Touch plate connections

[Goulders]

There isn't a light for the 3rd gang and the 2nd gang had never worked. That's not to say it didn't work initially.

I think it's going to be a case of trial and error and few shrieks as I electrocute myself! 😣

Seriously though, I have never seen anything like this. If doesn't make much sense. I shall be spending a couple of hours later trying to work it out!!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

few shrieks as I electrocute myself!

Your dictionary is broken:

electrocute (ɪˈlɛktrəˌkjuːt)

— vb
1. to kill as a result of an electric shock
2. (US) to execute in the electric chair

 

[Goulders]

Eeek. Hope it doesn't go that badly!!

 

[JohnW2]

electrocute (ɪˈlɛktrəˌkjuːt)
— vb
1. to kill as a result of an electric shock
2. (US) to execute in the electric chair

As we've discussed before, that is strictly true, although a number of dictionaries do acknowledge a 'common usage' (albeit strictly incorrect) to relate to non-fatal electric shocks. It's interesting to see that even the editors of (allegedly!) learned scientific journals have allowed such usage - for example click here for one, and and here for another.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

As we've discussed before, that is strictly true, although a number of dictionaries do acknowledge a 'common usage' (albeit strictly incorrect) to relate to non-fatal electric shocks.

Indeed they do, and I'm resisting it.

Of course languages evolve, and the meanings of words change, I'm not trying to stop that sort of thing. But the first person ever to use the word "electrocute" to mean "non-fatal electric shock" was wrong. Not "strictly incorrect", just plain wrong. So was the second person. And the third.

I don't know how many of the billion-or-so English speakers in the world have to be wrong before the dictionaries admit the new usage, but I suspect we were nowhere near a reasonable threshold, and that what the Oxford University Press (for example) did was shameful.

 

[JohnW2]

Of course languages evolve, and the meanings of words change, I'm not trying to stop that sort of thing. But the first person ever to use the word "electrocute" to mean "non-fatal electric shock" was wrong. Not "strictly incorrect", just plain wrong. So was the second person. And the third.

Indeed so, and unless some people started using words wrongly (or inventing new words) there would be no evolution of language.

I don't know how many of the billion-or-so English speakers in the world have to be wrong before the dictionaries admit the new usage, but I suspect we were nowhere near a reasonable threshold, and that what the Oxford University Press (for example) did was shameful.

Who knows (and it's obviously an arbitrary threshold, anyway). However, IME it's actually pretty common for the general public to use the word 'wrongly', so we might be nearer the threshold (whatever it may be) than you think.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Maybe.

But do you not think that the role of a dictionary should be to define correct usage rather than acquiesce with the ignorami?

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe. But do you not think that the role of a dictionary should be to define correct usage rather than acquiesce with the ignorami?

As you implied yourself, only if one wishes to prevent the evolution of language.

Extension of language is obviously essential and unavoidable (most obviously in relation to technological/scientific/whatever 'advances') and that requires that people start using words which are not currently in dictionaries (hence, in some senses, 'wrong'). However, 'evolution' in the sense of changing meanings of existing words is not essential, and it is, I suppose, a matter of philosophy, cultural attitudes, personal opinions and a whole host of other considerations as to whether we should 'allow'/encourage it. Some nations (like the French) seem much more resistant to language evolution than we are - so, as one would expect, "opinions vary".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

Bas is literally correct but unfortunately that doesn't mean that any longer either.

 

[JohnW2]

Bas is literally correct but unfortunately that doesn't mean that any longer either.

Indeed it doesn't - so language does evolve

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I don't think anyone is disputing that it does.

The question is is it a bad thing?


In this day of social media and politically correct poor standards in 'the media' the process is all but instantaneous.
If everyone knows that 'wicked' and 'bad' now mean good I suppose there is no hope. It is just that the transition period is understandably frustrating.


I wonder what is Winston's view on words whose meaning has been transformed.

 

[JohnW2]

I don't think anyone is disputing that it does. The question is is it a bad thing?

As I said, that is clearly a matter of (personal, national, cultural, academic etc.) opinion.

In this day of social media and politically correct poor standards in 'the media' the process is all but instantaneous. If everyone knows that 'wicked' and 'bad' now mean good I suppose there is no hope. It is just that the transition period is understandably frustrating.

Ubiquitous 'instantaneous' communications media certainly facilitate very rapid evolution of 'new words/meanings'. However, back in the 60s we somehow managed to fairly rapidly develop a pretty extensive 'modified vocabulary' (which older generations didn't understand, and frowned upon) without much technological assistance.

I'm not sure whether you feel that evolution of language is a bad thing - but, if you do, what would you prefer us to be speaking now - the language of Chaucer, or what?

I wonder what is Winston's view on words whose meaning has been transformed.

I think that's actually a little different - there are countless examples of 'old words' persisting when the world changes - like pencil leads, irons one flattens ones clothes with etc. etc.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Bas is literally correct but unfortunately that doesn't mean that any longer either.

What doesn't mean what any longer?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I don't think anyone is disputing that it does.

That what does what?

The question is is it a bad thing?

Hard for me to say, when I have no idea what you're talking about.

In this day of social media

Just different channels for communication - the rules for what you transmit, and how, have not changed.

and politically correct poor standards in 'the media'

¿Que?

Why should poor standards be anybody's goal, or requirement?

As for PC - please don't pretend that that exists in any pejorative sense meant by those who use the term. It is a concept invented by people who wish to discredit liberal and progressive social policies.

If everyone knows that 'wicked' and 'bad' now mean good I suppose there is no hope.

Are you not cool with that?


The thing is there is an enormous difference between slang/colloquialisms and willfully accepting a fundamental change in meaning of a technical term because it is being misused by ignorami.

I wonder what is Winston's view on words whose meaning has been transformed.

Churchill, or our resident t**t who will probably vote to leave the EU because he doesn't understand what the word "nominal" means?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Ubiquitous 'instantaneous' communications media certainly facilitate very rapid evolution of 'new words/meanings'.

And the industrial technology deployed (mostly) in Western Europe 100 years ago certainly facilitated the very rapid slaughter of large numbers of people.

Just because new technology facilitates something new that doesn't mean we have to accept it as right, or desirable, or inevitable.