Horizontal safe zone with 'dry lining' back boxes

[JohnW2]

I would think so, being actually a grammatical error does not effectively rule it out as being a spelling mistake, at lest the way I see it anyway.

Yes, there's a lot of 'overlap', and also the third possibility of "typo" - but, as you suggest, in situations (such as we are discussing) where the issue only relates to a single word, it can in some senses be argued that a grammatical error manifests itself as an error of spelling.

With other (not 'one word') grammatical errors, it's obviously different, since every word may have perfect spelling, but with a grammatical error relating to word choice, word order, sentence construction etc. etc. ... and, finally, the perpetrator may be fully aware of the correct grammar and spelling, but with his/her typing fingers making the mistake!

There is the concept of proper use and the concept of normal use which are not always both in true alignment.

True, but this is where I upset EFLI, since "evolution of language" occurs when "normal (or 'common') use" becomes so widespread that it comes to be accepted (by most people other than those like EFLI) as "proper use". As I so often try to remind him, I feel sure that some of what he regards as 'proper use' (since that was the case when he first learned the language) would NOT have been regarded as 'proper use' by, say, his grandparents.

In Johns example ref the "American English" I view our English (The Queens English I was brought up upon) I believe to be the correct one. If Americans or others want to use a corrupted pronunciation or spelling then should specify.

I totally agree - but in the example I cited, that's exactly what happened. The (American) customer had specified exactly what he wanted to be printed (in 'American English') but, without any reference to the customer, the printer 'corrected' the spelling (into The Queen's English) [and you appear to have forgotten the apostrophe ]

In my particular example with the signwriters then it is my opinion that a signwriter firm should take due diligence and produce the correct version (or ask if this deviation was indeed intended for) therefore the firm was making a professional error.

I think it 'depends' upon the nature of the 'contract'. When one orders 'printed things', particularly on-line, (e.g. personalised greetings cards, business cards, or even 'signs', such as house signs etc.) one commonly has to agree to "Ts&Cs" which make it very clear that the firm will print/write/whatever exactly what the customer has specified and that the firm will make to attempt to 'check' or 'correct' (or even 'query') things that they might regard as possible errors, and that the firm will take no responsibility for errors resulting from their doing what they were instructed to do.

We all are aware of people, supposedly professional in some instances, calling a Ring Final Circuit a Ring Main and calling a Fused Connection Unit a Spur, even though theses terms are wrong and actually mean something else.

I don't think it's totally straightforward, since virtually every trade and profession has its own terminology and jargon (some 'official' and some 'common use'), which can sometimes be in conflict with widespread 'common use' language as used by the general public. A classic example is "Low Voltage" which has very different 'lay' and 'terminological' meanings. It's also very common in medicine - health care professionals really have to be conversant with (and use as appropriate) 'both languages' in order to be able to communicate effectively and efficiently with both patients and colleagues!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Hah Git it thanks. I was slow on that one. A used to live near some Irish and we noticed them saying three trees, was a whizz to hear it

It's rather odd. My (very Irish) late MIL seemed, in general, totally incapable of pronouncing "th" in the way that we would - to the extent that, to her dying day, she referred to her son Timothy as "Timoty". However, there were just a few words (I can't remember which) for which she pronounced the "th" just as would you and I - so it was not that she was 'incapable' of doing that!

 

[EFLImpudence]

True, but this is where I upset EFLI, since "evolution of language" occurs when "mistakes" becomes so widespread that it comes to be accepted (by most people other than those like EFLI) as "proper use".

The alternative is that people are doing it on purpose rather than because of ignorance. Why would that be?

 

[EFLImpudence]

If enough people call spiders insects, will spiders become insects or will it be forever a mistake?

 

[JohnW2]

The alternative is that people are doing it on purpose rather than because of ignorance. Why would that be?

If you had not changed my quote, you should be able to understand "why that would be". Before you changed it to "mistake", what I had written was "normal (or 'common') use" - so they are simply doing what large numbers of others are doing.

Your desire to prevent evolution of language by 'correcting mistakes' could only work in the very early stages. Once a change in usage (which, presumably started with a single 'mistake') becomes very widespread (i.e. comes to be "normal (or 'common') use"), you are essentially onto a loser.

 

[JohnW2]

If enough people call spiders insects, will spiders become insects or will it be forever a mistake?

As I've said before, that's not just a matter of terminology/vocabulary, since both spiders and insects have (different) technical definitions - so what you're suggesting would be akin to people coming to call switches sockets.

However, if one sticks to talking about words (for things with a specific definition) then "If enough people call spiders 'creepiers' ", then, yes, eventually "creepies" would become the accepted word for what were previously called spiders. If you compared your idea of 'correct words' with the idea of your grandparents or earlier ancestors, I'm sure you would find plenty of examples of such changes having happened.

 

[EFLImpudence]

If you had not changed my quote, you should be able to understand "why that would be". Before you changed it to "mistake", what I had written was "normal (or 'common') use" - so they are simply doing what large numbers of others are doing.

Yes - mindlessly copying large numbers of others making mistakes.

Your desire to prevent evolution of language by 'correcting mistakes' could only work in the very early stages. Once a change in usage (which, presumably started with a single 'mistake') becomes very widespread (i.e. comes to be "normal (or 'common') use"), you are essentially onto a loser.

Unless mistakes are corrected instead of promoted.

It is futile discussing this with you.

 

[EFLImpudence]

As I've said before, that's not just a matter of terminology/vocabulary, since both spiders and insects have (different) technical definitions

A bit like words have definitions, then.

- so what you're suggesting would be akin to people coming to call switches sockets.

Yes, it would be - a mistake.

However, if one sticks to talking about words (for things with a specific definition) then "If enough people call spiders 'creepiers' ", then, yes, eventually "creepies" would become the accepted word for what were previously called spiders. If you compared your idea of 'correct words' with the idea of your grandparents or earlier ancestors, I'm sure you would find plenty of examples of such changes having happened.

Irrelevant.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You do realise that spiders are not insects, don't you?

 

[JohnW2]

You do realise that spiders are not insects, don't you?

Of course I do ...

... that's not just a matter of terminology/vocabulary, since both spiders and insects have (different) technical definitions - so what you're suggesting would be akin to people coming to call switches sockets.

... and that was my whole point. As I said, to avoid that technical issue, think about the situation in which an increasingly large proportion of the population were using "creepie" (or any other word that was not already being used for something entirely different) to refer to what had previously been called "spiders".

 

[JohnW2]

It is futile discussing this with you.

I thought we established that years ago, but you nevertheless persist in promoting your 'anti-evolution' feelings about language.

 

[EFLImpudence]

... and that was my whole point. As I said, to avoid that technical issue, think about the situation in which an increasingly large proportion of the population were using "creepie" (or any other word that was not already being used for something entirely different) to refer to what had previously been called "spiders".

What is wrong with you?

They could be 'creepies'; they can never be insects.

I thought we established that years ago,

Yes, but one gets drawn in by your incessant rambling, mistakes and lack of proof-reading which should not be left unchallenged

How did you manage at work or does that explain the state of the country?

but you nevertheless persist in promoting your 'anti-evolution' feelings about language.

Well - there is nothing good about it.

 

[JohnW2]

What is wrong with you? They could be 'creepies'; they can never be insects.

That's what I said. Insects have an already defined meaning, which excludes spiders. As I said, that's why one cannot call sockets "switches", or vice versa.

Mind you, it could be said that a box containing multiple electronic components 'cannot be' a transformer, but that doesn't seem to have stopped a lot of people

Yes, but one gets drawn in by your incessant rambling, mistakes and lack of proof-reading which should not be left unchallenged

How did you manage at work or does that explain the state of the country?

I still do fine 'at work', thanks. You don't seem to understand the difference between 'doing work' and playing around in an internet discussion group (or having discussions in a pub)

Well - there is nothing good about it.

... but you seem to think that there is 'something good' about the English language as it was at the time you first encountered it, despite the dramatic evolution (all originating from 'mistakes') that had occurred over very many centuries before that.

 

[ebee]

the printer 'corrected' the spelling (into The Queen's English) [and you appear to have forgotten the apostrophe ]

Hah, GOOD - I wondered which one of you would indeed spot that deliberate mistake

 

[ebee]

so what you're suggesting would be akin to people coming to call switches sockets.

To be fair, some people actually do such things. calling a socket a plug is a very easy and noticeable example.

Mind you, it could be said that a box containing multiple electronic components 'cannot be' a transformer

Well how does it become a "transformer"? well it transforms electric in to electric out I suppose.
The Simple answer might be transforming 240v AC at 10a to 24v AC at 100a or thereabouts, so two coils of wire on a common iron based core might fit that description easily.
Transforming some things to other things might or might not be considered transforming too.
A transformer transforming the same voltages in and out at the same currents in and out is still a transformer too i.e. an isolation transformer.
So what is a transformer but perhaps what is a transformer not? no easy answer really!