Torking Proply an' 'at

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

there has been some comment [unpleasant and from the Sun i believe about Roy H's use of spoken language ... btw he makes a nice distinction between hope and expect in that he did hope but did not expect to be called &c

in bagatelling around google and blogs the following also make their point about the open ended nature of language ... and the dead end of snobbery

[JFLL]

there has been some comment [unpleasant and from the Sun i believe about Roy H's use of spoken language ... btw he makes a nice distinction between hope and expect in that he did hope but did not expect to be called &c

in bagatelling around google and blogs the following also make their point about the open ended nature of language ... and the dead end of snobbery

The spipers seem to be failing to make a distinction between a speech impediment and what he actually says. He strikes me as rather articulate for a football manager, but maybe the Sun thinks Harry Redknapp should be our model.. Hodgson is said to know five languages, not surprising when you consider his experience abroad. I wonder how many of the Sun's reporters do?

[Serial_Apologist]

Speech impediment? A lot of kids are going to be at the mercy of bullies this day and forever more as a result of this crass headline. He's a Londoner isn't he? It's common (in the literal sense ) for us to pwonounce our Rs as Ws. It was one of the things they managed to electrocute out of me so I could take the role of Pwide in the 7 Deadly Sins aged 11.

[JFLL]

Speech impediment? A lot of kids are going to be at the mercy of bullies this day and forever more as a result of this crass headline. He's a Londoner isn't he? It's common (in the literal sense ) for us to pwonounce our Rs as Ws. It was one of the things they managed to electrocute out of me so I could take the role of Pwide in the 7 Deadly Sins aged 11.

Sorry, SA, I didn't mean to be judgemental, and would just define a speech impediment as a a difficulty in pronouncing a sound usually produced by other members of a person's speech community. Rhotacism (the term used by speech therapists, I think) certainly doesn't at all get in the way of communication like a case of really severe stammering. If it was usual to pronounce an 'r'as a 'w' in a particular place – Croydon, in Roy Hodgson's case – it wouldn't be classed as an 'impediment' (perhaps a more neutral term is now used, or should be used?). But surely rhotacism isn't a common feature today of Londoners' speech? (I hadn't really noticed, by the way, that Roy Hodgson didn't pronounce his 'r's, until some journalists decided it disqualified him from managing the England team )

[amateur51]

The spipers seem to be failing to make a distinction between a speech impediment and what he actually says. He strikes me as rather articulate for a football manager, but maybe the Sun thinks Harry Redknapp should be our model.. Hodgson is said to know five languages, not surprising when you consider his experience abroad. I wonder how many of the Sun's reporters do?

Dammit man, he's been seen on board areoplanes reading hard-backed novels

End of trivialisation as we know it

[Lateralthinking1]

Well, in my post earlier today I used both "expect" and "anticipate" to make one point. That point was that past England managers have been rubbish. The examples I provided when using those words were different from each other. The reader could have assumed identical meaning in my use of the two words or found different meanings. The essence of the argument would have been exactly the same. That rather makes any alleged pure difference between the meanings of the two words remote. At best it is meaningfully applicable only in some cases, and even then mostly for nuance, where other words are also being used.

I am not sure that I accept that the "w" for "r" is a speech impediment. In many people it is affectation. Predictably it emanates from the upper classes. William Whitelaw springs to mind as indeed does now Jeremy Peace of the Football Association. It is also in those who began life in ordinary places and had to adjust to new expectations with advancement. Roy Jenkins is a good example while Roy Hodgson and Trevor Brooking might well be others. Once acquired, it is a habit that is impossible to break.

I have a long-standing issue with posh people dropping the "e" in the word "geography". It is a similar affliction. These things tend to travel like wildfire, new ones arrive every year and unfortunately the nonsense tends to stick. 2010 was the year of "like". "He was like "do you think so?" and I was like "oh my god" and she was like "no way"" etc etc. 2011 brought us "went". "I went "you must be joking" and he went "oh no I'm not" and she went "you two always make me laugh". 2012 is the year of "get". Teenagers of all classes now walk into shops and when asked for their order say "can I get a ham salad please?" etc. The word is "have". It isn't "get" and like "weally" and "jography" it is only pure as a stance. Don't even mention that the "can" would be better as "may".

[Serial_Apologist]

Well, in my post earlier today I used both "expect" and "anticipate" to make one point. That point was that past England managers have been rubbish. The examples I provided when using those words were different from each other. The reader could have assumed identical meaning in my use of the two words or found different meanings. The essence of the argument would have been exactly the same. That rather makes any alleged pure difference between the meanings of the two words remote. At best it is meaningfully applicable only in some cases, and even then mostly for nuance, where other words are also being used.

I am not sure that I accept that the "w" for "r" is a speech impediment. In many people it is affectation. Predictably it emanates from the upper classes. William Whitelaw springs to mind as indeed does now Jeremy Peace of the Football Association. It is also in those who began life in ordinary places and had to adjust to new expectations with advancement. Roy Jenkins is a good example while Roy Hodgson and Trevor Brooking might well be others. Once acquired, it is a habit that is impossible to break.

I have a long-standing issue with posh people dropping the "e" in the word "geography". It is a similar affliction. These things tend to travel like wildfire, new ones arrive every year and unfortunately the nonsense tends to stick. 2010 was the year of "like". "He was like "do you think so?" and I was like "oh my god" and she was like "no way"" etc etc. 2011 brought us "went". "I went "you must be joking" and he went "oh no I'm not" and she went "you two always make me laugh". 2012 is the year of "get". Teenagers of all classes now walk into shops and when asked for their order say "can I get a ham salad please?" etc. The word is "have". It isn't "get" and like "weally" and "jography" it is only pure as a stance. Don't even mention that the "can" would be better as "may".

And thanks, Lat, for writing "different from"....

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

And thanks, Lat, for writing "different from"....

[mangerton]

And thanks, Lat, for writing "different from"....

Indeed. Rarely seen or heard nowadays.

[vinteuil]

And thanks, Lat, for writing "different from"....

As HW Fowler put it - " That different can only be followed by from and not by to is a SUPERSTITION. Not only is to 'found in writers of all ages' (OED); the principle on which it is rejected (You do not say differ to; therefore you cannot say different to) involves a hasty and ill-defined generalization. Is it all derivatives, or derivative adjectives that were once participles, or actual participles, that must conform to the construction of their parent verbs? It is true of the last only; we cannot say differing to; but that leaves different out in the cold. If it is all derivatives, why do we say accordingly, agreeably, and pursuant, to instructions, when we have to say this accords with, agrees with, or pursues, instructions? If derivative adjectives, why derogatory to, inconceivable to, in contrast with derogates from, not to be conceived by ? If ex-participles, why do pleases, suffices, defies, me go each its own way, and yield pleasant to, sufficient for, and defiant of, me ? The fact is that the objections to different to, like those to averse to, sympathy for, and compare to, are mere pedantries. This does not imply that different from is wrong; on the contrary, it is 'now usual' (OED); but it is only so owing to the dead set made against different to by mistaken critics."

'A Dictionary of Modern English Usage' , 1927 edition.