Earth funnies and phantom voltages on lighting circuit

[SimonH2]

FWIW I would generally use less for voltage and current, but for volts & amps I'd tend to use fewer and less somewhat interchangeably.
I'm as guilty as anyone of making such grammatical errors.

But could I suggest it's counterproductive to have threads hijacked into lengthy discussions on correct grammar. I seem to recall a forum member in the past very fond of being pedantic over relatively minor issues - and distracting from the exchange of knowledge.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As so often, that depends entirely on what one means by 'wrong'.

Incorrect.

However, whatever it means, as I wrote, I'm far too old for you, or anyone else, to have much prospect of changing what is essentially a life-long habit of mine (and of countless other people).

I don't see why.

However, you haven't answered any of the questions I asked.

I thought they were pointless wriggling - quoting examples of different things to justify something else.

For example, would you really say that one piece of equipment consumed "fewer Watts" than another,

Yes, of course.

or that IR measurement had shown that one circuit had "fewer Ohms" than another?

Yes, of course.

There is no argument.

 

[JohnW2]

Incorrect.

I really can't see how it can be 'incorrect' to say that one can only describe something as "wrong" if one is clear as to what "wrong" means!

I don't see why.

What you can 'see' is not my problem

Yes, of course. ... Yes, of course.

Fair enough, although I'm a little surprised

There is no argument.

If you mean that no-one would use language differently from you (believing iut to be acceptable/'correct') then I could not really agree with you.

 

[JohnW2]

FWIW I would generally use less for voltage and current ..

I imagine that virtually everyone would - and that is even consistent with EFLI's definitions.

, but for volts & amps I'd tend to use fewer and less somewhat interchangeably.

As I've said, the same here (and, I would think, the same for very many people) - although, as I implied, I think I would probably be more likely to use "less" than "fewer".

I'm as guilty as anyone of making such grammatical errors.

We're all 'guilty' - but, despite EFLIs disagreement, the question of what is a "grammatical error" is far from straightforward. Unlike some languages (like French) the English language is in no way 'regulated'. Hence all we have to go on is 'common usage', which is 'dynamic' (i.e. 'evolves'), and is eventually documented in (but not 'dictated by) dictionaries and teaching.

As you will be aware, I find it pretty ridiculous (and 'intellectually arrogant') to suggest that the (then 'common usage') language that EFLI was taught a number of decades ago is, and always will be, the only 'correct' form of the language - not the least because others could extrapolate from that to before the days of Chaucer and Beowolf!

But could I suggest it's counterproductive to have threads hijacked into lengthy discussions on place is not one that I want to correct grammar. I seem to recall a forum member in the past very fond of being pedantic over relatively minor issues - and distracting from the exchange of knowledge.

You're obviously free to suggest whatever you want. I agree that discussions such as this should move to a more appropriate place but, in the context of DIYnot forums, the 'obvious' place is not one that I personally want to have anything to do with (which EFLI may tell us is a grammatically incorrect statement). However, provided (as is usually the case) these 'hijackings' only occur after the matter of the OP has been 'dealt with', I see no particular problem with them being here - not the least because it goes without saying that no-one is compelled to read any of it!

Although I'm very guilty of participating in these discussions, I would suggest that they nearly always (at least, very commonly) arise because EFLI (occasionally others) seek to 'correct' (linguistically) what I or others have written

 

[securespark]

I was taught by my parents (both English grads from UCL, one an English teacher, the other an English lecturer and TEFL teacher) the same rule about fewer and less, but English is, as my Mum says, a moveable feast, so how it is used changes with the times. These days, very often you will find that people say "less" and tend not to use "fewer".

What does irk me on TV, anyway, is that people use all the words the Americans use, so that when the programs are sold to the US, the thick bleeders know what we are saying. Words like "envision" instead of envisage and I once heard "normalcy" instead of normality...

 

[securespark]

Back to the earthing topic.

I searched the garage for a modern MK pendant set I knew I had somewhere.

Apart from the fact I didn't know a T2 lampholder could run to 150W (who uses 150W lamps anymore?), it has a Class II symbol on it, so if you have a circuit with those on, you'll need to follow that reg.

 

[JohnW2]

I was taught by my parents (both English grads from UCL, one an English teacher, the other an English lecturer and TEFL teacher) the same rule about fewer and less ...

I would be very surprised if we were not all taught that. As I've said, I think that almost everyone sticks to that rule when the use the word "fewer" (i.e. they nearly always mean "a smaller number of", in relation to something that can be counted). It's "less", which is the issue (at least, for EFLI). As you go on to say ...

... but English is, as my Mum says, a moveable feast, so how it is used changes with the times.

It is, but EFLI does not accept that - or, rather, feels that it should not be allowed to happen (since those changes can only start if people start using language 'incorrectly' in terms of the views of the day).

These days, very often you will find that people say "less" and tend not to use "fewer".

Indeed - and that is obviously the point I've been making. I'm personally one of those who will very often use "less" when EFLI would say that it should be "fewer"

What does irk me on TV, anyway, is that people use all t he words the Americans use, so that when the programs are sold to the US, the thick bleeders know what we are saying. Words like "envision" instead of envisage and I once heard "normalcy" instead of normality...

Yes, that can sometimes be a little irritating, but I think that we really should accept that our English and "US English" are slightly different (but very similar) languages and that words intended to be heard read by those on both side of the water are always going to appear 'odd', or even annoying/irritating, to those on one side of the water. I've certainly heard Americans saying similar things to what you've just written in relation to the way in which "UK English" in TV programs can "irk" them. I think we probably all need (ought) to be tolerant of these differences.

Of course, the UK population have been exposed to US TV and films ('movies' ) for many decades, so it would be very surprising if at least some 'US English' had not rubbed off and come into 'common usage' in UK (maybe even "movie"?!!). Conversely, I presume that those in the US will similarly have been exposed to at least some UK material, so it's possible that some changes have happened in the opposite direction?

 

[JohnW2]

Back to the earthing topic. .... I searched the garage for a modern MK pendant set I knew I had somewhere. Apart from the fact I didn't know a T2 lampholder could run to 150W (who uses 150W lamps anymore?), it has a Class II symbol on it ...

Interesting. As I'm sure we've previously discussed, I've never seen such a symbol on a lampholder!

.... so if you have a circuit with those on, you'll need to follow that reg.

Maybe not! The regs are somewhat contradictory, but it would appear that 411.3.1.1 may well over-ride 412.2.3.2 ....

411.3.1.1 Protective earthing
..........
A circuit protective conductor shall be run to and terminated at each point in wiring and at each accessory except a
lampholder having no exposed-conductive-parts and suspended from such a point.

 

[yartin]

Interesting. As I'm sure we've previously discussed, I've never seen such a symbol on a lampholder!

May be that's because most if not all houses pre 1960's or so never had earth in their lighting circuits.
May be that was because ceiling roses with pendants were made of plastic didn't need regulation and were standard widely used.
Or even may be because specific requirements and regulations for class ii equipment were developed in the BS EN 50075 in 1991.

 

[securespark]

Interesting. As I'm sure we've previously discussed, I've never seen such a symbol on a lampholder!

Maybe not! The regs are somewhat contradictory, but it would appear that 411.3.1.1 may well over-ride 412.2.3.2 ....

View attachment 393700

I'm not quite sure why the regs didn't just say "Have a cpc at each point of every circuit" to account for all eventualities (excepting 412.1.2 and 411.3.1.1) and have done with it.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I was taught by my parents (both English grads from UCL, one an English teacher, the other an English lecturer and TEFL teacher) the same rule about fewer and less, but English is, as my Mum says, a moveable feast, so how it is used changes with the times. These days, very often you will find that people say "less" and tend not to use "fewer".

Maybe - but that doesn't make it right nor mean attempts to avoid it should not be made.

Oh yes, sorry, my mistake.

Oh no he didn't.

 

[JohnW2]

May be that's because most if not all houses pre 1960's or so never had earth in their lighting circuits.

No, that was not my point. There have been 60 years since then, and during that period, I have personally never seen a Class II symbol on such a lampholder - even though, as secure has illustrated, they do exist. I'm not sure when the symbol was first introduced, but it's certainly been around for much, if not all, of those 60 years.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe - but that doesn't make it right nor mean attempts to avoid it should not be made.

We know your view. However, as I always imply, it would be interesting to know what your parents and grandparents (let alone Chaucer) would have to say about the English you speak today and regard as 'correct'.

Oh no he didn't.

It is true that I did not literally write "Oh yes, sorry, my mistake" (which, incidentally, my English teacher would probably have frowned on, because it is a sentence without a verb!), but my very first response to your 'correcting' me was ..

You're probably never going to change my life-long habit of of often getting the grammar of less/fewer wrong but, that aside, I'm glad that you appear to agree with me!

... which surely conveys the same sentiment/'admission' (about alleged 'wrongness'), even though not an 'apology'?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Waffle, waffle, waffle.

 

[JohnW2]

I'm not quite sure why the regs didn't just say "Have a cpc at each point of every circuit" to account for all eventualities (excepting 412.1.2 and 411.3.1.1) and have done with it.

I agree. In particular, as I've said, for someone just looking at 412.2.3.2 it might well appear to be the case that a CPC has to be run to every point/accessory in a circuit ONLY IF that circuit supplies one or more Class II items - which is clearly not the case.