View previous topic | View next topic

Relocation of Parliament

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

GuyBarry
1321444.  Thu May 09, 2019 1:09 pm Reply with quote

Now come on, it was probably bad enough for suze to have her spelling corrected once, let alone twice!

(But I'll give you a point if you like.)

 
Dix
1321446.  Thu May 09, 2019 1:42 pm Reply with quote

Suze's tougher than you think!

 
suze
1321451.  Thu May 09, 2019 5:14 pm Reply with quote

There are those who think that an English teacher who ever gets a spelling wrong should at once disembowel herself and hang her head in shame. They are wrong.

I really should have gotten Nissen right though, because Peter Nissen (1871-1930) was a Canadian who lived for a time in the Medway Towns!

He was born in the US of Norwegian parents who relocated every time they ran out of money, but at the age of 19 he chose to remain in Nova Scotia when his parents moved on. After two decades there he spent a few years seeking (and not finding) his fortune in the South African gold mines, and then came to England.

WWI broke out after Mr Nissen had been a year in England, and he joined up. As a qualified mining engineer he was soon attached to the Royal Engineers, and so came to Chatham where he was based when he invented his hut.

As a soldier he was decorated for his invention. As a private citizen he became rich out of it once war was over - and promptly bought a big house that wasn't in Chatham!

 
GuyBarry
1321455.  Fri May 10, 2019 12:06 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
There are those who think that an English teacher who ever gets a spelling wrong should at once disembowel herself and hang her head in shame. They are wrong.


I was surprised about your error on "conferring", though, because the rule is pretty straightforward for verbs with stress on the final syllable; before "-ed", "-ing", "-er" and "-able", always double a single final consonant[*] when it's preceded by a single vowel. I can think of no genuine exceptions except "transferable" ("preferable" doesn't count for reasons I gave earlier). Can you?

It's harder to get it right for verbs that aren't stressed on the final syllable, where the general rule is not to double, but there are plenty of exceptions, as well as differences between British and American usage ("travelling"/"traveling" etc.).

[*]Except "x", which is treated as a double consonant for this purpose. "W" and "y" don't count as consonants for this purpose.

 
Dix
1321465.  Fri May 10, 2019 3:23 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
There are those who think that an English teacher who ever gets a spelling wrong should at once disembowel herself and hang her head in shame. They are wrong.

Indeed.

For the record, before I left secondary school (or the equivalent thereof) it was generally known that if I and my teacher disagreed on the spelling of an unusual word odds were about 50-50 as to which of us were right when we looked it up. I'm lousy at the actual rules, I just pick it up. I can't help it. I only remember about a handful of common words that I actually had to learn. All ones where I'd been misled by the pronounciation. In at least two of those instances, "my" spelling has been allowed as variant spellings by now.

The hardest bit to learn was to not point out a mistake every time I spotted one.

 
Jenny
1321488.  Fri May 10, 2019 8:55 am Reply with quote

I'm with you on that Dix - it's one of those things that I always instinctively got right. It's not that I never make a spelling mistake, but it is rare. I have found, though, that I'm getting worse with age and rapidity of typing, and a couple of times have made real howlers, though I've nearly always managed to rescue myself before posting them online anywhere.

 
suze
1321514.  Fri May 10, 2019 11:57 am Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
I was surprised about your error on "conferring", though, because the rule is pretty straightforward for verbs with stress on the final syllable; before "-ed", "-ing", "-er" and "-able", always double a single final consonant[*] when it's preceded by a single vowel. I can think of no genuine exceptions except "transferable" ("preferable" doesn't count for reasons I gave earlier). Can you?


Not immediately, although I would be surprised if there genuinely are none. Transferrable with the "expected" double <r> will be found in British writing of the C19, but has given way to the originally-American single <r>. It's not yet "accepted" as correct, but transfering is gradually gaining currency too.

The good husband has an answer, although it's a bit cheating and it's only an exception if you happen to be Australian. The verb to debut is stressed on the second syllable in Australia, but the past participle is still debuted. The cheat, of course, is that the <t> is silent.


Guy wrote:
It's harder to get it right for verbs that aren't stressed on the final syllable, where the general rule is not to double, but there are plenty of exceptions, as well as differences between British and American usage ("travelling"/"traveling" etc.).


That difference with <l> is well known, and a similar difference with <p> is gradually becoming the norm as well. I would write kidnapped and worshipped, but a form which takes the <p> - as it were - and uses only one instance of that letter is becoming more common in NAm.

I had a feeling that we'd done this topic on these forums before, before your time here I think. I've found that discussion, and the best we could do for a set of "rules" will be found at post 937545.

Among the conclusions from that discussion: The second <s> in focus(s)ing is neither wrong nor required, either side of the Atlantic. It is impossible to frame a rule which would get singeing (burning) correct, and for the past participle of that verb it might be best if we made an orthographical special case and spelled it sinjed. (As it happens, the verb to sing is strong and so confusion does not arise. But if it ever turns weak, I'm going to write a song called The King of Spain's beard just for the fun of it ...)

 
GuyBarry
1321530.  Fri May 10, 2019 2:09 pm Reply with quote

suze wrote:

The good husband has an answer, although it's a bit cheating and it's only an exception if you happen to be Australian. The verb to debut is stressed on the second syllable in Australia, but the past participle is still debuted. The cheat, of course, is that the <t> is silent.


That's a clever one though! Point to the good husband.

Quote:
That difference with <l> is well known


Yup - that's just a weird British thing with no obvious explanation. (There's even an exception to the exception - "paralleled" is so spelt because two double "l"s would look ridiculous!)

Quote:
and a similar difference with <p> is gradually becoming the norm as well. I would write kidnapped and worshipped, but a form which takes the <p> - as it were - and uses only one instance of that letter is becoming more common in NAm.


See below for why I think "kidnapped" isn't anomalous. (Not sure about "worshipped".)

Quote:
I had a feeling that we'd done this topic on these forums before, before your time here I think. I've found that discussion, and the best we could do for a set of "rules" will be found at post 937545.


The problem with the "rules" as they're normally formulated is that they take no account of the vowel in the final syllable. Think of forms like "hobnobbed", "handbagged", "monogrammed", "handicapped", "formatted". None of these verbs are stressed on the final syllable, and yet they all unquestionably double the final consonant.

I think it's safe to say that if the final vowel is a schwa then you don't double the consonant (unless it's "l", for some weird reason), but if it's a clear vowel like /ć/ or /ɒ/ then you usually do, even if it isn't stressed. That's the distinction that the grammar books fail to make clear, and I think there would be fewer exceptions if it were formulated that way.

But I still can't think of a good reason why we write "gossiped" but "worshipped", since they both have /ɪ/ - in my speech anyway. (Does "gossip" have a reduced vowel in some dialects?)

Quote:
The second <s> in focus(s)ing is neither wrong nor required, either side of the Atlantic.


It always looks wrong to me, but there are so few other verbs ending in unstressed vowel + "s" to compare it with. All I'd say is that we don't double the "s" in plural nouns like "bonuses".

Quote:
It is impossible to frame a rule which would get singeing (burning) correct


I think it's very simple. The rule is "retain mute 'e' if it would avoid confusion with a similarly spelt word". So we have singeing and swingeing, but cringing and hinging. (I think we should also have whinging because there's no verb whing, but I'm seeing whingeing increasingly often. I can't explain that.)

 
suze
1321536.  Fri May 10, 2019 5:17 pm Reply with quote

GuyBarry wrote:
But I still can't think of a good reason why we write "gossiped" but "worshipped", since they both have /ɪ/ - in my speech anyway. (Does "gossip" have a reduced vowel in some dialects?)


I think it does, and indeed so does worship - but not in the sense of praising the Lord.

If one goes to church one worships with /ɪ/, but if one addresses the bench one might call the magistrate Your Worship with /ə/. (Except in Australia, where she is Your Honour.)

Some but not all mayors are also correctly addressed as Your Worship. Apparently Lord Mayors are so addressed, the Mayors of the Cinque Ports Proper (but not the Antient Towns or the Limbs) are so addressed, the Mayor of Shrewsbury is so addressed because ancient historical custom, but others should should just be Mr/Ms Mayor.

But as for why it's gossiped but worshipped, there is no obvious explanation - and this may be why the second <p> in worshipped is slowly disappearing. The second <p> in handicapped won't disappear though, because then it would sound like a disabled Batman.

Quote:
I think we should also have whinging because there's no verb whing, but I'm seeing whingeing increasingly often. I can't explain that.


Both Collins and Oxford actually prefer whingeing, much as it looks wrong to me. A fairly cursory search of news headlines finds The Times using whingeing, but The Guardian and the Daily Telegraph using whinging. I think we probably have to accept the <e> as neither wrong nor required.

 
crissdee
1321554.  Sat May 11, 2019 3:59 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
If one goes to church one worships with /ɪ/, but if one addresses the bench one might call the magistrate Your Worship with /ə/.


I looked at the IPA guide you linked to a while ago, but I'm damned if I can see what you're getting at there........

 
GuyBarry
1321555.  Sat May 11, 2019 4:18 am Reply with quote

What suze is saying is that the second syllable of "worship" as in church is like the second syllable of "warship", but the second syllable in "Your Worship" is like the second syllable of "bishop".

I don't observe this distinction myself - I would use the "warship" pronunciation for both.

 
crissdee
1321600.  Sat May 11, 2019 5:11 pm Reply with quote

Me too, thanks GB.

 
barbados
1321617.  Sun May 12, 2019 3:14 am Reply with quote

Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
suze wrote:
As for Richmond House, the notion that it would probably be the site for the temporary House of Commons has been around for three years or so, so it's no great surprise that it is indeed the preferred option.

There is an issue with this building too, though. It is owned by HM Treasury UK Sovereign Sukuk plc, a company set up by George Osborne to provide (speaking loosely, since I don't really understand Islamic banking) Shar'iah-compliant gilts. A committee of quda* was commissioned to set out the implications of this, and one of them is that alcohol may not be served in the building.

I’m not fully convinced by this, as far as I can find Richmond House is part of the civil estate which is “owned” by the “people” and funded by HM Treasury.

 
suze
1321629.  Sun May 12, 2019 7:33 am Reply with quote

To all intents and purposes the building is part of the public estate, yes.

I have already noted that I don't really understand Islamic banking, and I am not a lawyer. But this is the legal document which states that Richmond House and other public estate buildings form collateral for HM Treasury UK Sovereign Sukuk plc.

In the very unlikely event that Britain fails on its obligations under the sukuk scheme, Richmond House will be forfeited. It's not the case that the investors in the scheme would be able to walk away with it though, because it would be forfeited to HM Revenue and Customs. You'd need to ask a lawyer if you wanted to know why this legal fiddle is necessary, but the building will remain within the public estate whatever happens.

But the key point is that the sukuk scheme is intended to be compliant with Shar'iah law. When George Osborne created the scheme he said that it would be, and he had scholars of Shar'iah law go through the details to ensure that it was. Any report which they wrote, and any contract intended to enforce whatever came out of that report, have not been made public - but it has become known that the serving of alcohol in the buildings which form the collateral would be incompatible with Shar'iah law.

 
barbados
1321650.  Sun May 12, 2019 1:49 pm Reply with quote

The point was I couldn’t find a source for the suggestion.
However it does look as though the problem is more daily mail than anything else.
The bond matures in 10 weeks at which time the rental payment can be allocated to another building

 

Page 2 of 3
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group