Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / September 2009


Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Pronounc(e (sic))ing a URL

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Peter Moylan - 20 Sep 2009 13:11 GMT
Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
should stop watching TV.

I have been instructed to go to an address of the form
    "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"
    "a dot"
    "b forward slash"
    "index dot"
    "aitch tee em ell"

Now, almost all of my professional colleagues would have said this as
    "wuh wuh wuh"
    "dot a"
    "dot b"
    "slash index"
    "dot aitch tee em ell"

In other words, they would have pronounced the punctuation characters
as prefixes, unlike the TV people who pronounce them as suffixes.
This, I suspect, is correlated with whether they became
computer-literate before or after the arrival of the WWW. Things like
Gopher very definitely had prefix punctuation. The late arrivals seem
to be assuming that a "dot" can only signal the end of a sentence, as in
English grammar.

I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
"slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Roger Burton West - 20 Sep 2009 13:31 GMT
>I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
>"slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

If one says "slash", Windows people will often ask "forward or back
slash". I suppose that in a non-interactive spoken medium it makes sense
to disambiguate in this way, even though as far as I know the backslash
is invalid in URIs. (I have not checked this; I have never seen a URI
that included one.)

Signature

Roger BW - BrE

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 14:18 GMT
>>I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>>post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>is invalid in URIs. (I have not checked this; I have never seen a URI
>that included one.)

I recall, vaguely, some pre-URI addresses in which the file-path section
used backslashes because it would be used without conversion to address
a file in a Windows system.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 20 Sep 2009 14:57 GMT
>>> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>>> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> used backslashes because it would be used without conversion to address
> a file in a Windows system.

There's also a convention, very widely respected, that a backslash
indicates that the following character is to be interpreted as a
"special character" rather than literally. For example, "\r" means
"carriage return" and "\n" means "newline". This rule is not a part
of the URI rules, but it remains part of the consciousness of the people
who read these strings. Windows has seriously screwed up the intuition
of the pre-Windows computer people. It's a real pity that Microsoft did
not take prior art into account.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 15:49 GMT
>>>> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>>>> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>of the pre-Windows computer people. It's a real pity that Microsoft did
>not take prior art into account.

The Windows file path convention derives from MS-DOS. MS-DOS commands
use both "/" and "\". "/" is used to prefix a "command line switch", or
parameter (Unix "flag"), which controls the functioning of the command.

"\" is then used as a separator in file paths.

As to why they creators of DOS did not follow the Unix convention ("/"
in filepaths and "-" prefixing parameters) there could be various
reasons: things were still in the experimental, try-anything,
pre-standardisation phase of development of computer systems; the
creators might have had a personal preference that lead to their choice;
and last but not least, "DOS is not Unix so it should look different to
avoid confusion".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Evan Kirshenbaum - 20 Sep 2009 20:05 GMT
> The Windows file path convention derives from MS-DOS. MS-DOS
> commands use both "/" and "\". "/" is used to prefix a "command line
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> to their choice; and last but not least, "DOS is not Unix so it
> should look different to avoid confusion".

Why would a somewhat toy minicomputer OS used primarily by researchers
be the thing that the creators of MS-DOS felt the need to distinguish
themselves from?  The use of "/" for program switches was common to
both mainframe OSes (e.g., TOPS-20) and microcoputers (e.g., CP/M).
Coming to Unix in 1983, the "-" for switches took a bit of getting
used to.

My 1984 Chine Nual describes the filename syntaxes supported for
remote access.  These include

   ITS:                 device:dir;name type-or-version
   TOPS-20, Tenex, VMS: device:<dir.subdir>name.type.version
   Unix, Multix:        dir/subdir/name
   Lisp Machine:        dir.subdir;name.type#version

(They don't say, but I'm pretty sure that ITS subdirectories were
signalled by "." as well.)  The footer on the page

   PS:<L.MAN>PATHNM.TEXT.99

implies that the chapter source was kept on a DEC machine.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The General Theorem of Usenet
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |Information: If you really want to
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |know the definitive answer, post
                                      |the wrong information, and wait for
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |someone to come by and explain in
   (650)857-7572                      |excruciating detail precisely how
                                      |wrong you are.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |              Eric The Read

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 20 Sep 2009 22:44 GMT
Evan Kirshenbaum filted:

>My 1984 Chine Nual describes the filename syntaxes supported for
>remote access.  These include
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>    Unix, Multix:        dir/subdir/name
>    Lisp Machine:        dir.subdir;name.type#version

As long as we're at it:

 Stratus:   %system#processor>dir>subdir>filename

A bare ">" at the beginning of a "relative path" took you to the root of the
current processor, while starting with "<" was the equivalent of Windows or Unix
".." (parent dir)....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Nick - 21 Sep 2009 07:53 GMT
> Evan Kirshenbaum filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> current processor, while starting with "<" was the equivalent of Windows or Unix
> ".." (parent dir)....r

If people can avoid reminding me of the syntax for IBM's PDS I'd be
quite content.
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
Garrett Wollman - 21 Sep 2009 04:40 GMT
>    Unix, Multix:        dir/subdir/name

Multics (not "Multix") used '>'.

>(They don't say, but I'm pretty sure that ITS subdirectories were
>signalled by "." as well.)  The footer on the page

ITS did not have subdirectories.  (I don't believe CTSS did, either,
but I'm traveling right now and don't want to dig up the manual online
right now.)  WAITS, as I assume you would know, used name.type[p,p]
where p,p is a PPN.  (The Jargon File was AI:GLS;JARGON > on ITS and
AIWORD.RF[UP,DOC] on SAIL.)

The full VMS path syntax was very baroque:
    host"username password"::controller$unit:[dir.dir.etc]name.type;version

most of these bits could be omitted.  Twenty years ago, I had
JHUVMS::HSC015$DUA100:[USER]GWOLLMAN.DIR.  Normally, users would not see
this because the details would be hidden behind a logical name, such
as SYS$LOGIN, translated by the SYS$TRNLNM system call.

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Reply to this Message
Evan Kirshenbaum - 21 Sep 2009 06:56 GMT
>>    Unix, Multix:        dir/subdir/name
>
> Multics (not "Multix")

Whoops!

> used '>'.

Oh, yeah.

>>(They don't say, but I'm pretty sure that ITS subdirectories were
>>signalled by "." as well.)  The footer on the page
>
> ITS did not have subdirectories.

Ah.  Faulty memory.  I never had an account on an ITS machine, but I
did telnet in to them occasionally.

> (I don't believe CTSS did, either, but I'm traveling right now and
> don't want to dig up the manual online right now.)  WAITS, as I
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> see this because the details would be hidden behind a logical name,
> such as SYS$LOGIN, translated by the SYS$TRNLNM system call.

Most of my accounts were either on Unix boxes or TOPS-20 machines.  My
first account at Stanford was PS:<E.EVAN> on LOTS[1], which had so
many users, that they needed to break up the directory space by first
letter.

[1] Actually, by the year I got there, on both LOTS-A and LOTS-B.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |This case--and I must be careful
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |not to fall into Spooner's trap
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |here--concerns a group of warring
                                      |bankers.
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Reply to this Message
Roger Burton West - 20 Sep 2009 15:55 GMT
>This rule is not a part
>of the URI rules, but it remains part of the consciousness of the people
>who read these strings. Windows has seriously screwed up the intuition
>of the pre-Windows computer people. It's a real pity that Microsoft did
>not take prior art into account.

As I understand it, there was a potential legality involved: the authors
of MS-DOS did not want to appear to be copying CP/M by using the dash as
a switch character, so they used the slash instead (and early versions
of MS-DOS would indeed let you set this back to dash). The slash could
therefore not be used to separate directory names, and the authors chose
backslash instead (when they introduced the idea of directories, which
the first MS-DOS versions didn't support anyway).

(By "switch character" I mean the punctuation used to denote an option
to a command - the slash in "dir /w", or the dash in "ls -l".)

Signature

Roger BW - BrE

Reply to this Message
Roland Hutchinson - 20 Sep 2009 16:20 GMT
>>I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>>post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
>>"slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.
>
> If one says "slash", Windows people will often ask "forward or back
> slash".

You are overestimating the perspicacity of Windows people.  What most
will do, in fact, is type the wrong one, perhaps wonder briefly why it
didn't work, then go on with their business as usual without attempting
to correct the problem, since they have been conditioned to expect and
accept that computers to fail unpredictably at random times and for
random causes in such a manner that recovery is impossible or impractical.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson       

He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba,"
... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy.
--Newark (NJ) Star Ledger  ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ )

Reply to this Message
the Omrud - 20 Sep 2009 16:52 GMT
>>> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>>> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> accept that computers to fail unpredictably at random times and for
> random causes in such a manner that recovery is impossible or impractical.

IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many bits of
software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting this into your
browser:

http:\\www.bbc.co.uk\

It won't be clickable, of course, unless your Usenet client has been
programmed to deal with it.

Signature

David

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 17:42 GMT
>IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many bits of
>software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting this into your
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>It won't be clickable, of course, unless your Usenet client has been
>programmed to deal with it.

Agent recognises it as a URL and makes it clickable.

Agent recognises and treats it as a URL (underlines and colours it, and
makes it clickable) even when it is severely truncated to http:\ but
oddly it does not recognise http:/ or even http://. One more character,
any character, is needed. For example http://+ is treated as a URL and
is clickable. Clicking on that results in "Firefox can't find the server
at www.+.com".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
the Omrud - 20 Sep 2009 17:46 GMT
>> IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many bits of
>> software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting this into your
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Agent recognises it as a URL and makes it clickable.

Oh, I now see that Thunderbird does as well.  I had assumed that it
wouldn't.

Signature

David

Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 21 Sep 2009 02:18 GMT
>>> IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many bits
>>> of software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting this into
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Oh, I now see that Thunderbird does as well.  I had assumed that it
> wouldn't.

I'm using Firefox and Thunderbird (latest versions of both), but I got
the message that it couldn't find %5c%5cwww.bbc.co.uk%5c

Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
the Omrud - 21 Sep 2009 09:07 GMT
>>>> IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many
>>>> bits of software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting this
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> I'm using Firefox and Thunderbird (latest versions of both), but I got
> the message that it couldn't find %5c%5cwww.bbc.co.uk%5c

My Thunderbird is handing off web requests to Chrome, which is happy
with the string.

Signature

David

Reply to this Message
Nick Spalding - 20 Sep 2009 18:29 GMT
the Omrud wrote, in <Mcstm.81071$OO7.17178@text.news.virginmedia.com>
on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:52:12 GMT:

> >>> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
> >>> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> It won't be clickable, of course, unless your Usenet client has been
> programmed to deal with it.

Agent recognises it as a URL and a double click launches the BBC home
page without comment.  It turns out that pasting that 'wrong' URL direct
into IE8 works too.
Signature

Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

Reply to this Message
Nick - 20 Sep 2009 19:53 GMT
> the Omrud wrote, in <Mcstm.81071$OO7.17178@text.news.virginmedia.com>
>  on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:52:12 GMT:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> page without comment.  It turns out that pasting that 'wrong' URL direct
> into IE8 works too.

Gnus spots it as a URL, but when I click on it Firefox objects "address
not found".  It's actually looking for:

http://\\www.bbc.co.uk\/
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
Skitt - 20 Sep 2009 20:07 GMT
>>> IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many
>>> bits of software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> http://\\www.bbc.co.uk\/

My Firefox (3.5.3) finds it just fine.  It puts the slashes the right way as
it does so.
Signature

Skitt (AmE)

Reply to this Message
Nick - 20 Sep 2009 20:10 GMT
>>>> IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many
>>>> bits of software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> My Firefox (3.5.3) finds it just fine.  It puts the slashes the right
> way as it does so.

I'm still on 3.04.15.  The same happens if I cut and paste.  Maybe I'm
due a FF upgrade, although this isn't enough to make me do it!
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
Default User - 20 Sep 2009 22:56 GMT
> >> Gnus spots it as a URL, but when I click on it Firefox objects
> >> "address not found".  It's actually looking for:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I'm still on 3.04.15.  The same happens if I cut and paste.  Maybe I'm
> due a FF upgrade, although this isn't enough to make me do it!

I have FF 2.0.0.20, and it works.

Brian

Signature

Day 230 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 20:08 GMT
>> the Omrud wrote, in <Mcstm.81071$OO7.17178@text.news.virginmedia.com>
>>  on Sun, 20 Sep 2009 15:52:12 GMT:
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
>http://\\www.bbc.co.uk\/

Interesting. I copied http:\\www.bbc.co.uk\ into Firefox 3.5.3 and it
found the site without comment or problem.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Default User - 20 Sep 2009 20:10 GMT
> IME, they'll type the wrong one, but it will be corrected.  Many bits
> of software are coded to fix the wrong slash.  Try pasting this into
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It won't be clickable, of course, unless your Usenet client has been
> programmed to deal with it.

Worked fine, either cut-and-paste into Firefox or clicking with
XanaNews.

Brian

Signature

Day 230 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Reply to this Message
Nick - 20 Sep 2009 13:38 GMT
> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
> "slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and the
BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
Guy Barry - 20 Sep 2009 17:12 GMT
> bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and the
> BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.

The "slash" issue could be resolved at a stroke - by using "stroke", which
was the standard British terminology for the symbol until computers took
over.

Whether the separators "belong" with the preceding or the following item is
a moot point.  I'm old enough to remember when domain names went in the
opposite direction - my department's domain name used to be
"uk.ac.ed.epistemi".  I don't think I even pronounced the separators in
those days.

Guy Barry
Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 17:43 GMT
>> bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and the
>> BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
>
>The "slash" issue could be resolved at a stroke - by using "stroke", which
>was the standard British terminology for the symbol until computers took
>over.

Yes. But there are two strokes on a computer keyboard: / and \.

>Whether the separators "belong" with the preceding or the following item is
>a moot point.  I'm old enough to remember when domain names went in the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Guy Barry

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
musika - 20 Sep 2009 19:12 GMT
>>> bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and
>>> the BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
> Yes. But there are two strokes on a computer keyboard: / and \.

Then perhaps we should use backstroke and front crawl. Everything would then
go swimmingly.

Signature

Ray
UK

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 19:53 GMT
>>>> bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and
>>>> the BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Then perhaps we should use backstroke and front crawl. Everything would then
>go swimmingly.

Where's the breaststroke key?

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Nick - 20 Sep 2009 20:08 GMT
>>>>> bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and
>>>>> the BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Where's the breaststroke key?

Between the G, H and B keys.
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
musika - 20 Sep 2009 20:43 GMT
>>>>> bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and
>>>>> the BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Where's the breaststroke key?

On my laptop it is F1 or F2

Signature

Ray
UK

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 21 Sep 2009 03:28 GMT
> Whether the separators "belong" with the preceding or the following item is
> a moot point.  I'm old enough to remember when domain names went in the
> opposite direction - my department's domain name used to be
> "uk.ac.ed.epistemi".  I don't think I even pronounced the separators in
> those days.

Yes, but that was very specifically a UK convention. For a time,
gateways between the UK and the rest of the world had to switch the
order around.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Amethyst Deceiver - 21 Sep 2009 15:31 GMT
> > bbcdot,codot,uk is standard BBC pronunciation.  I'm like you - and the
> > BBC use "forward slash" all over the place as well.
>
> The "slash" issue could be resolved at a stroke - by using "stroke", which
> was the standard British terminology for the symbol until computers took
> over.

My dad used to refer to the / as a bob stroke - then had to explain that
he meant the marker for shillings. Since I never had to write 'old
money' it was one confusion too far and we resorted to "it goes from
bottom left to top right".
Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Reply to this Message
aquachimp - 20 Sep 2009 13:52 GMT
> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> to be assuming that a "dot" can only signal the end of a sentence, as in
> English grammar.

Easier than www full stop?

> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
> For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Oh I'm up for the "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyo dot etc;

In Belgium it gets pronounced way way way, or is it wey wey wey.

Not sure about "slash index" I keep thing of slash as is going for a
slash (piss), whilst "forward slash" is quite distinctly uncluttered
by that.
Reply to this Message
Jerry Friedman - 20 Sep 2009 15:49 GMT
> > Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> > people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> slash (piss), whilst "forward slash" is quite distinctly uncluttered
> by that.

Is "going for a slash" a British expression?  I think I've read it,
but never heard it.  And what's the origin, onomatopeeia?

--
Jerry Friedman
Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 16:00 GMT
>Is "going for a slash" a British expression?  I think I've read it,
>but never heard it.  And what's the origin, onomatopeeia?

I assume so.

The earliest quote in the OED is:

   1950 P. TEMPEST Lag's Lexicon 192 Slash, to go for a, to visit the
   urinal.

The OED includes slash, an act of urination, in the article (slash n,2.)
along with:

   [Of obscure origin: cf. Sc. slash a large splash of liquid, etc.,
   perh. ad. OF. esclache (Godef.).]
   
   {dag}1. A drink, draught. Obs. rare.

There are two quotations, 1614 and c1783.

I've never met the obsolete sense. There is a nice symmetry in drinking
several slashes and then going for a slash.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
aquachimp - 20 Sep 2009 18:25 GMT
> > > Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> > > people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
> Is "going for a slash" a British expression?  I think I've read it,
> but never heard it.  

I lived in London for over 15 years and can't recall hearing it
there, but, in southern Ireland it was  something you'd hear in pubs
quite often.

>And what's the origin, onomatopeeia?

I've no idea about that.

> --
> Jerry Friedman
Reply to this Message
aquachimp - 20 Sep 2009 18:30 GMT
> > > > Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> > > > people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
> > --
> > Jerry Friedman

I typed in: origin of "going for a slash" into a search engine and
came up with loads of hits. Mostly ascribing it as an English
expression. But this one might interest you most;
http://newpics.org/david/GoingForASlash.aspx
Reply to this Message
Joe Fineman - 21 Sep 2009 01:19 GMT
>  I lived in London for over 15 years and can't recall hearing it
> there, but, in southern Ireland it was something you'd hear in pubs
> quite often.

I heard it in Scotland in 1958.
Signature

---  Joe Fineman    joe_f@verizon.net

||:  The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your  :||
||:  sources.                                              :||
Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 14:00 GMT
>Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
>people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>to be assuming that a "dot" can only signal the end of a sentence, as in
>English grammar.

Yes, or a part of a sentence. It applies to a dot or any other
"punctuation mark" used in a URL.

Dictating: "Yes comma <pause> or part of of a sentence <fullstop>
Dictating colon [that's enough recursion]".

>I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
>"slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

Yes. I think I mentioned some time ago that the word "slash" did not
exist in general BrE to mean a "/". When "slash" first invaded from the
US it was, to all intents and purposes, completely new to BrE. It was
easily grasped that it meant a diagonal stroke, but because a normal
computer keyboard has two such characters on it, "/" and "\", it was
necessary to distinguish between them. Hence "forward slash".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Jerry Friedman - 20 Sep 2009 15:57 GMT
> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
> should stop watching TV.

Can't hurt.

> I have been instructed to go to an address of the form
>      "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>      "slash index"
>      "dot aitch tee em ell"
...

I don't think I've ever heard "wuh wuh wuh".

I believe I say the dots the way you do, but it's a pretty subtle
difference.

In the early nineties, a co-worker of mine said "point" instead of
"dot" in reading file names, as in decimals or version numbers.  I
thought that made a lot of sense.

> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
> "slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

For me they're "slash" and "backslash".  The "forward" and "backward"
names give a lot of people trouble--they seem to think of \ as going
forwards and / as going backwards, maybe because motion downhill is
more natural, or because they think of shoving something with a
shovel, or some such.  (Likewise < and > are counterintuitive for a
lot of people taking remedial math.  They want the arrow to point to
the bigger number.)

--
Jerry Friedman
Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 20 Sep 2009 16:51 GMT
>For me they're "slash" and "backslash".  The "forward" and "backward"
>names give a lot of people trouble--they seem to think of \ as going
>forwards and / as going backwards, maybe because motion downhill is
>more natural, or because they think of shoving something with a
>shovel, or some such.

When writing / or \ I use a downward stroke so / does involve a
backward, right to left, motion, and \ a forward, left to right. But
that is not how I read them. / tilts forward in the direction of reading
and \ backward.

For those who write using an upward stroke, or a downward stroke when
writing from right to left, it will be different.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Mike Barnes - 20 Sep 2009 19:02 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Peter Moylan wrote:
>Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
>people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
>post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
>"slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

I've never heard "wuh wuh wuh". But then I don't have any colleagues.

Chances are you can simply leave out the "www.", the address will still
work just fine.

You can see from my previous sentence that the "." *is* a suffix! :-)

"Forward slash" offends my ears too. Ordinary PC users never have to
type "\" and left to their own devices would use the symbol they
recognise in preference for the one that only nerds use. However the
constant repetition of "forward slash" has created a doubt that would
otherwise never have existed.

It's interesting that you pick on the post-Windows crowd about "forward
slash", because is was the introduction of Windows that signalled the
end of the backslash for the ordinary user.

In your example you could leave the "[forward] slash index dot aitch tee
em ell" out as well.

My preferred version: "a dot b".

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Reply to this Message
Jonathan Morton - 20 Sep 2009 19:41 GMT
> "Forward slash" offends my ears too. Ordinary PC users never have to
> type "\" and left to their own devices would use the symbol they
> recognise in preference for the one that only nerds use. However the
> constant repetition of "forward slash" has created a doubt that would
> otherwise never have existed.

I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.

> It's interesting that you pick on the post-Windows crowd about "forward
> slash", because is was the introduction of Windows that signalled the
> end of the backslash for the ordinary user.

In the old DOS days, one of my colleagues pointed out that "colon backslash"
sounded like some very unpleasant malfunction of the bodily plumbing
(British meaning of "slash", of course), and I could never take the
expression seriously again.

Regards

Jonathan
Reply to this Message
Garrett Wollman - 21 Sep 2009 04:47 GMT
>I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.

Huh?  There are plenty of other kinds of station.  "Train station"
distinguishes it from a "bus station", a "tram station", a "police
station", a "fire station", a "watch station", a "repair station", and
so on.  In all of these cases, there are contexts in which unqualified
"station" refers to something other than a train station.

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 21 Sep 2009 07:14 GMT
Garrett Wollman filted:

>>I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>so on.  In all of these cases, there are contexts in which unqualified
>"station" refers to something other than a train station.

Stay tuned for the rest of this list over most of these CBS stations....

ObDilbertJoke: if a train station is where a train stops, and a bus station is
where a bus stops, what does that say about a work station?...r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Nick - 21 Sep 2009 07:56 GMT
>>I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> so on.  In all of these cases, there are contexts in which unqualified
> "station" refers to something other than a train station.

That's right.  Which is why for a hundred years or so the thinks in the
UK have been called railway stations.  About 20 years ago that vanished
and "train" appeared.  It might be consistent with "bus", but it's WRONG
dammit.

An unqualified "I'm going to the station" would always have meant the
railway station.

Nick, wondering if a "watch station" is a jewellers.
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 21 Sep 2009 12:23 GMT
>>>I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Nick, wondering if a "watch station" is a jewellers.

In County Donegal, Ireland, there is a "Station Island" -- no trains, no
buses, no police, no firefighters, just "penitential stations" and
prayer activities called "stations".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Patrick%27s_Purgatory

The island is also known as Lough Derg from the lake in which it is.
http://www.loughderg.ie/index.cfm/area/information/page/about

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Wood Avens - 21 Sep 2009 12:45 GMT
>>>I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>and "train" appeared.  It might be consistent with "bus", but it's WRONG
>dammit.

Hear, hear.  I yell at radio reporters about that even now.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Reply to this Message
Nick - 21 Sep 2009 20:19 GMT
> That's right.  Which is why for a hundred years or so the thinks in the

Self-OY!
Signature

Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
          development version: http://canalplan.eu

Reply to this Message
Robin Bignall - 21 Sep 2009 22:05 GMT
>> That's right.  Which is why for a hundred years or so the thinks in the
>
>Self-OY!

I noticed, but thought you had another thing coming.
Signature

Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 22 Sep 2009 20:03 GMT
>> Huh?  There are plenty of other kinds of station.  "Train station"
>> distinguishes it from a "bus station", a "tram station", a "police
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and "train" appeared.  It might be consistent with "bus", but it's WRONG
> dammit.

I'm under the impression that the main reason some British people
object to "train station" is that it's perceived as an Americanism.

A late (British) relative of mine used to complain about the misuse of
"regular" for standard, normal, or medium-sized (as opposed to the
more acceptable meanings of evenly spaced and repeating at intervals)
for that reason.

The OED backs him up for "medium-sized" (definition 3e), which goes
back to a 1952 US citation, but I think there might be grey area
between the sense here (under 3e)

  In gasoline ‘regular’ has changed from meaning ‘without tetraethyl
  lead’ to its opposite---‘with lead’. (US, 1972)

and 3d "Habitually or customarily used, received, observed, etc." and
5a "Conformable to some accepted or adopted rule or standard; made or
carried out in a prescribed manner; recognized as formally correct."

Signature

No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented.                                        [Whitfield Diffie]

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 22 Sep 2009 22:31 GMT
Adam Funk filted:

>A late (British) relative of mine used to complain about the misuse of
>"regular" for standard, normal, or medium-sized (as opposed to the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>   In gasoline ‘regular’ has changed from meaning ‘without tetraethyl
>   lead’ to its opposite---‘with lead’. (US, 1972)

That was in 1972...now "regular" means "the lowest octane available"...none of
them have lead....

>and 3d "Habitually or customarily used, received, observed, etc." and
>5a "Conformable to some accepted or adopted rule or standard; made or
>carried out in a prescribed manner; recognized as formally correct."

In my experience, unqualified "regular" means "unconstipated"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 23 Sep 2009 11:48 GMT
> Adam Funk filted:

>>and 3d "Habitually or customarily used, received, observed, etc." and
>>5a "Conformable to some accepted or adopted rule or standard; made or
>>carried out in a prescribed manner; recognized as formally correct."
>
> In my experience,

I'm not sure I want to read too much about that. ;-)

> unqualified "regular" means "unconstipated"....r

The OED finally caught up with that in 1993: "Also transf. of a
person: having bowel movements or menstruation occurring at the proper
intervals." with the first citation from _Lancet_ in 1880.  So it's a
technical term!

Signature

Steve: Now, okay.  I did say that monkeys could program Visual Basic.
Leo:   But not that all Visual Basic programmers are monkeys.
Steve: Exactly.                                    [Security Now 194]

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 23 Sep 2009 12:34 GMT
>> Adam Funk filted:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>intervals." with the first citation from _Lancet_ in 1880.  So it's a
>technical term!

Even a regular technical term.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 23 Sep 2009 17:27 GMT
>>The OED finally caught up with that in 1993: "Also transf. of a
>>person: having bowel movements or menstruation occurring at the proper
>>intervals." with the first citation from _Lancet_ in 1880.  So it's a
>>technical term!
>
> Even a regular technical term.

Hmm.  Is a regular adjective in English the "___er" & "___est" kind or
the "more ___" and "most ___" kind?

Signature

I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it!  [Prof. Wagstaff]

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 24 Sep 2009 01:03 GMT
>>> The OED finally caught up with that in 1993: "Also transf. of a
>>> person: having bowel movements or menstruation occurring at the proper
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Hmm.  Is a regular adjective in English the "___er" & "___est" kind or
> the "more ___" and "most ___" kind?

The former. You can tell by the vowel movements.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 24 Sep 2009 16:52 GMT
>>>> The OED finally caught up with that in 1993: "Also transf. of a
>>>> person: having bowel movements or menstruation occurring at the proper
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> The former. You can tell by the vowel movements.

Especially when a great one happens.

Signature

When Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under
Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway.         [XKCD 342]

Reply to this Message
Mike Barnes - 22 Sep 2009 23:14 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Adam Funk wrote:
>A late (British) relative of mine used to complain about the misuse of
>"regular" for standard, normal, or medium-sized (as opposed to the
>more acceptable meanings of evenly spaced and repeating at intervals)
>for that reason.

Count me in that category. Though I don't complain about it, I wish it
wouldn't happen.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 23 Sep 2009 11:50 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Adam Funk wrote:
>>A late (British) relative of mine used to complain about the misuse of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Count me in that category. Though I don't complain about it, I wish it
> wouldn't happen.

"Regular" for medium-sized is now obsolete, since clothes are still
labelled "medium" and everything else comes in "large" (small), "tall"
(medium), and "super" (large), or some such nonsense.

(IMHO, that mess is worse than "regular".)

Signature

Oh, I am just a student, sir, and I only want to learn
But it's hard to read through the rising smoke
                   of the books that you want to burn
                                          [Phil Ochs]

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 23 Sep 2009 13:30 GMT
>> In alt.usage.english, Adam Funk wrote:
>>> A late (British) relative of mine used to complain about the misuse of
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> (IMHO, that mess is worse than "regular".)

Similarly, condoms can be "large" (small), "extra large" (medium),
and "family size" (big enough to slip off).

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 23 Sep 2009 16:56 GMT
Peter Moylan filted:

>> "Regular" for medium-sized is now obsolete, since clothes are still
>> labelled "medium" and everything else comes in "large" (small), "tall"
>> (medium), and "super" (large), or some such nonsense.
>
>Similarly, condoms can be "large" (small), "extra large" (medium),
>and "family size" (big enough to slip off).

Underwear is still sold as "small", "medium" or "large", and placed on the
shelves in that set-phrase order, with the result that short people have to find
something to stand on to reach the "small" briefs (tautology?), while tall
people like me can be found kneeling on the floor to get at the "large"
ones....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 23 Sep 2009 17:25 GMT
> Peter Moylan filted:

>>Similarly, condoms can be "large" (small), "extra large" (medium),
>>and "family size" (big enough to slip off).

The name should set off an alarm.

> Underwear is still sold as "small", "medium" or "large", and placed on the
> shelves in that set-phrase order, with the result that short people have to find
> something to stand on to reach the "small" briefs (tautology?), while tall
> people like me can be found kneeling on the floor to get at the "large"
> ones....r

Underwear size is not necessarily proportional to height!

Signature

Taken on the whole however this is a fine disc and a good example of
the current pop scene attempting to break out of its vulgarisms and
sometimes downright obscene derivative hogwash.
                                    (Julian Stone-Mason B.A., 1972)

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 23 Sep 2009 18:21 GMT
Adam Funk filted:

>> Underwear is still sold as "small", "medium" or "large", and placed on the
>>shelves in that set-phrase order, with the result that short people have to find
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>Underwear size is not necessarily proportional to height!

No, but that's the way to play it....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 24 Sep 2009 01:06 GMT
> Peter Moylan filted:
>>> "Regular" for medium-sized is now obsolete, since clothes are still
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> people like me can be found kneeling on the floor to get at the "large"
> ones....r

The coffee shop I usually use has "small", "regular" and "large".
"Regular" is quite a large mugful.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 24 Sep 2009 16:53 GMT
> The coffee shop I usually use has "small", "regular" and "large".
> "Regular" is quite a large mugful.

I ordered a "massimo" (in England) a few years ago and the cup had two
handles.  AFAICT the shop did not also serve soup.

Signature

When Elaine turned 11, her mother sent her to train under
Donald Knuth in his mountain hideaway.         [XKCD 342]

Reply to this Message
tony cooper - 23 Sep 2009 19:19 GMT
>>> In alt.usage.english, Adam Funk wrote:
>>>> A late (British) relative of mine used to complain about the misuse of
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>Similarly, condoms can be "large" (small), "extra large" (medium),
>and "family size" (big enough to slip off).

There are certain product-related things that I - personally - think
are the result of strokes of marketing genius.  The side-effects
warning in the commercials for an erectile disfunction product in
which potential users are informed that they should see a doctor if
erections last for over 12 hours is one.  I'm sure that there are
users of this product who do not have problem *getting* an erection,
but are hoping for a side-effect of just 12 minutes.

Another is Trojan's "Magnum" condom.  "We could go back to my place,
but I have to stop and pick up a package of Magnums first" could be
world's greatest pull line.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 23 Sep 2009 19:23 GMT
tony cooper filted:

>There are certain product-related things that I - personally - think
>are the result of strokes of marketing genius.  The side-effects
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>users of this product who do not have problem *getting* an erection,
>but are hoping for a side-effect of just 12 minutes.

*Twelve* hours?...the ads in these parts tell you to get to a doctor if it lasts
*four* hours....

>Another is Trojan's "Magnum" condom.  "We could go back to my place,
>but I have to stop and pick up a package of Magnums first" could be
>world's greatest pull line.

On a less titillating level, you have the company that sold canned red salmon
(with the dark grade considered inferior by some) with the slogan "guaranteed
not to turn pink in the can"...they may have been in cahoots with the ones who
tout "cholesterol-free peanut butter"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
tony cooper - 23 Sep 2009 21:02 GMT
>tony cooper filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>*Twelve* hours?...the ads in these parts tell you to get to a doctor if it lasts
>*four* hours....

Well, see, there you are.  You pay attention to those ads.  I don't.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 23 Sep 2009 19:39 GMT
> Another is Trojan's "Magnum" condom.  "We could go back to my place,
> but I have to stop and pick up a package of Magnums first" could be
> world's greatest pull line.

"Oh yeah, ice cream or champagne?"

Signature

The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to
chance.                                     [Robert R. Coveyou]

Reply to this Message
Ian Jackson - 28 Sep 2009 21:48 GMT
>I'm under the impression that the main reason some British people
>object to "train station" is that it's perceived as an Americanism.

Exactly! But let us at least be thankful that it has saved us (so far)
from being subjected to "railroad station".
Signature

Ian

Reply to this Message
James Hogg - 28 Sep 2009 22:10 GMT
Quoth Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, and I
quote:

>>I'm under the impression that the main reason some British people
>>object to "train station" is that it's perceived as an Americanism.
>>
>Exactly! But let us at least be thankful that it has saved us (so far)
>from being subjected to "railroad station".

Don't speak too soon. Ruskin used it in 1857:

http://books.google.com/books?id=h60aAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA100

Signature

James

Reply to this Message
Wood Avens - 29 Sep 2009 13:54 GMT
>Quoth Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, and I
>quote:
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Don't speak too soon. Ruskin used it in 1857:

I suspect that I regret the replacements for "railway station"
because, deep down, I'm actually regretting the diasppearance of
railway journeys as I knew them in my youth, complete with leather
straps to support the open window, smuts getting in the eyes, sparks
setting light to the sides of cuttings in dry summers, people waving
at level crossings, and so on.  (Add sound effects to taste.)

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 29 Sep 2009 16:11 GMT
>I suspect that I regret the replacements for "railway station"
>because, deep down, I'm actually regretting the diasppearance of
>railway journeys as I knew them in my youth, complete with leather
>straps to support the open window, smuts getting in the eyes, sparks
>setting light to the sides of cuttings in dry summers, people waving
>at level crossings, and so on.  (Add sound effects to taste.)

UK steam locomotive sound effects are available free at:
http://www.steamsoundsarchive.com/

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Ian Jackson - 29 Sep 2009 16:16 GMT
>>Quoth Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, and I
>>quote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>setting light to the sides of cuttings in dry summers, people waving
>at level crossings, and so on.  (Add sound effects to taste.)

You forgot "girls taking off their petticoats, and waving them to warn
the engine driver of danger".
Signature

Ian

Reply to this Message
Mike Lyle - 29 Sep 2009 21:45 GMT
[..."train station"...]

> I suspect that I regret the replacements for "railway station"
> because, deep down, I'm actually regretting the diasppearance of
> railway journeys as I knew them in my youth, complete with leather
> straps to support the open window, smuts getting in the eyes, sparks
> setting light to the sides of cuttings in dry summers, people waving
> at level crossings, and so on.  (Add sound effects to taste.)

Spot-on analysis! It hadn't occurred to me till you said that. Bath and
breakfast in the station hotel on arrival in London on the sleeper.
Country station staff who knew one's name. Southern Pacifics with that
entertaining design fault causing wheelspin at Exeter St David's. Heck,
I _do_ remember Adlestrop.

To Peter's and Ian's memory-nudges, add Flanders and Swann, /The Slow
Train/. Gosh...I'm close to tears, here.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message
LFS - 29 Sep 2009 21:51 GMT
> [..."train station"...]
>> I suspect that I regret the replacements for "railway station"
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> To Peter's and Ian's memory-nudges, add Flanders and Swann, /The Slow
> Train/. Gosh...I'm close to tears, here.

Have you read my cousin's book? "Eleven Minutes Late: A Train Journey to
the Soul of Britain".

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson (BrE) - 29 Sep 2009 22:54 GMT
>[..."train station"...]
>>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>To Peter's and Ian's memory-nudges, add Flanders and Swann, /The Slow
>Train/. Gosh...I'm close to tears, here.

STS: Steam Train Syndrome.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Reply to this Message
Mike Lyle - 29 Sep 2009 23:32 GMT
[...]
>>  Heck, I _do_ remember Adlestrop.
>>
>> To Peter's and Ian's memory-nudges, add Flanders and Swann, /The Slow
>> Train/. Gosh...I'm close to tears, here.
>
> STS: Steam Train Syndrome.

Nice! Laura, could you remind me about the cousinly book on the 13th? I
think I'd like it.

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 30 Sep 2009 01:47 GMT
>> Quoth Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, and I
>> quote:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> setting light to the sides of cuttings in dry summers, people waving
> at level crossings, and so on.  (Add sound effects to taste.)

I'd add to that the smell of the steam train, although even as a smoker
myself, I wouldn't miss the cigarette and pipe fug that sometimes
occluded entire compartments.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
Guy Barry - 21 Sep 2009 08:14 GMT
> >I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.

I wouldn't call "train station" a back-formation.  A back-formation is a
word created from an older word that appears to be an inflected form of it,
as in "burgle" from "burglar".

> Huh?  There are plenty of other kinds of station.  "Train station"
> distinguishes it from a "bus station", a "tram station", a "police
> station", a "fire station", a "watch station", a "repair station", and
> so on.  In all of these cases, there are contexts in which unqualified
> "station" refers to something other than a train station.

When I was young, if you wanted to distinguish the station where trains
arrived from other types of station, you'd call it a "railway station".
That term is still used, but it seems to be being rapidly driven out by
"train station", which grates on my ears for some reason.  Wikipedia says
"The term 'train station' is a U.S. term alien to British English until
recently."

Guy Barry
Reply to this Message
Steve Hayes - 21 Sep 2009 11:40 GMT
>> >I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.
>
>I wouldn't call "train station" a back-formation.  A back-formation is a
>word created from an older word that appears to be an inflected form of it,
>as in "burgle" from "burglar".

Then a reformation.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message
Peter Brooks - 21 Sep 2009 12:02 GMT
> When I was young, if you wanted to distinguish the station where trains
> arrived from other types of station, you'd call it a "railway station".
> That term is still used, but it seems to be being rapidly driven out by
> "train station", which grates on my ears for some reason.  Wikipedia says
> "The term 'train station' is a U.S. term alien to British English until
> recently."

Quite. It's bureaucrats. Where they're not actually illiterate,
they're going out of their way to annoy.
Reply to this Message
Mike Barnes - 21 Sep 2009 09:16 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Garrett Wollman wrote:

>>I agree - it's like "train station", an unnecessary back-formation.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>so on.  In all of these cases, there are contexts in which unqualified
>"station" refers to something other than a train station.

Sure, such contexts exist, but in the UK at least that's not normal
usage. The ordinary Brit would always understand an unqualified
"station" to mean the railway station, unless the context indicated
otherwise.

Or, more recently, the *train* station, which I prefer (it's where you
go to find a stationary train, not a stationary railway).

I would only use, or expect to hear, "railway station" or "train
station" on those rare occasions when there was a clear need to make it
plain that one of those other sorts of station wasn't meant. Otherwise
it's just "the station".

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Reply to this Message
Amethyst Deceiver - 21 Sep 2009 15:34 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Peter Moylan wrote:
> >Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> I've never heard "wuh wuh wuh". But then I don't have any colleagues.

In my neck of the woods it's "wuh wuh wuh". But then, I have to work
with "we will evidence this" so it's academic, really.

Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Reply to this Message
LFS - 21 Sep 2009 17:22 GMT
>> In alt.usage.english, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
[quoted text clipped - 30 lines]
> In my neck of the woods it's "wuh wuh wuh". But then, I have to work
> with "we will evidence this" so it's academic, really.

Now then, you mustn't tar us all with the same brush.

Thanks for the "evidence", BTW, it has lifted the spirits of several
down-hearted colleagues.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Amethyst Deceiver - 23 Sep 2009 11:42 GMT
> > In my neck of the woods it's "wuh wuh wuh". But then, I have to work
> > with "we will evidence this" so it's academic, really.
>
> Now then, you mustn't tar us all with the same brush.

Oh, believe me, my tarring brush is very fine.

> Thanks for the "evidence", BTW, it has lifted the spirits of several
> down-hearted colleagues.

I'm glad you're enjoying it.

Signature

Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 23 Sep 2009 13:32 GMT
>>> In my neck of the woods it's "wuh wuh wuh". But then, I have to work
>>> with "we will evidence this" so it's academic, really.
>>>
>> Now then, you mustn't tar us all with the same brush.
>
> Oh, believe me, my tarring brush is very fine.

Her brush tars slowly, but it tars exceeding fine.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Glenn Knickerbocker - 21 Sep 2009 21:14 GMT
> > In alt.usage.english, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > >    "wuh wuh wuh"
...
> In my neck of the woods it's "wuh wuh wuh".

Wow, the pronunciation that I've advocated for 10 years or more but
never actually used in public has caught on in more than one place?
Since it became mostly unnecessary around the same time as I started
using it in muttering to myself, my tendency is to omit it entirely
except in the now rare case that it actually indicates a different
domain from its parent, and slurring it when it's actually used for
differentiation doesn't seem right.

Now, if I hear that somewhere in IBM there are people that say
"wuh-three" for intranet sites, I'll know somebody must have planted an
extra-sensitive microphone in my office desk.

¬R
Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 22 Sep 2009 12:58 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>>to be assuming that a "dot" can only signal the end of a sentence, as in
>>English grammar.
...
> I've never heard "wuh wuh wuh". But then I don't have any colleagues.

ISTR hearing somewhere that Berners-Lee or one of his colleagues has
said something like "We should have started the custom of naming
webservers web.example.com instead of www.example.com so they would be
easier to pronounce."

Signature

And remember, while you're out there risking your life and limb
through shot and shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a
sucker you are.                              [Rufus T. Firefly]

Reply to this Message
Mike Lyle - 20 Sep 2009 21:20 GMT
> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>     "slash index"
>     "dot aitch tee em ell"
[...]
(That's how I pronounce it, too. The "punctuation" exists, after all,
because of what follows rather than what precedes it. Though I usually
telescope the "wuwuwu" to something more like "wuuuh".)

Anyhow, the other day a newsreader on Al-Jazeera referred to that famous
South African seat of learning, "double-u eye tee ess University". It
reminded me of a converse broadcasting upcock many years ago in which a
confused BFBS announcer gave news of the next families flight to "Uck".

Signature

Mike.

Reply to this Message
Steve Hayes - 21 Sep 2009 02:17 GMT
>> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
>> people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>because of what follows rather than what precedes it. Though I usually
>telescope the "wuwuwu" to something more like "wuuuh".)

I got confused by my cousin talking about earls.

It was only some time afterwards that I realised she was talking about URLs.

Broadcasters have two methods of referring to URLS:

double-you (x3) dot something dot see oh dot zed a

and

double-you (x3) dot something dot coh-zah

I've never heard the wuh-wuh-wuh version.

>Anyhow, the other day a newsreader on Al-Jazeera referred to that famous
>South African seat of learning, "double-u eye tee ess University". It
>reminded me of a converse broadcasting upcock many years ago in which a
>confused BFBS announcer gave news of the next families flight to "Uck".

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web:  http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 21 Sep 2009 02:14 GMT
> Yet again, an announcement on TV has left me puzzled as to why the TV
> people pronounce things differently from my pronunciation. Perhaps I
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> to be assuming that a "dot" can only signal the end of a sentence, as in
> English grammar.

I don't consider myself a late arrival, but I use and I have only heard
"dot" used as a suffix, although when giving addresses, particularly
email addresses, the dots are often omitted in favour of a pause, eg
bigpond [pause] net [pause] au.

> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
> "slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out which
one is supposed to be forward or backward since either to the top or the
bottom is "forwards".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 21 Sep 2009 03:48 GMT
>> I've also noticed that the new arrivals - most specifically, the
>> post-Windows crowd - are likely to say "forward slash" instead of
>> "slash". This, no doubt, will soon qualify as an honest-to-Bog retronym.

> Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out which
> one is supposed to be forward or backward since either to the top or the
> bottom is "forwards".

For me the distinction is quite clear. The ordinary slash is easy to
find on the keyboard, and all keyboards (at least in this country)
have it in the same place. The obscure backslash requires a lot of
searching, and it's rarely in a place where it can be comfortably
reached while typing.

One thing I hate about C programming is its heavy use of
hard-to-reach characters.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Reinhold {Rey} Aman - 21 Sep 2009 03:50 GMT
[...]
> Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out
> which one is supposed to be forward or backward since either to
> the top or the bottom is "forwards".

Forward:   /  --->

Backward:  <---  \

Think stick figure or telephone pole:

| = standing (up) straight
/ = falling over forward   --->
\ = falling over backward  <---

Signature

~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 22 Sep 2009 01:25 GMT
> [...]
>> Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> / = falling over forward   --->
> \ = falling over backward  <---

I will try to remember that, but they should have put feet or a head on it.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
Reinhold {Rey} Aman - 22 Sep 2009 02:35 GMT
>> [...]
>>> Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> I will try to remember that, but they should have put
> feet or a head on it.

I thought about doing that.  So, here we go:

       0-
     ~/~
     /    ---->   falling over *f/o/r/w/a/r/d*
    /_

Signature

~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 22 Sep 2009 12:54 GMT
> [...]
>> Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> / = falling over forward   --->
> \ = falling over backward  <---

The "/" has been around a lot longer, right?  (So that's why the "\"
is the other/backward one...)

Signature

|    _
|   ( )    ASCII Ribbon Campaign
|    X   Against HTML email & news
|   / \     www.asciiribbon.org

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 22 Sep 2009 17:03 GMT
Adam Funk filted:

>The "/" has been around a lot longer, right?  (So that's why the "\"
>is the other/backward one...)

Exactly...first there was /, known simply as the slash....

Then came \ and it was natural to call it the backward slash....

And finally someone felt the need for a distinguishing term for the older glyph,
and decided that the opposite of a "backward" slash must be a "forward"
slash....

The same retronymery gave us "acoustic" guitars, "analogue" watches,
"conventional" ovens, "rotary" telephones and Hank Williams "Senior"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Mike Barnes - 22 Sep 2009 17:28 GMT
In alt.usage.english, R H Draney wrote:
>Adam Funk filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>The same retronymery gave us "acoustic" guitars, "analogue" watches,
>"conventional" ovens, "rotary" telephones and Hank Williams "Senior"....r

I'd accept that parallel more readily if it really was a "backward
slash". But it wasn't, it was a "backslash". Of course "backward slash"
might have had some exposure at some time, but "backslash" is what the
awful "forward slash" is intended to complement.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 22 Sep 2009 18:44 GMT
Mike Barnes filted:

>In alt.usage.english, R H Draney wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>might have had some exposure at some time, but "backslash" is what the
>awful "forward slash" is intended to complement.

Hontoh?...I always assumed that "backslash" was just a shortened version of
"backward(s) slash", the same way "quotes" was short for "quotation marks" or
"parens" for "parentheses"....

(Parallel?...slashes and backslashes aren't parallel)....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Mike Barnes - 22 Sep 2009 23:08 GMT
In alt.usage.english, R H Draney wrote:
>Mike Barnes filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>"backward(s) slash", the same way "quotes" was short for "quotation marks" or
>"parens" for "parentheses"....

Please be careful with that "just". It "just" makes all the difference.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Reply to this Message
Adam Funk - 22 Sep 2009 19:58 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, R H Draney wrote:

>>Exactly...first there was /, known simply as the slash....
>>Then came \ and it was natural to call it the backward slash....
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>>The same retronymery gave us "acoustic" guitars, "analogue" watches,
>>"conventional" ovens, "rotary" telephones and Hank Williams "Senior"....r

GET OFF MY LAWN, YOU CRAZY KIDS!

> I'd accept that parallel more readily if it really was a "backward
> slash". But it wasn't, it was a "backslash". Of course "backward slash"
> might have had some exposure at some time, but "backslash" is what the
> awful "forward slash" is intended to complement.

Good point.  I've always said "backslash" and "backward slash" sounds
otiose.

Signature

History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of
urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.
                                                (Thurgood Marshall)

Reply to this Message
Mike Barnes - 21 Sep 2009 09:01 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Robert Bannister wrote:
>Slashes are confusing at the best of times. I can never work out which
>one is supposed to be forward or backward since either to the top or
>the bottom is "forwards".

It's easy really. A "slash" is a slash as you find it in ordinary
written text. A "backslash" is a slash backwards (mirror-imaged), used
only by technical types. A "forward slash" is a barbarism foisted on us
by people unfamiliar with PCs.

Or, think of the slash as a walking matchstick-person. Except in Arabic,
Hebrew, etc.

Signature

Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Reply to this Message
Mark Brader - 21 Sep 2009 04:14 GMT
Peter Moylan:
> I have been instructed [in a TV commercial] to go to an address of the form
>      "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> In other words, they would have pronounced the punctuation characters
> as prefixes, unlike the TV people who pronounce them as suffixes.

I say there's no pause before *or* after the dots.  There might be one
before the slash, if the following part is long, but "index.html" is too
short to need that.  I'd say: "aitch-tee-tee-pee-colon-slash-slash,
doubleyou-doubleyou-doubleyou-dot-a-dot-b-slash-index-dot-aitch-tee-em-ell".

(I'm assuming that "address" meant an HTTP URL, not an FQDN or some other
sort of URL.)
Signature

Mark Brader            "Well, it's not in MY interest -- and I represent
Toronto                 the public, so it's not in the public interest!"
msb@vex.net                 -- Jim Hacker, "Yes, Minister" (Lynn & Jay)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Reply to this Message
Ilpo - 22 Sep 2009 19:41 GMT
> I have been instructed to go to an address of the form
>      "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"

When I was visiting Down Under last winter (ours) what I heard on TV
was "dab dab dab dot...". It sounded like a neat way to get around an
otherwise lengthy and tongue-twisting phrase. No one has mentioned
that in this thread so far, so apparently it isn't as common as I then
imagined. I admit that I probably heard it only once, though, and I've
forgotten where it was exactly - somewhere east or south anyway, as
that's where we were moving about.

In Finnish it's always "vee vee vee". This is rather straightforward,
since for us "W" is double-V, instead of something as odd as double-U
- it doesn't even have the shape of a U.
Reply to this Message
Jerry Friedman - 22 Sep 2009 19:53 GMT
> > I have been instructed to go to an address of the form
> >      "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> that in this thread so far, so apparently it isn't as common as I then
> imagined
...

Probably "dub-dub-dub", where "dub" is short for "double-you".  I've
heard that once or twice in America.

--
Jerry Friedman
Reply to this Message
R H Draney - 22 Sep 2009 22:33 GMT
Jerry Friedman filted:

>> > I have been instructed to go to an address of the form
>> > =A0 =A0 =A0"doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Probably "dub-dub-dub", where "dub" is short for "double-you".  I've
>heard that once or twice in America.

One point about the "dub"s, "dab"s and "wuh"s is that announcers don't tend to
shorten the string to just two of them...at least half the spoken URLs I
encounter apparently start with "double-yuh-double-yuh-dot"....r

Signature

A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?

Reply to this Message
Default User - 22 Sep 2009 22:48 GMT
> > > I have been instructed to go to an address of the form
> > >      "doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou dot"
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Probably "dub-dub-dub", where "dub" is short for "double-you".  I've
> heard that once or twice in America.

Wendy Watson!

Brian

Signature

Day 232 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project

Reply to this Message
Ilpo - 23 Sep 2009 12:19 GMT
> > When I was visiting Down Under last winter (ours) what I heard on TV
> > was "dab dab dab dot...".

> Probably "dub-dub-dub", where "dub" is short for "double-you".

I did think of that possibility, too, but in my ears "dab" was closer
to how they pronounced "double" down there.

Ilpo
Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 23 Sep 2009 01:37 GMT
> In Finnish it's always "vee vee vee". This is rather straightforward,
> since for us "W" is double-V, instead of something as odd as double-U
> - it doesn't even have the shape of a U.

Actually, when I was in primary school we were taught to write the W
with a curved rather than a pointy bottom.

We get this from Latin, anyway, where U and V were the same letter.
From that point of view, double-U and double-V are the same thing.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Ilpo - 23 Sep 2009 12:37 GMT
> > In Finnish it's always "vee vee vee". This is rather straightforward,
> > since for us "W" is double-V, instead of something as odd as double-U
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> We get this from Latin, anyway, where U and V were the same letter.
>  From that point of view, double-U and double-V are the same thing.

Thanks for this info. Knowing this, it doesn't sound as strange as it
did. Still, "you-you-you" probably wouldn't quite work anyway.

Ilpo
Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 23 Sep 2009 13:34 GMT
>>> In Finnish it's always "vee vee vee". This is rather straightforward,
>>> since for us "W" is double-V, instead of something as odd as double-U
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Thanks for this info. Knowing this, it doesn't sound as strange as it
> did. Still, "you-you-you" probably wouldn't quite work anyway.

Not until you supply the other three.

Signature

Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.      http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Reply to this Message
Evan Kirshenbaum - 23 Sep 2009 17:06 GMT
>> In Finnish it's always "vee vee vee". This is rather straightforward,
>> since for us "W" is double-V, instead of something as odd as double-U
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> We get this from Latin, anyway, where U and V were the same letter.
> From that point of view, double-U and double-V are the same thing.

In Spanish, "W" is still "doble ve".  Hmmm... interesting.  From the
Spanish Wikipedia article

   Su nombre es femenino: uve doble, ve doble, o doble ve; En partes
   de América Latina se le dice doble u.

            http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/W

(Both "ve" and "uve" are names for "v".)  So in most of the Spanish-
speaking world, it's a double V, but in parts of Latin America, it's
now a double U.  The DRAE says that it's specifically a Mexican
variant.  They say that "doble ve" and "ve doble" (but not,
interestingly, "ve" itself) are Latin American forms, with "uve doble"
and "uve" being, presumably, the "standard" Spanish form.  They also
say that "v" can be "ve baja" "ve chica" or "ve corta" in Latin
American Spanish.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |The law of supply and demand tells us
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |that when the price of something is
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |artificially set below market level,
                                      |there will soon be none of that thing
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |left--as you may have noticed the
   (650)857-7572                      |last time you tried to buy something
                                      |for nothing.
   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/        |                  P.J. O'Rourke

Reply to this Message
Garrett Wollman - 24 Sep 2009 05:27 GMT
>(Both "ve" and "uve" are names for "v".)  So in most of the Spanish-
>speaking world, it's a double V, but in parts of Latin America, it's
>now a double U.  The DRAE says that it's specifically a Mexican
>variant.

There's a Spanish-language radio network called "Doble U Radio"; it's
heard on both sides of the border (notably on XEWW 690 -- sample at
<http://audio.bostonradio.org/8b8a85fe-1353-11dd-a3bb-001636ca12ea.ogg>).
(For some reason, most American Spanish-languages do the legal ID in
English, or at least Spanglish, even though the Rules don't require
any particular language.)

-GAWollman
Signature

Garrett A. Wollman    | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers.         | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993

Reply to this Message
Ian Jackson - 28 Sep 2009 22:39 GMT
>>> In Finnish it's always "vee vee vee". This is rather straightforward,
>>> since for us "W" is double-V, instead of something as odd as double-U
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>say that "v" can be "ve baja" "ve chica" or "ve corta" in Latin
>American Spanish.

In French, it's also "double V". But, of course, it IS really two U's
('uu'), which are found in Dutch words. In Welsh, W is a vowel,
pronounced "oo". And when you think of it, even though we think of it as
a consonant, this is also how W is usually pronounced in English.
Signature

Ian

Reply to this Message
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage
Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.