Greg Carr wrote:
It has come to my attentio

2000 lines of ****, what do you think that accomplices??

On Jun 30, 12:17*pm, Sjouke Burry
wrote:
Greg Carr wrote:
It has come to my attentio



2000 lines of ****, what do you think that accomplices??

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true. If your not into
the fact that Google Groups is being censored by organized crime then
so be it. Good luck with your code.

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

On Jul 2, 10:57*pm, UCLAN wrote:
Greg Carr wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

It is done as a courtesy. Many ppl set their kill-filter to
automatically delete anything either OT or off-topic in the subject
line. You didn't have to click on it.

UCLAN writes:

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

On 7/3/08 7:40 AM, in article l, "Raymond Wiker"
wrote:

UCLAN writes:

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ever since label was spelled label and not labelled: la-bel la-bel-ed

Oh! Maybe your extra "l" is a lisp thing?

Don Bowey writes:

On 7/3/08 7:40 AM, in article l, "Raymond Wiker"
wrote:

UCLAN writes:

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ever since label was spelled label and not labelled: la-bel la-bel-ed

Oh! Maybe your extra "l" is a lisp thing?

You're hopefully just pulling my leg... but if not, I
suggest you consult a dictionary.

On 7/3/08 9:02 AM, in article l, "Raymond Wiker"
wrote:

Don Bowey writes:

On 7/3/08 7:40 AM, in article l, "Raymond Wiker"
wrote:

UCLAN writes:

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ever since label was spelled label and not labelled: la-bel la-bel-ed

Oh! Maybe your extra "l" is a lisp thing?

You're hopefully just pulling my leg... but if not, I
suggest you consult a dictionary.

All three of my dictionaries agree.

None were prepared by or for the "leave no poor speller behind"
organization.

Don Bowey writes:

On 7/3/08 9:02 AM, in article l, "Raymond Wiker"
wrote:

Don Bowey writes:

On 7/3/08 7:40 AM, in article l, "Raymond Wiker"
wrote:

UCLAN writes:

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ever since label was spelled label and not labelled: la-bel la-bel-ed

Oh! Maybe your extra "l" is a lisp thing?

You're hopefully just pulling my leg... but if not, I
suggest you consult a dictionary.

All three of my dictionaries agree.

None were prepared by or for the "leave no poor speller behind"
organization.

Ok... so I take it that that "Random House Unabridged
Dictionary" and "The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language" both fall in this category, then? Further, "labelled" is
used in articles in the "Encyclopedia Britannica", and gets about 1/3
of the number of hits that "labeled" does on Google.

I'd be quite interested to know what dictionaries you have
been using.

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Martin

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

It is done as a courtesy. Many ppl set their kill-filter to
automatically delete anything either OT or off-topic in the subject
line. You didn't have to click on it.

You didn't answer my question (not a total surprise), so I'll ask again:

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Raymond Wiker wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

Fleetie wrote:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Keep telling yourself that.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

Raymond Wiker wrote:

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ever since label was spelled label and not labelled: la-bel la-bel-ed

Oh! Maybe your extra "l" is a lisp thing?

You're hopefully just pulling my leg... but if not, I
suggest you consult a dictionary.

Uh, OK.

la·bel /ˈleɪbəl/ Pronunciation Key - [ley-buhl] noun, verb, -beled, -bel·ing
or (especially British) -belled, -bel·ling.

UCLAN writes:

Raymond Wiker wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?
Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

Which does not in any way imply that it is incorrect "American
English".

"Michael A. Terrell" wrote
Fleetie wrote:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Keep telling yourself that.

I shall! :-)


Martin

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:16:32 +0100, "Fleetie"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Martin

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists, so we are stuck with a stupid, inconsistent system of
spelling. In a lot of ways American revisionism makes sense, eg
"color" instead of "colour", but I don't understand how "arse" became
"ass", or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists, so we are stuck with a stupid, inconsistent system of
spelling. In a lot of ways American revisionism makes sense, eg
"color" instead of "colour", but I don't understand how "arse" became
"ass", or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.

- Franc Zabkar


I have noticed that some formal American authors use a double "had".
For instance, they would write "He had had a heart attack". It seems
very silly to me that they would use an extra "had", when one would do
just fine. I then read a biography of this author and he described
that early in his career, he was writing for magazines, and the
publishers would pay the author by the word.

It occurred to me that this might just be a very small way to make a
little extra money. Since America is all about the capitalism, this
makes a little sense. Maybe that would answer the "off of" question.

Thanks.


Remove the BALONEY from my email address.
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fries Minneapolis, MN USA


"Quit eating all my *STUFF*!" - The Tick

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

SNIP

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.
:
:- Franc Zabkar


In the same vein, I hate the use of another "americanism"... When talking of
removing say a single item from a group of items, there is a growing trend to
say "separate out", or "separating out". This is clearly an example of word
redundancy. The verb "separate" denotes that an item has been, or is to be,
"removed" or "taken out", so there is no need to include the "out" after the
verb "separate". I have even heard academics and english lecturers using this
redundancy, thus further promoting its use in the community.

If I simply say I am "separating item A from a group of items" this clearly
means I am "taking out" item A and leaving the rest of the items in the group.
If I say I am "separating out item A from a group of items" it follows that I
must be "taking out" out item A from a group of items. Not correct,is it?

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

SNIP

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.
:
:- Franc Zabkar


In the same vein, I hate the use of another "americanism"...

Quid pro quo, I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_ good tech support"
instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good tech support". A 'company' is
a singular noun.

Michael

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:45:40 -0500, msg wrote:

Quid pro quo, I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_ good tech support"
instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good tech support". A 'company' is
a singular noun.

Yes but a collective singular which is taken to represent a multitude.
I find this particular usage amusing and no stranger than employing
"the United States" as a singular.

Kal

Ross Herbert wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 06:54:10 +1000, Franc Zabkar
wrote:

SNIP

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.
:
:- Franc Zabkar

In the same vein, I hate the use of another "americanism"... When talking of
removing say a single item from a group of items, there is a growing trend to
say "separate out", or "separating out". This is clearly an example of word
redundancy. The verb "separate" denotes that an item has been, or is to be,
"removed" or "taken out", so there is no need to include the "out" after the
verb "separate". I have even heard academics and english lecturers using this
redundancy, thus further promoting its use in the community.

If I simply say I am "separating item A from a group of items" this clearly
means I am "taking out" item A and leaving the rest of the items in the group.
If I say I am "separating out item A from a group of items" it follows that I
must be "taking out" out item A from a group of items. Not correct,is it?


I've never heard that term used in the US. 'Delete an item' was all
I've ever seen.

OTOH, in manufacturing, several different BOMs can be issued for
variations in a single base model. The base item is in the XXX-XXX-00
format, and each customized version is incremented by 1.

For instance: I worked on telemetry equipment. We offered a wide
range of IF and video bandwidths. The customer could chose any 12 they
needed, and if they needed something special, we would create a new BOM
for that custom order. In this system, nothing is ever removed, deleted,
dropped or any other phrase. This allowed us to quickly do custom
runs, or build a replacement board or module when it was damaged in the
field. We had a customer try to modify some IF modules at their site,
and destroyed every board they touched. Another advantage was if a
customer ordered spare equipment a year or two later we would pull up
their previous order which listed the top level BOM for that design, and
the MRP software would generate the entire set of BOMs for the order,
and tell purchasing to order anything that was needed, like sheetmetal
and front panels.


http://www.microdyne-telemetry.com/i...MG_7129sm2.JPG shows one of
the customizable products we built. The two recievers are from the 700
series.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:45:40 -0500, msg wrote:

I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_
good tech support" instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good
tech support". A 'company' is a singular noun.

Yes but a collective singular which is taken to represent a multitude.
I find this particular usage amusing and no stranger than employing
"the United States" as a singular.

I hate this. If one is referring to The United States as a country, then
"is" is correct, "are" is wrong. (The change, by the way, occurred after the
Civil War. The US was now "one" country.)

However, the "collective singular" is totally illogical. The singular is
"team", the plural "teams". So you say "The team is hoping to win", not "The
team are hoping to win". The subject and verb must agree, and this usage is
ungrammatical, plain and simple.

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:38:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:45:40 -0500, msg wrote:

I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_
good tech support" instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good
tech support". A 'company' is a singular noun.

Yes but a collective singular which is taken to represent a multitude.
I find this particular usage amusing and no stranger than employing
"the United States" as a singular.

I hate this. If one is referring to The United States as a country, then
"is" is correct, "are" is wrong. (The change, by the way, occurred after the
Civil War. The US was now "one" country.)

Of course. It was an attempt at a humorous analogy.

However, the "collective singular" is totally illogical. The singular is
"team", the plural "teams". So you say "The team is hoping to win", not "The
team are hoping to win". The subject and verb must agree, and this usage is
ungrammatical, plain and simple.

True. That is current American usage but, apparently, not British
usage.

Kal

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 16:38:28 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

"Kalman Rubinson" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 00:45:40 -0500, msg wrote:

I am frustrated by the British (and Commenwealth?) usage
of company names as plural, as in 'Hewlett Packard _have_
good tech support" instead of "Hewlett Packard _has_ good
tech support". A 'company' is a singular noun.

Yes but a collective singular which is taken to represent a multitude.
I find this particular usage amusing and no stranger than employing
"the United States" as a singular.

I hate this. If one is referring to The United States as a country, then
"is" is correct, "are" is wrong. (The change, by the way, occurred after the
Civil War. The US was now "one" country.)

Of course. It was an attempt at a humorous analogy.

However, the "collective singular" is totally illogical. The singular is
"team", the plural "teams". So you say "The team is hoping to win", not "The
team are hoping to win". The subject and verb must agree, and this usage is
ungrammatical, plain and simple.

True. That is current American usage but, apparently, not British
usage.

Kal


Do the British say "the United Kingdom are... " ?? According to Wiki, "The
United Kingdom is a union of four constituent countries: England, Northern
Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Are they violating their own grammatical "rules"?

LOL how absurd these threads get.

--
Dave M
MasonDG44 at comcast dot net (Just substitute the appropriate characters in the
address)

Experience: What you get when you don't get what you want

On Jul 3, 7:17*pm, UCLAN wrote:
Raymond Wiker wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

* *Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.

Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:17 pm, UCLAN wrote:
Raymond Wiker wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.


No, but looks more and more like the UK wants to be the asshole of
the universe.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

On 7/5/08 2:23 PM, in article
, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:17 pm, UCLAN wrote:
Raymond Wiker wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.


No, but looks more and more like the UK wants to be the asshole of
the universe.


I just went outside and looked again, and America sure is the center (not
centre) of the universe. You folks are way over yonder somewhere.

Don Bowey writes:
I just went outside and looked again, and America sure is the center (not
centre) of the universe. You folks are way over yonder somewhere.

Of course.
United States of America is the center of the univers.
United Kingdom is the centre of the universe.
China is the Zonk of the universe.
etc.

--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
Grace personified,
I leap into the window.
I meant to do that.

Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.

....center...

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote:

Don Bowey writes:
I just went outside and looked again, and America sure is the center (not
centre) of the universe. You folks are way over yonder somewhere.

Of course.
United States of America is the center of the univers.
United Kingdom is the centre of the universe.
China is the Zonk of the universe.
etc.


No, you 'Brits' use extra 'u's and 'e's because you're love to kiss
the French on their assholes. That isn't hard to do, though.

If you had any brains and research skills you would discover that
your spelling used to mach the US, before you let the French borg your
native tongue.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

On Jul 5, 10:23*pm, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:

On Jul 3, 7:17 pm, UCLAN wrote:
Raymond Wiker wrote:
It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

* *Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

It is recognized as mainly a British spelling.

And therefore the correct English language spelling. Take note, for
the next time you want to 'correct' already-correct spelling: America
is not the centre of the universe.

* *No, but looks more and more like the UK wants to be the asshole of
the universe.

Fine by me, I'm not from the UK; I just speak English.

On Jul 6, 6:26*am, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" wrote:

Don Bowey writes:
I just went outside and looked again, and America sure is the center (not
centre) of the universe. *You folks are way over yonder somewhere.

Of course.
United States of America is the center of the univers.
United Kingdom is the centre of the universe.
China is the Zonk of the universe.
etc.

* *No, you 'Brits' use extra 'u's and 'e's because you're love to kiss
the French on their assholes. *That isn't hard to do, though.

That's interesting; I'd never heard before that part of English
spelling was an imitation of French. You learn something new every
day.


* *If you had any brains and research skills you would discover that
your spelling used to mach the US, before you let the French borg your
native tongue.

This is where your own brains and research skills fail you. English
spelling DID NOT match the US before the French "borged" it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...erican_English

"Differences in orthography are also trivial. Some of the forms that
now serve to distinguish American from British spelling (color for
colour, center for centre, traveler for traveller, etc.) were
introduced by Noah Webster himself; others are due to spelling
tendencies in Britain from the 17th century until the present day
(e.g. -ise for -ize, programme for program, skilful for skillful,
chequered for checkered, etc.), in some cases favored by the
francophile tastes of 19th century Victorian England, which had little
effect on AmE."

Part of the differences are, as you attributed, due to French arse/ass-
kissing, but another part (including, it seems, the labelled/labeled
change) were introduced formally by Webster in his first American
English dictionary.
So get your own facts straight, if you don't want to come off sounding
like an arrogant dick (which so far, you do).

UCLAN wrote:

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling]

Not in my country.

as OFF-TOPIC?

It's regular practice; to elicit a response from posters you know might have
interesting views on the matter amd for informative (or even joke) purposes.

Graham

Raymond Wiker wrote:

UCLAN writes:

Greg Carr wrote:

It was clearly labelled OFF-TOPIC and it is all true.

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling] as OFF-TOPIC?

Since when was not "labelled" a correct, alternative spelling
of "labeled"?

Ah we have the cross-pond spelling problem.

Suggest checking for your country's regionally approved speliing.

Dictionary.com shows BOTH spellings.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/labelled

Graham

Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:

Fine by me, I'm not from the UK; I just speak English.

Really? Your IP says you're in Ireland. You speak *weird*!

Eeyore wrote:

Since when is it OK to post ANYTHING on ANY Usenet newsgroup
as long as it is labeled [correct spelling]

Not in my country.

as OFF-TOPIC?

It's regular practice; to elicit a response from posters you know might have
interesting views on the matter amd for informative (or even joke) purposes.

Graham

It has *become* a semi-regular practice, unfortunately. That doesn't make it
correct, or OK.

And in what country is "amd" a word? [You can bet Intel would like to nuke
*that* country.]

On Jul 6, 7:04*pm, UCLAN wrote:
Oisín Mac Fhearaí wrote:
Fine by me, I'm not from the UK; I just speak English.

Really? Your IP says you're in Ireland.

That's correct - I'm from Ireland, which is not the UK.

You speak *weird*!

I try to stay away from globally scoped *weird*, but it's not always
possible...

Franc Zabkar writes:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:16:32 +0100, "Fleetie"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Martin

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review

This never happened, and I'm not entirely clear on what you mean
here. What is 'formal review' in this context? Who was doing the
reviewing? What authority did they have?

, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists,

No, there were no such camps. There have been various attempts to
reform English orthography championed by people such as Noah Webster,
Thomas Jefferson, George Bernard Shaw, and others, but none of them
have caught on among the great majority of people who use the
language.

so we are stuck with a stupid, inconsistent system of
spelling. In a lot of ways American revisionism makes sense, eg
"color" instead of "colour", but I don't understand how "arse" became
"ass",

I don't think 'arse' and 'ass' are pronounced the same way.

or why Americans say "off of" when "off" will suffice.

I say "Get off the boat." and "Get the sticker off the book." and I'm
an American born and raised. I think you're confusing a habit of some
Americans (some of the time) with a habit of all Americans all of the
time.

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:47:02 -0600, Chris Barts
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Franc Zabkar writes:

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 18:16:32 +0100, "Fleetie"
put finger to keyboard and composed:

Bloody hell!

It's an English vs. American English thing.

English uses "labelled", and is of course the correct one.


Martin

I was recently watching a spelling bee on TV. It occurred to me that
such a contest must seem very silly to those viewers whose mother
tongue is phonetic, as all languages should be. English could have
become phonetic many centuries ago, when the language came under
formal review

This never happened, and I'm not entirely clear on what you mean
here. What is 'formal review' in this context? Who was doing the
reviewing? What authority did they have?

, but the traditionalists triumphed over the
phoneticists,

No, there were no such camps. There have been various attempts to
reform English orthography championed by people such as Noah Webster,
Thomas Jefferson, George Bernard Shaw, and others, but none of them
have caught on among the great majority of people who use the
language.

Last year I watched an episode of Melvin Bragg's History of English on
SBS TV in Australia. The narrator spoke of a period in the history of
the language where there existed several different spellings for the
one word (eg kirk, church, churche, cherche, chyrch, etc). Primarily
for legal reasons, there was an attempt at standardisation by
"traditionalists" in one camp and proponents of phonetics in another.
Unfortunately the traditionalists prevailed. IIRC this occurred around
the time when Wycliffe translated the Bible into English. I can't find
any definitive Google references, though.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.