LED flashlight instructions

[Phil]

The problem with the Oxford English Dictionary is precisely that it is NOT the 'arbiter of all things English'. Instead of trying to uphold the qualities of 'English as she is spoke', instead it has opted for the gutless option of merely 'reflecting common usage'. I have often commented that 'The Highway Code', a government publication explaining the law and rules of driving in Britain, would be much more useful if it were produced by the Oxford English Dictionary merely to reflect common driving practice, e.g.:

1. "It is perfectly okay to park anywhere you like, irrespective of danger or restrictions, provided that you use your hazard lights to acknowledge that you are selfishly getting in everyone's way.";

2. "Speed restriction signs are purely advisory.";

3. "There is no need to use direction indicators if you KNOW where you are going";

4. "The other side of the road is for overtaking, irrespective of its secondary purpose of permitting people to drive in the opposite direction."

Meanwhile and anyhoo, a "rooter" is an electronic device which routes bits around a network. A "rowter" is a large power tool used for removing unwanted bits of wood and/or the operator's hands. Another joy is the apparent interchangeability of the verbs "to expect" and "to anticipate". It is one thing to expect to be married next Saturday; it is quite another to anticipate it. The internet has also successfully confused the words "lose" and "loose". At work, my boss refers to a "proforma" when he means a "form", and calls something "substantive" when he means "substantial".

It was the linguist Fowler who pointed out last century that "Even the King literally no longer speaks the King's English."

Epic!

Phil M1GWZ



On 11 Sep 2013, at 03:11, Richard Barth wrote:

> At 02:40 PM 9/10/2013, Phil wrote:
>> Dear André
>> 
>> Base on recent and local experiencings, think me that it written by genuine englishman person.
>> 
>> Much laughings and amusement is it being haved.
>> 
>> Phil M1GWZ
> 
> In this past Sunday's Washington Post Magazine (article available here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weingarten-weighing-in-on-literally-but-figuratively-of-course/2013/09/03/47c1764c-0685-11e3-88d6-d5795fab4637_story.html ) Gene Weingarten takes on similar, er, "eccentricities" in the use of the English language, iincluding such things as the alleged interchangeability of the words "literally" and "virtually". He further says "the Oxford English Dictionary ­ arbiter of all things English ­ has finally, inevitably, sanctioned the use of “literally” to mean its precise opposite. It is a hapless surrender to, figuratively, eons of careless misuse."
> 
> It's not only happening in Blimey, Phil.  We have the same problem.
> 
> I'm a semi-regular listener to podcasts from Sophos Security, called Chet Chat. They're presented by a Canadian and an Australian, who have distinct differences when dealing with the word "router". The Aussie pronounces it "rooter", since its purpose is to route bits around the network. The Canadian, following North American practice,
> pronounces it "rowter". I guess that type scares the bits away rather than delivering them to the computers they've been sent to. This follows hard on the heels of the little
> man in my GPS, who advises me to "turn right on rowt 29" or whatever.
> 
> "Route" and "rout" have almost ceased to be separate words.
> 
> Dick