John Kettler Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Since this board gets quite technical at times I think it might be worthwhile to provide an expandable, alphabetized list of commonly misused/misspelled terms, for the benefit of the community as a whole and especially the people for whom English is not their native tongue. Here goes! affect: verb; synonymous with "influence" How will the rocket barrage affect the men? breach: verb and noun; as a verb it means to open a gap or hole; as a noun it is a gap or hole created in something. In military parlance, it generally refers to a wall, fortification, battle position or minefield. Breach that minefield by 0700. "Once more unto the breach, dear friends!" breech: noun; short for breechblock; generally refers to the part of the weapon through which the projectile is loaded; exceptions to this broad rule include the PIAT, AVRE,bazooka, Panzerschreck. The first two are projector weapons (more later), while the others are rocket launchers. effect: verb and noun; as a verb it means to cause to make or bring about; as a noun it means "result" Once the mortar fire starts and pins down the infantry I shall effect a flank attack using my reserve platoon. The effect of the suppressive fire was minimal and cost us dearly in casualties. fuze NOT "fuse" Use as verb or noun When discussing ordnance (weapons, ammo and related materiel) use "fuze" when discussing the device which detonates a bomb, shell, mine or actions relating thereto. Presently there is no provision in CM for, say, lighting a "fuse" on a demolition charge in order to blow a bridge. That fuse is a continuous train of combustible material enclosed in a wire or cord. Fuze the AP mines to go off waist high. The fuze malfunctioned on the bomb. turret NOT "turrent" Properly speaking, a turret is a fully enclosed rotating mount for a weapon or weapons. That's all I have for now. Regards, John Kettler [This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 02-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Ah, a thread for us Grammar Grognards... I feel for those from foreign climes who have had Internet English thrust upon them. Surely there is no less logical or systematic language than the Queen's own. Not the least of the problems is that (as Mr. Kettler's post points out) English is fond of using the same word as both a noun and a verb, but with different meanings. The quadrangle of "affect/effect" is especially tricky. While we're at it: ORDNANCE is military materiel: weapons, ammo, AFVs, gear, etc.. An ORDINANCE is a minor statute or regulation, such as when the city decides that you can't park your Sherman on Main Street. MATERIEL (bastardized from the French) has pretty much the same meaning as "ordnance," above, i.e. military equipment. MATERIAL is much broader in meaning, pertaining to just about any "stuff" or matter you can touch. I wonder if anyone has ever seriously proposed reviving Latin as the language of the World Wide Web? Martyr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 You misspelt "misspelt." Michael Dorosh, Bachelor of Arts (Communications Studies) And Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by Martyr: Ah, a thread for us Grammar Grognards... I feel for those from foreign climes who have had Internet English thrust upon them. Surely there is no less logical or systematic language than the Queen's own Martyr There is no such thing as "Queen's English." You are referring to "The King's English" - a reference to "King's University", not the reigning monarch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Its awl write hear four ewe: http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisl Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by John Kettler: affect:verb;synonymous with "influence" "affect" can also be a noun meaning something like "observed emotional response", it's just unlikely that you would use it that way in a discussion of CM, though possible: "I could tell from their affect that my troops were shaken", but since CM isn't really high enough resolution, and the faces don't change, you would probably be lying. You can tell they're shaken from the label in the status bar. ------------------ "If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 10, 2001 Author Share Posted February 10, 2001 Replies follow: Michael Dorosh, That's a good one, but is this really the place for learned discourse on a cereal (spelt)? Pvt. Ryan, I like the link so much I'm sharing it with family and friends. Excellent! Martyr, Nice contribution! Meant to do "ordnance" and "ordinance" myself, but ran out of brain steam. chrisl, Your point is valid, but I deliberately skipped that use, since I didn't wish to confound the already perplexed. The example you gave is pertinent and doesn't require being able to see faces. Routed troops are quite obvious even with bags over their heads. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Hrm. Not precisely on topic, but it really freaking bugs me when people say "nucular." It's nuclear! Nuclear nuclear nuclear!!! Phew. I feel better ------------------ Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Yeah! And LiBRary! And FeBRUary! And... and... other stuff! Yeah! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 You are referring to "The King's English" - a reference to "King's University", not the reigning monarch. There is no such thing as King's University are you referring to one of the colleges at Oxford or Cambridge? The phrase 'the Queen's English' is quite common in the UK and dates back, I believe, to Victoria's reign. As usage defines language, it therefore exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: There is no such thing as "Queen's English." You are referring to "The King's English" - a reference to "King's University", not the reigning monarch. Michael, the Queen's English' does exist. It is the 'proper' way of pronuciation and use of language in the English language as opposed to using slang, colluqial speech or regional accents. Yes it does refer to the way the ruling monarch speaks. She is supposed to represent the correct way of speaking. Martyr said 'ORDNANCE is military materiel: weapons, ammo, AFVs, gear, etc.. Are you sure??? I believed ordnance is applied solely to ammunition, i.e. tank rounds are ordnance, tanks are not. Artillery shells are ordnance, artillery pieces are not. Is this wrong???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by John Kettler: Replies follow: Michael Dorosh, That's a good one, but is this really the place for learned discourse on a cereal (spelt)? Actually its (or is that "it's"?) not a good one, since either spelling form is correct - a better question we might want to address is the one you raise latterly. We could ask ourselves if it is particularly appropriate to be commenting on "proper" uses of the English language on a board that is host to many persons who do not have English as a primary language, and have continued to express discomofort and embarrassment at their own level of usage. I'm a published author several times over with a degree in Communications, but I've always resigned myself to the fact that people have differing standards regarding spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and grammar and it would be foolish for me to attempt to impose my own standards, or anyone else's, into a public forum. Small errors in spelling or grammar, or for that matter, large ones, aren't to me something one can or should make an issue of. Having said that I did have a bit of fun with the "canoon go boom-boom" thread, granted. Not that I think that is what you are trying to do, and I am sure many of those same persons who have expressed embarrassment will see this as useful and interesting, as they also usually express open-mindedness concerning learning more. I just want to point out that as far as one- or two- letter differences in the spelling of words go, it's not something I find particularly significant or relevant to a conversation board such as this. At best it will be of slight interest to people, at worst it runs the risk of offending those already sensitive about their ability to communicate with us. I must say the "turrent" spelling is particularly irksome, but this thread will eventually go the way of the others, and there will be someone else saying something equally irksome soon (perhaps "I could care less", one of my biggest pet peeves), and all this will have been for naught. Or nowt. Or however ya spell it. [This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by Lordfluffers: Michael, the Queen's English' does exist. It is the 'proper' way of pronuciation and use of language in the English language as opposed to using slang, colluqial speech or regional accents. Yes it does refer to the way the ruling monarch speaks. She is supposed to represent the correct way of speaking. My source is an English scholar I've spoken to about this. There is a King's University in Alberta, to answer another comment, which is obviously not the source of the quote - but it does exist! I presume the King's University referenced was at one time in existence (or the possibility exists I am in error). I did a web search on "Queen's English" and came up with nothing to support the idea that "the Queen's English" is a correctly used phrase - if someone can point me to a source that says it is, I can take this back to my scholar friend and point it out to him. Webster's Dictionary does indeed list "The Queen's English" as a correct phrase; my concise Oxford dictionary does not. Webster's is American. You can see where I'm going with this. I did find some articles that reference "the Queen's english", one very specific article often quoted that compares her own speech and how it has changed over the last fifty years. Any further info will be very welcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 As anyone who has studied linguistics seriously will tell you, there isn't a "correct" or "proper" English per se, but rather syntactical, lexical, and pronounciational variants that are preferred in certain discourse communities. The varying dialects are regionally and socially influenced. To oversimplify, the dialect that gets you through college and leads to a professional job is called "standard" English The dictionary is both prescriptive and descriptive. ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Regarding usage of "The Queen's English," as someone mentioned above, existence and prevalent, comrehensible use of a word within a community is arguably the only justification needed for a word's "properness." Other than that, the standard arbiter and reference for English words and their derivations is the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary. ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check6 Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: the one you raise latterly. You are a disgrace. "the latter one" is acceptable, if you're determined to use that word, but either "the one you raise second/last" or "the second/last one" would be far superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Do I smell an academics' Peng thread on the wind? ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I presume the King's University referenced was at one time in existence (or the possibility exists I am in error). Michael, There is a King's College at Oxford or Cambridge University, possibly both. I'm not too familiar with either establishment as Daddy didn't own half of Scotland. Until the late nineteenth century Oxford and Cambridge were the only two Universities in England and Wales. However since the general public found out that most of the Dons (Professors) are working for the KGB or MI6 or both, we don't take much notice of them any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefly Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 Originally posted by Gremlin: Do I smell an academics' Peng thread on the wind? Pah! I spit on your gerundives. Your infinitives will be split like ripened corn by my mighty Hamster-adverbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gremlin Posted February 10, 2001 Share Posted February 10, 2001 May you wake to find your member postpositional and incurably ablative! ------------------ New to Combat Mission? Visit CM Boot Camp at Combat Missions for tips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Originally posted by Firefly: Michael, There is a King's College at Oxford or Cambridge University, possibly both. I'm not too familiar with either establishment as Daddy didn't own half of Scotland. Until the late nineteenth century Oxford and Cambridge were the only two Universities in England and Wales. However since the general public found out that most of the Dons (Professors) are working for the KGB or MI6 or both, we don't take much notice of them any more. Thank you - no doubt I was in error with a reference to King's University. Now the question remains if "The King's English" is a reference to King's College. I can see where "Queen's English" may indeed by widely used these days, and gained acceptance (by Webster, certainly, but also the public at large). However, I still get the inkling that the intended, or original, usage of the phrase "The King's English" was to refer to the very proper rules laid out at some point in the past, rather than current, or "Queen's" if you will, English, which can be said to describe the wider forms used across the English-speaking world. Check6 - byte me! (How's that for King's English? heehee!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Originally posted by Check6: You are a disgrace. "the latter one" is acceptable, if you're determined to use that word, but either "the one you raise second/last" or "the second/last one" would be far superior. Did I tell you to byte me yet? Oh well...I could care less.......(!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 11, 2001 Author Share Posted February 11, 2001 Sigh. I see that the tangent hydra has not only reared its ugly head, but it has grown new ones and spawned progeny. Could we please get this thread back on track? It was launched with sober and serious intent, and I'd like to get back to that intent. Thanks! John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Special for Madmatt: Would it be possible for you to forward me the password for this forum? I know you're busy, so if you let me change the Topic for this thread to "Pengademics: The New English" by myself, you won't need to get involved. Oh, I also need to ban John from the forum. It seems he's forgotten where the General Forum is. Actually, I'm not so sure telling people how to speak is appropriate there either; that being so, I need to put up a link to www.oed.uk somewhere on the page. They would probably freak out at the way we've gone and left John unmolested after his attempt to spell "alphabetised" though. I am sure he would recognise what I'm saying - or at the least not be surprized once it sunk (sank?) in. Unless of course you could care less (!) Latterly yours, The Hydra PS - John, in a 1200 point quick battle in wet, muddy terrain, what importance would you place on the selection of armour, given the Attack option as American, playing against a random German infantry-only defense in moderately hilly country with moderate tree coverage in November 1944? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check6 Posted February 11, 2001 Share Posted February 11, 2001 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Special for Madmatt: Would it be possible for you to forward me the password for this forum? I know you're busy, so if you let me change the Topic for this thread to "Pengademics: The New English" by myself, you won't need to get involved. Oh, I also need to ban John from the forum. It seems he's forgotten where the General Forum is. Actually, I'm not so sure telling people how to speak is appropriate there either; that being so, I need to put up a link to www.oed.uk somewhere on the page. They would probably freak out at the way we've gone and left John unmolested after his attempt to spell "alphabetised" though. I am sure he would recognise what I'm saying - or at the least not be surprized once it sunk (sank?) in. Unless of course you could care less (!) Latterly yours, The Hydra PS - John, in a 1200 point quick battle in wet, muddy terrain, what importance would you place on the selection of armour, given the Attack option as American, playing against a random German infantry-only defense in moderately hilly country with moderate tree coverage in November 1944? Why do we get the silly Englandish spelling of alphabetize, recognize and surprise, but the nice English spelling of defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts