BBC News web site last might where the flow text meant 'place' but it
was written as 'plays'.
This is the second glaring spelling mistake I have noticed with 24
hours. Have the BBC given up subbing (i.e. sub-editing), is it just
laziness, or has the extensive use of speeling chuckers on mobile phones obviated the need to learn to spell in plain English?
Woody <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote:
BBC News web site last might where the flow text meant 'place' but it
was written as 'plays'.
This is the second glaring spelling mistake I have noticed with 24
hours. Have the BBC given up subbing (i.e. sub-editing), is it just
laziness, or has the extensive use of speeling chuckers on mobile phones
obviated the need to learn to spell in plain English?
With my part-time sub-editor's hat on: shouldn't the title be "Has the
BBC given up subbing?"
The other thing I saw was not actually a spelling mistake but one of
failure to understand what was written by the original author.
It said that the US inflation rate had gone up BY 8.y% rather than TO
8.y%. I suspect that if the author had written from 7.x% to 8.y% the error would have not occurred.
BBC News web site last might where the flow text meant 'place' but it
was written as 'plays'.
This is the second glaring spelling mistake I have noticed with 24
hours. Have the BBC given up subbing (i.e. sub-editing), is it just
laziness, or has the extensive use of speeling chuckers on mobile phones obviated the need to learn to spell in plain English?
I've always wondered why newspapers never use the % sign, but instead always >use "per cent", "pc" or "p.c.".
"Woody" <harrogate3@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:tkl7g9$qrfk$1@dont-email.me...
The other thing I saw was not actually a spelling mistake but one of
failure to understand what was written by the original author.
It said that the US inflation rate had gone up BY 8.y% rather than TO
8.y%. I suspect that if the author had written from 7.x% to 8.y% the
error would have not occurred.
Then you used to get statements like "Inflation has gone up by 1%". That
is meant to imply that it has increased (for example) from 1.5% to 2.5%
which is not a 1% increase but a much larger one (2.5-1.5)/1.5 = 67%. In recent years the wording has changed to "by one percentage point" which
tends to imply the difference between the old and the new *without the division by the old value*.
I've always wondered why newspapers never use the % sign, but instead
always use "per cent", "pc" or "p.c.". It seems to be common for all newspapers, whether tabloid or broadsheet. Is there a style guide which
says that symbols such as % should not be used in body text, in the same
way that using digits (as opposed to their words) is deprecated for single-digit numbers (ie "there were 3 cats" rather than "there were
three cats"). You even see it in headlines where space is at a premium,
even though "%" occupies less width than "pc".
The usage that really grates is "increased by half of one percent"
rather than "increased by nought point five percent". I've even heard "increased by nought point five of one percent" ;-)Â That's in narration
for news reports on radio or TV.
The two that annoy me are the use of 'two-time' or 'three-time' rather
than double or treble. Also the persistent use of 'for sure' rather then certainly, commonly used by people who's first language is not English and very prevalent in its use by F1 racing drivers - even Louis Hamilton who
is English for heaven's sake!
Y'know, sort of, all of those, like, things really, really, literally
annoy me. ;-) They are all verbal padding for people who suffer from
buffer under-run because their brains can't keep up with their mouths.
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 13:50:12 +0000, NY wrote:
Y'know, sort of, all of those, like, things really, really, literally
annoy me. ;-) They are all verbal padding for people who suffer from
buffer under-run because their brains can't keep up with their mouths.
Absolutely! :)
This is the second glaring spelling mistake I have noticed with 24 hours.
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 15:23:57 +0000, The Other John wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2022 13:50:12 +0000, NY wrote:
Y'know, sort of, all of those, like, things really, really, literally
annoy me. ;-) They are all verbal padding for people who suffer from
buffer under-run because their brains can't keep up with their mouths.
Absolutely! :)
An istoric event.
An istoric event.
Why *is* it that words like "historic" and "hotel" take "an" before them, even though the "h" is sounded? ...
Is it that the H was originally silent (so "an 'historic event" or "an 'otel") in these words which were borrowed from French, and then the H started to be sounded but the article didn't change in sync from "an" to
"a".
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
[...]
An istoric event.
Why *is* it that words like "historic" and "hotel" take "an" before them,
even though the "h" is sounded? ...
Is it that the H was originally silent (so "an 'historic event" or "an
'otel") in these words which were borrowed from French, and then the H
started to be sounded but the article didn't change in sync from "an" to
"a".
That is my understanding. The 'an' is correct but sounding the 'h' is
wrong.
Meanwhile Fowler's seminal Modern English Usage had very many years ago:
"A is used before all consonants except silent h (a history, an
hour); an was formerly usual before an unaccented syllable beginning
with h (an historical work), but now that the h in such words is
pronounced the distinction has become pedantic, and a historical should
be said and written; similarly an humble is now meaningless and
undesirable."
and later on the word "hotel":
"The old-fashioned pronunciation with the h silent is certainly
doomed and is not worth fighting for."
Why *is* it that words like "historic" and "hotel" take "an" before them, even though the "h" is sounded? Why "an historic event" but "a hedge"? The normal rule of "'a' before a consonant or consonant sound; 'an' before a vowel or vowel sound" seems to have an exception for *some* words which
begin with a sounded H.
Is it that the H was originally silent (so "an 'historic event" or "an 'otel") in these words which were borrowed from French, and then the H started to be sounded but the article didn't change in sync from "an" to
"a".
I wonder if "an hotel" (as opposed to "an 'otel" or "a hotel") is gradually becoming obsolete as older speakers gradually die out.
Sounding the H in hotel (etc) is just ignorant.
Sounding the H in hotel (etc) is just ignorant.
Like the female news reader on BBC London who refers to the railway line being built as 'haitch ess two', but then she is from Sarf Lunnon!
Perhaps you can enlighten us about your accent so we can mock it also.
On Tue, 15 Nov 2022 20:16:35 -0800, wrightsaerials@aol.com wrote:
Sounding the H in hotel (etc) is just ignorant.
Like the female news reader on BBC London who refers to the railway line being built as 'haitch ess two', but then she is from Sarf Lunnon!
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 117:55:49 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,287 |