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 / British English / September 2004


Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Have (got) in British English

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
FB - 08 Aug 2004 18:04 GMT
As far as I know, you usually can't leave out "got" after "have" in
negative and interrogative sentences. Grammars say that you may sound very
formal if you leave out "got" in this sort of sentences but, for some
reason, they supply the same one example: "Have you an
appointment?" ("Practical English Usage", "Oxford Advanced Learners'
Dictionary"). Why ever do they never say "Have you a penny?" or "I haven't
a job", which I understand are seen as very unlikely?

I'm saying so because an English native speaker has recently pointed out my
leaving out "got" after "I haven't" on a message I'd sent to an Italian ng
about English, it.cultura.linguistica.inglese:

QUOTE
FB wrote:
> I haven't a dead-key character for the circumflex. Do you?
UNQUOTE (http://snipurl.com/8aoq)

She said it sounded very bad; not formal, but very bad.

Michael Swan has this example on page 230 (article 241.1) of his
"Practical English Usage":

QUOTE
"Have you any brothers or sisters?"
UNQUOTE

and this on page 231 (article 241.6)

QUOTE
"Birmingham has not the charm of York or Edinburgh" (formal GB only)
UNQUOTE

besides the aforementioned "Have you an appointment?".

I wonder why these three examples Swan supplies:

1) Have you any brothers or sisters?
2) Birmingham has not the charm of York or Edinburgh?
3) Have you an appointment?

don't sound bad to a British ear -- for I assume they don't --, while mine

"I haven't a dead-key character for the circumflex"

did.

By the way, I've often read on grammars and dictionaries that "got" after
"have" is colloquial. Can it always be left out in formal speech, then? Why
do such things as "Have you a car?", or "I haven't a job", or "I haven't
it"  don't sound very natural to me?

Thanks in advance.

Bye, FB
Signature

Io ho deciso di rifiutarmi di vederlo: Ettore con la faccia di Eric Banana
mi fa venire i conati.
(commento sul film "Troy" su it.fan.scrittori.tolkien)

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 08 Aug 2004 20:45 GMT
> 1) Have you any brothers or sisters?

Do you have any brothers or sisters?

> 2) Birmingham has not the charm of York or Edinburgh.

Birmingham doesn't have the charm of York or Endinburgh.

> 3) Have you an appointment?

Do you have an appointment?

--
John Briggs
Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 08 Aug 2004 21:09 GMT
> FB wrote:
>> I haven't a dead-key character for the circumflex. Do you?
>
> She said it sounded very bad; not formal, but very bad.

That's because you should have said:

"I don't have a dead-key character for the circumflex. Do you?"

You might have got away with:

"I haven't a dead-key character for the circumflex. Have you?"
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 09 Aug 2004 10:05 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:

> As far as I know, you usually can't leave out "got" after "have" in
> negative and interrogative sentences. Grammars say that you may sound very
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> leaving out "got" after "I haven't" on a message I'd sent to an Italian ng
> about English, it.cultura.linguistica.inglese.
...
> I wonder why these three examples Swan supplies:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> do such things as "Have you a car?", or "I haven't a job", or "I haven't
> it"  don't sound very natural to me?

What you are experiencing is language change in action. The forms without
"got" would have been considered normal speech until very recently. In fact
one can still hear them used by elderly people for whom they were
the norm when they were young. It would be hard to imagine a young person
using them, however. The fact that the introduction of "got" is recent
(someone will probably now quote examples from Shakespeare etc to show it's
not, but it's common usgae I'd say is very recent) is why it is
seen as colloquial - it's the usual case of language sticklers trying to
resist natural changes to the language.

You have missed the fact that there are actually *three* ways of using the
verb "to have". In questions:

"Have you an appointment?"
"Have you got an appointment?"
"Do you have an appointment?"

In negated sentences:

"Birmingham has not the charm of York or Edinburgh"
"Birmingham has not got the charm of York or Edinburgh"
"Birmingham does not have the charm of York or Edinburgh".

Of course, the last of these can also be:

"Birmingham doesn't have the charm of York or Edinburgh".

The form with "do" is the one to use if you wish to sound neither over
formal nor colloquial, although in casual conversation even this sounds a
little formal in some circumstances - in the above sentences I find the use
of the "do" form a little formal in the question sentence, but fine in the
statement sentence.

In the sentences you give, I find 2) sounds archaic, while 1) and 3) are
formal but acceptable.

What is happening here is that the verb "to have" may be used as a
normal verb to mean "possess", but is more commonly used as an auxiliary
verb. English speakers (it seems particularly in British English) seem to be
getting uncomfortable with the non-auxiliary use of "to have" and have ended
up converting sentences which use it in a non-auxiliary way to sentences
that use it as an auxiliary with the verb "to get". So

"I have two sisters and a brother"

becomes

"I have got two sisters and a brother"

or

"I've got two sisters and a brother".

As an auxiliary verb, "have" can have "not" appended to it to negate
sentences, and have its subject places after it to form questions:

"I have seen his house"

"I have not seen his house"

"Have you seen his house?"

In the past (several centuries ago), this could be done with *any* verb:

"I love his daughter"

"I love not his daughter" (archaic)

"Love you his daughter?"  (archaic)

Modern usage insists that with non-auxiliary verbs, the auxiliary "to do" is
added to form negations and questions:

"I do not love his daughter"

"Do you love his daughter?"

However, because "to have" has both an auxiliary and a non-auxliary usage,
the negation and question forming forms without using "to do" remained
acceptable when it was used in a non-auxiliary way even when they had become
archaic for other non-auxiliary verbs:

"I have an appointment"

"I have not an appointment"

"Have you an appointment?"

I would say that now the simple question forming usage is acceptable but
formal, while the simple negation forming use has become archaic. That is
why of the three examples you quote from Swan, 1) and 3) are still fine, but
2) sounds as if someone is trying to be poetical, and I don't think you
would come across it at all in a non-selfconscious usage today.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 09 Aug 2004 10:09 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:

> In negated sentences:
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> "Birmingham doesn't have the charm of York or Edinburgh".

I forgot to point out that in the first two "has not" can be "hasn't". When
you do that, the first sentence becomes less archaic, in fact I think it's
reasonably acceptable that way.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
FB - 09 Aug 2004 16:50 GMT
> You have missed the fact that there are actually *three* ways of using the
> verb "to have". In questions:
>
> "Have you an appointment?"
> "Have you got an appointment?"
> "Do you have an appointment?"

Is the third way common in Briteng as well?

> The form with "do" is the one to use if you wish to sound neither over
> formal nor colloquial, although in casual conversation even this sounds a
> little formal in some circumstances - in the above sentences I find the use
> of the "do" form a little formal in the question sentence, but fine in the
> statement sentence.

I see. Then it sounds normal in AmEng (I understand it's the usual way to
conjugate "to have"), and ordinary or slightly formal in BritEng. I would
have thought it sounded colloquial in BritEng, a sort of Americanism.

> converting sentences which use it in a non-auxiliary way to sentences
> that use it as an auxiliary with the verb "to get". So
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> "I have got two sisters and a brother"

As far as I know "I have got" is still regarded as a present perfect with a
simple present meaning, isn't it?

> I would say that now the simple question forming usage is acceptable but
> formal, while the simple negation forming use has become archaic.

One more thing:

1) I haven't a car
2) I haven't it

For some reason the second sentence sounds more unlikely to my non-native
Eng speaker's ear. What about you?

Bye, FB
Signature

"Gli americani sono ignoranti per loro stessa natura"
that is "The Americans are naturally ignorant"
(Paolo Bonardi on it.cultura.linguistica - http://snipurl.com/7ryg)

Reply to this Message
John Hall - 09 Aug 2004 17:10 GMT
>One more thing:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>For some reason the second sentence sounds more unlikely to my non-native
>Eng speaker's ear. What about you?

The first sounds wrong, but the second sounds even more wrong. We would
probably say either "I don't have a car " or "I don't have one".
Signature

John Hall     "Do you have cornflakes in America?"
             "Well, actually, they're American."
     "So what brings you to Britain then if you have cornflakes already?"
                                 Bill Bryson: "Notes from a Small Island"

Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 10 Aug 2004 02:21 GMT
>>One more thing:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> The first sounds wrong, but the second sounds even more wrong. We would
> probably say either "I don't have a car " or "I don't have one".

Who are "we"? I would be much more likely to say "I haven't got a car"
or "I haven't got one".

Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 09 Aug 2004 17:47 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:

>> You have missed the fact that there are actually *three* ways of using the
>> verb "to have". In questions:
>>
>> "Have you an appointment?"
>> "Have you got an appointment?"
>> "Do you have an appointment?"

> Is the third way common in Briteng as well?

Yes.

>> The form with "do" is the one to use if you wish to sound neither over
>> formal nor colloquial, although in casual conversation even this sounds a
>> little formal in some circumstances - in the above sentences I find the use
>> of the "do" form a little formal in the question sentence, but fine in the
>> statement sentence.

> I see. Then it sounds normal in AmEng (I understand it's the usual way to
> conjugate "to have"), and ordinary or slightly formal in BritEng. I would
> have thought it sounded colloquial in BritEng, a sort of Americanism.

No, it sounds perfectly normal, maybe a little formal, there is no feeling
of it being an Americanism. The first form, however sounds a little weird,
it's something you might expect someone very old or grand to say, but not
an ordinary person.

>> converting sentences which use it in a non-auxiliary way to sentences
>> that use it as an auxiliary with the verb "to get". So
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>>
>> "I have got two sisters and a brother"

> As far as I know "I have got" is still regarded as a present perfect with a
> simple present meaning, isn't it?

Yes, but the point is that it seems increasingly the case that people feel
the need to use this form where "have" exists only as a tense marker in the
place of the form where "have" is the only verb and means "possess". It may
have derived from cases where there was an recent of the subject actually
going a getting whatever it is they now have, but as in the above example
that need no longer be the case. Someone may say "I have got two sisters and
a brother" without implying there was an action they did in order to get two
sisters and a brother.

>> I would say that now the simple question forming usage is acceptable but
>> formal, while the simple negation forming use has become archaic.

> One more thing:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> For some reason the second sentence sounds more unlikely to my non-native
> Eng speaker's ear. What about you?

Language change in action. It looks like the form where the object is a
pronoun disappeared first, so your sentence 2) above isn't even
understandable, while the form where the object is a noun is on the way out
but hasn't yet gone, so your first sentence is understandable but doesn't
sound right. However, "I haven't a clue" sounds fine, possibly just as a
stock phrase which preserves an otherwise archaic form.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Molly Mockford - 09 Aug 2004 20:10 GMT
At 16:47:58 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
wrote in <cf89ru$s6a$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>:

>Yes, but the point is that it seems increasingly the case that people feel
>the need to use this form where "have" exists only as a tense marker in the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>a brother" without implying there was an action they did in order to get two
>sisters and a brother.

Unless, of course, the speaker was Oedipus...

(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we
are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
fathering of offspring.)
Signature

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 09 Aug 2004 20:46 GMT
> (Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we
> are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
> fathering of offspring.)

But wouldn't that be "begotten", rather than "got"? I've never heard of
"get" being used to replace the archaic "beget".

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Molly Mockford - 09 Aug 2004 21:42 GMT
At 19:46:49 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
<tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8kb9$219$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:

>> (Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we
>> are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
>> fathering of offspring.)
>
>But wouldn't that be "begotten", rather than "got"? I've never heard of
>"get" being used to replace the archaic "beget".

The child is begotten by (or, IIRC, "of" in the King James version) the
father.  For the transitive, I guess it would be "he has got (or
gotten[1]) a son".  Then, of course, there's the noun "get" meaning
offspring - rarely used, but I remember Paul Gallico using it in a poem
(about a nursing mother cat) in his book "Honourable Cat" - "Slumber, my
catkins, my get, my make..."

Now, this is sheer guesswork - but it could be that the sense became
transferred by usages such as "I have got (=acquired) enough money to
buy new shoes", which would later slide into "I have got (=possess)
enough money to buy new shoes".  Comments from the more knowledgeable,
please?

[1] "Gotten", as I think we have discussed before, has fallen out of use
in UK English and been preserved in US English, rather than being a
loathsome Leftpondian introduction.
Signature

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 09 Aug 2004 22:29 GMT
> At 19:46:49 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
> <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8kb9$219$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> father.  For the transitive, I guess it would be "he has got (or
> gotten[1]) a son".

I would expect passive and active voices to use the same verb. This is
supported by the KJV, e.g. Matthew 1:2ff: "Abraham begat Isaac; and
Isaac begat Jacob; ..." etc.

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Molly Mockford - 09 Aug 2004 22:51 GMT
At 21:29:40 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
<tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8qc4$3d5$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:

>> The child is begotten by (or, IIRC, "of" in the King James version) the
>> father.  For the transitive, I guess it would be "he has got (or
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>supported by the KJV, e.g. Matthew 1:2ff: "Abraham begat Isaac; and
>Isaac begat Jacob; ..." etc.

I didn't say anything along the lines of "he got";  I was talking about
"he has got".  I don't recall anything in the bible about "he has begat"
- if anything, it would be "he has (be)gotten".

It *is* the same verb.  Get, gat/got, got(ten);  beget, begat/begot,
begot(ten).
Signature

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 08:59 GMT
> At 21:29:40 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
> <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8qc4$3d5$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> I didn't say anything along the lines of "he got";  I was talking about
> "he has got".

But I would interpret that to mean "he posesses" or "he has received",
not "he fathered", which would be "he begat/begot" in the imperfect,
and "he has begotten" in the perfect.

> I don't recall anything in the bible about "he has begat"
> - if anything, it would be "he has (be)gotten".

The quote I mentioned was in the imperfect tense, not the perfect.

> It *is* the same verb.

But I am drawing a distinction between:

> Get, gat/got, got(ten);

and:

> beget, begat/begot, begot(ten).

as being different verbs with different meanings.

Cheers
Tony

Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 09 Aug 2004 23:38 GMT
>> At 19:46:49 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
>> <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8kb9$219$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> supported by the KJV, e.g. Matthew 1:2ff: "Abraham begat Isaac; and
> Isaac begat Jacob; ..." etc.

See my other posts.
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 09:03 GMT
> >> At 19:46:49 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
> >> <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8kb9$219$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:
> >>> But wouldn't that be "begotten", rather than "got"? I've never heard of
> >>> "get" being used to replace the archaic "beget".
>
> See my other posts.

OK, so now I *have* heard of it. :-) But I hadn't until the last few hours!
Perhaps because I have little to do with horses....

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 10 Aug 2004 14:02 GMT
>>>> At 19:46:49 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Tony Mountifield
>>>> <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote in <cf8kb9$219$1@softins.clara.co.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> OK, so now I *have* heard of it. :-) But I hadn't until the last few
> hours! Perhaps because I have little to do with horses....

Or Americans? :-)

(see the entry in Webster's)
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Raymond S. Wise - 09 Aug 2004 21:06 GMT
> At 16:47:58 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
> wrote in <cf89ru$s6a$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
> fathering of offspring.)

As far as I can tell, not only was he wrong concerning a strict sense of the
word "got," but he was wrong concerning *any* such use. There appears to be
no use of "have got" to mean "to father offspring," and I have no reason to
believe that it ever had that meaning. "Have get," yes, but "get" is a noun
there, not a verb, as it is in "Have you got the time?"

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 09 Aug 2004 22:53 GMT
>> At 16:47:58 on Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
>> wrote in <cf89ru$s6a$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> reason to believe that it ever had that meaning. "Have get," yes, but
> "get" is a noun there, not a verb, as it is in "Have you got the time?"

Shorter Oxford English Dictionary:

Get, v.

III To beget, procreate; now only of animals, esp horses.
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 09 Aug 2004 23:36 GMT
> As far as I can tell, not only was he wrong concerning a strict sense of
> the word "got," but he was wrong concerning *any* such use. There appears
> to be no use of "have got" to mean "to father offspring," and I have no
> reason to believe that it ever had that meaning. "Have get," yes, but
> "get" is a noun there, not a verb, as it is in "Have you got the time?"

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961):

get, vb

5: BEGET
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Raymond S. Wise - 10 Aug 2004 05:00 GMT
> > As far as I can tell, not only was he wrong concerning a strict sense of
> > the word "got," but he was wrong concerning *any* such use. There appears
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> 5: BEGET

And there it is in MWCD11: "4 : BEGET," printed in red in the online version
of the 11th. I figure I missed it both because I was looking for a longer
definition such as "to father offspring" and because I did not expect to
find any such definition.

Nevertheless, I would maintain that the argument being discussed, that one
should not use "have got" to mean "possess" because "get," "strictly
speaking," means "father offspring," is a false argument. The only possible
way such an argument could have any value was if the sense of the word being
discussed was in some way derived from the "strict sense" in question, and
"have got" with the meaning of "possess" is not derived from the meaning
"father offspring." Rather, both "possess" and "father offspring" are
derived from meanings of "get" which antedate the "father offspring" sense.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Reply to this Message
Charles Riggs - 10 Aug 2004 07:58 GMT
>> > As far as I can tell, not only was he wrong concerning a strict sense of
>> > the word "got," but he was wrong concerning *any* such use. There
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>"father offspring." Rather, both "possess" and "father offspring" are
>derived from meanings of "get" which antedate the "father offspring" sense.

Can anyone tell me if the above is worth translating? I have a
sneaking suspicion some meaning is hidden in it, but I could be wrong.
Reply to this Message
Raymond S. Wise - 10 Aug 2004 11:21 GMT
> >> > As far as I can tell, not only was he wrong concerning a strict sense of
> >> > the word "got," but he was wrong concerning *any* such use. There
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> Can anyone tell me if the above is worth translating? I have a
> sneaking suspicion some meaning is hidden in it, but I could be wrong.

Compare that to what I had to say in another recent thread in
alt.usage.english . You shouldn't say "Lithuanian can be traced back to
ancient Sanskrit" when Lithuanian is not, in fact, descended from Sanskrit.
The two languages are instead descended from a common ancestor.

The argument of the teacher in question is logically flawed for a similar
reason.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Reply to this Message
Steve Hayes - 10 Aug 2004 05:34 GMT
>(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we
>are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
>fathering of offspring.)

How widespread is this use of "for"?

Is it used in any variety of English outside the US?

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message
Molly Mockford - 10 Aug 2004 07:41 GMT
At 04:34:09 on Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com>
wrote in <411840fc.111610837@news.saix.net>:

>>(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we
>>are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
>>fathering of offspring.)
>
>How widespread is this use of "for"?

Informal, possibly sloppy.  I opted for "hated for us" over the possibly
ambiguous "hated us" (because she didn't!).  Incidentally, the reason
she tried to prevent us from using "got" was that she felt it led to
laziness of mind, and she would rather that we thought a bit harder
about what we were actually trying to say and use a slightly wider
vocabulary in class than we would use in the playground.  She was a good
teacher in that respect.

>Is it used in any variety of English outside the US?

I have no idea whether or not it is used in the US.  As you will have
seen from my domain, I am in the UK.
Signature

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Reply to this Message
CyberCypher - 10 Aug 2004 08:07 GMT
Molly Mockford wrote on 10 Aug 2004:

> At 04:34:09 on Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Steve Hayes
> <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Informal, possibly sloppy.  I opted for "hated for us" over the
> possibly ambiguous "hated us" (because she didn't!).

You might have opted for the unambiguous and formal "hated our
using" (the informal "hated us using" is a bit strange here, but that
won't stop many native anglophones from using it).

> Incidentally, the reason she tried to prevent us from using "got"
> was that she felt it led to laziness of mind,

Trouble with your teacher is that she'd got it wrong. It's not
misusing the language that leads to "laziness of mind"; it's not
thinking, not caring, and ignorance that leads to misusing language.

> and she would rather that we thought a bit harder about

"and she wanted us to think"

> what we were actually trying to say and use a slightly wider
> vocabulary in class than we would use in the playground.

"than we used in the playground".

> She was a good teacher in that respect.

You need more evidence for this assertion, I'm afraid.

>>Is it used in any variety of English outside the US?
>
> I have no idea whether or not it is used in the US.  As you will
> have seen from my domain, I am in the UK.

So there, Steve.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Reply to this Message
CyberCypher - 10 Aug 2004 07:55 GMT
Steve Hayes wrote on 10 Aug 2004:

>>(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the
>>sense we are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Is it used in any variety of English outside the US?

What makes you think this is an example of American English, Steve? It
might be, but the poster using it is posting from the UK. It'd be more
germane to ask how many other BrE speakers here use this contruction.

I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones feel
that "at school" is good usage here?

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Reply to this Message
Einde O'Callaghan - 10 Aug 2004 08:04 GMT
<snip>

> I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones feel
> that "at school" is good usage here?

I suspect all of us who grew up east of the Atlantic - I know US usage
is different, but I'm not certain about usage in the former British
colonies, i.e. the more recent ones, not those lost in the 18th century.

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Reply to this Message
CyberCypher - 10 Aug 2004 08:14 GMT
Einde O'Callaghan wrote on 10 Aug 2004:

> <snip>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> British colonies, i.e. the more recent ones, not those lost in the
> 18th century.

I can understand the need for the "at school" here in Taiwan, because
almost all school kids go to cram schools to learn more English, math,
Chinese, etc, so they always need to specify whether they're talking
about their teachers at school or at cram school.

What is the reason ("Why do" in non-verbose mode, which is not the mode
in which this sentence was intended to be written) BrE speakers use
what can only be said to be an otherwise pointless verbosity?

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 09:15 GMT
> What is the reason ("Why do" in non-verbose mode, which is not the mode
> in which this sentence was intended to be written)

evidently...

> BrE speakers use
> what can only be said to be an otherwise pointless verbosity?

Difficult to answer if you don't agree with the premise.

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Einde O'Callaghan - 10 Aug 2004 09:20 GMT
> Einde O'Callaghan wrote on 10 Aug 2004:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> in which this sentence was intended to be written) BrE speakers use
> what can only be said to be an otherwise pointless verbosity?

Sorry, I originally misunderstood your point since you didn't quote the
usage your were referring to and I thought you were referring simply to
the phrase "at school"..

you were referring to teh phraqse "our English teacher at school". this
doesn'`t sound like verbosity to me. In British (and Irish) usage the
people who stand before the class in certain tertiary institutions
(colleges offering secretarial and commercial qualifications) are also
called "teacher", so you could also refer to "our teacher at
(commercial) college".

This, of course, stirs up another hornets' nest of usage since in
Ireland "college" is used to refer to certain types of secondary school
and "to go to college" usually refers to attending such a secondary
school rather than going to university which is referred as "going to uni".

Regards, Einde O'Callaghan
Reply to this Message
CyberCypher - 10 Aug 2004 09:39 GMT
Einde O'Callaghan wrote on 10 Aug 2004:

>> Einde O'Callaghan wrote on 10 Aug 2004:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> secondary school rather than going to university which is referred
> as "going to uni".

Thank you for making the issue as complex as it really is, Einde.
I'mn glad to see that there is a perfectly reasonable reason
underneath it all.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 10 Aug 2004 11:16 GMT
> you were referring to teh phraqse "our English teacher at school".
> this doesn'`t sound like verbosity to me. In British (and Irish)
> usage the people who stand before the class in certain tertiary
> institutions (colleges offering secretarial and commercial
> qualifications) are also called "teacher", so you could also refer to
> "our teacher at (commercial) college".

And one of the professional bodies for University Lecturers (the main one
until some other kinds of college were resignated as Universities) is "The
Association of Univeristy Teachers".

> This, of course, stirs up another hornets' nest of usage since in
> Ireland "college" is used to refer to certain types of secondary
> school and "to go to college" usually refers to attending such a
> secondary
> school rather than going to university which is referred as "going to
> uni".

I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
have suddenly become very popular.  I wondered where it had arrived from.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Me cogitare credo ergo me esse credo.
(Rainy-Day-Carts)
Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 11:19 GMT
> I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
> I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
> have suddenly become very popular.  I wondered where it had arrived from.

I have heard that it was popularised in the UK by Australian TV soaps.

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Phil C. - 10 Aug 2004 13:32 GMT
>> I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
>> I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
>> have suddenly become very popular.  I wondered where it had arrived from.
>
>I have heard that it was popularised in the UK by Australian TV soaps.

I suppose it's consistent with "poly" for polytechnic. It's surprising
that we didn't generally abbreviate the five-syllable "university"
(apart from"varsity" which sounds pretty naff outside certain
specialised usages). I suspect it's because we tended to omit it
altogether in the days when universities were relatively few in number
and easily identified by name. "He's at York" (etc) would be taken to
refer to the university.

"Polytechnic" seems a rare term in Britain now. The only one I'm aware
of is "Anglia Polytechnic University". I guess they had a naming
problem because "Cambridge" and "East Anglia" were already taken.
Signature

Phil C.

Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 10 Aug 2004 13:59 GMT
>>>I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
>>>I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> and easily identified by name. "He's at York" (etc) would be taken to
> refer to the university.

I had a friend at university in the late sixties who always referred to
"uni" and was laughed at for doing so but I didn't hear the expression
again until the advent of "Neighbours".

> "Polytechnic" seems a rare term in Britain now. The only one I'm aware
> of is "Anglia Polytechnic University". I guess they had a naming
> problem because "Cambridge" and "East Anglia" were already taken.

There's no such thing as a polytechnic now - they all became
universities in 1992, on the abolition of what was grandly called "the
binary divide". Many of us who teach in the ex-polys regret this. Polys
had their own special character.

(Hi, Phil, how are you?)

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Phil C. - 10 Aug 2004 17:46 GMT
>> "Polytechnic" seems a rare term in Britain now. The only one I'm aware
>> of is "Anglia Polytechnic University". I guess they had a naming
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>binary divide". Many of us who teach in the ex-polys regret this. Polys
>had their own special character.

Yes, that's what I was regretting really. The term "polytechnic" was
dropped almost as if encompassing "all the arts" were something to be
ashamed of. It seems to be in robust health in many other countries,
judging by the number of Google hits, but I don't know what exactly
the term conveys in different places.

At my very traditional grammar school in the late 60s polytechnics
were simply _never_ mentioned as an option. I think the headmaster
would have had a seizure.

>(Hi, Phil, how are you?)

I'm fine, thanks for asking. Having just spent a long weekend with my
grandaughter's Spanish grandma, I'm determined to have another go at
learning Spanish, oh deary me. Ironically, given the topic, we've got
a friend who studied French and Spanish at Anglia Polytechnic
University and now earns a good living in the competitive world of
technical translating - judged by what she can actually _do_.
Signature

Phil C.

Reply to this Message
Mike Lyle - 13 Aug 2004 18:19 GMT
> >>>I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
> >>>I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> "uni" and was laughed at for doing so but I didn't hear the expression
> again until the advent of "Neighbours".
[...]

I'd say "uni" in BrIre English definitely came from Australia's
embarrassing amateur TV exports. I've been familiar with it on Oz lips
since the sixties (neither of my parents, born 1918 Qld and 1920 Vic,
have ever used it, except in mockery), but it's only my British-raised
children's generation who've made it current North-Pond.

I don't think the poly comparison is _entirely_ valid, as it became
universal here only after the polys were gone; but I do think it
contributed, as I feel that it did begin to take root during the
transitional phase. But the "he's at York" point is a good one. There
is also a possibility that it's linked with an initial feeling that
the newest "unis" weren't quite "proper" universities, since many lack
the full range of faculties and facilities, so maybe people
intuitively reached for a different word.

Mike.
Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 13 Aug 2004 22:22 GMT
>>>>> I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish
>>>>> usage.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> the full range of faculties and facilities, so maybe people
> intuitively reached for a different word.

That sounds a bit like the story I was told, of someone referring to Oxford
Brookes University, "He's at somewhere called 'Oxford', but it's not the
Oxford we know"!
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 14 Aug 2004 11:27 GMT
> That sounds a bit like the story I was told, of someone referring to Oxford
> Brookes University, "He's at somewhere called 'Oxford', but it's not the
> Oxford we know"!

Talking of Oxford Brookes, when my son was looking at University courses last
year, we were amazed at the reams of bizarre subject combinations that O.B.
was offering degrees in! Anyone for "Electronics with Child Care"? :-)

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Peter Duncanson - 14 Aug 2004 12:04 GMT
>> That sounds a bit like the story I was told, of someone referring to Oxford
>> Brookes University, "He's at somewhere called 'Oxford', but it's not the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>year, we were amazed at the reams of bizarre subject combinations that O.B.
>was offering degrees in! Anyone for "Electronics with Child Care"? :-)

Perhaps a graduate would be capable of designing the "brain" of a child-care
robot.

Signature

Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from u.c.l.e)

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 16 Aug 2004 12:39 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Tony Mountifield <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>> That sounds a bit like the story I was told, of someone referring to Oxford
>> Brookes University, "He's at somewhere called 'Oxford', but it's not the
>> Oxford we know"!

> Talking of Oxford Brookes, when my son was looking at University courses last
> year, we were amazed at the reams of bizarre subject combinations that O.B.
> was offering degrees in! Anyone for "Electronics with Child Care"? :-)

It's a trick used by many universities in the UK, particularly the less
prestigious ones. In order to try and drum up business, they make up a course
code which appears in the handbook of degree programmes for every possible
combination of subjects that it's possible to take.

All this really means is that it's possible at Oxford B to choose a
combination of course units, some from the Electronics department and some
from the Child Care department. It doesn't mean that there's a special
degree laid on which looks at the childcare aspects of electronics, or the
electronics asepcts of childcare.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 16 Aug 2004 13:37 GMT
> In uk.culture.language.english Tony Mountifield <tony@softins.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> code which appears in the handbook of degree programmes for every possible
> combination of subjects that it's possible to take.

See my other post in this thread for a more accurate picture of the
situation at Oxford Brookes.

(There is nothing worse, in my opinion, that an academic snob.)

> All this really means is that it's possible at Oxford B to choose a
> combination of course units, some from the Electronics department and some
> from the Child Care department. It doesn't mean that there's a special
> degree laid on which looks at the childcare aspects of electronics, or the
> electronics asepcts of childcare.

Quite untrue. Both the system of programme choice for students and the
system of course design ensure that that there is a coherent basis for
any combination and that progression in learning can be demonstrated.

Note that (a) the invented combination described does not exist and
could not exist at Brookes and (b) the poster clearly knows nothing
about Brookes.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 16 Aug 2004 14:48 GMT
In Laura F Spira <laura@dragonspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:

>>> Talking of Oxford Brookes, when my son was looking at University courses
>>> last year, we were amazed at the reams of bizarre subject combinations
>>> that O.B. was offering degrees in! Anyone for "Electronics with Child
>>> Care"? :-)

>> It's a trick used by many universities in the UK, particularly the less
>> prestigious ones. In order to try and drum up business, they make up a course
>> code which appears in the handbook of degree programmes for every possible
>> combination of subjects that it's possible to take.

> See my other post in this thread for a more accurate picture of the
> situation at Oxford Brookes.
>
> (There is nothing worse, in my opinion, that an academic snob.)

I'm not trying to be snobbish, I'm just pointing out a very self-evident
phenomenon. All you have to do is pick up the UCAS directory and you find
that some institutions seem to be offering a vast number of degree
programmes, but if you look closely it's actually most possible combinations
of options chosen from two different areas.

I've found this does cause confusion because university applicants genuinely
do think that each advertised programme has its own dedicated lectures etc.
Currently my university institution does this only to a small extent e.g. we
offer a "Computer Science and Business Manegement" degree. I do find
applicants to this degree programme often suppose they are going to get a
specialised degree in business computing, and are rather disappointed to
find all it means is that they are permitted to take one course unit from
the Business Management department and three course units from the Computer
Science department each semester. We do sometimes wonder if we should follow
the fashion and give a label and a UCAS directory entry to every possible
combination of course units it would in theory be possible to take. We have
resisted this, but it seems market forces are pushing us that way. I
remember one time we actually did have a student who in effect chose a
"Computer Science and Old English" degree, but we've never actually invented
a UCAS course code for such an option, though it's in theory available if
someone decides to take that combination of course units and has it agreed
with their personal tutor that it's a choice they're making for sensible
reasons.

>> All this really means is that it's possible at Oxford B to choose a
>> combination of course units, some from the Electronics department and some
>> from the Child Care department. It doesn't mean that there's a special
>> degree laid on which looks at the childcare aspects of electronics, or the
>> electronics asepcts of childcare.

> Quite untrue. Both the system of programme choice for students and the
> system of course design ensure that that there is a coherent basis for
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> could not exist at Brookes and (b) the poster clearly knows nothing
> about Brookes.

The UCAS code for Early Childhood Studies and Electronics at Oxford Brookes
is HXQ3, and it appears on page 409 of the UCAS directory for 2004 entry.

Page 409 is the first of three pages of a roughly 60 by 60 grid in which
each row and column is labelled with a subject and the great majority of
possible combinations have been given a UCAS code. Assuming half the
possible combinations are allowed (it is actually more than that) that makes
nearly 2000 possible degree programmes. The realty must be that a great many
of these degree programmes have none or one student on them.

That doesn't mean it's invalid to make the combination open to anyone who
feels like doing it, I'm just pointing out that one shouldn't expect each
combination to be some degree programme with dedicated staff just for that
option. In fact I'm really defending Oxford Brookes against the ridicule
poked at it by Tony Mountfield. What he says looks a lot less bizarre and a
lot less open to ridicule when it is pointed out that it's just a consequence
of a policy of advertising as a flagged-up possibility almost every possible
combination of two of the many subject taught at the university.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 16 Aug 2004 16:50 GMT
> In Laura F Spira <laura@dragonspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> programmes, but if you look closely it's actually most possible combinations
> of options chosen from two different areas.

You could have chosen a different way of expressing this. "Trick", "less
prestigious", "drum up business" and "make up" have negative connotations.

> I've found this does cause confusion because university applicants genuinely
> do think that each advertised programme has its own dedicated lectures etc.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> the Business Management department and three course units from the Computer
> Science department each semester.

As Jacqui has explained elsewhere, our system is more coherent than that .

We do sometimes wonder if we should follow
> the fashion and give a label and a UCAS directory entry to every possible
> combination of course units it would in theory be possible to take. We have
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> with their personal tutor that it's a choice they're making for sensible
> reasons.

Judging by my experience as an admissions tutor and from open days, our
potential students are extremely clued up about what to expect.

>  
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> The UCAS code for Early Childhood Studies and Electronics at Oxford Brookes
> is HXQ3, and it appears on page 409 of the UCAS directory for 2004 entry.

Early Childhood Studies is *not* Child Care.

> Page 409 is the first of three pages of a roughly 60 by 60 grid in which
> each row and column is labelled with a subject and the great majority of
> possible combinations have been given a UCAS code. Assuming half the
> possible combinations are allowed (it is actually more than that) that makes
> nearly 2000 possible degree programmes. The realty must be that a great many
> of these degree programmes have none or one student on them.

Which doesn't matter in the least. Very few students follow identical
programmes within the system.

The point I am trying to make is that the Brookes modular programme
offers genuine choice and flexibility, leading to named awards that
reflect the choices made by students. As far as I know, this is not the
case in any other "modular" offering at undergraduate level, although
there are programmes which permit varying levels of "independent study"
which may offer similar flexibility.

The Brookes programme is not only differently designed but is also
differently delivered in many areas.

> That doesn't mean it's invalid to make the combination open to anyone who
> feels like doing it, I'm just pointing out that one shouldn't expect each
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> of a policy of advertising as a flagged-up possibility almost every possible
> combination of two of the many subject taught at the university.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 17 Aug 2004 11:19 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Laura F Spira <laura@dragonspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:

>> I'm not trying to be snobbish, I'm just pointing out a very self-evident
>> phenomenon. All you have to do is pick up the UCAS directory and you find
>> that some institutions seem to be offering a vast number of degree
>> programmes, but if you look closely it's actually most possible combinations
>> of options chosen from two different areas.

> You could have chosen a different way of expressing this. "Trick", "less
> prestigious", "drum up business" and "make up" have negative connotations.

Well, I had in mind the thread on the "education industry" that was spun
off from this one. All of us involved in university admissions, but
paryticularly those of us involved in it at institutions which tend not to
be students' first choice (and I include myself in that) increasingly have
to think of our job in these terms. The negative connotations are
deliberate, it's sad that we have to act in that way, but we do.

>> I've found this does cause confusion because university applicants genuinely
>> do think that each advertised programme has its own dedicated lectures etc.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> the Business Management department and three course units from the Computer
>> Science department each semester.

> As Jacqui has explained elsewhere, our system is more coherent than that .

Yes, I'm aware that Oxford Brookes pioneered the modular system and may well
mange it better than that. But in these days of mass higher education is it
really that easy to keep a close eye on students picking and choosing a
range of oeptions across different study areas and ensure they keep it all
together in an intellectually coherent way?

> Judging by my experience as an admissions tutor and from open days, our
> potential students are extremely clued up about what to expect.

Well, you must get a better class of students than I get.

>>>Note that (a) the invented combination described does not exist and
>>>could not exist at Brookes and (b) the poster clearly knows nothing
>>>about Brookes.
 
>> The UCAS code for Early Childhood Studies and Electronics at Oxford Brookes
>> is HXQ3, and it appears on page 409 of the UCAS directory for 2004 entry.
> Early Childhood Studies is *not* Child Care.

I assumed (correctly, as he pointed out) that Tony Mountifield (I also
suffer from people who jump to conclusions about my surname without closely
observing its spelling) had misremembered the course title.

>> Assuming half the possible combinations are allowed (it is actually more
>> than that) that makes nearly 2000 possible degree programmes. The reality
>> must be that a great many of these degree programmes have none or one
>> student on them.

> Which doesn't matter in the least. Very few students follow identical
> programmes within the system.

Indeed. Which means, as I was pointing out, that no-one goes to the bother
of designing a special degree programme for each possible combination in
advance. Rather, it's done on demand.

> The point I am trying to make is that the Brookes modular programme
> offers genuine choice and flexibility, leading to named awards that
> reflect the choices made by students. As far as I know, this is not the
> case in any other "modular" offering at undergraduate level, although
> there are programmes which permit varying levels of "independent study"
> which may offer similar flexibility.

Well, it must involve an impressive amount of personal tuition. Do you have
large amounts of one-to-one tutorials so that the one person taking an odd
"X with Y" degree really does get a proper thought-out X with Y degree
rather than just a combination of some X units and some Y units? The trade
press suggests that these days one-to-one tuition is almost unknown due to
the pressure of increased numebrs of students and decreased funding, and
tutor groups are more likely to be classes which could contain a dozen or so
students.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Wood Avens - 17 Aug 2004 16:26 GMT
[snip]

>But in these days of mass higher education is it
>really that easy to keep a close eye on students picking and choosing a
>range of oeptions across different study areas and ensure they keep it all
>together in an intellectually coherent way?

(I rather like "oeptions".)

From my Open University perspective, this depends on your definition
of intellectual coherence.  We started off trying to dicourage
students from exercising some of their stranger-looking theoretical
options, as it might be combining foundation-level social science,
second-level biochemistry and third-level music.  Given that these
were adult students, however, closer investigation almost always
revealed that their choices were entirely logical, and usually
dovetailed with previous study elsewhere, professional experience,
career goals and/or simple fascination with a subject.  In other
words, for the particular individual concerned the choices were models
of intellectual coherence.  

I tend to look back on the tiny range of one-size-fits-all degrees of
forty years ago and cringe.

Signature

Katy Jennison

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 17 Aug 2004 17:28 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Wood Avens <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote:

>>But in these days of mass higher education is it
>>really that easy to keep a close eye on students picking and choosing a
>>range of options across different study areas and ensure they keep it all
>>together in an intellectually coherent way?

> From my Open University perspective, this depends on your definition
> of intellectual coherence.  We started off trying to dicourage
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> I tend to look back on the tiny range of one-size-fits-all degrees of
> forty years ago and cringe.

Where I am (department of Computer Science, Queen Mary, University of
London) I'm rather disappointed that very few students use the possibilities
that are available in the module system. When students do seek to take units
from outside the department, it's usually fairly predictable stuff like
Accounting. I'd like to see some students who'd be keen on taking some arts
courses as a sideline rather than stereotypical CS geeks. But where we have
put effort into devising good multi-disciplinary degrees - we've had a
Computing/Language/Linguistics one advertised for many years, and recently
introduced a Bioinformatics one, we've been very disappointed to get few
takers for them. So please don't take my previous comments as knocking
multi-disciplinary degrees, it's just that I do wonder whether those
universities that seem to have a policy of advertising almost every possible
combination in the UCAS directory really get many takers for them.

However, it does seem to me that the complete mix-and-match approach that
you mention couldn't really work without a watering down of the degree,
particularly when it comes to more technical subjects. A second-level
biochemistry module, for example, must surely depend on students having done
first level biochemistry modules. If a module is to be made open to any
takers, regardless of what they've done previously, then it must surely have
to be run slowly and miss out more advanced aspects which would depend on
previously acquired knowledge from earlier modules.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Molly Mockford - 17 Aug 2004 19:04 GMT
At 16:28:02 on Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>
wrote in <cftbmi$hi4$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>:

>But where we have
>put effort into devising good multi-disciplinary degrees - we've had a
>Computing/Language/Linguistics one advertised for many years,

Oh, I'd like that!

Mind you, when I was at Edinburgh in the late 60s, my degree was
effectively modular:  I chose two years each of English and
Psychology[1] and one year each of French, Computer Science[2] and
Philosophy & Literature.

[1] The idea was to go into advertising.
[2] In fact I ended up in computing, quite a few years after graduating.
Signature

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 18 Aug 2004 14:29 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Molly Mockford <nospamnobody@mollymockford.me.uk> wrote:
> At 16:28:02 on Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmw.ac.uk>:

>>But where we have
>>put effort into devising good multi-disciplinary degrees - we've had a
>>Computing/Language/Linguistics one advertised for many years,

> Oh, I'd like that!

I wish there were more who'd say that. On current figures, we will have
precisely two students on that option in the new intake this year. The very
few that do apply for it mostly seem to do so under the misassumption that
it's either it's a straightforward language degree with a little bit of
practical computing thrown in, or a straightforward computing degree with a
little bit of practical language use thrown in. It's a shame because it
would be an excellent degree programme, and Linguistics is the one subject
where Queen Mary tops the university legaue tables, if only we could find
sufficient students to take it.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
A Gwilliam - 18 Aug 2004 05:06 GMT
> [snip]
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> (I rather like "oeptions".)

The problem is, how do you say it?  As if it were "eptions"?  Maybe
"oyptions"?  And do you write "o" + "e" as a ligature?

Presumably it's related etymologically to Oedipal.

</tongue firmly in cheek>

Signature

Andrew Gw.
Currently one of a.u.e.'s top double-posters!

Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 17 Aug 2004 20:37 GMT
>>The point I am trying to make is that the Brookes modular programme
>>offers genuine choice and flexibility, leading to named awards that
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> tutor groups are more likely to be classes which could contain a dozen or so
> students.

The complexity of the modular programme has always required a
significant investment in personal tutoring but the course regulations
are surprisingly straightfoward (in my experience as an external
reviewer elsewhere, significantly easier to master than at many other
institutions).

Every student has a personal tutor and also has access to the field
chairs (course directors) of the two fields in which he/she is studying
(Brookes does also offer some more conventional single honours degrees
as well). Further programme advice is also available through the central
administrative set-up - the Dean of the Modular Course and his support
team who have regular surgeries. Set times for individual meetings with
personal tutees are arranged for the beginning of the academic year,
after which meetings are demand led, with fixed times for drop-in
sessions, as well as separate appointments.  Each field has an induction
programme for new entrants and a process during year 1 for helping
students choose the more specialised programme for years 2 and 3. Credit
entry students and international students are provided with further
support systems via specialised tutors.

In the past, a great deal of written information was provided to
students but this has been largely replaced by very comprehensive
on-line systems. Students are able to make programme changes on line via
their PIP (Personal Information Portal) pages and students and tutors
can communicate on line (tutors have a Virtual Office Door on which to
post notices) if this is more convenient than face-to-face meetings.

Tutors in the Business School (I can't say what arrangements exist in
other Schools) each get a basic timetable allowance to cover personal
tutoring, with additional time according to the number of personal
tutees they have been allocated.

It works pretty well. Our drop-out rates are low, although the modular
system means that it is perhaps more difficult for students and
*subject* lecturers to make sustainable relationships than in the
conventional linear degree situation where students would be taught by
the same person for a full year.

Well, you did ask!

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 16 Aug 2004 17:30 GMT
> In Laura F Spira <laura@dragonspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
> > Note that (a) the invented combination described does not exist and
> > could not exist at Brookes and (b) the poster clearly knows nothing
> > about Brookes.

It's true I know very little about Oxford Brookes other than from
browsing the UCAS site last autumn. I also didn't go back to check the
accuracy of my memory of the particular course that tickled me.

> The UCAS code for Early Childhood Studies and Electronics at Oxford
> Brookes is HXQ3, and it appears on page 409 of the UCAS directory for
> 2004 entry.

That sounds like the one I was thinking of. Thanks!

> [...]
> In fact I'm really defending Oxford Brookes against the ridicule poked
> at it by Tony Mountfield.

It wasn't my intention to ridicule Oxford Brookes, rather to express my
surprise and mild amusement at some of the unlikely combinations I had
seen on offer.  Apologies to anyone who took offence at my comments.

BTW, it's Mountifield, but 90% of the population don't notice until it's
pointed out :-(

> What he says looks a lot less bizarre and a lot less open to ridicule
> when it is pointed out that it's just a consequence of a policy of
> advertising as a flagged-up possibility almost every possible
> combination of two of the many subject taught at the university.

Indeed!

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 16 Aug 2004 13:36 GMT
>>That sounds a bit like the story I was told, of someone referring to Oxford
>>Brookes University, "He's at somewhere called 'Oxford', but it's not the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> year, we were amazed at the reams of bizarre subject combinations that O.B.
> was offering degrees in! Anyone for "Electronics with Child Care"? :-)

That was the original point of modular courses, of which Oxford
Polytechnic offered the first in the UK. People have often mocked this
by coming up with spurious combinations as you have, but combinations
can prove very intellectually stimulating and can also offer very
appropriate grounding for future employment. I have taught students
taking apparently unlikely pairings such as Accounting with History of
Art, who have gone on to run museums, and Accounting with Nutrition, who
have set up very successful nutrition consultancy businesses.

Our modular course, in its original form, required students to study in
two "fields" from a very wide range of options and encouraged them to
study modules from a third field in their first year. This system
provided insight into a range of academic possibilities which could then
be pursued more narrowly in subesquent years. Students could switch
fields fairly freely which was appealing to those who did not want to
specialise too early. It also made part-time study exceptionally
straightforward. Other "modular" programmes are more accurately
described as "unitised" and have not been designed with the objectives
of broad study that ours was.

The extent of choice at Brookes has diminished considerably over the
last ten years or so, principally because of resource constraints.

Jacqui can tell you more, from a student perspective.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Jacqui - 16 Aug 2004 15:28 GMT
Laura F Spira wibbled

(Brookes modular degrees)
> Jacqui can tell you more, from a student perspective.

Indeed. My degree was originally intended to be English and
Publishing (although I switched to Double English in my second
year). I took modules including History, Computing, and Italian. The
field system has mandatory modules, core option modules (i.e. "you
must take three from this list of fifteen"), and optional modules,
and of course some modules must follow prerequisites, but generally
you have a pretty free hand in selecting a programme that fulfills
degree requirements. (Switching fields when I did meant going back
in my third year to take one previously-completely-optional core
option module in order to collect the right number of acceptable
Basic credits, since my Publishing credits no longer counted.)

The way joint subjects are handled at Advanced level, the
dissertation draws both subjects together: a Tourism and Publishing
student friend wrote hers on the business aspects of travel books;
another friend doing IT and Music produced one on how music groups
(choirs, orchestras etc) use IT to organize music catalogues and
repertoire details; my own would probably have been on publishing
literary fiction, had I continued toward joint honours. Individual
modules do not need to combine subjects (although my ISM was about
publishing student newspapers, so did combine the two) but in
practice most people do end up working on their pet subjects
whenever possible. So Electronics and Child Care needn't be a
pointless combination, since the two aspects are quite separate for
most of the time, but the dissertation will draw the two together in
whatever way the student (who originally picked the course) intends,
whether that's how child development is affected by electronic toys
and activities, or how to develop the best Nannycam, or how to
corral the little blighters in an electronically controlled
environment. Whatever.

Jac
Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 16 Aug 2004 18:04 GMT
> So Electronics and Child Care needn't be a pointless combination,
> since the two aspects are quite separate for most of the time, but the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> develop the best Nannycam, or how to corral the little blighters in an
> electronically controlled environment. Whatever.

Indeed. I'm sure for someone who has strong interests in two fairly
disparate fields, these kinds of courses allow a lot of creativity for
bringing them together.

As I said in another post, I wasn't trying to imply that unlikely
combinations were pointless, merely that we were mildly amused by some
of the ones listed, and Brookes seemed to be unique in the wide variety
of combinations offered.

Thanks for sharing the perspective from the "sharp end"!

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 16 Aug 2004 17:56 GMT
> > Talking of Oxford Brookes, when my son was looking at University
> > courses last year, we were amazed at the reams of bizarre subject
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> accurately described as "unitised" and have not been designed with the
> objectives of broad study that ours was.

Thank you for explaining; it makes more sense now. I sort of assumed
the philosophy behind it was along those lines, but it did make
amusing reading on first sight.

> The extent of choice at Brookes has diminished considerably over the
> last ten years or so, principally because of resource constraints.

Unfortunately, under-funding now seems to be endemic. :-(

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 16 Aug 2004 13:35 GMT
> That sounds a bit like the story I was told, of someone referring to Oxford
> Brookes University, "He's at somewhere called 'Oxford', but it's not the
> Oxford we know"!

We generally refer to ourselves as "the other university in Oxford". In
some areas - research in History is just one example - we outrank our
neighbours according to accepted performance indicators. In many areas,
we co-operate.

There is no doubt that we receive many applications for potential
students who would like to say that they have studied at Oxford but
cannot make the grade down the hill. We can, however, be choosy.
Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 10 Aug 2004 14:06 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Phil C. <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:

> "Polytechnic" seems a rare term in Britain now. The only one I'm aware
> of is "Anglia Polytechnic University". I guess they had a naming
> problem because "Cambridge" and "East Anglia" were already taken.

Although a "polytechnic" in Britain was always supposed to be a different
sort of institution that a university - one geared more towards practical
and vocational education - in practice it came to be assumed to mean "a second
rate higher education institution, a place for university rejects".
Therefore when legislation was passed which allowed polytechnics to use the
title "university", they all did. In many cases as well as changing
"Polytechnic" in their name to "University" they completely changed the name
to something sounding grander and which to someone not familiar with their
history would imply they were a long-standing university. For example, the
"Polytechnic of Central London" became the "University of Westminster".
The reason "Polytechnic" is a rare term in Britain is that there is now no
longer such an institution, they are all legally universities.

"Anglia Polytechnic University" has chosen to keep the word "Polytechnic" it
its title, but it does not indicate any different sort of status from the
other institutions which used to be polytechnics but are now legally
universities. I think the reason is that they genuinely felt there was some
good in the old mission of polytechnics and that it ought not to be a label
to be ashamed of. However, it has, I have heard, caused them marketing
problems, and they have tried to change their name to lose that word.

Matthew Huntbach

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 10 Aug 2004 15:29 GMT
> In uk.culture.language.english Phil C. <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> The reason "Polytechnic" is a rare term in Britain is that there is now no
> longer such an institution, they are all legally universities.

We are only 100 years behind Germany - all the German polytechnics were made
universities by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the 1890s.  They each gave him an
honorary degree :-)
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Phil C. - 10 Aug 2004 13:17 GMT
>> you were referring to teh phraqse "our English teacher at school".
>> this doesn'`t sound like verbosity to me. In British (and Irish)
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
>have suddenly become very popular.  I wondered where it had arrived from.

Signature

Phil C.

Reply to this Message
ZZBunker - 27 Aug 2004 01:15 GMT
> > you were referring to teh phraqse "our English teacher at school".
> > this doesn'`t sound like verbosity to me. In British (and Irish)
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
> have suddenly become very popular.  I wondered where it had arrived from.

 That game from the US. When people still spoke
 Latin in courts and churches, people were sent to the
 "Uni" to learn Latin, rather than going to College.
Reply to this Message
Ian Noble - 27 Aug 2004 17:08 GMT
> I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
> I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
> have suddenly become very popular.  I wondered where it had arrived from.

It's been here a fair while.  "Uni" was most definitely in common use
in England when I attended Nottingham, amongst undergrads and their
families at least, back in 1972.  If it's in more general use now, I
suspect that's down to the larger number of people in and around the
system given the current "quantity rather than quality" approach to
higher education over here.  

Cheers - Ian

(Sorry - my server seems to have dropped the previous post, so this
may not appear at the right point in the thread...)
Reply to this Message
david56 - 27 Aug 2004 17:17 GMT
typed thus:

> > I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
> > I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> system given the current "quantity rather than quality" approach to
> higher education over here.  

I've mentioned it here before, but the term was unknown to me at
university in Manchester in the second half of the 70s.

I understand its popularity is down to Neighbours.

Signature

David
=====

Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 27 Aug 2004 17:26 GMT
>  typed thus:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> I understand its popularity is down to Neighbours.

That's what I think, although it was not unheard of before Neighbours.
I think I've said this before, too: when I was at Manchester, about a
decade before David, I had a friend from Yorkshire who referred to "uni"
and was often laughed at for this.

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
david56 - 27 Aug 2004 17:35 GMT
Laura F Spira typed thus:

> >  typed thus:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> decade before David, I had a friend from Yorkshire who referred to "uni"
> and was often laughed at for this.

Wife says that it's not polite to laugh at people for being from
Yorkshire, even if they do say "uni".

Signature

David
=====

Reply to this Message
Ian Noble - 27 Aug 2004 19:07 GMT
>Wife says that it's not polite to laugh at people for being from
>Yorkshire, even if they do say "uni".

Most of them won't mind.  They know they've already won the lottery of
life.

Cheers - Ian
Reply to this Message
Dave Fawthrop - 27 Aug 2004 19:12 GMT
| >Wife says that it's not polite to laugh at people for being from
| >Yorkshire, even if they do say "uni".
|
| Most of them won't mind.  They know they've already won the lottery of
| life.

Yorkshire is the best place in the UK to live. :-((((((((

Signature

Dave F    a Tyke born and bred.

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 27 Aug 2004 19:48 GMT
>>> Wife says that it's not polite to laugh at people for being from
>>> Yorkshire, even if they do say "uni".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Yorkshire is the best place in the UK to live. :-((((((((

If you call it living :-)
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
David - 27 Aug 2004 19:54 GMT
> >>> Wife says that it's not polite to laugh at people for being from
> >>> Yorkshire, even if they do say "uni".
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > Yorkshire is the best place in the UK to live. :-((((((((

> If you call it living :-)

I don't suppose you'd call being in Heaven living, either, but it's
much the same thing.

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/yds/9rc-0.htm
The Yorkshire Dialect Society: Records & Cassetes

Reply to this Message
Ian Noble - 27 Aug 2004 22:17 GMT
>> >>> Wife says that it's not polite to laugh at people for being from
>> >>> Yorkshire, even if they do say "uni".
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>I don't suppose you'd call being in Heaven living, either, but it's
>much the same thing.
Shush.  Most of the rest of the country still thinks Yorkshire's
mills, flat caps and whippets.  Let them keep their illusions.

Cheers - Ian
Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 27 Aug 2004 22:42 GMT
> Shush.  Most of the rest of the country still thinks Yorkshire's
> mills, flat caps and whippets.  Let them keep their illusions.
>
> Cheers - Ian

Had a wonderful 2 weeks hol in Yorks in early July, near Lofthouse
in Nidderdale. We'll be back!

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 02 Sep 2004 03:37 GMT
Ian Noble wellfed:

>Shush.  Most of the rest of the country still thinks Yorkshire's
>mills, flat caps and whippets.  Let them keep their illusions.

That's important, I believe.  I live in a city (Newcastle, NSW)
that has recently been called Australia's best-kept secret.  Most
people around the country are used to thinking of it in terms of
steel mills and coal mines and industrial pollution.  It's not until
you get here that you discover that it's more about vineyards and
beaches and sunshine and a relaxed lifestyle.

(The only sound you'll hear is the sound of the wind, for the
mill has shut down, weave and spin, weave and spin.)

The problem is that the secret's now out, and we're being invaded
by refugees from the megalopolis down the road (Sydney).  Now we're
getting over-inflated housing prices, traffic jams, virgin bush
being bulldozed for new housing estates, and so on.  It won't be
long before we're just one more overcrowded big city.

One of the biggest attractions of the place was the absence of
Sydney people.  No more, alas.

So take a lesson from our experience.  Keep spreading those stories
about mills, flat caps, and whippets.  It's the only thing that
can save you.

Signature

Peter Moylan                 peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Reply to this Message
Ian Noble - 27 Aug 2004 19:04 GMT
>>  typed thus:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>decade before David, I had a friend from Yorkshire who referred to "uni"
>and was often laughed at for this.
Yorkshire being where I grew up, for what it's worth.

Cheers - Ian
Reply to this Message
M. J. Powell - 27 Aug 2004 17:37 GMT
>> I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish usage.
>> I'd not come across it very much in England until recently, when it seems to
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>system given the current "quantity rather than quality" approach to
>higher education over here.

"Uni" and "Col" were in common use in s. Wales in the late 40's.

Mike
Reply to this Message
Pat Durkin - 27 Aug 2004 23:23 GMT
> > > you were referring to teh phraqse "our English teacher at school".
> > > this doesn'`t sound like verbosity to me. In British (and Irish)
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>   Latin in courts and churches, people were sent to the
>   "Uni" to learn Latin, rather than going to College.

From the US?
When, where?

I was in Spain in mid-60's and they used it there.  Also--"poli" for
policia.  I think England hadn't discovered Spain for holidays, yet.
Speaking German there was the rage, second to AmE.

But maybe Germany, Italy or France had the habit before the Spain.
Reply to this Message
don groves - 28 Aug 2004 03:37 GMT
In article <avOXc.1297$6o3.1205
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, durkinpa@peoplepc.com
wrote...

> > "Mike Stevens" <michael.stevens@which.net> wrote in message
> news:<2nrlimF3r48bU1@uni-berlin.de>...
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> policia.  I think England hadn't discovered Spain for holidays, yet.
> Speaking German there was the rage, second to AmE.

No wonder, with Franco in power.
--
dg
Reply to this Message
ZZBunker - 28 Aug 2004 07:35 GMT
> In article <avOXc.1297$6o3.1205
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, durkinpa@peoplepc.com
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> > From the US?
> > When, where?

   It's always been there. Since the British have
   to reminded constantly that the only people in the US
   who have cars and homes like the British do,
   are people who go to Universities in Boston.

   But, every state west of Boston, has "Uni"s,
   Dragons, and Sandcastles.
Reply to this Message
Pat Durkin - 29 Aug 2004 15:54 GMT
> > In article <avOXc.1297$6o3.1205
> > @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, durkinpa@peoplepc.com
> > wrote...
> > >
> > > > "Mike Stevens" <michael.stevens@which.net> wrote in message

> > > > > I'm interested that you see the abbreviation "uni" as part of Irish
> >  usage.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>     But, every state west of Boston, has "Uni"s,
>     Dragons, and Sandcastles.

I think I am missing something here.  I don't understand the references to
"Dragons and Sandcastles".
It may be my thick Midwestern mind, but we don't now, and, I think never
have used "uni" in casual reference to our Universities. . .many being
so-called Land Grant institutions.  Our casual reference to post-highschool
institutions has been "college".

Can you enlighten me?
Reply to this Message
Adrian Bailey - 10 Aug 2004 20:23 GMT
> I can understand the need for the "at school" here in Taiwan, because
> almost all school kids go to cram schools to learn more English, math,
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> in which this sentence was intended to be written) BrE speakers use
> what can only be said to be an otherwise pointless verbosity?

To my mind, in the phrase "our English teacher at school" the "at school"
made it clear who the word "our" referred to.

Adrian
Reply to this Message
Molly Mockford - 10 Aug 2004 08:55 GMT
At 09:04:11 on Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Einde O'Callaghan
<einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote in
<2nra72F3pkmbU1@uni-berlin.de>:

><snip>
>>  I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones feel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>is different, but I'm not certain about usage in the former British
>colonies, i.e. the more recent ones, not those lost in the 18th century.

I think the Merkins tend to say "in school".  But I find it confusing
that they also use the word "school" for further education.  Therefore,
presumably, the expression "in high school" to differentiate?

Now, there's interesting.[1]  I wonder how "high school" became a
popular term, on both sides of the pond?  Not that we talk about "high
school" as such in the UK, but many schools would have "High" in their
name, and I think it must pre-date the division between grammar and
secondary modern schools.  So what was the "low school" from which the
others felt the need to distance themselves?

[1] No, I'm not Welsh.  But I like the turn of phrase.
Signature

Molly Mockford
I think I've been too long on my own, but the little green goblin that
lives under the sink says I'm OK - and he's never wrong, so I must be!
(My Reply-To address *is* valid, though may not remain so for ever.)

Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 10 Aug 2004 11:10 GMT
> Now, there's interesting.[1]  I wonder how "high school" became a
> popular term, on both sides of the pond?  Not that we talk about "high
> school" as such in the UK, but many schools would have "High" in their
> name, and I think it must pre-date the division between grammar and
> secondary modern schools.  So what was the "low school" from which the
> others felt the need to distance themselves?

As Molly knows, I've spent most of my life in the education industry in the
UK  -  I should say England as Wales to some extent and particularly
Scotland & Northen Ireland are very different educationally.  I think there
were several different ages in which significant numbers of schools adopted
"High" as part of their name.

Before the 1944 Education Act, "High School" and "Grammar School" meant much
the same (regional difference perhaps? Dunno, possibly more local &
historical than that.).  That Act gave them the designation "Grammar School"
so "High School" went out of fashion in the State sector, while staying
around in the independent sector - most if not all of the schools of what
used to be the Girls Public Day School Trust were and are called
"[place-name] High School".

With the move to abolish selection by ability in the State Sector (never,
alas, completed), some (but probably not very many) of the previous Grammar
and Sec.Mod. schools that were redesignated as Comprehensives adopted the
name ".... High School".

In those parts of the country which chose to re-organise their schools in
three tiers instead of two, they replaced "Primary" and "Secondary" by
"First", "Middle" and "High" in the names of their schools.

Most recently, in the aftermath of all that followed from Jim Callaghan's
1978 (or was it early '79?)  Ruskin College Speech, Maggie Thatcher's
Education Reform Act (1988?), the introduction of Ofsted and "naming and
shaming" and Tony Blair's thrashing around for some new ways to give extra
money to the schools who least need it (all of which I consider to be a
single continuous process), a new crop of comprehensive schools have adopted
the name "... High School" to try to boost their perceived status which,
rather than educational quality, has come to be the driving force in UK's
State education system.

Cynical?  Moi?

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Chris Malcolm - 10 Aug 2004 13:59 GMT
In alt.usage.english Mike Stevens <michael.stevens@which.net> wrote:

>> Now, there's interesting.[1]  I wonder how "high school" became a
>> popular term, on both sides of the pond?  Not that we talk about "high
>> school" as such in the UK, but many schools would have "High" in their
>> name, and I think it must pre-date the division between grammar and
>> secondary modern schools.  So what was the "low school" from which the
>> others felt the need to distance themselves?

> As Molly knows, I've spent most of my life in the education industry in the
> UK  -  I should say England as Wales to some extent and particularly
> Scotland & Northen Ireland are very different educationally.  I think there
> were several different ages in which significant numbers of schools adopted
> "High" as part of their name.

> Before the 1944 Education Act, "High School" and "Grammar School" meant much
> the same (regional difference perhaps? Dunno, possibly more local &
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> used to be the Girls Public Day School Trust were and are called
> "[place-name] High School".

> With the move to abolish selection by ability in the State Sector (never,
> alas, completed), some (but probably not very many) of the previous Grammar
> and Sec.Mod. schools that were redesignated as Comprehensives adopted the
> name ".... High School".

> In those parts of the country which chose to re-organise their schools in
> three tiers instead of two, they replaced "Primary" and "Secondary" by
> "First", "Middle" and "High" in the names of their schools.

In at least some parts of Scotland, in 11-plus IQ selection days, the
11-plus streamed the kids between a Grammar School (many went on to
university), a High School (some went on to university), and a
Secondary Modern School (none stayed at school past 16).

One of the sad consequences of removing the 11-plus was that it
reduced the number of kids from working class backgrounds who went to
university, because flawed as the judgement of the 11-plus IQ exam was
as a measure of academic ability, it was less flawed than what it was
replaced by: the judgement of school teachers.

Signature

Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 10 Aug 2004 14:17 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> One of the sad consequences of removing the 11-plus was that it
> reduced the number of kids from working class backgrounds who went to
> university, because flawed as the judgement of the 11-plus IQ exam was
> as a measure of academic ability, it was less flawed than what it was
> replaced by: the judgement of school teachers.

That's actually a myth. The chances of a working class child passing the
11-plus and going to university were always small anyway, and no greater
than the chances of a working class child educated at a comprehensive going
to university.

One of the reason why the proportion of working class children going to
university might appear to be going down is that the proportion of people who
are working class, in the sense of engaged in manual occupations, is going
down.  

These days, anyone who has the ability to go to university, and plenty who
don't gets to go. There has been a huge expansion of the number of university
places. As an admissions tutor in a reasonably respected university
institution, every year I deal with hundreds of applications from students
from comprehensive schools, including in my case many from the rougher and
poorer inner city comprehensive schools (which the right-wing press like to
pretend are what all comprehensive schools are like).

I went to a comprehensive school myself from a working class background,
having passed the 11-plus but having decided not to go to the grammar school
that offered me a place. I went on to get top A-levels and a university
place. I don't think I was held back at all by not going to a grammar
school.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
david56 - 10 Aug 2004 16:07 GMT
Matthew Huntbach typed thus:

> I went to a comprehensive school myself from a working class background,
> having passed the 11-plus but having decided not to go to the grammar school
> that offered me a place. I went on to get top A-levels and a university
> place. I don't think I was held back at all by not going to a grammar
> school.

Did you take the 11+ in another LEA?  I'm wondering how there can be
grammar schools and comprehensives coexisting.  But I know there are
plenty of Manchester residents who get their children into Trafford
grammar schools via the Trafford 11+

Signature

David
=====

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 10 Aug 2004 17:23 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english david56 <bass.c.voice@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Matthew Huntbach typed thus:

>> I went to a comprehensive school myself from a working class background,
>> having passed the 11-plus but having decided not to go to the grammar school
>> that offered me a place. I went on to get top A-levels and a university
>> place. I don't think I was held back at all by not going to a grammar
>> school.

> Did you take the 11+ in another LEA?  I'm wondering how there can be
> grammar schools and comprehensives coexisting.  But I know there are
> plenty of Manchester residents who get their children into Trafford
> grammar schools via the Trafford 11+

At the time I took the 11+, the local Catholic secondary modern and grammar
schools had merged into a comprehensive, but the non-Catholic schools were
still divided into secondary modern and comprehensive. All pupils in my
Catholic primary school sat the 11+, and if they passed they were entitled
to go to the non-Catholic grammar school. However, I chose to go to the
Catholic comprehensive.

Of the non-Catholic schools, the grammar school was located in an area of
large private houses, the secondary modern on a council estate. I think this
indicates pretty well what the expectations were in those days.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Phil C. - 10 Aug 2004 17:46 GMT
>One of the reason why the proportion of working class children going to
>university might appear to be going down is that the proportion of people who
>are working class, in the sense of engaged in manual occupations, is going
>down.

I saw a quote from the actor Ray Winstone the other day to the effect
that he was working class back in the days when that meant you worked
for a living. Yeees... I see what he's getting at.
Signature

Phil C.

Reply to this Message
Dr Robin Bignall - 11 Aug 2004 13:32 GMT
>One of the reason why the proportion of working class children going to
>university might appear to be going down is that the proportion of people who
>are working class, in the sense of engaged in manual occupations, is going
>down.  

I think that's probably a fallacy. There are a lot of people working in
office and factory semi-administrative jobs that don't get their hands
particularly dirty, but that are equally as frustrating and mind-numbing as
bolting wheels onto cars on a production line. I'd call a lot of these
'manual occupations'.

Newspapers have been reporting recently that the average student will run
up debts of about £26,000 over the three years of a degree course, and that
a third of last year's graduates are still either unemployed or in
temporary jobs which make little use of their education. I can't help
feeling that some working class people to whom the idea of debt is anathema
are put off by a contemplation of starting off their working lives owing
more than their annual family gross income, with a degree apparently no
longer the automatic ticket to a good job that it was 40 years ago.

Signature

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall

Hertfordshire
England

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 11 Aug 2004 15:26 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Dr Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>One of the reason why the proportion of working class children going to
>>university might appear to be going down is that the proportion of people who
>>are working class, in the sense of engaged in manual occupations, is going
>>down.  

> I think that's probably a fallacy. There are a lot of people working in
> office and factory semi-administrative jobs that don't get their hands
> particularly dirty, but that are equally as frustrating and mind-numbing as
> bolting wheels onto cars on a production line. I'd call a lot of these
> 'manual occupations'.

Sure. You may, and you would be right to do so. However, the statistics for
the number of "working class" people are based on classification according
to employment, and according to this classification minor admin and office
jobs are middle-class, not working-class.

> Newspapers have been reporting recently that the average student will run
> up debts of about ?26,000 over the three years of a degree course, and that
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> more than their annual family gross income, with a degree apparently no
> longer the automatic ticket to a good job that it was 40 years ago.

I agree. However, that has nothing to do with the false argument that the
demise of grammar schools has stopped working class children going to
university.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Dr Robin Bignall - 11 Aug 2004 22:12 GMT
>In uk.culture.language.english Dr Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[..]
>> Newspapers have been reporting recently that the average student will run
>> up debts of about ?26,000 over the three years of a degree course, and that
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>demise of grammar schools has stopped working class children going to
>university.

I suspect that that argument is put forward in those places which still
have selection and grammar schools. Of course it's false, and, as an 11+
failure who went to a secondary modern school over 50 years ago, I'm living
proof that getting to university was possible. I don't say it was easy,
though. In the 1950s many families were larger than the average family
today, and even the pittance that came into the family exchequer from an
apprenticeship was an important factor in sending kids out to work at 15,
rather than letting them stay on, assuming that the SecMod had any sort of
scheme for entering people for exams, which mine did not. Knowing my
father's income, I doubt that I'd have had the chance if I'd have had
siblings. There was also the problem that being thought of as a swot
attracted a great deal of flak at school, and some people just couldn't
take it. I've read that that's a problem in inner city and council estate
black communities today.

I noticed in one of your other posts the comment about grammar schools
being built in posh (my term for it) areas, and secondary moderns in the
council estates. That was the case in my home town. An American in one of
the English newsgroups recently stated that he thought that a child's basic
character is formed by third grade, which I think means eight years of age.
That may well be the case, but I think a child's ability to settle down and
study academic subjects varies much more by age, and one of my main
criticisms of the 11+ system is that the future professionals are separated
from what are seen as the future hewers of wood, drivers of lorries and
diggers of ditches at 11, and the attitude of the SecMod system tends to
reinforce this feeling of failure in both parents and children, in some
cases. In my school, the 13+ exam was simply not implemented (I only
learned of its existence after I had left school), and at 15 I had never
even heard of GCEs. A chance remark from a teacher, and one phone call from
me to the principal of the local peoples' college of further education, got
me an interview, and I was on my way. After I had gained quite high marks
at O'Level in that college, my form master was shot down in flames when he
tried to get me into a grammar school for A'Levels. ("We don't take boys
from his background.") I got the feeling that a SecMod label was like a
millstone around the neck until I got to university, where they only cared
about what you could do, not where you were from.

Well, that was all between 40 and 50 years ago. I wonder if things have
changed in those places which still practise 11+ selection? One of the
advantages of a comprehensive school seems to me to be that the option to
take GCSE and go on to A'Levels is built into the system for those who are
capable, unless the system still demands that certain levels must be
achieved by certain ages regardless of academic maturity.

Signature

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall

Hertfordshire
England

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 12 Aug 2004 09:56 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Dr Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>I agree. However, that has nothing to do with the false argument that the
>>demise of grammar schools has stopped working class children going to
>>university.

> There was also the problem that being thought of as a swot
> attracted a great deal of flak at school, and some people just couldn't
> take it. I've read that that's a problem in inner city and council estate
> black communities today.

Yes, it's still a massive problem, I would say it's probably one of the
biggest factors stopping children from poor backgrounds from succeeding in
education.

> That may well be the case, but I think a child's ability to settle down and
> study academic subjects varies much more by age, and one of my main
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> reinforce this feeling of failure in both parents and children, in some
> cases.

You have deleted the bit about the definition of "working class", but it
needs to be recalled that the grammar/secondary modern split was set up at a
time when most people worked in manual occupations and only a relatively
small proportion of the population - roughly equal to those who went to
grammar schools - worked in even low-level office and administration jobs.

> In my school, the 13+ exam was simply not implemented (I only
> learned of its existence after I had left school), and at 15 I had never
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> capable, unless the system still demands that certain levels must be
> achieved by certain ages regardless of academic maturity.

The time when O-levels were a qualification only taken by a small elite
proportion of schoolchildren has gone. These days, almost every child takes
their successor, the GCSE. There is massive pressure on all schools to get
children through GCSEs and in particular to get as high as possible a
percentage of children through the standard measuring line of "5 or more
GCSEs at grade C or more". This does have the result that in some schools
all the effort is put on getting D grade pupils up to C grade, no effort os
made into pulling B grades to A or pulling E grades to D. I don't think you
would find anywhere a school where children were not encouraged to take
GCSEs. A-levels too are taken by a much greater proportion of the age group
than used to be the case. Some would argue (and there is truth in this) that
in order for a greater proportion of children to take these qualifications,
the standard of them has had to be greatly reduced.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} - 12 Aug 2004 22:03 GMT
On 12 Aug, in article <cffbbu$5db$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>

> You have deleted the bit about the definition of "working class", but it
> needs to be recalled that the grammar/secondary modern split was set up at a
> time when most people worked in manual occupations and only a relatively
> small proportion of the population - roughly equal to those who went to
> grammar schools - worked in even low-level office and administration jobs.

Wasn't the "split" created by the Education Act of 1944?  Moreover,
wasn't the original plan of that Act that there should be _three_ types
of secondary education, the third being the Technical Colleges?  (I see
recent moves towards the idea of resurrecting that concept.)

Signature

Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk
  "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
  national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
  software and decent hardware support."

Reply to this Message
Don Aitken - 12 Aug 2004 23:25 GMT
>On 12 Aug, in article <cffbbu$5db$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>Wasn't the "split" created by the Education Act of 1944?

No, just perpetuated by it. The older distinction was between those
who had an "elementary" education (often in the same school from the
age of 5 to 14) and those who had more. State schools before 1944 did
not offer education beyond the end of compulsory schooling - then 14.

>  Moreover,
>wasn't the original plan of that Act that there should be _three_ types
>of secondary education, the third being the Technical Colleges?  (I see
>recent moves towards the idea of resurrecting that concept.)

The third type, which never got started, was to be strictly
vocational, I think.

Signature

Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".

Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 14 Aug 2004 13:33 GMT
>>  Moreover,
>> wasn't the original plan of that Act that there should be _three_
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The third type, which never got started, was to be strictly
> vocational, I think.

They were to be Technical Schools, sometimes called "Technical High Schools"
aimed aimed at educating skilled technicians.  Thee were only ever
implemented in a few Local Education Authorities.  In the late 1960s I
taught in one of these LEAs which still had a Boys' and a Girls' Technical
High School .  By that time they had turned into Grammr Schools in all but
name.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Dr Robin Bignall - 12 Aug 2004 23:53 GMT
>On 12 Aug, in article <cffbbu$5db$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>of secondary education, the third being the Technical Colleges?  (I see
>recent moves towards the idea of resurrecting that concept.)

Technical Colleges were for further education, after GCE O'Levels or
Ordinary National Certificate. In the 1950s I did my GCE Advanced Levels in
one, and the people who had taken the technical apprenticeship route were
doing Higher National Certificate, some part time on day release. In
general they were a little older (3 or 4 years) than the A'Levellers.

Signature

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall

Hertfordshire
England

Reply to this Message
Frances Kemmish - 13 Aug 2004 11:54 GMT
>>On 12 Aug, in article <cffbbu$5db$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> doing Higher National Certificate, some part time on day release. In
> general they were a little older (3 or 4 years) than the A'Levellers.

In the area where I grew up, there was a three-way split: local
secondary modern schools, with a grammar school and a technical school
covering a wider region. I don't know much about the technical school,
except that it had a metalwork class, as well as woodwork (which my
grammar school had).

That was in Derbyshire: the grammar school was in Swanwick, the
technical school in Ripley.

Fran
Reply to this Message
Dr Robin Bignall - 13 Aug 2004 13:16 GMT
>>>On 12 Aug, in article <cffbbu$5db$1@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>except that it had a metalwork class, as well as woodwork (which my
>grammar school had).

My secondary modern had an intake of boys from three large council estates
(girls' school was at the same location but separated by high fencing!),
and was large enough to have quite well-equipped metalwork and woodwork
shops, and taught those subjects, art, and draughtsmanship (called
'technical drawing' in those days) to all pupils. Maybe some of the better
SecMods in Nottingham actually got as far as entering people for Ordinary
National Certificate, but in 1950-55 mine didn't, and it was one of the
largest SecMods. I had to go to the People's College of Further Education
to do GCE O'Levels. Possibly the PCFE had ONC streams, too, but I don't
remember, for it was spread over several small locations. That college
still exists, and offers a variety of business and trades training, but no
GCE/GCSE, of course, because they're now the province of comprehensive
schools and sixth-form colleges. In 1955 a friend took an apprenticeship at
the Royal Ordnance Factory, and part of that was on-the-job training for
ONC.

Signature

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall

Hertfordshire
England

Reply to this Message
Frances Kemmish - 13 Aug 2004 13:59 GMT
>>In the area where I grew up, there was a three-way split: local
>>secondary modern schools, with a grammar school and a technical school
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> shops, and taught those subjects, art, and draughtsmanship (called
> 'technical drawing' in those days) to all pupils.

All the state schools in our area were mixed. However, woodwork (and
metalwork) was for boys; the girls had to take "Domestic Science":
cooking and sewing.

Maybe some of the better
> SecMods in Nottingham actually got as far as entering people for Ordinary
> National Certificate, but in 1950-55 mine didn't, and it was one of the
> largest SecMods.

I don't know whether it was a function of size, or the makeup of the
catchment area. Our local secondary modern was very small, and didn't
seem to offer much other than a place of shelter for kids before they
left school at fifteen to go down the pit, or to work in a shop. It
closed about the time I went to grammar school, and the kids went to a
school in the next village.

I know that the school in Alfreton (Mortimer Wilson) was much better,
and had children stay to do some exams like GCEs.

I had to go to the People's College of Further Education
> to do GCE O'Levels. Possibly the PCFE had ONC streams, too, but I don't
> remember, for it was spread over several small locations. That college
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> the Royal Ordnance Factory, and part of that was on-the-job training for
> ONC.

I drove past Peoples College the other day. I see that it is now
affiliated with DeMontford University.

Fran
Reply to this Message
Tony Cooper - 13 Aug 2004 14:19 GMT
>All the state schools in our area were mixed. However, woodwork (and
>metalwork) was for boys; the girls had to take "Domestic Science":
>cooking and sewing.

The girls in my high school took "Home Economics" aka "Home Ec".  I
never took such a course, but I wonder if the science or the economics
of cooking and sewing were discussed.  I think economics were.  I'm
sure they covered throwing together an inexpensive casserole while not
getting tuna on your dress or noodles in your pearls.
Reply to this Message
Frances Kemmish - 13 Aug 2004 14:48 GMT
>>All the state schools in our area were mixed. However, woodwork (and
>>metalwork) was for boys; the girls had to take "Domestic Science":
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> sure they covered throwing together an inexpensive casserole while not
> getting tuna on your dress or noodles in your pearls.

I think that some rudimentary science was involved in teaching us
something about nutrition and hygiene; and I think we had to calculate
the cost of dishes we prepared, but tuna was never involved.

The first sewing project we had to do was to make an apron for use in
cooking lessons. it was made of a strong white cotton, and decorated
with strips of bias binding. That would take care of the dress (although
our school uniform was a white blouse and pleated skirt, and we were not
permitted to wear jewellery, so the pearls were safe).

Fran
Reply to this Message
JunkyardBallerina - 27 Aug 2004 03:43 GMT
>From: Tony Cooper tony_cooper213@earthlink.net
>Date: 8/13/2004 6:19 AM Pacific Daylight Time
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>sure they covered throwing together an inexpensive casserole while not
>getting tuna on your dress or noodles in your pearls.

Home Ec. was a required course where we used our math skills to make an apron.

"Darlings, do be careful. If you learn to type and cook, people will expect you
to."
 ---My British mother, raising California Girls

The school requirements have changed. Now it's a course called "Susie Has Two
Mothers".

notthatthere'sanythingwrongwiththat
Reply to this Message
John Hall - 13 Aug 2004 16:28 GMT
>All the state schools in our area were mixed.

The secondary moderns were all mixed in my area, but most grammar
schools were single sex. However I went to one of the few exceptions.

> However, woodwork (and metalwork) was for boys; the girls had to
>take "Domestic Science": cooking and sewing.

"Had to" makes it sound rather like doing domestic science was second
best. Having been forced to do woodwork, at which I was useless, I wish
that I'd had to do domestic science. I probably would have objected at
the time, but it would have been far more useful to me in later life.
Signature

John Hall

         "Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
                                                            Oscar Wilde

Reply to this Message
Frances Kemmish - 13 Aug 2004 18:13 GMT
>>All the state schools in our area were mixed.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> that I'd had to do domestic science. I probably would have objected at
> the time, but it would have been far more useful to me in later life.

"Had to" because we didn't have a choice.

My children (educated in the USA) took both subjects. I don't know that
they learned much from them that was useful: the sewing project that
they laboured over was to make a cushion. I would rather they had
learned to sew on a button and take up a hem - that kind of thing.

I don't think I learned much that was useful in my school cooking and
sewing classes either.

Fran
Reply to this Message
david56 - 13 Aug 2004 18:52 GMT
Frances Kemmish typed thus:

> I drove past Peoples College the other day. I see that it is now
> affiliated with DeMontford University.

aka Leicester Poly.

Signature

David
=====

Reply to this Message
Frances Kemmish - 13 Aug 2004 18:58 GMT
> Frances Kemmish typed thus:
>
>>I drove past Peoples College the other day. I see that it is now
>>affiliated with DeMontford University.
>
> aka Leicester Poly.

Ah; I wondered what that was in its former incarnation. Cool name, though.

Fran
Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 13 Aug 2004 22:22 GMT
>> Frances Kemmish typed thus:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Ah; I wondered what that was in its former incarnation. Cool name, though.

Although it caused some controversy at the time, as both Simon de Montforts
(father and son) were fiercely anti-Semitic.
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Sara Lorimer - 14 Aug 2004 15:42 GMT
> My secondary modern had an intake of boys from three large council estates
> (girls' school was at the same location but separated by high fencing!),
> and was large enough to have quite well-equipped metalwork and woodwork
> shops, and taught those subjects, art, and draughtsmanship (called
> 'technical drawing' in those days)...

It still was Technical Drawing when I took it, in 1984. Is it not called
that now?

Signature

SML            
                                http://pirate-women.com

Reply to this Message
Dr Robin Bignall - 14 Aug 2004 22:27 GMT
>> My secondary modern had an intake of boys from three large council estates
>> (girls' school was at the same location but separated by high fencing!),
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>It still was Technical Drawing when I took it, in 1984. Is it not called
>that now?

A quick look at Google tells me that it is, often as part of some sort of
course on technology.

Signature

wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall

Hertfordshire
England

Reply to this Message
Skitt - 14 Aug 2004 22:49 GMT
>>> My secondary modern had an intake of boys from three large council
>>> estates (girls' school was at the same location but separated by
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> A quick look at Google tells me that it is, often as part of some
> sort of course on technology.

I seem to remember Mechanical Drawing.  Google shows about twice as many
hits for Technical Drawing, though.
Signature

Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Reply to this Message
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} - 13 Aug 2004 23:04 GMT
On Thursday, in article
    <epsnh016f71nghp392unqsimm2jnsnl7k1@4ax.com>

> >Wasn't the "split" created by the Education Act of 1944?  Moreover,
> >wasn't the original plan of that Act that there should be _three_ types
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> doing Higher National Certificate, some part time on day release. In
> general they were a little older (3 or 4 years) than the A'Levellers.

Sorry, although I wrote "Colleges", these were intended to be aged 11--16
establishments.  (The modern versions are the City Technology Colleges,
except that they cover 11--18.)

Signature

Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk
  "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
  national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
  software and decent hardware support."

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 14 Aug 2004 14:15 GMT
> On Thursday, in article
>      <epsnh016f71nghp392unqsimm2jnsnl7k1@4ax.com>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> establishments.  (The modern versions are the City Technology Colleges,
> except that they cover 11--18.)

In which case you meant Technical "Schools" (the actual term was Secondary
Technical Schools).
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 14 Aug 2004 14:55 GMT
> On Thursday, in article
>      <epsnh016f71nghp392unqsimm2jnsnl7k1@4ax.com>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> 11--16 establishments.  (The modern versions are the City Technology
> Colleges, except that they cover 11--18.)

No, they're not.  CTCs are something entirely different as they are intended
to cater for the whole ability range, which the Technical Schools weren't.
Whether CTCs actually recruit over the wholeability range, or only at the
upper end is another issue.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 14 Aug 2004 13:28 GMT
> much more by age, and one of my main criticisms of the 11+ system is
> that the future professionals are separated from what are seen as the
> future hewers of wood, drivers of lorries and diggers of ditches at
> 11, and the attitude of the SecMod system tends to reinforce this
> feeling of failure in both parents and children, in some cases.

I agree totally with Robin on this point, and would take it further.  I was
educated in the 1950s at a rural grammar school, whose entry corresponded to
about to to 30% of the population (this was a wider band than in some parts
of the country, for local reasons).  The youngsters in the bottom stream
(who probably all got about 4 or 5 O-levels) were also made to feel
failures -  not point in staying on in to the Sixth Form, the only real
career paths they were encouraged to think about  being nursing for the
girls and Agrictulatuyral College for the boys (unless there was a family
business for them to go into).  In my later life, teaching in a
"creamed-off" comprehensive in another part of the country, youngsters of
this general ability range were the mainstay of our university entrants.

I also remember that when I was at primary school, the brightest boy in our
class wasn't allowed by his parents to sit the 11-plus, because they didn't
want him to go to "that posh school".  I believe he went into the Navy,
where I hope is true ability was recognised.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 14 Aug 2004 15:52 GMT
> > much more by age, and one of my main criticisms of the 11+ system is
> > that the future professionals are separated from what are seen as the
> > future hewers of wood, drivers of lorries and diggers of ditches at
> > 11, and the attitude of the SecMod system tends to reinforce this
> > feeling of failure in both parents and children, in some cases.

The problem is actually the considering of hewers of wood, drivers of
lorries, diggers of ditches, etc. as failures just because they are not
academically inclined. No-one is a failure who pursues that at which he
is most able to the best of his ability.

Perhaps 11 is too young to make the distinction, but that is a different
point which I won't address.

> I agree totally with Robin on this point, and would take it further.  I was
> educated in the 1950s at a rural grammar school, whose entry corresponded to
> about to to 30% of the population (this was a wider band than in some parts
> of the country, for local reasons).  The youngsters in the bottom stream
> (who probably all got about 4 or 5 O-levels) were also made to feel
> failures -  not point in staying on in to the Sixth Form, the only real

This is the error: equating not staying on with failure.

> career paths they were encouraged to think about  being nursing for the
> girls and Agrictulatuyral College for the boys (unless there was a family
> business for them to go into).  In my later life, teaching in a
> "creamed-off" comprehensive in another part of the country, youngsters of
> this general ability range were the mainstay of our university entrants.

But if the government, educationalists, or whoever, are trying to get more
and more youngsters to go to university, who will do the jobs that don't
need graduates? Why should being a good plumber, decorator, builder, lorry
driver, electrician, sailor, porter, nurse, farmer, or clerk be considered
more of a failure than being a teacher, engineer, lawyer, doctor, etc.?

It seems to me that trying to encourage everyone to go to university is
rather like wanting 80% of the population to be above average!

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 14 Aug 2004 17:01 GMT
>>> much more by age, and one of my main criticisms of the 11+ system is
>>> that the future professionals are separated from what are seen as the
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> It seems to me that trying to encourage everyone to go to university is
> rather like wanting 80% of the population to be above average!

Not above the Mean perhaps, but certainly above the Median :-)
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Frances Kemmish - 14 Aug 2004 16:24 GMT
> I also remember that when I was at primary school, the brightest boy in our
> class wasn't allowed by his parents to sit the 11-plus, because they didn't
> want him to go to "that posh school".  I believe he went into the Navy,
> where I hope is true ability was recognised.

That attitude was very common where I grew up. One of my brother's
friends refused to be put into the 'A' form from a 'B' form, because he
"didn't want to be with those snobs". I recall my mother being told by
her neighbours that she shouldn't allow my brother and me to stay on at
school when we could be going out to work and bringing in a wage.

Fran
Reply to this Message
Brian {Hamilton Kelly} - 15 Aug 2004 13:36 GMT
On Saturday, in article <2o6jn5F7cvbmU3@uni-berlin.de>

> I agree totally with Robin on this point, and would take it further.  I was
> educated in the 1950s at a rural grammar school, whose entry corresponded to
> about to to 30% of the population (this was a wider band than in some parts

I know which school this is; my partner (who was then Jane Bridge) was at
that same school with you!

Signature

Brian {Hamilton Kelly}                                     bhk@dsl.co.uk
  "I don't use Linux. I prefer to use an OS supported by a large multi-
  national vendor, with a good office suite, excellent network/internet
  software and decent hardware support."

Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 15 Aug 2004 14:29 GMT
> On Saturday, in article <2o6jn5F7cvbmU3@uni-berlin.de>
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I know which school this is; my partner (who was then Jane Bridge)
> was at that same school with you!

A few years junior to me  -  the same form as my brother, Derek.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Mickwick - 10 Aug 2004 23:03 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:

>[...]
>I've spent most of my life in the education industry in the UK
>[...]

'Education industry' is a troubled term, in English usage. It doesn't
quite know what it is. Is it a brisk and businesslike entrepreneur
seizing the opportunities offered by the evolving education marketplace
for the benefit of both itself and its customers (or so it says), the
word 'industry' proclaiming that, from its particular ideological
standpoint, the teaching of children and young adults is much the same
as the making of plastic buckets and should therefore be conducted on
much the same basis?

http://www.eduventures.com/pdf/whatiseduindstry.pdf

Or is it a more thoughtful (or so it says) idealist seeking, through a
modest imposition on the language, to include all involved, in no matter
how oblique a manner, in the expansion of knowledge- and, perhaps more
importantly, skills-based horizons -- is it seeking to include these
marginalised people in the same category as those lucky enough to be
right at the chalk-face of child-centered authentic assessment and
core-group team knowledge-based skills- and, perhaps more importantly,
skills-based knowledge-acquisition, namely teachers, so that a 'lowly'
janitor in an inner-city batik or juggling workshop can now gain
self-esteem simply by proclaiming, 'I too work in the education
industry!', the word 'industry' having nothing whatsoever to do with
children being like plastic buckets in this second instance, or indeed
with children being like anything at all, the word 'industry' having
*everything* to do with the workers and nothing to do with ... the word
'industry' having everything to do with associating all those it claims
as its own with the dignity, as seen from this particular ideological
standpoint, of the great and betrayed plastic-bucket-manufacturing
enterprises -- nay, cultures! -- of the past?

http://www.guidetobceconomy.org/chap5/chap5-7.html

>Cynical?  Moi?

Disappointment is idealism's only reward, old son. (Sweeping floors for
a living can't help either. Good luck with that!)

Signature

Mickwick
http://www.illinoisloop.org/lingo.html
http://www.illinoisloop.org/buzzwords.html
http://www.nychold.com/hirsch-termin.html

Reply to this Message
David - 10 Aug 2004 23:56 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:

>  >[...] I've spent most of my life in the education industry in the
>  >UK [...]

> 'Education industry' is a troubled term, in English usage. It doesn't
> quite know what it is. Is it a brisk and businesslike entrepreneur
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> much the same as the making of plastic buckets and should therefore
> be conducted on much the same basis?

> http://www.eduventures.com/pdf/whatiseduindstry.pdf

> Or is it a more thoughtful (or so it says) idealist seeking, through
> a modest imposition on the language, to include all involved, in no
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> and betrayed plastic-bucket-manufacturing enterprises -- nay,
> cultures! -- of the past?

> http://www.guidetobceconomy.org/chap5/chap5-7.html

> >Cynical?  Moi?

> Disappointment is idealism's only reward, old son. (Sweeping floors
> for a living can't help either. Good luck with that!)

Ye Gods! Haven't you realised yet that any modern U.K. activity which
pays wages (or not, as the case may be) is an industry?

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/ -- Dacha's Digital Domicile
http://www.grough.freeuk.com/j05.htm -- Light Plant Crossing

Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 11 Aug 2004 07:37 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> http://www.guidetobceconomy.org/chap5/chap5-7.html

(Can't bear to snip your entry for the Bernard Levin longest sentence
competition!)

I think that both the sources you offer are N. American in origin. in
that context, reference to the education industry does not seem
surprising but I found it odd - and a little depressing - for someone
posting from the UK to use the expression. In my experience (as one who
does) most people would say they worked in "education" or "the education
sector", if they wished to be general rather than specific about their
employment. Describing it as an industry seems to me to be succumbing to
the views of those responsible for the most soul-destroying developments
we have seen in recent years.

(Obaue: can one succumb to a view?)

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
Gary Williams - 11 Aug 2004 15:34 GMT
> > In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> >
> > 'Education industry' is a troubled term,

> I think that both the sources you offer are N. American in origin. in
> that context, reference to the education industry does not seem
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> the views of those responsible for the most soul-destroying developments
> we have seen in recent years.

I think, however, that when N. Americans say "education industry",
there is at least a pinch of joviality in the term.  That's what I
perceived in Mike's comment (whether he intended it or not).   Less so
were one to say "education business".  But I think most people in the
field would, like you, say in a formal or official context, "in
[higher/secondary/elementary] education".

"Education industry" would be something one said of oneself, amongst
friends.

Gary Williams
Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 14 Aug 2004 13:15 GMT
> "Education industry" would be something one said of oneself, amongst
> friends.

Which is where I thought I was.  But I hadn't noticed the cross-posting.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Peter Moylan - 02 Sep 2004 03:03 GMT
Mike Stevens wellfed:

>> "Education industry" would be something one said of oneself, amongst
>> friends.
>
>Which is where I thought I was.  But I hadn't noticed the cross-posting.

[Coming in late.]
In Australia, and I suspect in a few other countries, the "sausage
factory" description of education is no longer confined to the
cynics.  It is, in effect, official government policy, and a Minister
for Education would be proud to call it an industry.  Indeed, the
current expansion in off-shore teaching, the mechanism now used
by Australian universities to stave off bankruptcy, is officially
described as an export industry.

"Quality" - which all the PHMs feel they have to measure, leading
to endless paperwork for everyone - is defined purely in business
terms.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the effectiveness of
teaching and learning, and everything to do with profitability.
We are under very considerable pressure to increase "productivity"
by increasing student/staff ratios.  A tutorial class of fewer
than about 30 students is likely to be cancelled on the grounds
that it's uneconomic.

So flaunt it.  It's out in the open, and officially endorsed.

Besides, who in the education industry has any friends left?

Signature

Peter Moylan                 peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)

Reply to this Message
Mickwick - 18 Aug 2004 17:22 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Laura F Spira wrote:

>(Can't bear to snip your entry for the Bernard Levin longest sentence
>competition!)

Did it win?

There have been some very revealing obituaries of Levin in the last week
or so. I had no idea that the old free-thinker was such a stickler for
outmoded social etiquette. A fanatical ladies' man and dandy too, it
seems. In fact, he seems to have been a bit of a Swiss Toni. I'm sure he
always wore a dingy tweed jacket on the telly but apparently he
sometimes went to the theatre wearing a pink suit and a cape. A cape,
forsooth!

[...]

>(Obaue: can one succumb to a view?)

Most certainly. If it wears a cape and a pint-sized pink suit, one can
even fall swooning into its arms.

Signature

Mickwick

Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 14 Aug 2004 13:12 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> 'Education industry' is a troubled term, in English usage.

<snip>

>  from its particular
> ideological standpoint, the teaching of children and young adults is
> much the same as the making of plastic buckets and should therefore
> be conducted on much the same basis?

Trying to get back into the frame of mind in which I wrote that particular
posting, I was probably thinking that what you describe above is what the UK
Govermnent has been trying for 25 years to turn the English educational
system into.  Thank God for Scotland and sanity!

Either that, or I was simply thinking of "industry" in the sense of a group
of workplaces doing closely-related tasks.

In fact my roles in education over my lifetime have included schoolboy,
undergraduate, postgraduate student, schoolteacher, middle and later senior
manager in schools, in-service teacher trainer, member of a Local Authority
Education Committee, member of Department of Education and Schools Council
working groups, elected trade union officer and salaried trade union
official.  I'm now (in my retirement) a volunteer Education Co-ordinator in
a Museum.So I reckon I've knocked about the education scene a fair bit
(mainly the 11-19 sector).

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 16 Aug 2004 12:44 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Mike Stevens <michael.stevens@which.net> wrote:

>>  from its particular
>> ideological standpoint, the teaching of children and young adults is
>> much the same as the making of plastic buckets and should therefore
>> be conducted on much the same basis?

> Trying to get back into the frame of mind in which I wrote that particular
> posting, I was probably thinking that what you describe above is what the UK
> Govermnent has been trying for 25 years to turn the English educational
> system into.  Thank God for Scotland and sanity!

From my point of view as a my university department's admissions tutor
(especially this week when the UK A-level results come in) it certainly
feels like an industry at the higher education end. You have to produce a
product (the degree programme) and try and sell it to customers. You are
competing with all the other suppliers of similar products, and the
competition is cut-throat. The price of failure can be that your department
gets closed down. The students too these days seem to have the attitude that
the degree is a product they're buying.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Mickwick - 18 Aug 2004 17:22 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:

>Trying to get back into the frame of mind in which I wrote that particular
>posting, I was probably thinking that what you describe above is what the UK
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Either that, or I was simply thinking of "industry" in the sense of a group
>of workplaces doing closely-related tasks.

Don't mind me. I'm in the wooden spoon industry.

>In fact my roles in education over my lifetime have included schoolboy,
>undergraduate, postgraduate student, schoolteacher, middle and later senior
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>a Museum.So I reckon I've knocked about the education scene a fair bit
>(mainly the 11-19 sector).

You have my sympathy and gratitude.

Signature

Mickwick

Reply to this Message
Mike Lyle - 02 Sep 2004 11:58 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:
[...]
> >In fact my roles in education over my lifetime have included [...] later
> >senior manager in schools,[...]
>
> You have my sympathy and gratitude.

Most certainly; but note that even Mike, having the best will in the
world, was unable to escape being a "manager". It's bad enough having
politicians impose industrial attitudes on your profession; but it's
plain brutal to be forced to identify yourself with the branch of
British trade and industry which excels chiefly in its lousiness.

Mike.
Reply to this Message
Mike Stevens - 02 Sep 2004 12:17 GMT
>> In alt.usage.english, Mike Stevens wrote:
> [...]
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> plain brutal to be forced to identify yourself with the branch of
> British trade and industry which excels chiefly in its lousiness.

I agree with that.  Where I taught for most of my career, nobody actually
had the word "manager" in their title (mine, at different times, were "Head
of Maths Dept", "2nd Deputy Head Teacher" and "Director of Studies"), but we
did use "Senior Management" and "Middle Management" as collective terms for
levels of the hierarchy.  I think this was fairly typical of English schools
in the 1980s.

--
Mike Stevens
narrowboat Felis Catus II
web site www.mike-stevens.co.uk

Old teachers never die  -  they simply lose their class.
Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 10 Aug 2004 14:13 GMT
> At 09:04:11 on Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Einde O'Callaghan
> <einde.ocallaghan@planet-interkom.de> wrote in
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> secondary modern schools.  So what was the "low school" from which the
> others felt the need to distance themselves?

The simple answer is probably that the High School was the Secondary School,
as opposed to the Junior School.  (I believe some Public Schools use an
archaic Upper and Lower School.  Trinity School, Croydon was originally
Whitgift Middle School.)  My impression is that the High Schools were
usually Girls' Schools.  For example, the Newbury County Girls' Grammar
School was always the "High School", to distinguish it from the "Grammar
School" which was the Boys' School (St Bartholomew's Grammar School,
Newbury).
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Adrian Bailey - 10 Aug 2004 20:27 GMT
> Now, there's interesting.[1]  I wonder how "high school" became a
> popular term, on both sides of the pond?  Not that we talk about "high
> school" as such in the UK, but many schools would have "High" in their
> name, and I think it must pre-date the division between grammar and
> secondary modern schools.

Yes and no, as Mike's explained. I rarely remember hearing the expression
"high school" back in the 70s.

Adrian
Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 09:09 GMT
> >>(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the
> >>sense we are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it
> >>referred to the fathering of offspring.)
>
> I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones feel
> that "at school" is good usage here?

Seems fine to me (BrE).

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Gary Williams - 10 Aug 2004 15:29 GMT
> Steve Hayes wrote on 10 Aug 2004:
>
> >>(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got"

> I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones feel
> that "at school" is good usage here?

I did not think it the least bit odd when I first read it, although in
most circumstances I would say "in school".  Trying to come up with a
reason for choosing between "at" or "in", I have tentatively concluded
that it is all in the speaker's head, and revolves around whether the
speaker's perspective focuses on place or on time.  For me, "in
school" abbreviates "when I was in school".  "At school" is more from
the perspective of "this sort of emphasis only occurred in the
classroom, nowhere else."  "At school" could also distinguish an
English teacher employed by the school system from a private tutor who
conducted training in English outside the classroom, but here it feels
to me more as if the writer's focus is on the place where this usage
idiosyncrasy took place, rather than on the period of her life during
which it occurred.

Gary Williams
Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 17:11 GMT
> I did not think it the least bit odd when I first read it, although in
> most circumstances I would say "in school".  Trying to come up with a
> reason for choosing between "at" or "in", I have tentatively concluded
> that it is all in the speaker's head, and revolves around whether the
> speaker's perspective focuses on place or on time.  For me, "in
> school" abbreviates "when I was in school".

To BrE ears that sounds American. We would normally use "at school" to
describe the period of life during which we went to school.

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
Steve Hayes - 10 Aug 2004 19:10 GMT
>> Steve Hayes wrote on 10 Aug 2004:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>the perspective of "this sort of emphasis only occurred in the
>classroom, nowhere else."

To me "in school" suggests "on the school premises, during school hours". "At
school" means the 12 or so years of my life when I was a school pupil.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message
David - 11 Aug 2004 00:22 GMT
> >I did not think it the least bit odd when I first read it, although
> >in most circumstances I would say "in school".  Trying to come up
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> >more from the perspective of "this sort of emphasis only occurred in
> >the classroom, nowhere else."

> To me "in school" suggests "on the school premises, during school
> hours". "At school" means the 12 or so years of my life when I was a
> school pupil.

Contrast the term with "in work" which generally means simply having a
job, and "at work" which usually means currently active in the job.

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/zodiac/1ari-0.htm
Aries (March 21st - April 20th)
Images, Associations, Qualities, Careers, Health

Reply to this Message
Areff - 12 Aug 2004 14:39 GMT
> Contrast the term with "in work" which generally means simply having a
> job, and "at work" which usually means currently active in the job.

That usage of "in work" wouldn't be AmE-idiomatic.  In AmE, 'at work' can
mean 'actively working [on some sort of activity, not necessarily a
compensated form of employment]' or 'at the workplace' (typically
referring to the premises associated with a form of occupational
employment).
Reply to this Message
Steve Hayes - 10 Aug 2004 19:07 GMT
>Steve Hayes wrote on 10 Aug 2004:
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>might be, but the poster using it is posting from the UK. It'd be more
>germane to ask how many other BrE speakers here use this contruction.

That's why I was asking how widespread it was or is, er, getting.

I'd only noticed it among US speakers before. The origin of the message does
not necessarily indicate the origin of the speaker, or are you a Twinglish
speaker?

>I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones feel
>that "at school" is good usage here?

Sounds fine to me.

When I was at schoool my English teachers discouraged the use of "got" to
indicate possession rather than acquisition. They also discouraged other
phraseology such as "He threw me with a stone".

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message
Tony Mountifield - 10 Aug 2004 22:24 GMT
> When I was at schoool my English teachers discouraged the use of "got" to
> indicate possession rather than acquisition. They also discouraged other
> phraseology such as "He threw me with a stone".

Ouch! You mean, like a millstone?

Cheers
Tony
Signature

Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

Reply to this Message
CyberCypher - 11 Aug 2004 00:35 GMT
Steve Hayes wrote on 11 Aug 2004:

>>Steve Hayes wrote on 10 Aug 2004:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> message does not necessarily indicate the origin of the speaker,
> or are you a Twinglish speaker?

As it turned out, the OP is a BrE speaker and not an AmE speaker. I
realize that where you seem to be posting from has nothing to do with
your nationality or mother tongue, but most, but not all, of those
who post from the UK here are, in fact, BrE speakers. I didn't
realize that you'd only ever heard an AmE speaker use that
construction. It seems to be popular in parts of the UK as well as
with American hayseeds.

>>I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones
>>feel that "at school" is good usage here?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> "got" to indicate possession rather than acquisition. They also
> discouraged other phraseology such as "He threw me with a stone".

Now, that sounds like something the original Fowler would say. How
could your English teachers sneer at it? It's really cute as wells as
quaint.

Signature

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

Reply to this Message
Steve Hayes - 11 Aug 2004 10:50 GMT
>Steve Hayes wrote on 11 Aug 2004:
>
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>construction. It seems to be popular in parts of the UK as well as
>with American hayseeds.

I first came across it in a book published in Florida, USA about 20 years ago,
so I tend to think it originated thereabouts, but it may have been a bird of
passage.

I'm curious to know how far it has spread, no matter where it originated. Some
usage originates in one place and speads quickly. Some remains localised.

>>>I might add another usage question. How many native anglophones
>>>feel that "at school" is good usage here?
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>could your English teachers sneer at it? It's really cute as wells as
>quaint.

Cute it may be and quaint it may be, but my teachers thought it was not couth.

Signature

Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 10 Aug 2004 09:28 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>(Our English teacher at school hated for us to use "got" in the sense we
>>are discussing here, stressing that strictly speaking it referred to the
>>fathering of offspring.)

> How widespread is this use of "for"?
>
> Is it used in any variety of English outside the US?

I think Molly may be showing her Scottish origins by this usage.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Richard R. Hershberger - 10 Aug 2004 16:03 GMT
> In uk.culture.language.english FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:

> > 1) I haven't a car
> > 2) I haven't it
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> sound right. However, "I haven't a clue" sounds fine, possibly just as a
> stock phrase which preserves an otherwise archaic form.

This is, it is perhaps worth noting, the conclusion of a
centuries-long trend.  In Early Modern English sentences such as (1)
and (2) were normal.  The later pattern was to require the "no"
between the auxiliary and the main verb, inserting a dummy auxiliary
if necessary.  These things don't, however, change all at once in
every construction.  "To have" held out longer than most other verbs,
but has succumbed (or at least is in the process of doing so).  So the
normal present-day English pattern would be "I do not have a car" or,
colloquially, "I don't have a car."  The "have got" construction is
unusual by taking the main verb "have" and converting it to an
auxiliary, adding a (dummy?) main verb.  So Miss Thistlebottom has a
point that this construction is odd, though of course inferring that
it is therefore incorrect is a logical fallacy.

Richard R. Hershberger
Reply to this Message
FB - 10 Aug 2004 16:28 GMT
>> In uk.culture.language.english FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:
>
>>> 1) I haven't a car
>>> 2) I haven't it

> In Early Modern English sentences such as (1)
> and (2) were normal.  The later pattern was to require the "no"
> between the auxiliary and the main verb

Could you please supply an example?

> inserting a dummy auxiliary if necessary.

Bye, FB
Signature

"Nasalization is just a part of life"
(Joey DoWop Dee on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)

Reply to this Message
Richard R. Hershberger - 11 Aug 2004 15:48 GMT
> >> In uk.culture.language.english FB <fam.balducciNOSPAM@tin.it> wrote:
>  
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Could you please supply an example?

I perhaps worded it poorly, in that I don't know that the contraction
would be used.  I would guess not, at least in print.  I was thinking
of the uncontracted form.  I was also sloppy, in that (2) is not the
Early Modern pattern.  I overlooked that pronouns work differently.
The Early Modern pattern would be "I have it not."  But otherwise,
here goes:

King Richard III:  I have not that alacrity of spirit...
(Richard III Act V Sc. 3)

Falstaff:  An I have not ballads made on you all...
(Henry IV Part 1 Act II Sc. 2)

"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas..."
Leviticus 11:10, Authorized Version

And so on.

Richard R. Hershberger
Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 10 Aug 2004 17:43 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh@acme.com> wrote:

> The "have got" construction is
> unusual by taking the main verb "have" and converting it to an
> auxiliary, adding a (dummy?) main verb.  So Miss Thistlebottom has a
> point that this construction is odd, though of course inferring that
> it is therefore incorrect is a logical fallacy.

I think what is happening is that there's a conflict between the two usages
of the verb "have", one as an auxiliary which has become a mere grammatical
marker, the other meaning to possess. We seem to be becoming increasingly
uncomfortable with the latter usage, perhaps it's just mentally confusing for
a common word like this to have two separate uses. Compare with the verb
"will" which now is almost always used as a grammatical marker for future
tense, but once had an existence as a verb in its own right, preseved for
example when we use it to mean "bequeath".

Once we dispose of "have" as a non-auxiliary, we have to invent a form to
fill its place. A "have got" sentence would originally have been a statement
about the action in the past that led us to possess something. However, it
now can be used to indicate possession even when there was no such past
action, as in "I have got two older brothers". I think therefore that the
"have" in the "have got" is a grammatical marker "have" and not a transfer
of the non-auxiliary "have".

Compare with "will", whose use to form the future tense would have come from
a statement of wishing or ordring something to happen, but now can be used
to describe a future action even when there's no volition, as in "I will be
sick if I eat that".

Interestingly, I find simple "have" forms are less formal when the "have" is
stressed. "I have a car" sounds formal and pompous, but

"I HAVE a car, but I don't like to drive it"

sounds fine. I think this backs up what I said - when the "have" is
stressed, we can more easily retain its non-auxiliary usage, since the
stressing acts as a signal to our brain that it's not being used as a ere
grammatical marker.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
FB - 10 Aug 2004 18:18 GMT
> Compare with "will", whose use to form the future tense would have come from
> a statement of wishing or ordring something to happen, but now can be used
> to describe a future action even when there's no volition, as in "I will be
> sick if I eat that".

And there is a transitional phase, where "will" and "shall" are only used
as grammatical markers ("I will a word with you" is no longer possible),
but "will" still retains the idea of volition, and "shall" retains the idea
of plain future event, if only with first persons.

> Interestingly, I find simple "have" forms are less formal when the "have" is
> stressed. "I have a car" sounds formal and pompous

Does it?

Bye, FB
Signature

Io ho deciso di rifiutarmi di vederlo: Ettore con la faccia di Eric Banana
mi fa venire i conati.
(commento sul film "Troy" su it.fan.scrittori.tolkien)

Reply to this Message
David - 11 Aug 2004 00:09 GMT
> > Compare with "will", whose use to form the future tense would have
> > come from a statement of wishing or ordring something to happen,
> > but now can be used to describe a future action even when there's
> > no volition, as in "I will be sick if I eat that".

> And there is a transitional phase, where "will" and "shall" are only
> used as grammatical markers ("I will a word with you" is no longer
> possible), but "will" still retains the idea of volition, and "shall"
> retains the idea of plain future event, if only with first persons.

Not necessarily. In some parts, "will" conveys the plain whilst "shall"
conveys determination.

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/
Vale RISC OS: Requiescat In Pace (aka Free Stuff)
 - Free Desktop Software, Font, Playing Cards and Mah-Jong Tiles

Reply to this Message
FB - 11 Aug 2004 00:54 GMT
>>> Compare with "will", whose use to form the future tense would have
>>> come from a statement of wishing or ordring something to happen,
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Not necessarily. In some parts, "will" conveys the plain whilst "shall"
> conveys determination.

Couldn't it be the next phase, yet to be accomplished?

Bye, FB
Signature

"Nasalization is just a part of life"
(Joey DoWop Dee on it.cultura.linguistica.inglese)

Reply to this Message
David - 11 Aug 2004 01:12 GMT
> > Not necessarily. In some parts, "will" conveys the plain whilst
> > "shall" conveys determination.

> Couldn't it be the next phase, yet to be accomplished?

I doubt it; just a dialect form.

If anything, I'd guess the next phase would see the demise of "shall"
(based on the perception of the shortened "~'ll" meaning "~ will"
rather than "~ shall".

In a similar vein, "should" will also disappear (being replaced by
"ought to" in the determined meaning) but not "would" - there being no
easy paraphrase.

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/
Where subtle shades of every hue, homogenize and mellow:
Pages cyan, green, and blue; and red, magenta, yellow.

Reply to this Message
Dylan Nicholson - 11 Aug 2004 01:20 GMT
> In a similar vein, "should" will also disappear (being replaced by
> "ought to" in the determined meaning) but not "would" - there being no
> easy paraphrase.

I would suggest "ought to" would be the one to die out - it often sounds
quite stilted and old-fashioned to me, unless it's pronounced "awda".
Reply to this Message
David - 11 Aug 2004 08:57 GMT
> > In a similar vein, "should" will also disappear (being replaced by
> > "ought to" in the determined meaning) but not "would" - there being
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> sounds quite stilted and old-fashioned to me, unless it's pronounced
> "awda".

How on Earth do you manage to get the pronunciation "awda" out of
"ought to"? Surely the two tees don't allow a dee, and the "uh" of "to"
would require some serious tonsil-mangling to emerge as "ah".

No, "should" suggests a commanded action (just below "must") rather
than the desired action suggested by "ought to".

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/photo/0y10-0.htm
The Rock of Sisyphus
The watershed on the Howden Moors in the Yorkshire Peak District

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 11 Aug 2004 10:30 GMT
In uk.culture.language.english David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
> In article <2nt73bF4ifdrU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dylan Nicholson

>> I would suggest "ought to" would be the one to die out - it often
>> sounds quite stilted and old-fashioned to me, unless it's pronounced
>> "awda".

> How on Earth do you manage to get the pronunciation "awda" out of
> "ought to"? Surely the two tees don't allow a dee, and the "uh" of "to"
> would require some serious tonsil-mangling to emerge as "ah".

The pronunciaton of 't' as 'd', particularly in casual speech, is a feature
of many varieties of English. In south-east England, of course, sloppy 't'
becomes a glottal stop, and in north-west England it becomes 'r', but across
the USA it becomes 'd'.

As for the "uh" or "to" becoming "ah" (I assume you mean the 'h' just to
affcet the vowel quality - in other parts, it would be taken to be a
consonant in its own right), well, hasn't this already happened with "going
to" becoming "gonna"? This is established to the point where "gonna" is
frequently seen for example in pop lyrics, and if English were allowed to
develop naturally would very soon become a standard marker for future tense.

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
Raymond S. Wise - 11 Aug 2004 14:28 GMT
> In uk.culture.language.english David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
> > In article <2nt73bF4ifdrU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dylan Nicholson
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> frequently seen for example in pop lyrics, and if English were allowed to
> develop naturally would very soon become a standard marker for future tense.

The final *a* is pronounced like a schwa not only in "gonna" but in other
terms, both pronunciation spellings and ordinary spellings: "coulda,"
"wanna," "soda," "lasagna," "barracuda," and so forth.

Signature

Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

Reply to this Message
Matthew Huntbach - 11 Aug 2004 15:32 GMT
>> >> I would suggest "ought to" would be the one to die out - it often
>> >> sounds quite stilted and old-fashioned to me, unless it's pronounced
>> >> "awda".

>> > How on Earth do you manage to get the pronunciation "awda" out of
>> > "ought to"? Surely the two tees don't allow a dee, and the "uh" of "to"
>> > would require some serious tonsil-mangling to emerge as "ah".

>> As for the "uh" of "to" becoming "ah" (I assume you mean the 'h' just to
>> affect the vowel quality - in other parts, it would be taken to be a
>> consonant in its own right), well, hasn't this already happened with
> "going to" becoming "gonna"?

> The final *a* is pronounced like a schwa not only in "gonna" but in other
> terms, both pronunciation spellings and ordinary spellings: "coulda,"
> "wanna," "soda," "lasagna," "barracuda," and so forth.

Yes, I never said it wasn't. I assume Dylan meant the last syllable of
"awda" to be a schwa. I am not quite sure what David meant, which is why I
questioned his use of "uh" and "ah".

Matthew Huntbach
Reply to this Message
David - 11 Aug 2004 16:06 GMT
> > The final *a* is pronounced like a schwa not only in "gonna" but in
> > other terms, both pronunciation spellings and ordinary spellings:
> > "coulda," "wanna," "soda," "lasagna," "barracuda," and so forth.

> Yes, I never said it wasn't. I assume Dylan meant the last syllable
> of "awda" to be a schwa. I am not quite sure what David meant, which
> is why I questioned his use of "uh" and "ah".

I think I read them (and say "to") with more stress, probably (in the
case of "to") because of the plosion of the second tee.

Signature

http://www.dacha.freeuk.com/free/
Free Software: Hermetic Font
 - Crosses, Dice, Greek, Hebrew, Music, Stars, Zodiac

Reply to this Message
Areff - 12 Aug 2004 14:44 GMT
> In uk.culture.language.english David <david@dacha.freeuk.com> wrote:
>> In article <2nt73bF4ifdrU1@uni-berlin.de>, Dylan Nicholson
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> becomes a glottal stop, and in north-west England it becomes 'r', but across
> the USA it becomes 'd'.

Or, more precisely, the flappy-thing sound [*] (also common in AusE to my
ears, not that I listen to much AusE).  Are there no dialects of BrE that
do this?  (I wonder whether the northwest use of 'r' is some sort of 'r'
that is not so far from the flappy-thing sound [*].)

AON, the other day I heard a Minnesotan (possibly native) speaker
pronounce 'etcetera' like "Excedra" [Ek'sEddZr@].
Reply to this Message
Dylan Nicholson - 11 Aug 2004 23:32 GMT
> > > In a similar vein, "should" will also disappear (being replaced by
> > > "ought to" in the determined meaning) but not "would" - there being
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> "ought to"? Surely the two tees don't allow a dee, and the "uh" of "to"
> would require some serious tonsil-mangling to emerge as "ah".

T's becoming d's are quite common in AmE and AusE, as I'm sure you must be
aware.
The second 'a' is the same 'a' in gonna etc. - i.e. a schwa.

> No, "should" suggests a commanded action (just below "must") rather
> than the desired action suggested by "ought to".

Well there's all sorts of subtleties, but I'd say typically in everyday
speech they're achieved by throwing in words like "suppose/guess", "really",
"have to" and "got to": I suppose I should, I really should, I should
really, I have to, I've got to.
I'm not sure I'd say a bare 'should' is just below 'must' though.
Reply to this Message
FB - 11 Aug 2004 23:50 GMT
> T's becoming d's are quite common in AmE and AusE, as I'm sure you must be
> aware.

Also in some varieties of BritEng.

Bye, FB
Signature

L'importante è che risplenda tu, sola primadonna e immarcescibile leggenda
del tuo pianerottolo.
(Lucangel su it.cultura.libri)

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 11 Aug 2004 11:40 GMT
>> In a similar vein, "should" will also disappear (being replaced by
>> "ought to" in the determined meaning) but not "would" - there being no
>> easy paraphrase.
>>
> I would suggest "ought to" would be the one to die out - it often sounds
> quite stilted and old-fashioned to me, unless it's pronounced "awda".

I am reminded of that old commercial (was it for Heineken?) where the
"Academy of Street Cred" are trying to get a posh girl to say "The rain in
Majorca falls mainly where it didn't oughta."  But the best she can manage
is "The rain in Mallorca falls mainly where it shouldn't do"!
Signature

John Briggs

Reply to this Message
Matti Lamprhey - 11 Aug 2004 11:27 GMT
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...

> I am reminded of that old commercial (was it for Heineken?) where the
> "Academy of Street Cred" are trying to get a posh girl to say "The
> rain in Majorca falls mainly where it didn't oughta."  But the best
> she can manage is "The rain in Mallorca falls mainly where it
> shouldn't do"!

Heineken:  Bryan Pringle & Sylvestra le Touzel

"Ver waw'er in MaJorker don' tiste like wo' i' or'er".  Wonderful
glottal stoppage that cracks me up when I catch it on an old video.

Matti
Reply to this Message
mUs1Ka - 11 Aug 2004 11:51 GMT
> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> "Ver waw'er in MaJorker don' tiste like wo' i' or'er".  Wonderful
> glottal stoppage that cracks me up when I catch it on an old video.

http://www.markmcm2002.verysmooth.co.uk/ads_g-l1.html

Signature

Ray

Reply to this Message
Matti Lamprhey - 11 Aug 2004 13:17 GMT
"mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote...
> > "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote...
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> http://www.markmcm2002.verysmooth.co.uk/ads_g-l1.html

It took ages to load the clip on my ISDN connection, but it was SO worth
it!  I've watched it three times, the last time curled up on the floor.

Matti
Reply to this Message
Laura F Spira - 11 Aug 2004 13:35 GMT
> "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote...
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> It took ages to load the clip on my ISDN connection, but it was SO worth
> it!  I've watched it three times, the last time curled up on the floor.

Brilliant, isn't it? And is the voice over the great Victor?

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Reply to this Message
mUs1Ka - 11 Aug 2004 13:46 GMT
>> "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Brilliant, isn't it? And is the voice over the great Victor?

It is, indeed.

Signature

Ray

Reply to this Message
david56 - 11 Aug 2004 13:51 GMT
Laura F Spira typed thus:

> > "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote...
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Brilliant, isn't it? And is the voice over the great Victor?

That's what I assumed.

It's the little giggle and the public school "Gosh!" which gets me.

Signature

David
=====

Reply to this Message
Richard R. Hershberger - 11 Aug 2004 15:58 GMT
> In uk.culture.language.english Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh@acme.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> to describe a future action even when there's no volition, as in "I will be
> sick if I eat that".

Interesting thought.  You may have something here.  We could further
speculate that if auxiliary senses of "get" (such as the colloquial
get- passive construction) expand, we would in turn alter the "have
got" construction.

Richard R. Hershberger
Reply to this Message
Robert Bannister - 10 Aug 2004 02:18 GMT
>>You have missed the fact that there are actually *three* ways of using the
>>verb "to have". In questions:
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> Is the third way common in Briteng as well?

It is and it isn't. "Do you have an appointment?" sounds quite normal to
me; "Do you have any fetta?" sounds reasonable, at least when addressed
to a shop assistant; even "Do you have any children?" sounds OK-ish, but
"Do you have any brothers or sisters?" seems somehow stilted,
over-formal. So, I am guessing the "Do...have" questions are slightly
more formal and are less likely to be used in common speech.
Signature

Rob Bannister

Reply to this Message
John Briggs - 10 Aug 2004 14:15 GMT
>>> You have missed the fact that there are actually *three* ways of using
>>> the verb "to have". In questions:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> over-formal. So, I am guessing the "Do...have" questions are slightly
> more formal and are less likely to be used in common speech.

"Common speech" is not my habitual mode of locution :-)
Signature

John Briggs

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.