen" or "apaucity"; where did "alot" come from?
    
    Ray

re: .40

Possibly because that there is a variant (allot) that is a legitimate word.  
Of course it is used in an entirely different context than "alot", but that 
doesn't deter the grammatically impaired.

Clay

Yeah, but I bet the "alot" crowd aren't even aware of "allot".

>    What's going through the writers' minds?  I've never seen "abunch" or
>    "adozen" or "apaucity"; where did "alot" come from?

"A lot" is effectively one word.  You can talk about two bunches of beets
or three dozen eggs, but "lot," in the sense it has here, always has "a"
in front of it.

A similar usage is "alright."

re. -1

<"A lot" is effectively one word.  You can talk about two bunches of beets
<or three dozen eggs, but "lot," in the sense it has here, always has "a"
<in front of it.

Not when you say something like, "Begone with lot of you."  Same usage.

Lew

    Also, when I go to the mall, I park my car in a lot, not alot.

    - Jim

    "A lot" is just a variation of "one lot," as compared with "two lots." 
    "Alot" is merely one more example of how the language is going to hell
    in a handbasket.

re .44:

> Not when you say something like, "Begone with lot of you."  Same usage.

In what country and what century do people say this?

re .46:

>    "A lot" is just a variation of "one lot," as compared with "two lots." 

Except at auctions and in real estate, people don't refer to "one lot."
In each of those venues, the word "lot" has a different meaning.  "A lot"
(in the sense in which it's misspelled "alot") is an indeterminate large
quantity.

If you want to argue against the one-word-ness of "a lot," you could posit
"a whole lot of shaking going on."  But I'd counter with "it's a whole
nother problem."  You don't have to like it, but it's the language as
it's spoken.

    Re .47
    
    No, Gerald, it is not *the* language as it is spoken.  It is *a*
    language as it is spoken (or, in the case of "alot," written).
    
    There is a vast difference between sloppy usage and the integration of
    new words into an established language in accord with that language's
    structural rules.  (Yes, even English does have rules!)  Incorrect
    usage, willful or through ignorance, is the reason that one language
    eventually evolves into another; the more improper constructions
    allowed, the less the current argot resembles its parent.  Eventally it
    is not its parent; Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, and Romanian
    are all children of Latin, and they all resemble it to a greater or
    lesser degree, but none is Latin.  The language we speak today is well
    on its way to becoming notEnglish.

But since standardized spelling of English is a relatively recent invention,
by your logic we're using a different language than 17th century English
speakers.  After all, we're talking about spelling here.

    Yes.  We are using a different language than 17th century speakers.  We
    have the ability to parse theirs, but I suspect that few of them could
    parse ours.

    Dick,
    
    Why is "alright" considered incorrect while "already" is legit?
    
    How did the "n" from "nuncle" jump ship to attach itself to "a" to
    create not just another word, but a whole new article "an"?  Creating a
    new article must be one of the rarest events in the history of any
    language.
    
    The destination/vehicle combination most commonly used for developing
    the language is hell/handbasket.
    
    Tom
    

    
    The people who write "alot" must know it's two words if they know
    to separate it when writing "a whole lot."  On second thought,
    the same people would probably separate "another" when writing 
    "a whole nother" too.

    Adam

    Thanks, Gerald.  Your explanation is sensible enough to eliminate the
    slow mental itch I've been suffering over this.
    
    Ray

    Tom,
    
    I cannot speak for everyone, obviously, but I don't accept "alright"
    because the meaning of "all right" is some variation on "completely
    right."  I use "already" because its meaning is not "completely ready"
    but rather "at a prior time."  When I mean "completely ready," I write
    "all ready."
    
    The "n" did not jump from "nuncle" to the article.  The word "uncle"
    derives from French "oncle" which in turn comes from Latin "avunculus".
    If one thinks of "an uncle" and then looks at the French equivalent,
    one finds "un oncle."  W9NCD defines "nuncle" as follows:
    
        nun-cle n [by alter. (resulting fr. incorrect division of "an
        uncle")] chiefly dial. (1859) UNCLE
    
    As for this fictitious metamorphosis' creating a new article, "an," how
    then do you explain "an elephant"?  Was it formerly "A nelephant"?  "An
    end," "an article," there are myriad counterexamples that debunk the
    cute little myth you present.

    >The destination/vehicle combination most commonly used for developing
    >the language is hell/handbasket.
    
    That made my evening!
    Thank you, 
    
    alot.

    My UK English dictionary lists 'alright' as being the "same as 'all
    right'", although it is qualified as 'not universally accepted'.
    
    Nick

    alright already!
    
    I'll accept it.
    
    It's okay by me.
    
    ed

    The acceptance of `alright' has been furthered over the last few years
    by a very popular occasional TV show composed of out-takes (and by now
    the show has enjoyed so many versions that the out-takes now are the
    same superset, and only the linking chat changes) called `It'll be
    Alright on the Night'. I suspect the spelling adopted was chosen by the
    graphic artist designer because xe didn't want a word-break. In another
    spread of error (reminds me of a French play on words: induire en
    erreur/enduire avec du beurre, but I digress) occasioned by graphic
    designers, apostrophes often get dropped because they look messy
    (or so I kept finding when my job included proof-reading book jackets).
    
    b

    Dick,
    
    I expect you're right about nuncle (which isn't the only example of the
    phenomenon).  I felt doubt within myself as I typed it in.
    
    The "wrongness" of alright, on the other hand, I suspect, is only an
    artifact.
    

    Well, Tom, as I said, I don't necessarily declare "alright" not to be
    alright, I just don't use it except with tongue in cheek.
    
    The really amusing part of this is that "all right," according to
    W9NCD, derives from a one-word form, "ealriht," whereas "already"
    started out as "al redy."  Oh, the delicious irony of it all!

    I always have trouble with the phrase "wreck havoc".

    I'm never sure if I'm spelling it right, because people always pronounce it
    differently.

    How is it spelled? "Wreck havoc" or "Reek havoc"?
    How is it pronounced? "Wreck havoc" or "Reek havoc"?

    Everybody I know spells it the first way and pronounces it the second way,
    thus confusing the heck (or heek?) out of me.

    While I'm at it, if you "wreck havoc," aren't you destroying the havoc,
    replacing it with order?

    Or does something reek of havoc?

    - Jim

    The verb is "wreak", pronounced either "reek" or "reck".
    

    Yes, it's "wreak," most often heard with "havoc," though one can wreak
    other things; the implication is usually negative/destructive, though
    the image of "wreaking joy" upon something rather pleases me.
    
    Since havoc does tend to involve wrecking (and often, in the aftermath,
    reeking), the confusion is understandable. ;-)
    
    -b

    <rat_hole alert>
    
    To wreak havoc is the present tense.
    
    For the past tense I would say, for example, I wrought havoc.
    
    My dictionary says that wrought is an archaic past tense of work.
    
    So is wreak a corruption/alternative archaic version of work?
    
    Nick

    wreak/wreaked/wreaked
    

.64>              -< Beware... fertile (fertive) imagination at work >-
.64>
.64>    To wreak havoc is the present tense.

I believe that your fertile imagination may need a bit of weeding.

"To wreak", if I'm not mistaken, is the infinitive.

"I wreak", "you wreak", and "he/she/it wreaks" are all present tense.

    No, Nick, Tom (.65) is wright. And `wrought' is a metathetical
    [look Mummy, look at that funny linguist over there] derivative
    of `work' [but not just any old `work', `work' as a transitive
    verb, hence `wrought iron'].
    
    b
    ps I shouldn't be surprised if long long ago some people used
    the present `work havoc' [rather like `work miracles'] alongside
    `wreak havoc'; if that were true, there'd be two roots and two
    past forms - `wreaked' and `wrought'. Because of this suspicion
    I've got, I don't object much to `wrought havoc' [which I hear
    a lot]; I just don't use it myself.

    So what is the present tense of "wrought?"
    
    					andrew

I thought "wrought iron" is iron that had been "worked" (tarted up)

    	Wrought iron is iron that has been gently massaged by a blacksmith
    while it is hot. This makes it lose some of the carbon content and
    results in iron which is relatively resilient. Without this working
    you have cast iron which is rather brittle.
    
    	This is, of course, referring to traditional techniques, before the
    invention of the Bessemer converter in the 19th. century which allowed
    making very low carbon content iron directly. Since then, "wrought"
    iron has mostly been made by mixing this iron with cast iron in
    suitable proportions and melting them down together, or with better
    process control, by just running the converter long enough to only
    remove the desired amount of carbon.

    Sorry Dave, as we drift off down a rathole, but wrought iron is more
    than just lower carbon iron than cast iron.
    
    The 'gentle massaging' consists of:
    
    Taking wrought and/or cast iron and heating it, lots.  It's then hot
    rolled into strip about four inches wide and .375 inch thick.
    
    When cold it's cut into 18 inch lengths and stacked in a criss-cross
    fashion to form a block about 18 inch cube.  This is then heated and
    worked with a 20 ton power hammer into a solid lump, which is hot
    rolled into strip about four inches wide and .375 inch thick.  The
    cutting, stacking, reheating, hot working and rolling is repeated
    again.  This time you finish with whatever width and thickness you
    need.
    
    The heating in the process is done in an atmosphere which burns off
    some of the carbon.
    
    But the hot working modifies the lumpy grain structure of cast iron
    into a long fibrous structure which is much stronger in tension than
    cast iron.
    
    I have been advised that the only place in Europe (the world?) still
    producing wrought iron is the iron works at Ironbridge Museum, Telford,
    UK.  They produce between 25 and 40 tons per year for the clappers of
    church bells and for repair and maintenance work of the ironwork of
    historic buildings.
    
    Wrought iron is much prized by blacksmiths as it is so much easier to
    work than mild steel - my son, the blacksmith tells me.  FWIW a
    blacksmith is not necessarily a farrier, so he will not shoe your
    horses for you.
    
    Nick
    

    Did you hear about the blacksmith whose iron had lost all its carbon
    and was overwrought?

. . . when "In other words" is meant.

Yuck

Clay

    It's a doggie dog world.
    

        Whatever floats your goat.

re .-1

I should of said that.

What part of speech is "-wright" as in shipwright? I presume it's some form 
of "wrought".

Wook

    Not a form of "wrought", but related.
    
    b

    "Wrought" is a form of the transitive verb "work".
    
    							Ann B.

> "Wrought" is a form of the transitive verb "work".

I thought it was the [im]perfect form of "wreak".

___Pete

    >> "Wrought" is a form of the transitive verb "work".
    
    > I thought it was the [im]perfect form of "wreak".
    
    Nope.
    
    o   wreak, wreaked, wreaked
    
    o   work, worked/wrought, worked/wrought
    
    Use of 'wrought' is sort of drying up, but Fowler cites some examples
    that show it still has a place ('wrought iron' being the archetype).

A wright is anyone who constructs something. [ME < OE wryhta]

This all has tongue-twister potential:

The wroth woodwright wrought wood right.

The wrong playwright wrote the wrought play right.

Advertised in the CDSWAP notes file...  CDs that are still 
in their "Shrink Rap".   

    "Shrink Rap" .... I s'pose that's a comment on their musical content,
    not their state of packaging :-)
                                                        
                                                  - Rik -
    

    Nah -- "Shrink Rap" is background music for downsizing.