Am I getting an irritable old git?

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Zebethyal on 05/07/2018 10:18:52:

There is a current Green Flag advert being broadcast on the radio that talks about "bucket fulls" of something as opposed to "buckets full", I cringe every time I hear it. I appreciate that not everyone is great at pluralising, but if something is going to be broadcast nationally, at least have the script checked first.

.

For the sake of gratuitous rhetoric, may I suggest:

One bucket, used repeatedly for several loads >> "bucket fulls"

Several buckets; each used for one load >> "buckets full"

MichaelG.

[Richard S2Participant @richards2]

With reference to Mike's observation above, I expect a great bastion of correctness, namely the BBC, to be as near perfect as possible. No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication. What seems to irritate me more is that their Correspondents and Political Editors seem unable to determine the correct use of 'Fewer'; and 'Less'.

Professional Websites of major companies have spelling mistakes. Always tempting to inform them of errors.

I recall that episode of 'Open All Hours' where Arkwright spelt 'Special' with an 'O' purely to attract some gullible individual into his Shop, so there are less irritating examples of errors and can even raise a chuckle.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Another popular error is mixing 'procrastinate' and 'prevaricate' which seems to defeat a large number of members of Parliament.

[Cornish JackParticipant @cornishjack]

Michael – perhaps not. Your suggestion would require full to be a noun, not the adjective which it is. The normal term, I believe, is bucketful (one word, single 'l&#39

So many irritations, particularly, nowadays, with broadcasters and tautology – "*o'clock AM this morning", and the Weather Forecasters "Temperatures dropping down" as distinct from dropping up, perhaps?

Grumpy old git-ness is an honorable estate, say I!

rgds

Bill

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Cornish Jack on 05/07/2018 14:21:38:

Michael – perhaps not. Your suggestion would require full to be a noun, not the adjective which it is. The normal term, I believe, is bucketful (one word, single 'l'

.

In my defence, Bill … I was trying to rationalise for Zebethyal, and therefore used the given spelling.

MichaelG.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

I think these people who cannot take a bit of stick over their dismal failure to spell, punctuate, use good grammar etcetera, should try being an irritable old git for a few days and see where that gets them.

[Nick Clarke 3Participant @nickclarke3]

Robin quite agree – it takes effort to be a truly irritable old git!

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Mike Poole on 05/07/2018 10:27:38:

The person typing the BBC news ticker used loose instead of lose, it wasn't there very long though. I wonder what the people who make this mistake type when they need loose?

Mike

Having seen the subtitles in our chemist (they keep the sound off) I suspect it's gone from manual typing to machine. It use to self coirrect, but now it makes fewer mistakes but stranger ones…

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 05/07/2018 12:17:00:

Posted by Zebethyal on 05/07/2018 10:18:52:

There is a current Green Flag advert being broadcast on the radio that talks about "bucket fulls" of something as opposed to "buckets full", I cringe every time I hear it. I appreciate that not everyone is great at pluralising, but if something is going to be broadcast nationally, at least have the script checked first.

.

For the sake of gratuitous rhetoric, may I suggest:

One bucket, used repeatedly for several loads >> "bucket fulls"

Several buckets; each used for one load >> "buckets full"

MichaelG.

I think it was the OED that decreed 'spoonsful' and 'spoonfuls' have equal validity when the spoons are imaginary or even metaphorical. So when lots of rain comes down it can be either bucketfuls or buckets full.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

We, all, obviously, find it too hot to go into the workshop!

Only work of late has been curing leaks on the garden hose, and preventing the feed hose from unscrewing itself from the input connection, despite the O ring on the Hoselock connection. Tonight will show if Loctite will make SWMBO happy!

No wonder I am so grumpy; dog days and all that!

Howard

[DanielParticipant @daniel]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 03/07/2018 17:09:29:

Posted by Daniel on 03/07/2018 16:07:11:

I've just asked Google what a split infinitive might be (malicious or otherwise), and had to give up.

I couldn't even understand their defintion.

.

This one is pretty good, Daniel **LINK**

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_28.htm

It includes some reasonable examples.

MichaelG.

 

Many thank's for the link Michael. That really does help. (that does really help )

My apologies for the delayed response, but I had an unplanned trip to hospital.

 

Edited By Daniel on 06/07/2018 08:38:57

[Danny M2ZParticipant @dannym2z]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 05/07/2018 17:25:38:

Having seen the subtitles in our chemist (they keep the sound off) I suspect it's gone from manual typing to machine. It use to self coirrect, but now it makes fewer mistakes but stranger ones…

Neil

Neil, let the pot call the kettle black but I often notice the odd 'typo' in MEW. I suspect that predictive spell checkers have much to answer for until they reach the stage where the context is analysed and the correct word substituted.

Not a complaint, just an observation from an understanding old git.

* Danny M *

[Swarf MakerParticipant @swarfmaker85383]

I think that it is about time that this discussion moved on to an erudite analysis of the use of "git" in the context of this thread.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Swarf Maker on 06/07/2018 09:21:30:

I think that it is about time that this discussion moved on to an erudite analysis of the use of "git" in the context of this thread.

.

Here's a 'benchmark' reference: **LINK**

https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/git

MichaelG.

[Brian GParticipant @briang]

Isn't an "old Git" one from before Microsoft bought GitHub?

I'll get my coat.

Brian

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Richard S2 on 05/07/2018 12:35:23:

With reference to Mike's observation above, I expect a great bastion of correctness, namely the BBC, to be as near perfect as possible. No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication. What seems to irritate me more is that their Correspondents and Political Editors seem unable to determine the correct use of 'Fewer'; and 'Less'.

…

 

 

Apologies to Richard for picking on his post as the example, there are many others.

Richard claims the BBC to be a 'a great bastion of correctness' highlighting that there are more serious sins than grammar mistakes. For example:

• Errors of fact. The BBC does not claim to be a bastion of correctness, let alone a great one.
• Opinion disguised as fact, as in 'No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication.' In practice there are many excuses for lack of proof reading, and – in fact – there is no requirement for a publication to be proof read at all!

At this point the Printer's Devil whispers in my ear. The worst sin is to be a bore and of that wickedness Richard is innocent. I too believe that, as the end justifies the means, it's legitimate to sex up my writing with exaggerations and attention grabbing curlicues.

Or possibly the hot weather has driven me to a Hyperbolism.

Dave

 

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:17:30

[Anonymous]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:14:59:

Or possibly the hot weather has driven me to a Hyperbolism.

Probably not, it's just that the sunny weather has given you a tanh.

Andrew

[Mick B1Participant @mickb1]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 06/07/2018 10:22:11:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:14:59:

Or possibly the hot weather has driven me to a Hyperbolism.

Probably not, it's just that the sunny weather has given you a tanh.

Andrew

No, it's certainly a sinh.

[Anonymous]

Never mind talk, let's take action and cosh somebody.

Andrew

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:14:59:

Posted by Richard S2 on 05/07/2018 12:35:23:

With reference to Mike's observation above, I expect a great bastion of correctness, namely the BBC, to be as near perfect as possible. No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication. What seems to irritate me more is that their Correspondents and Political Editors seem unable to determine the correct use of 'Fewer'; and 'Less'.

…

Apologies to Richard for picking on his post as the example, there are many others.

Richard claims the BBC to be a 'a great bastion of correctness' highlighting that there are more serious sins than grammar mistakes. For example:

• Errors of fact. The BBC does not claim to be a bastion of correctness, let alone a great one.
• Opinion disguised as fact, as in 'No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication.' In practice there are many excuses for lack of proof reading, and – in fact – there is no requirement for a publication to be proof read at all!

At this point the Printer's Devil whispers in my ear. The worst sin is to be a bore and of that wickedness Richard is innocent. I too believe that, as the end justifies the means, it's legitimate to sex up my writing with exaggerations and attention grabbing curlicues.

Or possibly the hot weather has driven me to a Hyperbolism.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:17:30

Apart from which, the grammar police seem to have lost the art of punctuation. TOO MANY CAPITAL LETTERS! E.G. Proof Readers, Correspondents, Political Editors, Fewer and Less.

A veritable bastion of incorrectness right there.

(Sorry, Richard. I couldn't resist. But you did ask for it!)

[Richard S2Participant @richards2]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:14:59:

Posted by Richard S2 on 05/07/2018 12:35:23:

With reference to Mike's observation above, I expect a great bastion of correctness, namely the BBC, to be as near perfect as possible. No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication. What seems to irritate me more is that their Correspondents and Political Editors seem unable to determine the correct use of 'Fewer'; and 'Less'.

Apologies to Richard for picking on his post as the example, there are many others.

Richard claims the BBC to be a 'a great bastion of correctness' highlighting that there are more serious sins than grammar mistakes. For example:

• Errors of fact. The BBC does not claim to be a bastion of correctness, let alone a great one.
• Opinion disguised as fact, as in 'No excuse for lack of 'Proof Reading' before publication.' In practice there are many excuses for lack of proof reading, and – in fact – there is no requirement for a publication to be proof read at all!

At this point the Printer's Devil whispers in my ear. The worst sin is to be a bore and of that wickedness Richard is innocent. I too believe that, as the end justifies the means, it's legitimate to sex up my writing with exaggerations and attention grabbing curlicues.

Or possibly the hot weather has driven me to a Hyperbolism.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 06/07/2018 10:17:30

Mmm, don't recall saying the bbc claimed to be a bastion of correctness, that was me encapsulating an opinion of their mission statement of their values and public purposes website pages- bbc ….and traditional expectation of the public (according to the general media over many years)

As for the bullet point of failing to check before publication, you've chosen to decide my opinion was fact. I remember when that was a job title in the hot metal business. I would deem it essential for a corporation etc to maintain a reputation of high standards to actually check it, even though you say it is not a requirement.

Also for Hopper's benefit, or acknowledgement, I've dropped loads of caps 'n' punctuation for you specially and my error was also missed where 'Proof Reader' should read Proofreader with a capital, as it is/was a job title.

Oh, and SOD, I am occasionally . Happy weekend and stay coool.

Regards

[larry phelan 1Participant @larryphelan1]

I tried to buy an "Old Git" on Ebay and the answer I got back was–"You dont need one,you are one"

Is this a good thing or a bad thing ?,I really would like to have one. How much are they ? Who makes them ?

Are they made in China,like most other things ?

Any ideas ?

[Speedy Builder5Participant @speedybuilder5]

AXA assurance have introduced a new word to the English language.

My travel insurance says:-

Contract conluded dd/mm/yyyy Now what does Conluded mean ??

I asked AXA but of course they passed the buck saying that although the assurance was headed AXA, it wasn't them (Well of course not).

It may say Rolls Royce on the radiator but ……..

BobH

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Speedy Builder5 on 07/07/2018 18:54:53

Contract conluded dd/mm/yyyy Now what does Conluded mean ??

.

An innocent 'typo' methinks:

'Conluded' should read 'Concluded' [i.e. 'brought to an end']

MichaelG.

.

On the other hand, I may be wrong …

Does 'Conluded' share an etymological root with 'Deluded' ?

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I bought a train ticket on line from Tainline.com and was sent a 'booking reference' and 'collection number'.

When I went to the ticket machine to collect the ticket, it asked for my 'booking reference'.

Only after counting the number of characters in each number did it become clear that I had to enter the 'collection number' (which wasn't a number, being alphanumeric) as the 'booking reference'.

Heaven help anyone who struggles with literacy.

Neil

[Author]

Posts