I just thought "to what" didn't sound right in that case and a verb that didn't need "to" would be better.
Fluoresecent tube lengths
- Thread starter JohnW2
- Start date
Sponsored Links
That might be true of the 1199mm one (although they also do a 1200mm one!), but the others are all way off either the with-pins or without-pins dimensions of the traditional Imperial sizes - which suggests to me that they probably won't fit in a standard fitting.
Not me - the longest I've seen is 8'.
Kind Regards, John
I agree that it doesn't "sound right" ('awkward') but I think it's grammatically correct.
Well, yes, but you're surely merely saying that, in general, any contrived wording to avoid having a preposition at the end of a sentence sounds wrong/awkward (even if grammatically correct) - if you substitute a verb that doesn't require a preposition, then the problem obviously goes away!!
Kind Regards, John
P.S. Googling indicates that 10' ones are still available, but a quick look didn't find any 12' ones.
Kind Regards, John
Sponsored Links
Yes.
It's not really contrived; merely not done correctly in the first place.
Does that mean there is something 'wrong' or 'odd' with verbs which do need a preposition? I don't know.
I have just read an article debunking most of what I learnt but it was by the OED which seems to favour redefining things to the most frequently used wrong meanings. I did not agree with it.
Anyway, in it were examples of prepositions at the end of words which, it said, were acceptable.
One such was "He had no one to play with". It would seem unavoidable to have the preposition at the end but this would be incorrect and one of your 'informal' examples, wouldn't it?
The correct would simply be "He had no one with whom to play".
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2008
- Messages
- 23,871
- Reaction score
- 2,703
- Location
- Llanfair Caereinion, Nr Welshpool
- Country
mm total inch feet inches
549 = 21.61417 or 1 foot 9.614173 inches measurement A
849 = 33.4252 or 2 feet 9.425197 inches measurement A
1149 = 45.23622 or 3 feet 9.23622 inches measurement A
1449 = 57.04724 or 4 feet 9.047244 inches measurement A
563.2 = 22.17323 or 1 feet 10.17323 inches measurement C
863.2 = 33.98425 or 2 feet 9.984252 inches measurement C
1163.2 = 45.79528 or 3 feet 9.795276 inches measurement C
1463.2 = 57.6063 or 4 feet 9.606299 inches measurement C
From the GE Lighting LongLast T5 data sheet.
I seem to remember the old thick tubes were slightly longer than the new tubes, I have a 5 foot fitting in the kitchen which used the fat tubes, and on fitting the newer thin tube, LED as the fluorescent tubes don't last long with the old ballast, I had to press the ends to make it hold fully, where the old tube the end caps seemed to be slightly stretched. But I don't think the 5 foot tube was ever 5 foot long, the total fitting may have been 5 foot, with the covers etc. But not the tube.
Clearly not 'wrong', if it is grammatically correct - and 'odd' (or 'awkward') is essentially in the eyes of the beholders.
I think what you are perhaps overlooking is that, although you often express a dislike of it (because you regard it as legitimising 'incorrect' use of language), 'common usage' of any language inevitably evolves over time. Many of the things which sound odd/awkward/over-formal/'posh' to us now were probably regarded as perfectly normal everyday language 100 years ago. I'm sure that a lot of the language used by my grandparents would sound pretty odd (probably mainly in the sense of feeling 'more formal') today. One of my grandfathers certainly used words like "thee" and "thou" (as still do some English regions, I believe!).
I'm not sure how far you go in your view that it is wrong for us to accept changes/evolution in language - changes which often render 'correct' (or, at least, accepted) things which previously would have been regarded as 'incorrect'. Do you feel that we should still be speaking the language which, say, was 'correct' in the time of Chaucer (or Shakespeare, or Dickens), and that the subsequent evolution has represented an undesirable acceptance of language which Chaucer (or whoever) would have regarded as 'incorrect'??
Kind Regards, John
There is a difference in 'evolving' - not using 'thee' and 'thou' (not sure how 'you' replaced both) - and redefining words because most people use them wrongly as is the case with 'literally' according to the OED.
If people slovenly use, for example, "we was", should it not be discouraged?
People in Devon may say "us is"; should that become the correct way? Who is deciding?
Would you prefer Stephen Fry or Danny Dyer to be copied more?
If people slovenly use, for example, "we was", should it not be discouraged?
People in Devon may say "us is"; should that become the correct way? Who is deciding?
Would you prefer Stephen Fry or Danny Dyer to be copied more?
Thanks. OK, that explains where Sylvania's 549, 1149 and 1449mm came from - but is that perhaps specific to T5, which is a somewhat different animal to T8/T12?
The pins lengths do vary a little, but all the 5 ft or 1500mm ones I buy now are very close to (sometimes exactly) 5 ft (1524mm) including pins (dimension C in the GE datasheet). Since, at least in my experience, they still fit in very old fittings, I get the impression that the tube length (without pins) has always been very close to 1500mm (59.06").
Kind Regards, John
My point is that I don't really see much of a difference - in both cases you mention, language has come to be used (and accepted) which would previously have been regarded as incorrect/'wrong'.
Yes, because the great majority of English speakers consider it wrong, and don't say it. However, if a high proportion of people came to use that language (and regard it as 'normal'/'correct'), then it would be too late, and arguably inappropriate, to attempt to 'discourage' that evolution.
Of course, returning to the above, evolution has made a bit of mess of the second person pronouns - the loss of second person singular pronouns thou, thee (and thy/thine), which were replaced with the (previously just plural) 'you' (and 'your') means that a second person singular 'you' now, illogically, takes the same verb form as the plural 'you' (and we've lost the singular verb form 'art').
[BTW, I think the reason why 'thou' and 'thee' both turned into 'you' is part of the general phenomenon whereby, somewhere along the way, the English language lost most of its (Latin based) distinction between 'nominative' and 'objective/accusative' forms of words]
... and that's before one gets into the subjunctive, which many people misunderstand/misuse - as I'm sure you know, there are situations in which "I were" (rather than "I was") is correct!
Indeed they do. They also say things like "he gave it to I".
This is very different. You are now talking about regional dialects/variations which some people passionately want to preserve. I also suspect that in some such cases, those 'regional oddities' are, in fact, the way the English language once was - and the rest of us have (incorrectly') changed how we use those words!
Kind Regards, John
That is Somerset.
I accept all you say and only introduced the (if they were) dialects as examples of 'wrong' speech (we was) which could become the norm.
From what you say, the process is inevitable and today hastened by the instant media.
So, instead of encouraging everyone to speak and write properly those who do will be dragged down by the majority.
How long before the Queen, instead of another annus horribilis, says "We wuz robbed"?
It must just be excluding and including pins if they're the same overall length. Flourescent tubes are about the only thing I use imperial for. I got asked to 1st fix some wall lights at 6ft the other day, had to go find a tape measure that had feet and inches on it
Just remember that 1foot is roughly 300mm / 0.3m and you'll be close enough for the wall lights
Do you never ask for a 4" timer fan at the wholesalers, or 2 by 2 trunking? Is it always a 100mm fan and 50x50 trunking?
Must admit, I use 100mm/4" for fans interchangeably, so that's another instance.
As for trunking, always metric. As with everything, I struggle to visualise stuff in imperial measurements.
I'm of a generation where everything was taught in metric, and very little heed was paid to imperial conversion.
As for trunking, always metric. As with everything, I struggle to visualise stuff in imperial measurements.
I'm of a generation where everything was taught in metric, and very little heed was paid to imperial conversion.
I understand that, but you will also understand that some of us are of a generation for which exactly the opposite was true - so, correspondingly, I struggle to visualise (or think about) most things in metric measurements.
If you ask me what approximate size is a double socket, or a room, or a garden, or the height of a person, my first answer would be inches, feet or even yards. I understand, and can visualise, 'a pint of milk', 'a gallon of petrol', 'a pound of sugar' etc. - but still often have to undertake a mental conversion to understand what a metric quantity represents. If you told me that somewhat was 155cm tall and weighed 82kg, of if you told me that the speed limit was 90 km/h or that the distance between two towns was 200 km, I would certainly have to 'do the calculation' before I really understood what it meant
The one confusion for us was that, although all of the everyday world was still Imperial, we were taught Physics and Chemistry at school in metric (albeit initially c.g.s units, the change to m.k.s. units occurring whilst I was at school).
Kind Regards, John
Evolution of almost everything is pretty inevitable - whether in terms of language, dress, diet, music, art, 'opportunities', technology or whatever. A Victorian coming back to life in 2016 would find a vast number of things which were unfamilar/ unrecognisiable, a good few of which they would regard (by Victorian standards) as 'wrong', or even 'unacceptable'.
Don't get me wrong. I shudder as much as anyone else when I see/hear individuals making mistakes with language through ignorance (like your "we was") - and, if it seems possible to do it without getting punched (or worse), I agree that such errors should be pointed out, in the hope that the individual will learn, and correct his/her error.
However, that is very different from a situation in which a substantial proportion of the population (or a sub-population) have come to use words/grammar which, at the time, are technically incorrect - IMO, somewhere there is a 'point of no return' at which the only realistic option is to accept that change has occurred. For example, there must have been a long period of time during which increasing numbers of people started using "you {singular} are" incorrectly, when they should have been saying "thou art". You may feel that attempts should have been made to 'discourage' this 'error' and 'nip it in the bud', but the time eventually came when so many people were saying "you are" that it was "thou art" which came to sound/feel 'wrong', so that the new version came to be accepted as 'correct'.
Assuming that you accept that some evolution of language is acceptable, or even desirable (i.e. you don't feel that we should still be speaking the language of Chaucer, or whoever), I don't think there is any way in which that evolution of the English language can occur other than by there being a period during which increasing number of people use 'incorrect' language. In terms of 'general' (as opposed to technical) English, the authors of dictionaries and grammatical texts (or any official bodies) are never going to be the initiators of change - they merely respond to observed changes in current/common usage.
Kind Regards, John
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
