Securing Electricity Meter Cupboard

[ban-all-sheds]

It's not wrong, as the dictionaries give that definition, because of usage.

And I submit that, in usage, when people say "it was incredibly {whatever}" they do intend a more exaggerated "it was very {whatever}"

 

[JohnW2]

It's not wrong, as the dictionaries give that definition, because of usage.

Well, yes, most of them give "very" as a secondary "informal" meaning - but some here would say that "informal" (common usage) equates to 'wrong'.

And I submit that, in usage, when people say "it was incredibly {whatever}" they do intend a more exaggerated "it was very {whatever}"

They do, but that means that they are effectively invoking the "informal" (wrong?) definition. In terms of the primary (correct?) definitions, they are going beyond mere exaggeration to incorrect.

So, if one accepts that "informal" definitions in dictionaries, based on common usage, legitimise a use of a word that is incorrect in terms of 'original' definitions, then I suppose you would be right. However, I didn't think that you do accept that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Not unreservedly, no.

But stable doors and horses apply, and also there is a very important qualitative difference between adding to or extending the definition of a word, and allowing a new "definition" which destroys the old. Sometimes the new definition means that people stop using the word to mean what it previously did, for example it's probably within living memory that someone might say "I was out the other night, and had a gay old time, but I didn't half feel queer the next day" to mean they enjoyed a night out and were unwell the following day. Perhaps not nowadays, but the new use of "gay" and "queer" didn't intrinsically stop the old ones from working.

As people here have said, if I hear someone say "It was unbelievably hot", I know what they mean - it may originally have been wrong, but it hasn't done much damage to the previous meaning.

If I read "I was literally shaking with fear" I am unsure as to whether they really were shaking with fear or not, but usually the context of the use of "literally" make it clear whether they mean literally or figuratively.

But the new "definition" of "electrocute" has completely destroyed the original & followed-shortly-afterwards definitions - now when I read it I have no idea whether it means a fatal electric shock or a non-fatal one, unless the context helps. It was completely unnecessary, has added absolutely nothing beneficial to our vocabulary, and that particular door should have been kicked shut in the horse's face.

 

[JohnW2]

Not unreservedly, no. But stable doors and horses apply, and also there is a very important qualitative difference between adding to or extending the definition of a word, and allowing a new "definition" which destroys the old.

Like "lamp" do you mean?

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

When an ordinary person says "lamp", you know what he means.

When he says "my neighbour was fiddling with a lamp and electrocuted himself" you have no idea what he means.

 

[JohnD]

streetlamps and paraffin lamps were around long before lightbulbs.

I blame the electricians for misusing the word.

 

[EFLImpudence]

So were oil lamps. Should we call the bits which actually produce the light, wicks?

 

[JohnW2]

When an ordinary person says "lamp", you know what he means. When he says "my neighbour was fiddling with a lamp and electrocuted himself" you have no idea what he means.

Exactly, but two or three decades ago I would have known what he meant. Mind you, it's not a very good example, because, even back then, "fiddling with the lamp" could/would have included fiddling with the bulb that was installed in the lamp.

However, if someone 'back then' had said "I'm going out to buy a lamp", I would have known what they meant. If they said it today, I would have to interrogate them to determine with certainty the nature of what they were intending to buy.

In my opinion, the person(s) who suddenly decided that the thing which we plugged/screwed into a lamp should be called a "lamp" was not only wrong, but should have realised how much confusion and ambiguity was going to result.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Is known for certain that the inventors called them 'bulbs' or is that just modern writing?

http://www.edisonmuckers.org/thomas-edison-lightbulb/

"Edison then resorted to a carbon-based, high-resistance, filament. One year later in October 1879 Edison successfully tested a filament that burned for 13.5 hours. Continuing to improve his design, by November 1879, he filed for a U.S. patent for an electric lamp using “a carbon filament or strip coiled and connected … to platina contact wires”."

 

[JohnW2]

Is known for certain that the inventors called them 'bulbs' or is that just modern writing?

Dunno, but 'bulb' is certainly what they had been called throughout my (longer than I care to think about!) life, until the relatively recent 'change'. Certainly if you go back to the 60s/70s (and probably later) no ordinary person would have dreamed that one was talking about a "light bulb" if one used the word "lamp".

Your quote seems to imply that they may have been called 'electric lamps' in 1879 and for a while thereafter, but I think that probably ceased to be the case long before either you or I were born!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

So were oil lamps. Should we call the bits which actually produce the light, wicks?

I thought it was the oil which produced the light. I'd call the wick a conductor.

 

[JohnW2]

I thought it was the oil which produced the light. I'd call the wick a conductor.

Well, the oil is the fuel (as could be gas), which I suppose is comparable with electricity.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Fair enough, and I can't remember whether or not I have experienced that, but it's not something I've so far seen happening in my recent experiments.

... as I just wrote, in my experiments to date it seems that almost any single-character error will result in the correct word being suggested (commonly only the correct word) (sometimes no suggestions at all), regardless of whether the error was an 'adjacent key' or 'keys miles apart' one.

I'll continue the experiments, not the least to see if I can reproduce what you are describing.

Kind Regards, John

Found one.

bravel​

The spell checker offers me

brave
ravel
bravely
braves
braver​

but not 'gravel'.

 

[JohnW2]

Found one. ... bravel ... The spell checker offers me

brave ... ravel ... bravely ... braves ... braver ................. but not 'gravel'.​

Fair enough - but that may well be an illustration of another point I nearly made - that most spell-checkers seem to have difficulty if the initial character of a word is incorrect.

​

Nevertheless, I agree that if it considered the possibility that any typed character might be an 'adjacent key error', it would presumably have suggested "gravel" (and maybe lots of other things!).

Kind Regards, John