Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Is that the latest OED, Saffron? My pre-1970 OED specifies DISS-ect as the only pronunciation.

I accept that things have moved on, but not strictly correct to say that DYE-sect is the original pronunciation.


Agree that PGC's bio teacher was a complete wotsit

I believe it listed that as the entry for 1896.


Edited to say "original" in the sense of this being the first recognised entry for pronunciation of this word in the OED, as it was first published in such format. Therefore, "original" being correct in this sense as pertaining to the "original" OED.


Interesting that it was later changed. Is that the full or abridged OED that you have?

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "try and..."

>

> "different to..."

>

> flassid or flaksid? OED says either is correct; a

> former lecturer of mine was altogether less.

> laissez-faire.


One sounds like a nasty case of reflux in the phlegm and the other like a cockney linseed farmer


On the basis that having to use the word at all means you are probably beyond the point of worrying about embarrassment - pronounce it the Spanish way, as in Flaccido Domingo and do it with a flourish.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I feel the same about 'schedule'. It's SHED-ule,

> not bloody SKED-ule.


Same here, I hate it.


Someone I know deliberately says SKED-ule to annoy me (and they take delight in pointing out that "Well.....we don't say SH-OOL, do we" as opposed to "SK-OOL". Grr.

Some of these are examples of American English vs British English. People sometimes comlain that American English is creeping into British English. However, a recent BBC article demonstrated that the current runs both ways. Indeed British English is infiltrating America.


"Britishisms and the Britishisation of American English"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19670686

There is little that irks British defenders of the English language more than Americanisms, which they see creeping insidiously into newspaper columns and everyday conversation. But bit by bit British English is invading America too.

Interesting that most of the terms quoted in your link are British slang rather than 'correct' usage, Saffron.

Overall, I think that we are more influenced by them than they are by us and the impact is much more fundamental. I'm thinking of words like 'billion' - which is now accepted to mean a thousand million (originally US usage) rather than a million million (old UK usage)


American English is influenced by much more than British usage, though - there is a lot of Italian, Spanish and Yiddish influence. I was told that their use of 'hopefully' is a literal translation from German usage. But many of their their strange spellings (losing the u in words such as "colour", for example) come from early attempts to rationalise English spelling, which succeeded in the States but failed to catch on here.


Anyway, here's another of my pet hates - 'DISinterested' when one means 'UNinterested'. That's wrong both in the US and the UK!

Hmm, just to be clear, the point of my post wasn't to further the "us" and "them" attitude. It was simply to demonstrate that the dynamic does indeed run both ways, irrespective of whether one thinks that the dynamic is unequal. Nevertheless, an inter-influence in both vocabulary and pronunciation occurs.


Yes, particularly historically, American English has been influenced by many other languages. And British English hasn't? No, indeed they're both influenced by other languages.


If we accept that one of the strengths of the English language is its ability to absorp other languages, than we'll also have to accept that one of the things it absorps is itself: dynamic interchange between dialects and pronunciations. Toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe. Forsooth.


Anecdotally, I have noticed many Californians using the British "shed-dule", rather than American "sked-dule". Although, I'm not sure we can compare California to the rest of the States anyway.


civilservant Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Interesting that most of the terms quoted in your

> link are British slang rather than 'correct'

> usage, Saffron.

> Overall, I think that we are more influenced by

> them than they are by us and the impact is much

> more fundamental. I'm thinking of words like

> 'billion' - which is now accepted to mean a

> thousand million (originally US usage) rather than

> a million million (old UK usage)

>

> American English is influenced by much more than

> British usage, though - there is a lot of Italian,

> Spanish and Yiddish influence. I was told that

> their use of 'hopefully' is a literal translation

> from German usage. But many of their their

> strange spellings (losing the u in words such as

> "colour", for example) come from early attempts to

> rationalise English spelling, which succeeded in

> the States but failed to catch on here.

>

> Anyway, here's another of my pet hates -

> 'DISinterested' when one means 'UNinterested'.

> That's wrong both in the US and the UK!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...