Forums

Posted: 28-06-2013 10:17 Post subject:

A real WTF! of a story here:

Men can be 'wives' and women 'husbands' as Government overrules the dictionary
The word “husband” will in future be applied to women and the word “wife” will refer to men, the Government has decided.
By John Bingham, Social Affair Editor
10:00PM BST 27 Jun 2013

Civil servants have overruled the Oxford English Dictionary and hundreds years of common usage effectively abolishing the traditional meaning of the words for spouses.

The landmark change is contained in the fine print of new official legal guidance drawn up for MPs and peers as the Government’s same-sex marriage bill is debated.
It comes as part of a Government initiative to “clarify” what words will mean when gay marriage becomes law.

But critics described it as the vocabulary of “cloud cuckoo land”.
It follows claims by opponents of the redefinition of marriage that universally understood terms such as father and mother might be simply deleted by bureaucrats on official forms.

They condemned the system adopted in some countries such as Spain – where parents are sometimes referred to as “Progenitor A” and “Progenitor B” – as “Orwellian”.

Instead officials have decided to allow the words for the spouses to be used interchangeably for people of either gender in some contexts.
Previous legislation is to be amended [to] sweep away the traditional understanding of “gender specific” terms which could exclude those legally married under the new arrangements.

The guidance gives the example of some early health and safety legislation drafted in 1963 which includes a range of exemptions for family businesses where the terms husbands and wives will mean people of either gender.
“This means that ‘husband’ here will include a man or a woman in a same sex marriage, as well as a man married to a woman,” it says.
“In a similar way, ‘wife’ will include a woman married to another woman or
a man married to a man.
“The result is that this section is to be construed as including both male and female same sex marriage.”

Yet it then goes on to say that in future legislation the traditional male-only meaning of husband and female-only understanding of wife could make a comeback – but not in all cases.

“The term ‘husband’ will in future legislation include a man who is married to another man (but not a woman in a marriage with another woman),” it adds, confusingly.
“And 'wife' will include a woman who is married to another woman (but not a man married to another man) unless specific alternative provision is made.”

A spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, which campaigns against the change, said: “We always knew the Government would tie itself in knots trying to redefine marriage, and this shows what a ridiculous mess they’ve created.
“This mangling of the English language shows what happens when politicians meddle with marriage.
“They’re in cloud cuckoo land.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10147246/Men-can-be-wives-and-women-husbands-as-Government-overrules-the-dictionary.html

Posted: 28-06-2013 14:49 Post subject:

Good luck with that one, chaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar

"You're my wife now, Dave!"

Posted: 20-07-2013 21:51 Post subject:

There's a new usage of a perfectly respectable old word spreading through all kinds of reporting nowadays - and it sets my teeth on edge! An example from a Test Match report today:

"He took full advantage, unfurling some sublime shots after tea and marching towards his third consecutive century of the series..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23392797

A few weeks ago the word used there would have been 'unleashing', or something similar.
Is 'Unfurling' something they teach in these new-fangled university media courses nowadays?

My understanding of Unfurl is this:

Posted: 20-07-2013 21:53 Post subject:

There's a new usage of a perfectly respectable old word spreading through all kinds of reporting nowadays - and it sets my teeth on edge! An example from a Test Match report today:

"He took full advantage, unfurling some sublime shots after tea and marching towards his third consecutive century of the series..."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/23392797

A few weeks ago the word used there would have been 'unleashing', or something similar.
Is 'Unfurling' something they teach in these new-fangled university media courses nowadays?

My understanding of Unfurl is this:

Posted: 20-07-2013 22:22 Post subject:

I will listen out for that one.

My own pet hate at the moment is the way nine out of ten - I don't guarantee the statistic - interviewers and interviewees on Radio Four pronounce "to" as "ter." It is employed by hatchet-voiced females as often as by public-school drawling twonks. It may always have existed in certain groups but it is certainly spreading horribly beyond them. Any hint of an 'o' sound in the word is now quite rare in news and current affairs programmes. If 'to' was a bird, its eggs would be guarded. Monster

Posted: 20-07-2013 22:33 Post subject:

On R4 this morning, a spokesman said of a changing situation 'There has been a sea change in the landscape!'

Laughing

Posted: 20-07-2013 23:10 Post subject:

At the risk of confusing things somewhat, it is possible to hoist a sail 'in stops', ie, a furled sail is secured with weak twine in such a way that a sharp tug on the sheets will break the twine, suddenly releasing the sail.

However, this is never referred to as 'unfurling' the sail, but as 'breaking out' the sail.
(Break out the jib!)

Similarly, a flag can be rolled up and secured with a simple hitch which is 'locked' with a matchstick, say. This enables the flag to be hoisted up the yardarm, but it will only be displayed when a sharp tug on the halliard breaks the matchstick and releases the hitch. Again, this is referred to as 'breaking out the flag', not unfurling it.

This method has been used probably for centuries for naval signalling, and up to the present day for the starting signals in yacht racing.

But a sail or a flag wouldn't be left 'in stops' for long, for fear they might break free at an inappropriate moment. A properly furled sail is much more secure, but takes longer to unfurl when required. On a square-rigger, this would require sending crew up aloft on the yardarms to remove the gaskets (sail-tiers).

This is why I object to this modern use of 'unfurling' to refer to something happening suddenly.

Posted: 21-07-2013 09:49 Post subject:

I assume the commentators are referring to the appearance of the act, rather than it's speed - which, unless you're being absolutely literal, makes a little more sense to me. In fact, in that context, I think it's quite a nice image.

A few things:

English is a language which lends itself to metaphor, and that ability has been exploited with relish since it's very beginnings. (It strikes me - ironically, given the bone of contention here - that the sea and seafaring matters seem over the centuries to have attracted an especially rich library of technically inaccurate metaphorical usage.)

If we were to edit this thread based on the literal meaning of the words used it would be a whole lot shorter.

Sports commentators would not necessarily be my stop of first choice when assessing the health of the English language.

Posted: 21-07-2013 10:07 Post subject:

Posted: 22-08-2013 09:38 Post subject:

Another sign of the times:

Apostrophe? You’re fired, says Apprentice finalist
She reached the final of The Apprentice after impressing Lord Sugar with her shrewd business acumen. But Luisa Zissman horrified her Twitter followers today by revealing that she had a surprisingly weak grasp of basic grammar.
By Victoria Ward
8:54PM BST 21 Aug 2013

The 24-year-old provoked a stream of criticism after appealing for advice on whether the name of her new cupcake business required punctuation.
"Can you all help me out as I'm crap at grammar,” she wrote. “Is it bakers toolkit or baker's toolkit with an apostrophe?! X"

One stunned Twitter user responded: "You're kidding, right?” as others queried how she had managed to get so far on the hit BBC ONE show.
A stream of advice from rather more well-meaning followers informed her that it should be either Baker's Toolkit or Bakers' Toolkit, depending on the number of intended bakers.

But she then enraged the grammar zealots further by declaring that regardless of the rules, she simply preferred the way it looked with no apostrophe at all.

“I like the look of bakers,” she wrote. “Would it be terrible to stick with bakers?”
Twitter user Matt Adams replied: "You can't change English grammar even if it does look better on logos!"
When Zissman responded: "Think I'm going to!!", he pleaded: "But why?! Why deliberately make a mistake in the title of your business for no good reason?!"

The business, an online firm selling baking supplies, is expected to launch later this year, seemingly minus an apostrophe. Shocked

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/the-apprentice/10258135/Apostrophe-Youre-fired-says-Apprentice-finalist.html

Posted: 22-08-2013 22:44 Post subject:

Isn't this more punctuation than grammar? If that's enough to get people horrified, I hate to think what happens if their soufflé falls in the oven or the wind blows their hat off in the street.

Posted: 22-08-2013 22:52 Post subject:

Posted: 25-08-2013 10:54 Post subject:

Posted: 25-08-2013 15:17 Post subject: