Jump to content

Recommended Posts

El Pibe Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "to avoid excessive pedanticness"

>

> pedantry ;-P


Quite a few people uses 'pedanticnes'as this website shows. I was not aware of the word pedantry until now.


Some Samsung and Sony televisions have mostly the same identical parts inside them. Panasonic have improved their televisions in the last two years and would be my number one choice today. LG is worth a shout too.


However OLED TVs have none of the disadvantages shown in current television sets such as contrast levels and motion blurs. That is why Maxxi's Panasoninc Quintrix CRT still beats many of the current TVs in terms of picture quality.

I think you misundestand irony UDT.


The stem is 'pedant' - a contraction of pedagogue (one who leads children; later to mean 'teacher').


Thus 'pedantic' meaning 'like a pedant' or 'pedantry' meaning 'the domain of the pedant'


So 'pedanticness' doesn't work as it means 'the fundamentals of the things that are like a pedant': in other words pedantry.


Saying 'lots of people use it so it must be right' is facile. That's like saying 'definate' is correct. It's not.

I've been about a bit and it's absolutely endemic everywhere UDT believe you me, not just government.


I don't have an issue with creative, colourful and imaginitive play with the language.


I hate two things, stupid words used to mask the fact that the person (ok consultant) doesnt know what they are talking about and neologisms that are direct synonyms for existing words, but a bit longer; also used by idiots (ok consultants) who use that to mask the fact they're not actually doing anything to benefit anyone or anything.


Grrr etc

Costings as a noun for instance.


If you want to find out the cost(n) of something you cost(v) it. Fine.

I guess then the present continuous is that you are costing it.

Why are the resultant bits of information costings(n)?


It's still a cost(n) or costs, but the use of costings is now firmly established by the aforementioned linguistic vandals.

It however contributes nothing to the language except three superfluous letters that help bulk out their reports or make them sound more businessy in their wanky teleconferences.


At a pinch it could be used to differnetiate between concrete costs and the potential costs quoted by a supplier, but I like to think the old fashioned 'quotes' is better by dint of the fact it already exists and is widely known and better describes what is going on.



Nnngggghghhh!!!!

Well yes, like I said if you can play with language, make it richer and more beautiful then that's fine.

He was good at that.


Busineeze isn't really on the same level.


Nor is 'would of'. It's just nonsense.


There's no excuse for bad language because other people do or because Shakespeare played fast and loose with the rules.

The former is lowest common denominator, the latter is genius at work.

I can do all of the above on my phone. And noone gets to watch it with me, which is even better. TVs are the past.


If you must watch a TV, you can swipe from the phone to the TV (in theory that is, haven't done it yet :)) )


Just thought I'd throw in that little curve ball for you quids.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • You don't need to do the research. I had to know the numbers as a TV buyer. I analysed the potential advertising revenue and Channel Four didn't cover their costs. They had some nice 'Channel Four' signs when someone hit the ropes but, In all honesty, a lot a potential revenue was lost because most old knackers were pissed off because they couldn't perve at Carol Vorderman on 'Countdown'.       Sorry, cross-post. I was replying to Malumbu. Give me a minute, if you will. I listened to the first two sessions (today) on TMS and popped down to the pub for the evening one.   I do miss the days of Peter West, Richie Benaud and Tom Graveney on BBC2.   But, the BBC are at least putting on 'Today At The Test' on at around 7pm instead of after midnight.   And it was on the 10pm news.      
    • "PGC, do you reckon this 'Anderson -Tendulkar' series could make Tests a bit more interesting to the wider word?" Alas no. Until it comes back to terrestial telly, I think it will always suffer from elitism(?).  Excepting The Guardian, cricket is barely mentioned in other press. I am fortunate in that my daughter has just added me to her subscription on NOW TV. It has been great to watch this test; it really could have gone either way, eariler in the day, which always makes it more exciting. The only bugbear is that I am a TMS afficianado, and they are about eight deliveries ahead of the tv! I thought Tongue was excellent in mopping up the tailenders, and Duckett was a delight to watch. Bumrah and Jadeja were brilliant to see. I'm sure the Edgbaston crowd will have tremendous supporters for both sides. PS: I don't think Jofra will be back on the strength of one county wicket.
    • Why it a strange first post Sue?  We all have to start somewhere! These kids have created a situation where they have been very unpleasant. Surely their physical appearance etc is a key factor in identifying them?  I don’t understand. Are you defending these kids? 
    • I can do the research but are more people watching cricket on TV now it went to the higher bidder or in 05 when it was on Channel 4?  I think that less kids are into cricket since it went off terrestrial.  I suppose I should have had TMS on.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...