User talk:Adrian Robson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Adrian Robson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Alai 00:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hotchkiss

Nice work on Hotchkiss, et al. It seems to me that at some point the Hotchkiss gun article may need to be broken up into one article per weapon, or else the machine gun and any other of their weapons (I assume there are more?) pulled together into one page. And the company produced some armored vehicles as well, no?

Thanks. I would think there are three product areas and hence three articles in addition to the general company one: cars, guns and military vehicles. Unfortunately, I'm not really the person to do any of them, except maybe a bit on the cars! They're all quite specialised, especially the military ones. I'll keep an eye on the French version, though, to see what else can be incorporated. Adrian Robson 22:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Locomotion No. 1

No problem. Cheers. The JPS 20:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thou

I was reading the Thou discussion page, and saw your comment along with the questions of a few other people so wanted to ask if you know what regions use it currently. Chooserr

Sorry to be slow in responding - I couldn't get in to Wikipedia yesterday, interminable waits for pages to display. Thou and its derivatives are still used in rural parts of the Yorkshire area of northern England. I have read that it is also used in parts of western England but up to date evidence of this is harder to find. Google Books lists the following [1] a book called Dialects of England (ISBN: 0631218157) which includes a map of usage as well as some poetry by a northern poet which illustrates the sound well if you imagine it being read in a northern accent. There's also a link at the bottom of the Wikipedia Thou article page to "Contemporary use of Thou in Yorkshire". This seems to be offline today, though it was accessible yesterday when I was trying to reply to your query. A phrase like "Hast thou.." (pronounced "hast tha") sounds perfectly natural for contemporary rural Yorkshire. And it was interesting to read in the book mentioned above that in Derbyshire this has mutated into "Asta" though I don't know whether this is still current. Adrian Robson 09:44, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15097/15097-h/15097-h.htm you will find this useful no doubt 81.153.160.209 00:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: flammable

Here's the basic rundown, according to my data. "Inflammable" dates from 1605 and "flammable" (which is not an Americanism) from 1813; the U.S. National Fire Protection Association first settled on "flammable" as early as the 1920s, and this usage has spread like... wildfire ever since. "Inflammable" seems to be obsolescent, (not surprisingly) especially in the U.S. (except for its figurative "irascible, cantankerous" meaning), although it's still lurking around in Britain---interestingly, the British National Corpus has 50-odd examples form "inflammable," all from printed documents, "flammable" being found chiefly in speech. As an aside, the French have "inflammable," the Spanish have "inflamable," and Italians have "infiammabile," but they don't seem to be fazed by it at all... JackLumber 20:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American & British English Differences

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your input on the rewrite of the intro. I've repsonded to that on the article Talk page.

If you're interested in seeing my first draft, it's available at User:Tdw/American and British English differences - intro. JackLumber has commented that some of it may actually be suited to a "Historical Background" section instead of including it all in the intro. You'll also see that, in certain respects, I have tried to specify limits for the scope of the series of articles, and I think your suggestions will fit in well with that in the word lists in time.

Incidentally, in your comments you said: "many writers say where they come from on discussion pages because they know that their use of language may not immediately reveal this." But that I note that you don't! I'm guessing - from your writing! - that you're British, and - from your comments in Thou above - that you're from Yorkshire? -- TrevorD 11:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm so skeptical...

Hi Adrian, it might be true that sceptic antedates U.S. colonization, but who told you that skeptic came "later"? On the contrary, I have evidence of skeptic being the older spelling (see e.g. Pam Peters, p. 502 & p. 511)---why would Dr. Johnson prefer it? And why do we pronunce it like "skeleton" and not like "scent"? By the way, the color and center spellings also antedate colonization (and before Dr. Johnson came up with his dictionary many scholars were inclined toward -or endings); the adoption of -ise endings in England is a result of C19 and C20 tendencies, highly criticized by the OED (and not the other way around; look up -ize in the OED); -ize endings were mainstream by the time of Noah Webster---originally, you would find even spellings like paralize in England. JackLumber, 05:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

...well... there were no real hard & fast spelling rules in mid C18 England or early C19 U.S.; British scholars were wrangling over -our vs. -or spellings---some of them advocated -our for French loanwords and -or for words of Latin origin, but in many cases it was hard to trace the exact etymology; even Dr. Johnson, who standardized the conventions, seemed to waver somewhat (his dictionary has downhil and uphill, distil and instill; probably he had changed horses midstream). But you can bet your bottom dollar (hmmm... do you have a British equivalent for this idiom?) that I'll do further research Monday. I'll keep you posted... All the best, --JackLumber, 20:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It would be great if you can do some more research to clarify this further. Just to put your research into context, here's a description of why I thought the text was misleading.
The text that I edited said:
Unlike many 20th century language reforms (for example, Turkey's alphabet shift, Norway's spelling reform) the American spelling changes were not driven by government, but by textbook writers and dictionary makers. On the other hand, subsequent spelling changes in Britain (such as -ise in lieu of -ize, sceptical instead of skeptical, jewellery in place of jewelry, etc.) did not affect American English.
I think a new reader is likely to take away from this the impression that the original single group of English speakers, including those that stayed in England and their brothers and sisters who later crossed the Atlantic, would have been likely to spell the word in line with its Greek origin as "skeptic(k)". The group that moved to America continued to spell it with a "k" but the group that stayed in England changed the spelling to "c". (The text was a bit vague about when but seemed to imply post-Webster with its reference to changes by dictionary makers.)
I felt this impression was at odds with the impression that the OED gives. Pre-1660 (when English American settlement was still only numbered in 1000s - Virgina population 15,000 in 1650), the OED cites around 17 examples of "sceptic" and its variants and three of "skeptic". This suggested that before people began to move across the Atlantic, of those that could write, most would spell the word as "sceptic". (From memory, I don't think there are any citations of "k" post-1630.) The OED evidence leaves the impression that the England based group seems to have stuck with "sceptic" (despite Johnson's recommendation of "skeptic") while the descendants of those that moved across the Atlantic at some point adopted the older "skeptic" (despite Webster's recommendation of "sceptic".) (By the way, I didn't mean to imply that the "k" spelling was not the older one. Instead, I was taking as a starting point the time when there was only one group of English speakers using one version of English - a comfortable fiction! - and then comparing how the later two groups of English speakers began to diverge.)
More likely, both of these interpretations are over-simplistic. As you pointed out, spellings were still pretty fluid at the time. And in any case, although I've found it interesting to investigate, as far as this article goes I think it's quite a trivial and unimportant point. I think it would be better just to find more clear-cut examples of 19th century British changes.
Incidentally, the OED highlights that the pronunciation did not follow the French sceptique (with a silent c) but instead was in line with the Greek for both spellings. But it seems to me that the contemporary view could equally have been that the pronunciation followed the Latin, as much as the Greek. So Webster's view (presumably based on etymology) seems to be quite as valid as Johnson's. The OED also points out that it corresponds to the German skeptisch which makes me wonder whether the impact of German immigration could have been an influence.
But enough of all this. I must go and check whether the robins have hatched in the nesting box outside our kitchen window. All the best... Adrian Robson 09:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, I should thank you for pointing out that the "skeptical" thing is much more obscure than it looks. Yes, the original Webster's defines skeptic by cross-reference to sceptic (somewhat surprisingly, given Noah's flair for phonetic spellings). Webster's 1913 has skeptic . . . [written also sceptic]. Webster's 1961 has skeptic . . . or sceptic, but only newer M-W Collegiate has sceptic . . . chiefly Brit var of sceptic. In this scenario, the original phrasing "subsequent spelling changes in Britain" was, as you noticed, not entirely correct, so I rewrote it as "subsequent tendencies." The _classical_ latin pronunciation was like the Greek, but according to Ecclesiastical pronunciation (what matters most w.r.t. English), sceptic would sound sheptik, and in English it would boil down to septic. (From the British National Corpus: "Pull the other one Chelsea captain Graham Roberts has a sceptic foot and is very doubtful," believe it or not...) Additionally, the British inclination for gallicisms spans almost 3 centuries (poste restante 1768, aubergine 1794, serviette 1818, abattoir 1820, matelot 1847, aeroplane 1873, compere 1914); but the history of skeptic/sceptic cannot undergo facile generalizations, so I'll drop the reference until I find better phraseology. --JackLumber, 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC) By "robin" I assume you mean this one---nothing to do with his American namesake; I guess it's more similar to this one. (Names of plants and animals however _cannot_ be regarded as differences between British and American English---they are differences between European and American flora and fauna; if I was in Europe, I would refer to your robin as robin, not, redundantly, European robin.) But a nesting box (birdhouse) would be only a nest box in AmE, and we can also say I must go check and out our kitchen window... thanks again, JackLumber
You're right, of course, about the robin. It was actually the picture on your user page that made me think of it. I had to look twice to see what your picture actually was. Reminds me of the Second World War song White Cliffs of Dover, written by a resident of Kansas, I believe, who either had no interest in ornithology or wasn't going to let the facts get in the way of a good line. "There'll be seagulls over, the white cliffs of Dover," sounds a lot less compelling! Interesting, too to hear about the sheptik pronunciation. I don't think I've come across this before. My Latin teachers always pronounced Latin "c" like a "k", though I've never understood how anyone can be sure about the Romans' pronunciation.
Thanks for looking up the Webster details. I wonder if there's any evidence that these spellings reflected current practice or were based on what the writers thought should be the current practice. Adrian Robson 13:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we do have a British equivalent. It's ..um ... err...
"bet your bottom dollar"
See here -- TrevorD 23:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, that website don't prove a thing, as it explains American idioms also. But you have always been stealing our idioms pretty much on a regular basis since the Mayflower landed... --Jack, 19:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your theory cheques out...

"Counterfoil" is the original meaning; it was so called from its use to check forgery. Actually the article doesn't claim that check is the original spelling (that sentence is no more than a periphrasis of Pam Peters); and the OED itself says "Cheque is a differentiated spelling of check, which is also in use, especially in U.S." It's not really crystal clear how the Exchequer comes into play, but in Britain the spelling cheque took over to denote the written order issued against a bank (why not banque?). By then, cheques were unknown in America; but when they came into use, the spelling check was retained. I'll be back for more anyways---I just ain't got the skinny on hand right now. But I had planned on editing the article today, so I will fix this while I'm at it. JackLumber, 12:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC) ?? (that's where it's at.)

No, that was not the intended meaning. Only a few spelling tendencies had to do with Victorian England, so I rephrased the whole enchilada. Speaking of farming (yes, many here among us are only interested in slang and the like and forget the very staple of our culture and civilization...), did the colonial meaning of barn eventually cross the Pond? Additionally, barn in the U.S. came to denote also buildings for housing railroad cars, streetcars, trucks, etc. Maybe could use an entry in the list of words having d.m. in BE & AE? --JackLumber, 19:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Instant Stub

Thanks. I'm not much of an oldies fan so I'm not familier with the song, but I'll make sure to check it out now. ~ Falls End (T, C)

[edit] Your Suggestion at Talk:American and British English spelling differences

Your suggestion is an excellent one! Thanks. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 13:09 (UTC)

I concur. But User:Rkeys followed your instructions to the letter [2], [3], [4] :-) JackLumber. 13:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I wondered if someone would actually do that. But I thought it would get deleted immediately, which seems to be what has happened. Made me laugh, though. Adrian Robson 10:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...the falling leaves of red & gold...

As a musician, I have played that song many, many times... "Fall was replaced with autumn in Britain" was simply incorrect, since autumn dates back to C14. Fall and autumn can be used almost interchangeably in NAmE, although fall is more common (e.g. in college, courses take place in the fall) and autumn more "bookish" (this explains Autumn Leaves, Autumn In New York, and all that... jazz ;-). The Compact Oxford says autumn is "chiefly British," but it just ain't true. The technical term is autumn (autumnal equinox is more accurate than fall equinox). UNT, JackLumber. 19:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pitman

Hi, I realize that the consonant table in the Pitman Shorthand article won't display properly on everyone's computer, because for the strokes, I "cheated" by using Unicode symbols that resemble the actual strokes. I was just too lazy that time to make images and upload them, but I can do that later, if I have time. (Or, if you want, feel free to create and upload the images yourself.) --Siva 16:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can

The article American English, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

[edit] Ringo Starr and malapropism

Hi Adrian - a while back you expressed doubt at Talk:Malapropism that "ringoisms" such as "Tomorrow never knows" were malapropisms. I have provided documentary support for them being malapropisms, in the form of published references and a radio interview with John Lennon. Unfortunately, one editor doesn't think that published references are enough to satisfy those claims... is it possible for you to have a look at the comments on the talk page and the references I have added to the article (you may need to check the history, due to the ongoing reversions), to see whether what I have added is enough to satisfy your doubts? Cheers, Grutness...wha? 01:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough - thanks. If only User:ILike2BeAnonymous had stated things as well, this would never have flared up to this extent. BTW, the Beatles books don't repeat Lennon's quote, but give further examples of Ringoisms, such as asking for "slight bread" (sliced) or commenting on Paul's "harmoniums" (harmonies) on a song. Grutness...wha? 23:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)