I can't think how to relate this to the weather other than we all listen to
BBC presenters. I find it annoying to hear expressions such as "Gordon Brown
may be accused of bottling it if he doesn't call an election". It's the use
of "bottling it" I object to. Shouldn't it be "having second thoughts" or
"becoming apprehensive". Come to that it's like the frequent press use of
the trivialising new verb "to glass" someone". Shouldn't that be "thrust a
broken glass into someone's face maiming them for life". Am I becoming a
snob or a grumpy old man? Probably, yes!!

Dave

Am I becoming a snob or a grumpy old man? Probably, yes!!

You do have a point here and I don't like hearing things like 'bottling it'
even though it does have a distinct meaning.

Trouble is, the English language is one of the few that isn't 'owned' by
anything or anybody, therefore is free to change and adapt in an almost
random and seemingly chaotic way. That is why it has dropped unnecessary and
illogical complications like genderisation of nouns and accented vowels
which exist in other languages, especially Latin based ones. It is this
freedom that has allowed phrasal verbs to develop, which has got to be one
of the best inventions a language can have and why English is so poetic.

Many governments try to control a language as if it is their right to do so
in a kind of dictatorial way, this leads to strange complexities and
anomalies which would normally die out by their own accord. It also stifles
a language preventing it to develop to the constantly changing
social/environmental conditions we live in. French, German and the
Portuguese languages have had certain 'controls' imposed on them in recent
times, which is bad thing and thankfully has never happened to English.
________________
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Dave Cornwell wrote:
I can't think how to relate this to the weather other than we all listen to
BBC presenters. I find it annoying to hear expressions such as "Gordon Brown
may be accused of bottling it if he doesn't call an election". It's the use
of "bottling it" I object to. Shouldn't it be "having second thoughts" or
"becoming apprehensive". Come to that it's like the frequent press use of
the trivialising new verb "to glass" someone". Shouldn't that be "thrust a
broken glass into someone's face maiming them for life". Am I becoming a
snob or a grumpy old man? Probably, yes!!

What's wrong with new words when they succinctly convey their meaning?
One of the great things about the English language is the way it evolves
so organically.

--
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

Jonathan Stott wrote:

Dave Cornwell wrote:
I can't think how to relate this to the weather other than we all listen
to BBC presenters. I find it annoying to hear expressions such as "Gordon
Brown may be accused of bottling it if he doesn't call an election". It's
the use of "bottling it" I object to. Shouldn't it be "having second
thoughts" or "becoming apprehensive". Come to that it's like the frequent
press use of the trivialising new verb "to glass" someone". Shouldn't
that be "thrust a broken glass into someone's face maiming them for
life". Am I becoming a snob or a grumpy old man? Probably, yes!!

What's wrong with new words when they succinctly convey their meaning?
One of the great things about the English language is the way it evolves
so organically.


In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

Jonathan Stott wrote:

Dave Cornwell wrote:
I can't think how to relate this to the weather other than we all listen
to BBC presenters. I find it annoying to hear expressions such as "Gordon
Brown may be accused of bottling it if he doesn't call an election". It's
the use of "bottling it" I object to. Shouldn't it be "having second
thoughts" or "becoming apprehensive". Come to that it's like the frequent
press use of the trivialising new verb "to glass" someone". Shouldn't
that be "thrust a broken glass into someone's face maiming them for
life". Am I becoming a snob or a grumpy old man? Probably, yes!!

What's wrong with new words when they succinctly convey their meaning?
One of the great things about the English language is the way it evolves
so organically.


In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

On 6 Oct, 11:36, Graham P Davis wrote:
Jonathan Stott wrote:
Dave Cornwell wrote:
I can't think how to relate this to the weather other than we all listen
to BBC presenters. I find it annoying to hear expressions such as "Gordon
Brown may be accused of bottling it if he doesn't call an election". It's
the use of "bottling it" I object to. Shouldn't it be "having second
thoughts" or "becoming apprehensive". Come to that it's like the frequent
press use of the trivialising new verb "to glass" someone". Shouldn't
that be "thrust a broken glass into someone's face maiming them for
life". Am I becoming a snob or a grumpy old man? Probably, yes!!

What's wrong with new words when they succinctly convey their meaning?
One of the great things about the English language is the way it evolves
so organically.

In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

Martin


--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

The only thing I can find wrong with that is that they have spelt 'rased'
with a 'z'.

In the last decade or so it has become more common to use the 's' instead of
the 'z' in words such as rased (both are correct) to distinguish British
English from American English, the latter always use 'z'.
________________
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Nick Gardner wrote:
In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

The only thing I can find wrong with that is that they have spelt 'rased'
with a 'z'.


That being the favoured and current spelling in the OED, which quotes 'razed to
the ground' as an example of usage.
http://dictionary.oed.com/


In the last decade or so it has become more common to use the 's' instead of
the 'z' in words such as rased (both are correct) to distinguish British
English from American English, the latter always use 'z'.

'rase' in this context appears to have fallen into disuse a couple of hundred
years ago.
"5. To demolish, to level with the ground; to RAZE. Now rare. Also with up."
(same source)


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood
has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

The only thing I can find wrong with that is that they have
spelt 'rased' with a 'z'.

In the last decade or so it has become more common to use the
's' instead of the 'z' in words such as rased (both are
correct) to distinguish British English from American English,
the latter always use 'z'.

My elderly Chambers Dictionary, 1972 edition, has a full entry
for 'raze', with a cross reference for 'rase' simply saying
'same as raze'.

Would you write 'gase' or 'amase' or 'grase' or 'crase'?

Anne

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 12:23:22 +0100, "Nick Gardner"
wrote:

In the Radio Times for today, the synopsis for Robin Hood has ". . .
Knighton Hall is razed to the ground . . ."

Nothing wrong with that as far as I can see.

The only thing I can find wrong with that is that they have spelt 'rased'
with a 'z'.

Being of a certain age I was raised to spell it "razed".


In the last decade or so it has become more common to use the 's' instead of
the 'z' in words such as rased (both are correct) to distinguish British
English from American English, the latter always use 'z'.

Why should we want to distinguish British English spellings from
American English? Would it not be better for everyone if our
spellings converged rather than diverged. I recognize that Americans
have just as much "ownership" of the language as any other
English-speaking peoples, and their spellings and usage are no
"better" or "worse" than ours.

"The Times" has always, to my admittedly uncertain knowledge, always
used the "z" variant in words that end in "ize".

Martin

________________
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk