English Language - what "Does your head in" ??

[mattheus]

Better than silly longwinded unknown concocted labels that many folk pronounce wrongly anyway.

With every greek letter in common parlance I've never known a problem.

Omicron IS unfamiliar, I agree, but if you say "Omnicron" to me I know what you mean. I'm not going to confuse it with any other Covid variants! Job done. With a little greek pretension, maybe, but that's by-the-by(e)

[Jdsk]

I'd say the point about the NATO alphabet letters is that each letter is represented by a distinctive word so if the pronunciation varies with accent etc, the meaning should still be clear, while with the numbers, the English version is retained but with formalised exaggerated pronunciation to retain clarity of meaning.

Yes, but there's a tension in the words: they're easier to remember because they're existing words (for some users) but because they're existing words they bring a pronunciation with them (for some users). That's why the warning upthread is so important.

Jonathan

PS: I suspect that keeping the numbers close to the English version was because of the risk of mismapping with an arbitrary system.

[Jdsk]

Better than silly longwinded unknown concocted labels that many folk pronounce wrongly anyway.

With every greek letter in common parlance I've never known a problem.

Omicron IS unfamiliar, I agree, but if you say "Omnicron" to me I know what you mean. I'm not going to confuse it with any other Covid variants! Job done.

Good point.

Jonathan

[DaveReading]

It seems to me that all this effort to avoid confusion actually leads to more potential for problems.
It is typical of a kind of academic overthinking.

So to list the different versions of Covid with just a simple numerical or alphabetical sequence seems perfectly alright.

Much of any such labelling is written anyway, especially where it's important.
A,B, .....

Ignore "five" if it troubles the trigger finger, though I find it a very silly reason for the case in point.
Context nearly always resolves any such confusion anyway.

Better than silly longwinded unknown concocted labels that many folk pronounce wrongly anyway.

I can't speak for any other industry, but in the one where I spent my entire career (aviation) people have died as a result of confusion over both letters and numbers on too many occasions.

[PDQ Mobile]

Better than silly longwinded unknown concocted labels that many folk pronounce wrongly anyway.

With every greek letter in common parlance I've never known a problem.

Omicron IS unfamiliar, I agree, but if you say "Omnicron" to me I know what you mean. I'm not going to confuse it with any other Covid variants! Job done.

Good point.

Jonathan

Covid is unfamiliar too.
And if you say Covid D or E or F or 1,2 or 3 or whatever then everybody understands.
The point is that it is a variant identifying suffix.
And it's easy to say as well.

Nice and simple.

[PDQ Mobile]

It seems to me that all this effort to avoid confusion actually leads to more potential for problems.
It is typical of a kind of academic overthinking.

So to list the different versions of Covid with just a simple numerical or alphabetical sequence seems perfectly alright.

Much of any such labelling is written anyway, especially where it's important.
A,B, .....

Ignore "five" if it troubles the trigger finger, though I find it a very silly reason for the case in point.
Context nearly always resolves any such confusion anyway.

Better than silly longwinded unknown concocted labels that many folk pronounce wrongly anyway.

I can't speak for any other industry, but in the one where I spent my entire career (aviation) people have died as a result of confusion over both letters and numbers on too many occasions.

I am sure you are correct.
But this is an industry with a plethora of special terms and codings.
The examples above show that .

Whisky tango!!
Juliett Bravo! ( indeed I knew her well )
What does it say about how effective they are especially over radio etc?

I should coco.

[Bmblbzzz]

Over my head, I fear.

Twice recently I've seen Dark IPA on sale in boozers and my query went over the barperson's head, too.

IPA.
International phonetic alphabet, Indian pale ale, isopropyl alcohol. Doubtless other unravellings of the same initials.

[Jdsk]

Since it has come up in another thread...

... I find the distinction between disinterested and uninterested to be useful. But I suspect that it hasn't got long to live.

Jonathan

[Cowsham]

Since it has come up in another thread...

... I find the distinction between disinterested and uninterested to be useful. But I suspect that it hasn't got long to live.

Jonathan

Found this off Google

In today's usage, disinterested most often means "not biased," whereas uninterested simply means "not interested." Interestingly, when these words were first introduced their meanings were the reverse, with disinterested originally meaning "lacking interest," and uninterested meaning "unbiased."

What meaning do you take from them?

[Jdsk]

Since it has come up in another thread...

... I find the distinction between disinterested and uninterested to be useful. But I suspect that it hasn't got long to live.

Found this off Google

In today's usage, disinterested most often means "not biased," whereas uninterested simply means "not interested." Interestingly, when these words were first introduced their meanings were the reverse, with disinterested originally meaning "lacking interest," and uninterested meaning "unbiased."

What meaning do you take from them?

Roughly the same as "today's usage" above. As described in the OED and the Guardian Style Guide, and I agree with:

"The distinction is one we should strive to maintain because it is not helpful to readers if we use disinterested and uninterested to mean the same thing"
https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-ob ... le-guide-d

Jonathan

[Manc33]

I heard an American say this: "I got drug out of the conference".

Dragged

[Jdsk]

I heard an American say this: "I got drug out of the conference".

It's a very interesting usage, and I've never seen anything resembling a full explanation.

Drug as a past tense of drag is usually described as non-standard or dialectal US English.

But drug was also a root form/ present tense precursor or alternative to drag in British English. The OED describes it as "Now rare (Scottish and English regional (southern))".

So is the US English usage a remnant of an obsolete British English usage, or did it originate in some other way? Again from the OED:

Etymology: Origin unknown. Compare drag v., although it is difficult to explain the different stem vowel shown by the two verbs. Perhaps ultimately < the same base as drudge n. and drudge v. (see discussion of etymology at drudge n.).

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Hooray!

Another chance to consult my Fowler (4th ed) and a chance to slip in that I own copies of all four editions. There's well over a page covering the entry disinterested beginning

Not recognised as a problem by Fowler (1926) ....

[Jdsk]

Hooray!

Another chance to consult my Fowler (4th ed) and a chance to slip in that I own copies of all four editions. There's well over a page covering the entry disinterested beginning

Not recognised as a problem by Fowler (1926) ....

And a bit further on in the 3rd edition online (2015) says:

"The use of disinterested to mean ‘uninterested’, although not a problem to Fowler (1926), is a keyword in current debates about correct usage."

and concludes:

"The recommendation must be to restrict disinterested to the meaning ‘impartial’ and to use alternative words when necessary to avoid possible misunderstanding. Uninterested remains the standard and recommended form in the meaning ‘lacking interest’."

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

My own opinion - and nothing more - is that Burchfield was opinionated in much the same way as Fowler (and others who never got to edit Fowler eg Partridge.) Butterfield does seem at least to try to use usage as a foundation.