ThePortForum.com

Thank you Mike. Nothing to see here. Move along.

flash_uk wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:I think you'll find they're the same thing.

I think you will find they are not.

Although the same website does point out:
If talking about actual distance, both “farther” and “furthest” may be used. But for more non-physical or abstract usage, “furthest” is the only option.

This is correct, but I endeavor to use "farther" for a measureable distance and "further" for abstract cases. Ergo,

{sackcloth}

What you endeavour to do and what Derek can haul me up for are two quite separate things.

djewesbury wrote:What you endeavour to do and what Derek can haul me up for are two quite separate things.

That's odd, I thought Derek was hauling me up. {sackcloth} withdrawn.

I am 29% of the way through Prof. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and have spotted at least two instances of the phrase "almost exactly".

Just saying.

Double whammy:

DRT wrote:

AHB wrote:Hawkesmoor Restaurants offer a corkage rate of £5 per bottle (actually, £5 per cork) on Mondays. Is there any interest in investigating whether one of their restaurants might be interested in hosting us on the 9th Feb?

There is a Hawkesmoor

DRT wrote:I am 29% of the way through Prof. Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time and have spotted at least two instances of the phrase "almost exactly".
Just saying.

Hawking is a physicist, not a mathematician. So "almost exactly" is ok for him as long as this works.
There is a joke about mathematicians which illustrates this point:

A balloon driver gets lost in a sudden appearance of fog. After some time, he recognizes the outline of another balloon. He then calls out to the other ballon: "I have lost my way, do you know where we are?" But he waits in vain for an answer. After an hour, he suddenly hears from the other balloon: "You're in a balloon basket!"
Question: Who answered?
Answer: A mathematician.
Reason:
1. It took an incredibly long time.
2. The answer is absolutely correct.
3. You cannot do anything with the answer.

Andre, you know there is a maths joke forum around, but I think this is rather too high quality for the likes of them.

Owen, thanks for the compliment.

I wish to present as a supplicant to this thread, seeking the wisdom of the sage.

AW77 wrote:One was a LBV

Why do I automatically want to say an LBV, but if you were to say 'a late bottled vintage port' that would be correct. Is there some rule about abbreviations which produces this Pavlov type response in me?

LGTrotter wrote:I wish to present as a supplicant to this thread, seeking the wisdom of the sage.

AW77 wrote:One was a LBV

Why do I automatically want to say an LBV, but if you were to say 'a late bottled vintage port' that would be correct. Is there some rule about abbreviations which produces this Pavlov type response in me?

This is quite funny as I actually wrote "an LBV" in the first place. But when I reread my post before posting I changed it to "a LBV". I thought of my old English teacher back at school and felt compelled to change it.

It would be 'an LBV'. It's purely about the sound.

LGTrotter wrote:I wish to present as a supplicant to this thread, seeking the wisdom of the sage.

AW77 wrote:One was a LBV

Why do I automatically want to say an LBV, but if you were to say 'a late bottled vintage port' that would be correct. Is there some rule about abbreviations which produces this Pavlov type response in me?

I think "an LBV" is correct. Presumably because of the vowel sound when you pronounce the first letter.

Or, 'what Daniel said'.

DRT wrote:I think "an LBV" is correct. Presumably because of the vowel sound when you pronounce the first letter.

"An" sounds better for me, too (even do I'm not a native speaker). But is there really such a prominent vowel sound to justify this, such as "EeeLBV"?

No. But you use 'an' whenever there is a non-consonantal sound of any kind, just so that the sounds can run on: the letter L is simply pronounced 'ell' but that begins with an open-voiced sound, rather than something like a fricative or plosive (etc). It's just easier to say: "an-ell" rather than "uh-ell", which necessitates an unnatural glottal-stop.

djewesbury wrote:No. But you use 'an' whenever there is a non-consonantal sound of any kind, just so that the sounds can run on: the letter L is simply pronounced 'ell' but that begins with an open-voiced sound, rather than something like a fricative or plosive (etc). It's just easier to say: "an-ell" rather than "uh-ell", which necessitates an unnatural glottal-stop.

Yes, sure. You're absolutely right. This brings back unpleasant memories of the "de Saussure's traditional grammar" seminar I had to attend Friday afternoon in my first semester.

Oh god, you had grammar seminars at university! I'd love to force our students to take a grammar seminar!

djewesbury wrote:Oh god, you had grammar seminars at university! I'd love to force our students to take a grammar seminar!

Set them the task of analysing the progression of language used in The Clockwork Orange, as part of a wider analysis of the use of invented language within film?

I can imagine their terror-struck faces now!

EDIT: I deliberately chose struck and not stricken; I should have explained that this is an Ulster Scots usage of the past participle in place of the adjective.

From another place:

Someone wrote:Whether women's apostrophes are more precise than men's is anybody's guess

.

Please discuss.

Someone wrote:Whether women's apostrophes are more precise than men's is anybody's guess

Our resident DJ, as marker of essays written by both genders, may be the best placed to comment amongst us?

DRT wrote:From another place:

Someone wrote:Whether women's apostrophes are more precise than men's is anybody's guess

.

Please discuss.

The obvious fault is the trailing full stop after the quotation. Quote tags just aren’t the same as quotation marks.

Well quite so. Rather slapdash, young Turnbull. And you failed to use the Harvard referencing system for your quotation. Please read the guidelines and make sure all inline citations are properly formatted.

If anybody really wants to know, the future is bleak. Young people cannot use the English language to communicate the most basic concepts. They seem to see it as a hostile set of implements that they can only handle maladroitly; even subject-verb agreement is a challenge for them. They cannot separate colloquial, spoken or dialectal English from formal written English. They cannot express abstract concepts (frequently the direction of action of a verb is reversed, especially when trying to explain what something might 'mean' or what meanings it could be argued to contain). The very meaning of some verbs seems opaque to many 20 year olds. Why do they write 'presents' when they mean 'argues' or 'demonstrates'? "The film presents us that time is complex thing." This is one i've made up myself but it pretty closely matches some of what I've read.
But this is not a new phenomenon, and it seems silly to put it all down to new-fangled teaching methods. I'm sure there are people my age and older who have similar difficulties with language. The main difference seems to be that secondary education has become such a thoroughly instrumentalised enterprise in the last thirty years, with the paradoxical result that people leave it very poorly prepared; meanwhile, tertiary education is still being sold as a one-size-fits-all solution, even though that entails abandoning altogether what it was meant to be for.
We didn't just get rid of the polytechnics in 1992, we got rid of the universities too. I'm still not sure what we replaced them with (ours seems to be mainly a property speculator at the moment but that's a whole other story.)
Rant over. Back to work you idlers.

Next week Prof Jewesbury will extemporise on why everything is rubbish and why we are all collectively responsible for this shabby state of affairs. A follow up tour entitled 'querulous curmudgeons unplugged' will play to packed houses of Daily Mail readers, survivalists and the elderly. Book early to ensure disappointment.

Spelling. Jewesbury.

djewesbury wrote:Spelling. Jewesbury.

Apologies.

Two quick tongue-in-cheek thoughts on DJ's lamentation above:

1. It is in the nature of those who are not young to worry about and to decry the abilities of those who are. This has gone on for millennia.

2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole. Whilst the sample can be analyzed the conclusions are most likely applicable only to the sample itself (or to a wider group of individuals who share the attributes of those in the sample).

1. Yes. But that is why I said that this should not be blamed on supposedly 'new' secondary teaching methods (and why the Daily Mail readers wouldn't like me). I think this has more to do with government policy toward third level education than any supposed problems at second level. But anyway, yes, that's why I said it was a perpetual problem.

2. True. Very true. But the findings are consistent across many such small samples across very many years (and in different subjects at different institutions). I feel it acutely today because I'm marking rather than teaching. But the feeling never really goes away. And in all the years I've done this I've not met one academic who disagrees with me. That's disheartening.

djewesbury wrote:1. I think this has more to do with government policy toward third level education than any supposed problems at second level. But anyway, yes, that's why I said it was a perpetual problem.

As in more unis equals dilution of the student brain pool? I would not disagree with that per se but would probably caveat it by stressing that not all problems are only ever black or white.

djewesbury wrote:And in all the years I've done this I've not met one academic who disagrees with me. That's disheartening.

Nor have I, which although my sample is drastically smaller than yours, allows for two potential conclusions:

1. The quality of students has decreased; and/or
2. Academics' propensity to gripe has increased

I know i'm a little obtuse but what else is there to liven up a dreary Wednesday? In all seriousness, I think your observations are more correct than not and some of the corroroborating stories I've heard from people on the inside are hilarious, at least when observed from a safe distance, i.e. one which does not bump the blood pressure to "DRT's pre-salad-days" levels.

PopulusTremula wrote:As in more unis equals dilution of the student brain pool?

Not just that; but I think it's an important dimension.


The two crucial questions that I see are

1. why do successive governments want more school leavers to attend university, and
2. what do they want them to do there?

I don't believe that the answer to [1] is 'because they want society to be more equal', because there's plenty of evidence to disprove that. As someone who lectures in a department of Media, Film & Journalism, and with Media Studies being the usual butt of ill-informed jokes about 'the problem with universities', I'm loath to start moaning about falling standards in universities. I take seriously what I do and I have colleagues who I think are amongst the best in their field.

But.. the universities, until the late 1980s, were part of a system that grew up over hundreds of years, to equip a particular class of people to fill the roles that that class needed to be filled (which means that reverse engineering them in an effort to get them to be something else is not very easy). Polytechnics and redbricks were introduced to try and equalise access to higher education and also to change the concept of what that education could comprise (with revolutionary disciplines like Cultural Studies and Media Studies completely revitalising the moribund field of Literary Studies, for instance). I think the Polys were extremely successful. Their abolition was the real low point; because it meant that all third level education was henceforth to be transformed into 'vocational' education. That was bad news for the ex-Polys and redbricks most of all, because they couldn't insulate themselves from change in the way the older institutions could.

So we end up at a situation where all the relevant parties (academics, university management, government, business/indsutry and the poor bloody students) all have a different idea of what on earth they're there for. I think I'm there to offer a pure, mind-expanding experience of education, Discere Gratiā Discendī, and obviously I whinge about having to report on phoney statistics to do with 'graduate employability' and the like. The students, meanwhile, who are told that university is 'best', nonetheless think they're on a glorified training course, and are surprised when they discover that their Humanities degree is not the key to open all employment doors. The businesses complain that we aren't churning out the people they need (whoever they are, and as if they knew). And the government just want a compliant management to help them tick off their short-term policy objectives. We do not know what universities are even supposed to be for any more.

Colleagues in Europe are always aghast at this scenario, which depresses me even more.

PopulusTremula wrote:some of the corroroborating stories I've heard from people on the inside are hilarious, at least when observed from a safe distance, i.e. one which does not bump the blood pressure to "DRT's pre-salad-days" levels.

It's true, it's true. Our university is now being used to channel money from the European Investment Bank into regeneration in the city centre, because if the Northern Ireland Executive were to apply for those funds itself, the sum would be deducted from the block grant. I'd love to know how this helps us fulfil our core objectives, but as I say, we don't have a clue what they are any more.

Well said and i can but agree even though i am not au fait with all details and intricacies concerning academic life, education policies etc.

This topic is a well-beaten horse but it seems the old nag just refuses to die...

PopulusTremula wrote:This topic is a well-beaten horse but it seems the old nag just refuses to die...

Doing my best!

PopulusTremula wrote: 2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole.

Dare I open this box labeled "Pandora"?

Glenn E. wrote:

PopulusTremula wrote: 2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole.

Dare I open this box labeled "Pandora"?

Go for it.

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

PopulusTremula wrote: 2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole.

Dare I open this box labeled "Pandora"?

Go for it.

I'm quite certain you're aware of the box to which I refer.

Well this thread is the place to have the discussion, Glenn. I'm not sure I do actually know what you refer to but I have an inkling.

[20 pages later...] Phew, I'm glad we cleared that one up!

Oxford!

Glenn E. wrote:Oxford!

Exactly. When are they going to sort out the parking?

PopulusTremula wrote: 1. It is in the nature of those who are not young to worry about and to decry the abilities of those who are. This has gone on for millennia.

+1
And I think we all should have more faith in the younger generation. Remember, they will pay our pension. So we should have a little faith in them.

No, they won't. Those days are well and truly over André!

Daniel, don't be so grumpy. It's no good to get worked up over something you cannot change anyway.

AW77 wrote:Daniel, don't be so grumpy. It's no good to get worked up over something you cannot change anyway.

We can all change everything André, but in order to do so we have to be able to see it clearly in the first place. :triumphant optimist:

Glenn E. wrote:

PopulusTremula wrote: 2. I suspect your population sample is small, biased and unrepresentative of the young population as a whole.

Dare I open this box labeled "Pandora"?

I saw the box, and decided to restrain myself.

AW77 wrote:Remember, they will pay our pension.

Oh no they won’t.

Oh please, please open the box marked 'statistical fallacies'.

jdaw1 wrote:

AW77 wrote:Remember, they will pay our pension.

Oh no they won’t.

Indeed. An elderly friend of mine was shocked to find out that the government does not in fact take all our national insurance payments and save them up for the day we retire, and then pay pensions from them. The similarity between pensions - you pay in all your life, while those who paid first take your money out; the repeat for successive generations, requiring each new generation to put increasingly larger contributions into the pot and/or relying on interest/investment growth in the interim - and pyramid or ponzi schemes is entirely coincidental, I'm sure; no need to worry about a decade of flat interest rates or an increasing elderly proportion of the population; I'm sure that the fact no politicians seem to be raising/addressing this must mean there is no cause for concern, right?

Mr Mannering, don't panic!

Spelling. Mainwaring. Thank god you were already in apostrophe crimes.

djewesbury wrote:Oh please, please open the box marked 'statistical fallacies'.

Wrong box.

Well the Oxford clue has me completely flummoxed. So you'd better open the box.