R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: Pet Peeve  (Read 16658 times)

Greg Youngman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 609
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #15 on: July 19, 2010, 08:55:05 PM »

My mixer has some filters.  The one I use the most is the "Hail Mary pass" filter.
Logged
Web Site
My Space
Blog

"Everyone's a guitar player... everyone's a mastering engineer." 1995 - GY

dcollins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2815
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #16 on: July 19, 2010, 10:53:37 PM »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Sun, 18 July 2010 22:42

"Low cut" means a bell or shelf filter. That's why.


Are you OK?


DC

mastermind

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 346
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #17 on: July 21, 2010, 06:11:12 PM »

Garrett H wrote on Sat, 17 July 2010 18:21

I'm serious, you're wrong, inaccurate, and annoying.



Hey buddy.

Let's meet in Milwaukee, go to The Palamino (remember that place!) - where, "If it's good, it's better fried"... eat some food that will be glorious but surely cut years off our lives, drink a LOT of beer, interspersed with shots of booze... and THEN discuss this in that elevated state of mind.

What do you think?

t
Logged
trevor sadler
_________________________________________
mastermindproductions
mastermind on facebook
charlotte, nc., usa

Garrett H

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 406
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #18 on: July 21, 2010, 08:51:20 PM »

urm eric wrote on Sun, 18 July 2010 15:50

 So what would the peeved call a low-cut filter at 500Hz?

Cheers!

Eric



Mine don't go that high.  You must have a newer, upgraded model.
Logged
Treelady Studios, Pittsburgh, PA
http://www.treelady.com
Senior Contributor, Tape Op Magazine
http://www.tapeop.com

Fenris Wulf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 499
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #19 on: July 23, 2010, 02:52:53 AM »

Garrett H wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 17:07

 But isn't a high pass filter a shelf with a different Q?  



No. It's different type of filter. The attentuation increases with frequency.
Logged
RESIST THE CYBERNETIC OVERLORDS
KDVS Studio A

Andrew Hamilton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #20 on: July 23, 2010, 06:16:51 AM »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 23 July 2010 02:52

Garrett H wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 17:07

 But isn't a high pass filter a shelf with a different Q?  



No. It's different type of filter. The attentuation increases with frequency.



Well, not to be daft, but technically, the attenuation increases inversely with frequency...as it's a hp.  

Reminds me of the warning about pyramiding one's assets.  That just stacks the money up to a vanishing point.  Better inversely to pyramid one's assets, I always say.  (;    Like a cutterhead mogul?


Cheers,
   Andrew
Logged
www.serifsound.com
premastering for CD and DVD-A.  Featuring FTP load in and delivery as well as analog tape transfers.

Macc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 87
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #21 on: July 23, 2010, 12:00:43 PM »

Fenris Wulf wrote on Fri, 23 July 2010 07:52

Garrett H wrote on Mon, 19 July 2010 17:07

 But isn't a high pass filter a shelf with a different Q?  



No. It's different type of filter. The attentuation increases with frequency.


'with decreasing frequency', I assume you mean. Just being pedantic, as we're being pedantic.

Smile
Logged
Bob Macciochi

www.scmastering.com

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #22 on: July 23, 2010, 01:27:59 PM »

Quote:""Low cut" means a bell or shelf filter."




What!

Manner of man are you?

In my world, it could only ever mean a blouse or a supporting garment beneath.

So if your subconscious is bringing up 'bells' and 'shelves' it's very clear where your mind is actually going. Get a grip!




Quote: "we're being pedantic."




Quite!




Quote: "You see, not only does a high pass allow highs to pass, but mids, low mids, and some lows pass as well."

- Snipped For Shortness -

Quote: "If someone can explain why my logic is faulty, I'll hear you out. I might even apologize."




'Mids,

Low Mids, and some Lows' will  pass.

Only if they are 'higher' than the threshold of the 'High Pass Filter'.




The real point is..

That the truly important content of the Audio, (the greater part you will hear) is 'high passed' on to the listener.

The bit you attenuate, cut off or dump, (and possibly cannot hear) is entirely irrelevant to the listener, as it is of little good use, if any at all. It isn't wanted, that's why its 'cut off'.

As a consequence, to suggest that you name the Filter, singularly in honour of the attenuated content you have cut and are going to dispose of, content which is completely irrelevant and unwanted, is actually to turn genuine logic entirely on its head.

The part of the Filtered Audio  Material which is absolutely essential to the Production, is clearly, the actual desirable  Musical content of primary aesthetic importance, and properly deserving for the action of the Filter to be named after.

This is clear, factual, and furthermore makes perfect sense designating and demarcating what is the overidingly preeminant issue of transcending vital importance.

When Mastering Music, it is the Artistic Musical Content that is always of uttermost relevance and significance.

It's essential to think like that, I believe.




Of course.

It's entirely possible.

That the majority of those creating what passes for Music today.

Have got things completely the wrong way around, and been dumping the good high content, and Mastering the low rubbish.

Presumably, being unable to properly differentiate between the two, even utilising the superb Monitoring, commonly available today, in even the more modest Facilities.

This would indeed explain a great deal about the state of the Recording Industry, the reluctance of the Public to buy C.D.'s, and as a consequence, the phenomenon of ever declining sales.

Certainly, it would explain the predominance of Bass in certain genres.




If I may say so.

I really think you should try to 'rise above' becoming annoyed quite so easily by such matters.

I take the view, that a man is only really as big inside as the things external to his life that can truly annoy him.

If you are annoyed by something that low. Well... I think you should really cut it out.

But I'll let it pass.




However.

Passing onward to altogether higher things .




Quote: "Could you elaborate?"




Indubitably.

There are times.

When we find ourselves not properly able to grasp something.

Therefore, it can be hugely helpful to go back to around about the time, whatever we can't understand occurred, or somewhat before, so we can better grasp the context and circumstance surrounding its emergence.

Those born into the former colonies, in nations with extremely limited historical roots, lacking inherent tap roots, and living on the surface roots of their emerging history as it were, are naturally less cognisant with the instinctive tendency to derive primary foundational knowledge from the unfathomable depths of the past.

But clearly, though limited in number they may be, in the former colonies there are those indeed that have travelled to Europe for longer than a week's traverse to absorb the combined cultures of the entire Continent; and furthermore, to both the Oriental and European mind alike, this concept is easily appreciable in regard to the development of all the history of humankind.  Closely aligned to that endlessly unravelling saga, is of course, the continual development of language.

So if we want understand how and why a word is used in the particular way it is, or was, returning to the period in which it first appeared, or very commonly, the first time it appeared in published literature, and thus became more widely utilised in that singular manner, can be the most helpful thing to do.

Failing that, bringing the matter up on Brad Blackwood's Forum, will usually secure a correct understanding.




At times,

I have confessed to long term colleagues and friends that feel I am a Gulliver, in a world of Lilliputians. This is because I utterly deplore the modern rise of the bureaucrat, administrator, bean-counter and the more slimy variety of lawyer.

It's because I really believe that in well run countries, businesses and in the world at large, we need truly competent leaders and managers, people with proper sense of values with a good overall perspective that can run things well, and wield tremendous power responsibly, without abusing it. People that are clearly focussed on the right things, that can really make things happen, and get things done.  

The bureaucrat, administrator, bean-counter and slimy variety of lawyer however, all conspire with the minority interests of political correctness zealots, to blind our clear sense of vision, clip our widely outstretching wings, and prevent us from rising up in flight to be all that we have potential to be.

They are a complete irrelevance to all that is natural and right in real life, as it truly should be lived in all its glorious fullness.

For instance, they are the ones that would instinctively wish to fine and imprison, the inventor of Napster.

When someone with genuine vision really ought.

To have hired him to work for them.




They should.

Have instinctively recognised, he had a genuine grasp of a future they couldn't begin to comprehend.

And actively used his skills, to create and shape the future for the better.

Instead of doing nothing and leaving that future.

Completely up for grabs.




And.

Thus.. Passing on.

It is the Irish Clergyman.

Jonathon Swift to whom we should be indebted to, for our answer.



Gullivers Travels "The common size of the natives is somewhat under six inches high."



For here, in his use of the word 'high', it powerfully engages our imaginations to vividly comprehend the nature and characteristics  of 'that' which is of 'another order below'.

The people he is describing that are in reality, somewhat less than the span of any real man's hand.

He is using satire to describe a 'type of person' that is commonly found in this world.

They seem to have bred inexorably since his time.




T. Hardy.

Continued the trend Swift began

"The granary..stood on stone staddles, high enough for persons to walk under."


The point about the height of the stone saddles.

Was that their height enabled a separate space or room to exist clearly dividing what was important above, from what was necessarily below.

Presumably to assist in promoting an active air flow, and  helpfully preventing the grain above from slowly rotting on the ground, as well as aiding the flow of its sale, packing and despatch from convenient points beneath.

By analogy, in Audio Recording & Mastering, keeping 'The Grain of the Music' clearly above many 'ground related pests' like frost damage, rats and mice, prevents the many issues and difficulties that can otherwise be encountered, which I trust we are all, only too well aware of.




The paramount advantages.    

Of this renowned cardinal concept.

Appertaining to  'differentiating and separating' 'various elements' of the 'total flow' of local traffic.

Is helpfully illustrated by viewing the regular driving habits of the average British Public Transport Employees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/8678680.stm

                                                      http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_02/BusCrash2NAT_800 x524.jpg

                                                      http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north-east-news/evening-chron                                                       icle-news/2008/12/31/double-decker-bus-roof-ripped-off-in-wa llsend-72703-22582236/

                                                      http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Double-Decker-Bus-C                                 arrying-Children-Has-Roof-Ripped-Off-During-Crash-With-Bridg e-In-Leicester/Article/200912215498101





So when a 'High Pass Filter' is named as such.

The implementers of this useage  are merely being faithful to the truly genuine sense of the original word as it was first used as a mater of historical fact, and also in accordance with its first use in wider published literature.




"As the OED is a historical dictionary, its entry structure is very different from that of a dictionary of current English, in which only present-day senses are covered, and in which the most common meanings or senses are described first. For each word in the OED, the various groupings of senses are dealt with in chronological order according to the quotation evidence, i.e. the senses with the earliest quotations appear first, and the senses which have developed more recently appear further down the entry. In a complex entry with many strands, the development over time can be seen in a structure with several 'branches'."




high-pass

adjective (Electronics) designating a filter that attenuates only those components with a frequency lower than some cut-off frequency.




high, adjective, adverb, & noun.
/hVI/

[Old English hUah (hUag-) = Old Frisian hQch, Old Saxon, Old High German hZh (Dutch hoog, German hoch), Old Norse h
Logged

urm eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2010, 08:49:43 AM »

PP wrote on Fri, 23 July 2010 12:27



Thus.. Passing on.

It is the Irish Clergyman.

Jonathon Swift to whom we should be indebted to, for our answer.
I would just like to add.

That although many people all over the world know Oxford High St. as 'The High', no-one actually born in Oxford would call it anything other than 'High St'.

Sadly, lives in Suffolk.

P


There's no way I'm going to let Macc pip me on the pedanticism and so:

ANGLO/Irish clergyman (that qualification made a huge difference in the early 18th century)

JonathAn Swift

I lived in Oxford for nearly a decade and both townies and gownies I knew called it The High (and some, the other option). I lived at 104A High Street (above the estate agents) for a while and so tended to use `Street'. However, it was the barman at the Kings Head (born in Headington, lived in Iffley) who told me the joke about the Church of England being like Turl St (a.k.a The Turl): "Runs from the Broad to the High with Jesus somewhere in the middle".

I'll give you the Sadly in Suffolk - that's where Macc lives.

Not sure what the rest of your post was all about, but I'll leave it to DC to perhaps ask thrice the question so far asked twice.

I did enjoy reading it though!


Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Logged
Philosophers Barn Mastering
www.phibarnmastering.co.uk

masterhse

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #24 on: July 24, 2010, 09:44:57 AM »

P's posts are always very informative and thought provoking, though I find them even more so when I'm not nodding off during lecture.
Logged
Tom Volpicelli
The Mastering House Inc.
CD Mastering and Media Production Services

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #25 on: July 26, 2010, 02:11:30 AM »

1



Quote: "gownies"




Hi Eric!

Great to 'meet you' as it were.




Sorry to have to point this out.

Especially on so short an acquaintance.

But "gownies" is not a word you will find in a Dictionary of the English Language.

I only mention it because you have made so clear, your absolute delight in rampant pendantocracy.

The best you can hope for with "gownies" I fear, is a slang term recently emerging on the internet, not in wide enough common usage to be recognised as a proper word by any respectable English Dictionaries at all.

And as this transudatory "gownies" concerns itself with sales of attractively becoming Maternity Night Attire for pregnant women, I'm sure you will naturally concede the fact, that that it was not a correct word for the subject you intended to elaborate upon during your discourse.




I know this.

Because a friend of mine.

Is a compiler of the 'new word section' of the O.E.D.




You may have.

Difficulty in understanding my post.

But at least, if honest, you are compelled to admit.

It is actually written utilising English you will find in a Dictionary.

You might need an exceptionally good Dictionary indeed, but you will actually find the words there.




Should you ever care to properly look.




This is by design.  

A quite deliberate policy.

Pursued over a long period, initially inspired by the methods of American P.G. Wodehouse.

Whereby the occasional word completely unfamiliar to a readership, encourages them to 'check it out', and thereby gradually increases their vocabulary considerably.

Utilising inchoate words, that don't actually exist in the English Dictionary, is therefore, singularly unhelpful to American Readers, who particularly struggle with language, (even their own words created in North America as I have amply demonstrated in the past), as are amorphous words to the general readership at large.




Quote: "ANGLO/Irish clergyman"




I have a relative.

Who was born in mid flight across the Atlantic.

That has dual nationality from birth being both American and British.




Was Swift born mid Irish Sea perhaps?  

The Isle of Man even?

No!




He was born in Dublin.

Ireland.





To me.

(I am a simple man).

This is clear evidence he was actually an Irishman.


This differentiation you bring up, has nothing to do with his actual place of birth at all.

It is a social and political class distinction, of a type I sincerely hope, has been completely swept away.

And I remain fully persuaded in my innermost depths, that Swift himself, would heartily echo, an extremely similar view.




Quote: (that qualification made a huge difference in the early 18th century)




Indeed.

I see that as a very great abuse.

And not something to ever be regarded as acceptable, acknowledged or celebrated.

Not that I am inferring, that it was your actual intention to imply something to be rejoiced.

It marks him out as part of the Protestant Elite that brought a great abuse of power and poverty to Ireland.

Where Irish natives were not allowed many routine aspects of daily life, any normal person today would think it utterly barbaric to deny someone.




The roots of centuries.

Of misery and strife, violence and conflict lie therein.

So although it is true that Swift was born of Irish & English parents.

And brought up as part of that Elite Protestant Society that displaced the natural Irish Aristocracy.

I would argue that Swift himself, in his innermost soul was a reasonably Godly Man that despised the evil constupration enacted upon the indigenous people of Ireland. His own people.

Furthermore, I would definitely take the view that many deeper aspects of his writings are strongly directed against the worst excesses of the English Ruling Classes with which you are attempting to closely identify him.




Of course!

He grew up into that Protestant Elite, that is not in question.

Was this something Swift was truly proud of, and would have been particularly anxious to convey? I think not.

Perhaps in the youthful glow of promise, and the heat of driving ambition, following his formative years, but not as time went on, and the golden years transmogrified to utter dross.

For it seems to me, that Swift essentially rejected the corruption and virulent evils perpetrated by The English upon the Irish people.

In a large part because, he was by point of immutable truth, born in Ireland himself.

Which is why I wrote it, and made that clear.

He was in fact.

An Irishman.





The question.

I would put is this.

Can we believe that personally given the absolute choice.

It is with such detonative abuse of power, that Swift himself would have consented with all his soul, to be closely identified with, and an intrinsic part of?




His writings, place Swift a profoundly clear distance, from them.

In point of fact, he brilliantly utilised his gifts and  priveledged position within that society, to question, challenge and undermine it. But with abundant care, due prudence, and great subtleness and sagacity.




I am.  

A True.

Englishman.

Root and Bough.

A Living Oak of my own generation.  

But remain utterly ashamed of the many atrocities instituted in the name of the British Empire.

And am fully possessed of the belief  this makes me, all the more greatly a True Englishman of Noble Blood.




My language, is the language of Shelly, Keats and Shakespeare.




And.

Englishmen.

Born in Dublin.

And your "gownies".

Whatever creatures they are.

Indubitably represent, something else entirely.






P
Logged

urm eric

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 164
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #26 on: July 26, 2010, 06:18:28 AM »

PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 01:11

1



Quote: "gownies"




Hi Eric!

Great to 'meet you' as it were.




P


Ditto

Forgive me: I have neologized - I think it's an acceptable parallel construction with `townie' (which is in the dictionary) though?

I liked your post very much, thoroughly enjoyed reading this one too: I'd love to respond but I don't want to test the patience of the public forum - and I'm a tad too busy this week to enjoy myself.

But just one (swift) rejoinder - yes: Anglo-Irish was (is?) a political construction, but Swift both embraced and exploited it. He called living in Ireland being in exile:

In Exile, with a steady Heart,
He spent his Life’s declining Part;
Where, Folly, Pride, and Faction sway,
Remote from St. John, Pope, and Gay.

(“Verses on the Death of Dr Swift”)

Cheers,

Eric
 
Logged
Philosophers Barn Mastering
www.phibarnmastering.co.uk

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #27 on: July 26, 2010, 02:42:50 PM »

1(A)




Quote: "In Exile, with a steady Heart,

- Snipped for Shortness -

Remote from St. John, Pope, and Gay."




No-one.

Exiled Swift.

From England.




Swift.

Allowed certain indiscretions.

To be included in the memoirs of Sir William Temple.

This created a great deal of heated animosity within and amongst Temples powerful family and high ranking offical friends. Who then made it their business to ensure that they subsequently exacted a heavy price for the unwanted revelations. I know guys like that, they sound just like all my best friends.

Swift was thus actively blocked from high office as Bishop of Hereford as a consequence, a post he believed he had been promised. Furthermore, Swift suffered from an inflated view of the power of his own influence.

And it heralded a great fall from privileged favour, of the type of powerful patronage on which he had long since come to rely.

From then on, the ruling classes simply messed him around, promising him an excellent position.

Drawing him to Ireland, and dropping him like a stone when he got there.

They do very much like to stick together.




Swift enjoyed.

The company and privileges afforded by highly influential friends.

So he was, at a very high level, effectively blocked, and it would have felt a sort of exile if you greatly stretch the point, (but conversely, from the many frustrated opportunities he would otherwise have had expectations of in England), to Ireland, where he eventually accepted a position at St Patrick's in Dublin, after lots of shenanigans by his superiors.

And it was from there that a miserable, disillusioned and  embittered Swift, wrote his satire on the corrupt English establishment. Writing in support of Irish causes, against rife abuses that abounded.

On many occasions throughout his life, the movement from one country to the other, was accompanied by if not because of, the changing winds of enormous political events.

As you can see there's a complexity of different levels, and sub texts to his life, that you need to follow the chain of, and especially so.

Regarding his dalliances with the opposite sex.




Earlier.

To one of which.

He promised to leave Ireland.

Forever, and never return, if she refused to marry him.

I believe an historic letter is in existence attesting to that fact, to prove the point.

As Marriage would have consolidated his abode in what was already the land of his birth.

It's extremely difficult to see these words, as from a man who would have readily felt, in any way at all, exiled in Ireland.  However, she didn't marry him, and so he returned to England.

It's worth signing this off, with the point that Swift wrote the quoted poem, following the death of a Lady dearly beloved to him. Henceforth death would become a common theme in his writings.

The last line of the quoted poem refers to the London publishing friends he is heart broken, missing, whose company he found so refreshing, and who earlier ensured his literary success.

Their later deaths similarly devastated him, and by the time this poem was published.

He was actually declared insane.




The point.

I am leading up to is this.

That when the closest, most preciously beloved ones in a person's life die.

That individual can experience such a profoundly deep sense of loss, that it could rightly be described as a genuine sense of alienation from the seemingly emasculated world that now remains behind.

They become in a very real sense, deeply exiled within, spiritually.

Cut adrift from all that was once essentially vital to them.

And that which always seemed so very important.

Is inconsequential flotsam and jetsam.

At that point in a person's life.

They experience Exile.

Wherever they are.

In this world.




It's worth reflecting.

On the fact, that Swift had a certain quality of Godliness, about his life, despite his many failings.

One third of his income was donated to Charity. Another third, enabled the establishment of St Patricks Hospital for Imbeciles.

Whenever he was able to wield any political influence, he exploited his position wherever he could, to advance the causes of people in tremendously great need.




Perhaps if we are to take anything from Swifts life, it really should be this.





P
Logged

Andrew Hamilton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 573
Re: PP's post dribble
« Reply #28 on: July 27, 2010, 03:13:10 AM »

PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11

1



Quote: "gownies"


Sorry to have to point this out.

Especially on so short an acquaintance.

But "gownies" is not a word you will find in a Dictionary of the English Language.



Good Heavens!   Shocked   Must there be a mandatory adherence to the dictionary?


PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


I only mention it because you have made so clear, your absolute delight in rampant pendantocracy.



Government by medalists wearing pendants, or by pedants wearing medals?

(Avoid bombast and tergidity.)   Pedantry will suffice.



PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


The best you can hope for with "gownies" I fear, is a slang term recently emerging on the internet, not in wide enough common usage to be recognised as a proper word by any respectable English Dictionaries at all.


___ Save the O. E. D.    

I've found my cap, now, where did I put the gown?

"http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gowny"


PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


And as this transudatory "gownies" concerns itself with sales of attractively becoming Maternity Night Attire for pregnant women, I'm sure you will naturally concede the fact, that that it was not a correct word for the subject you intended to elaborate upon during your discourse.


"that that?"   Rolling Eyes


Correctness is becoming.


PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


I know this.

Because a friend of mine.

Is a compiler of the 'new word section' of the O.E.D.



He should get back to work.

PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


You may have.

Difficulty in understanding my post.

But at least, if honest, you are compelled to admit.

It is actually written utilising English you will find in a Dictionary.


...and punctuation and typesetting as one might find in a book of Haiku verse, although the meter is closer to dactylic hexameter.

PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


You might need an exceptionally good Dictionary indeed, but you will actually find the words there.


Having the right words is one thing.  Stringing them together in an intelligible chain of utterables is something else.  Interestingly, or not, a linguist will tell you that s/he can't tell you what a word is.  Orthography doesn't suffice.  Intelligibility might not, either.  At some point, one must leap, with faith (into something - even Belief, itself).



PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


Should you ever care to properly look.



...into the eyes of a split infinitive...?

PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


This is by design.  

A quite deliberate policy.



Quite, as in "very," or quite as in, "almost (i.e., 'not quite')?"   We, here, may strive to form a "more perfect union," but the truth is that if it had already been perfect, it would have been ne plus ultra-ly so, as are most things "deliberate."

PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11


Pursued over a long period, initially inspired by the methods of American P.G. Wodehouse.

Whereby the occasional word completely unfamiliar to a readership, encourages them to 'check it out', and thereby gradually increases their vocabulary considerably.

Utilising inchoate words, that don't actually exist in the English Dictionary, is therefore, singularly unhelpful to American Readers, who particularly struggle with language, (even their own words created in North America as I have amply demonstrated in the past), as are amorphous words to the general readership at large.


Alright, you've now gone from cheeky to mean.  If there are any readers left in the Americas, I doubt they struggle with the American English they read.  Yea, though I wish they would.  To reap the words that are sown, one must caress every serif.  One must crack the bone, saith Hugo, in order to, you know, suck out da marrow...):

Most people here say "for free," when they actually mean, simply, "Free..."   Many say, "of't ten times," when they actually mean, "Often..."  No one can talk, in fact, anymore.  Yet everyone seems to know what is being said.

In Japanese, for one, there is no future tense.  The subject is also routinely omitted from dialog, as it is often, like the verb's tense, already understood.  

If you can't find a word I'm using in the dictionary, you might want to check a Funk & Wagnalls.  (j/k)   Barring that, there's always Urbandictionary.com, where you can learn the difference between a rusty trombone and a Cincinnati bow tie, for one.   Laughing




PP wrote on Mon, 26 July 2010 02:11



Quote: "ANGLO/Irish clergyman"

I have a relative.

Who was born in mid flight across the Atlantic.

That has dual nationality from birth being both American and British.


Reads as if your relative is merely an
Logged
www.serifsound.com
premastering for CD and DVD-A.  Featuring FTP load in and delivery as well as analog tape transfers.

PP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Pet Peeve
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2010, 03:23:11 AM »

2




Quote: "I lived in Oxford for nearly a decade and both townies and gownies I knew called it The High"




Such.

A limited fraternization.

Is too narrow from which to form a reliable opinion.

To have lived there for ten years,  but only know these two people.

But then, perhaps you actually knew two of each, amassing double the social circle.

Irregardless, I believe that both or indeed, all four of the people you came to know over the period, were incorrectly informed about this issue.




I'm

Wondering.

Whether you do your work.

In a large barn in the middle of no-where?




Whether you are ever reprimanded if you leave a door open?

And wonder whether, The Child Jesus was similarly reprimanded at times.

His Mother telling him to "shut the door", and inquiring of him "were you born in a Barn?"




Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street (above the estate agents) for a while and so tended to use `Street'."




Ah!

Yes.

I know it.

A Print Shop.

My friend Humphrey.

Whose son Graham and wife Betty, I bumped into the other day.

Bought a large block of land just along the road from your home, the section that the Huge Stately National Westminster Bank to the left stands on, the many adjoining buildings down Blue Boar St. What used to be Russell Acotts a quite large store, and the many concomitant boutique shops scattered all around about it further towards Carfax.

So they all have had to pay him rent, all these years. Many people have whisperingly commented to me over the decades, that he owned half The High Street as if I had no idea.

But I laugh inwardly, strongly believing this to be complete and utter exaggeration, because I know that a large part of it, belongs to a number of Colleges, as well.

But perhaps you too, can see the ironic humour, in someone  attempting to correct or advise someone, whose best pal, owns a decent chunk.




The other day.

I was talking with the Managing Director of a shop I expect you know, Shepherd and Woodwards.

I  buy aftershave, hats and clothes from there, and used to get my hair cut in the basement hairdressers.

It is very close by to where you once lived, and possibly may be where you got your own hair cut at times. Years ago, I would often look in at Morris the photographic shop, to the other side of your home, but it now has now sadly gone, because of competition from Jessops.

Nowadays, the hairdressers have all moved to Walters in Turl St. So that is where I get my hair cut, still by the same person for very many decades, and whose husband is in the Music Industry, travelling the world, still working, for various very well known International Artists.

I would imagine that from the rear of the building in which you lived for a short while, at No. 104, you could see the black fire escapes at the rear of the buildings in St. Edmunds St.

Sometimes, friends I knew years ago, would take Pianos up those very fire escapes, up to the very top flats.

It was an extremely precarious business.

I am led to understand.




Quote: "I lived at 104A High Street"

- snipped for shortness -

"and so tended to use `Street'."




Thank You!

For validating my essential point.

Quite naturally, when you lived there.

You called your former residence 104A High Street.

And still do to this day, referring to it in the same way, on this very Forum.

Because when you lived there, you repeatedly needed to give your PROPER POSTAL ADDRESS to all the people that required you to give it.

You did NOT give your address as '104A The High' simply because that was NOT your address.

For with the wrong address, your post, may well have not ever have been delivered.

And wouldn't have been, by most of the postmen that I have known for years.





For.

Your correct postal address was 104A High Street.

Which is why you used the words 'High Street' during that time of residence.




Again.

(I am a simple man).

It is an immutable truth.

That the proper name of a place.

Is normally to be found in its postal address.




Almost.

Opposite.

Your former home.

Is the glorious building.

Of the University Church.

http://www.university-church.ox.ac.uk/index.html




It's correct postal address is.

University Church of St. Mary the Virgin
High Street, Oxford
OX1 4BJ





You will.

No doubt notice.

The address does not.

Contain the term 'The High'.

But rather the 'normal' High Street.





Can you.

See my point?

I fully appreciate.

You lived in Oxford.

For a few happy years.

The information I shared.

In my earlier post, was based upon.

Six entire decades of daily observation.

And having discussed this issue at length.

With  individuals, among Oxfords oldest residents.

I do believe it remains the case, that people born in Oxford.

That have, all their lives, to use the proper postal address of a given place.

Know it, as the correct official postal address, clearly defines it, because that address.

Reflects their personal daily experience, of relating to, with and sharing that address, amongst the wider population.





But people.

From outside Oxford.

That settle here, absorbed into the community.

And people that come to Lecture or to Study in the Academic World.

Naturally take their cue for such things, from others they meet, they look up and listen to.

And thus, ascribe and attribute to them, a latent knowledge of the area, that in point of fact, they often, simply don't possess.




This.

Is an entirely forgivable.

Extremely normal, human fallacy.

But somewhat reprehensible in Academia.




Don't you think?




To.

The multitudes of students.

That flock here every year, Oxford is a very special place.

It lifts them up upon a platform, that sets them fair for life's future challenges.

And everything about the place, even the architecture and the friends they make, can have a golden glow.

Thus to ascribe a special term, for a very special place, is entirely understandable, and easily handed down, through generations.

But does that make it right, correct or proper?





To be honest.

I could tell whether or not someone was born in Oxford.

Simply by the manner in which they pronounced the names of certain streets. Magdalen is a dead giveaway.

I strongly believe you might be well assisted by Professor Henry Higgins, or Colonel Hugh Pickering, both experts in this field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAYUuspQ6BY

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Doz5w2W-jAY&feature=relat ed




The following.

Is a general observation.

And not in any way whatever.

Directed at any individual personally.




But.

Because someone.

That is supposed to be clever.

Says something, it doesn't actually make it correct.

Speaking as an Oxford man, I expect people that study at Oxford.

To be somewhat smarter, and today such, would probably not even pass the entrance exam.

To observe generation after generation of youngsters parrot the same myths, initiated and perpetuated by the ' affected' is purely to observe a 'device' of human weakness .




It  is my understanding, and remains my sincere hope.

We help people to understand about things.

I truly think that's good.







P
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5   Go Up
 

Site Hosted By Ashdown Technologies, Inc.

Page created in 0.026 seconds with 19 queries.