insurance

[Phil xxkr]

6 hours ago, LenT said:

Slight digression here, Rowley, but this error/typo seems to crop up a lot on this site.  I would point out that Linas does get it right for the penultimate word of his last post.

But I have noticed it occurring even in the titles for posts, with someone asking for advice about their ‘breaks’.  Now as someone who made a career out of writing, I am always irritated by the common errors prevalent when people try to write the way they talk, but...the chance that a car enthusiast doesn’t know the difference between ‘brake’ and ‘break’ seems vanishingly small to me.

So in such instances I’m inclined to blame the dictatorial hand of the Predictive Test Monster - a shadowy figure lurking in the background and waiting to pounce on a barely completed word, determined to change sense into nonsense.  I know I’ve nearly fallen victim and this site does seem to employ a particularly vindictive predictive!

 So all I can suggest is that before posting, everyone checks, cheques and Czechs again.

Awe, Profffesssor give us a break 😁😁😁 (and a Kit-Kat

[Sherra]

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.
Eye strike a quay and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.
As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its really ever wrong.
Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased two no
Its letter perfect in it's weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.
(Sauce unknown)

 

[Linas.P]

17 hours ago, LenT said:

Slight digression here, Rowley, but this error/typo seems to crop up a lot on this site.  I would point out that Linas does get it right for the penultimate word of his last post.

So all I can suggest is that before posting, everyone checks, cheques and Czechs again.

I have few excuses for that, but overall I see language as a tool. Sure if you are professional writer that would be embarrassing, but in my opinion for casual post on the forum this does not matter as long as language fulfil the purpose - that is to convey what I wanted to say.

It seems it everyone understood what I meant and that is what matters. 

Further, correcting people spelling is almost ad hominem - i.e. your argument cannot be right, because you can't even spell correctly. It is irritating and to be honest I would only do that to other people if I believe they genuinely don't know the difference between break and brake (then it is the case of learning the language and it may be beneficial), otherwise I just ignore it.

Sorry I had offended some native English speakers, but only advise for now - just get over it 😁

20 hours ago, Sundance said:

As expected I guess, a typically subjective view and of course not short of the usual dose of patronising content. 

That you simply don't understand the subject it does not make my view subjective. In general I see a lot more ignorant tolerance around than analytical thinking and seeking of the truth. Now I am not saying everyone should get cancer worrying in how unfair and corrupt the insurance companies are, I am just saying - it just happens that I work in related field and understand how they **** with us all. 

[LenT]

31 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

...overall I see language as a tool. Sure if you are professional writer that would be embarrassing, but in my opinion for casual post on the forum this does not matter as long as language fulfil the purpose...

I hope you were clear, Linus, that I was supporting you in this instance.  As I suggested, the problem was probably down to Predictive Text rather than not knowing the difference.  Oh, and no time to proof read!

In fact I suffered a PT event in my own post, but let it through as it amused me.  For clarification, the homonyms in the last line were a joke!

Sadly, the people who really don’t know the difference between, for example, it’s, its, they’re, their and there, are legion.  But as you say, as long as the meaning is clear, it’s only going to irritate a passing pedant.

And who cares about them?

But in a transparent attempt to bring this back to the subject of Insurance (!), a cynic might argue that it is a field in which the art of precise ambiguity is practiced at a very high level. 

So definitions are precise enough to constrain the Insured, but flexible enough to be reinterpreted by the Insurer. 

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

I hope you were clear, Linus, that I was supporting you in this instance.  As I suggested, the problem was probably down to Predictive Text rather than not knowing the difference.  Oh, and no time to proof read!

In fact I suffered a PT event in my own post, but let it through as it amused me.  For clarification, the homonyms in the last line were a joke!

Sadly, the people who really don’t know the difference between, for example, it’s, its, they’re, their and there, are legion.  But as you say, as long as the meaning is clear, it’s only going to irritate a passing pedant.

And who cares about them?

But in a transparent attempt to bring this back to the subject of Insurance (!), a cynic might argue that it is a field in which the art of precise ambiguity is practiced at a very high level. 

So definitions are precise enough to constrain the Insured, but flexible enough to be reinterpreted by the Insurer. 

This may help Linas in reaching a clearer understanding 😎

Linguists are wont to think of words as monocellular organisms that can be traced back to single ancestors via mitosis: to every word supposedly corresponds a single etymology. I argue, however, that this traditional model, which can be labeled “monophyletic,” does not always work in the collectively-negotiated and orally-transmitted field of mythology. The polysemic potential of a mythonym can precisely be a decisive factor for its synchronic election and diachronic retention, inasmuch as homonymy and ambiguity, as linguistic and poetic phenomena, facilitate the synoptic convergence of diverse aspects of a mythical figure in a single name. Case in point: Helen. To a certain degree, the ongoing controversy surrounding her etymology is unnecessary: much of it fades away if one posits a ‘polyphyletic’ model for Helen, in which plural etymologies cooperate, rather than compete.

[LenT]

8 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

This may help Linas in reaching a clearer understanding 😎

Linguists are wont to think of words as monocellular organisms that can be traced back to single ancestors via mitosis: to every word supposedly corresponds a single etymology. I argue, however, that this traditional model, which can be labeled “monophyletic,” does not always work in the collectively-negotiated and orally-transmitted field of mythology. The polysemic potential of a mythonym can precisely be a decisive factor for its synchronic election and diachronic retention, inasmuch as homonymy and ambiguity, as linguistic and poetic phenomena, facilitate the synoptic convergence of diverse aspects of a mythical figure in a single name. Case in point: Helen. To a certain degree, the ongoing controversy surrounding her etymology is unnecessary: much of it fades away if one posits a ‘polyphyletic’ model for Helen, in which plural etymologies cooperate, rather than compete.

But surely that’s only valid if you regard Helen as a myth.

Was she not actually a mythrs?

 

[Phil xxkr]

Just now, Phil xxkr said:

This may help Linas in reaching a clearer understanding 😎

Linguists are wont to think of words as monocellular organisms that can be traced back to single ancestors via mitosis: to every word supposedly corresponds a single etymology. I argue, however, that this traditional model, which can be labeled “monophyletic,” does not always work in the collectively-negotiated and orally-transmitted field of mythology. The polysemic potential of a mythonym can precisely be a decisive factor for its synchronic election and diachronic retention, inasmuch as homonymy and ambiguity, as linguistic and poetic phenomena, facilitate the synoptic convergence of diverse aspects of a mythical figure in a single name. Case in point: Helen. To a certain degree, the ongoing controversy surrounding her etymology is unnecessary: much of it fades away if one posits a ‘polyphyletic’ model for Helen, in which plural etymologies cooperate, rather than compete.

I should explain I came across this "simple" explanation of the name Helen when doing some researvh

[Phil xxkr]

Just now, Phil xxkr said:

I should explain I came across this "simple" explanation of the name Helen when doing some researvh

Pure Humphrey Appleby methinks 

[Steven Lockey]

1 hour ago, Phil xxkr said:

Pure Humphrey Appleby methinks 

Sir Humphrey I'll beg your pardon 😉

[Phil xxkr]

8 hours ago, Steven Lockey said:

Sir Humphrey I'll beg your pardon 😉

You certainly will Steve after you realise that I knew him before his illustrious elevation 😁

[Andy B]

15 hours ago, LenT said:

Sadly, the people who really don’t know the difference between, for example, it’s, its, they’re, their and there, are legion.  But as you say, as long as the meaning is clear, it’s only going to irritate a passing pedant.

The one that really irks me is when people write "of" instead of "have", i.e. "could of"; "would of". I genuinely think that these people believe that that's the way to say\write it. You see it everywhere on social media. I guess that in a few decade's time that will indeed be the way it's officially written and taught.

[Shahpor]

If we are talking pet language peeves, then mine is the misuse of the work 'literally'.

For example, when someone says "I literally died when I heard that".

Now, I understand exaggeration or distortion, but in this case, it is the exact opposite of its meaning!

Usually I will give some sort of flippant response "so I am talking to a ghost then?", but people think I am being pedantic instead.

Ok, now that I have had my rant, you can continue talking about the con that is car insurance 🙂 

[Phil xxkr]

14 hours ago, LenT said:

But surely that’s only valid if you regard Helen as a myth.

Was she not actually a mythrs?

 

Was that a Typo Len? Did you mean, was Helen having a Mythos? 🍺

[Phil xxkr]

13 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

If we are talking pet language peeves, then mine is the misuse of the work 'literally'.

For example, when someone says "I literally died when I heard that".

Now, I understand exaggeration or distortion, but in this case, it is the exact opposite of its meaning!

Usually I will give some sort of flippant response "so I am talking to a ghost then?", but people think I am being pedantic instead.

Ok, now that I have had my rant, you can continue talking about the con that is car insurance 🙂 

Ah, I see Shahpor you are experiencing "Recency Allusion" literally thinking something is recent when it has, in fact, literally been around for hundreds of years and used for emphasis. I will however support you campaigning against the literal blizzard of corporate speak engulfing communications today 👍

[LenT]

1 hour ago, Andy B said:

The one that really irks me is when people write "of" instead of "have", i.e. "could of"; "would of". I genuinely think that these people believe that that's the way to say\write it. You see it everywhere on social media. I guess that in a few decades time that will indeed be the way it's officially written and taught.

You’re right there Andy.  Or should it be ‘your’?

Even respected dictionaries are now conceding that while ‘bored of’ is grammatically wrong, common usage- such as even in the Daily Telegraph, no less - will eventually elevate it to the norm.

But language develops all the time.  It’s an organic process, powered by such factors as new technology, influenced by peer pressure and initiated by poor diction, sloppy writing and careless education.

Whether this will result in a more homogeneous society or a more disparate one, is debatable.  There may be an increasing divergence between written formal, legal and business language, and spoken social, ‘tribal’ dialogue.

The usual rationale is that it doesn’t matter as long as the meaning is clear.  After all, Bill Shakespeare was slightly inconsistent about how he spelt his own name, not to mention many of the more common words. And as for communication, well when he couldn’t think of an appropriate word, he invented a new one - about 200 of them!

The downside of that is will the audience you’re addressing understand a word you’ve just invented?

What we are witnessing is the development of the ‘meme’ - a word invented by Richard Dawkins to describe ideas and behaviour that spread by means of imitation within a culture.  In reality it has always been with us.  

 

[Malc]

being the most widely SPOKEN language in the world I understand ....  English as spoken is usually clear and if needs be, easy to interpret, but written can have ambiguities and I'm fine with it all whatever

Remembering I used to have a 30 min chat once a month with a tenant from Scotland ..............  the coffee was fine but my ability to understand a word of what he said ...  in English ......  was my fault as I couldn't come to comprehend the very broad regional Scottish slant on pronunciation 

Trying to correct the-ex India based " staff " in the Office has eluded me totally ..  it's whatsapp txt speak and lingo, in English and just EVERYBODY, including customers, quite understand what everybody else means .......  I think 

Malc

[ColinBarber]

54 minutes ago, Shahpor said:

If we are talking pet language peeves, then mine is the misuse of the work 'literally'.

For example, when someone says "I literally died when I heard that".

 

[LenT]

6 minutes ago, Malc said:

Remembering I used to have a 30 min chat once a month with a tenant from Scotland ..............  the coffee was fine but my ability to understand a word of what he said ...  in English ......  was my fault as I couldn't come to comprehend the very broad regional Scottish slant on pronunciation 

I’m with you there, Malcolm.

I used to do a lot of clay shooting and would often meet a lovely Scottish couple.  We would often be on the same squad and so spend most of the day together.  But you have identified the problem.

While I had no problem with his wife’s accent, I struggled to understand him.  But this didn’t discourage him from having long - and rather one-sided - conversations with me.  Ultimately I had to judge from his expression whether a chuckle or a concerned frown was the correct response.

That we always parted on friendly terms suggests I mainly got it right.

[Spacewagon52]

The important thing is that you are understood. The correct use of grammar is becoming like the old school tie. There are many successful people out there who have severe dyslexia and find the finer points of written English very hard to grasp. This can make people reluctant to take part in forums such as this. If you can use your English writing skills, then do so but please everyone, be aware of others that do not have these skills - they also need to be heard.

[LenT]

1 hour ago, Shahpor said:

If we are talking pet language peeves, then mine is the misuse of the work 'literally'.

May I also offer for consideration the word ‘unique’.

So many people fail to grasp that the word ‘unique’ is, well...unique.

It stands magnificently alone, requiring neither explanation, qualification or adornment.  Things are not ‘very’, ‘pretty’ or ‘almost’ unique.  They are either unique or they are not unique.

Unless, of course, they are uniquely unique!

[Spacewagon52]

On TV news etc. you often hear the phrase ............. "It centres around the issue........" You can't centre around something, you must centre on it.

[serbarry]

As a foreigner I sometimes find it difficult to understand some idiomatic expressions also on this forum. I appreciate you considering how important is to write correctly especially for foreigners. 

[Spacewagon52]

2 minutes ago, serbarry said:

As a foreigner I sometimes find it difficult to understand some idiomatic expressions also on this forum. I appreciate you considering how important is to write correctly especially for foreigners. 

If English is your second language you do not need worry about being perfect. English is a strange language, as the written form is very different from the spoken. We use idioms in speech far too often!

As in another language ........... same horse, different jockey!