"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

...

A friend of mine at college had a Collins. Its description of the usage of
"educated Northerners" was so ludicrously patronising (and, as far as we
could tell, wrong) that I've been prejudiced against it ever since :-)

What is it with Collins? In the first (1971) ed of the Collins Spanish
Dictionary, a discussion of terms for birds includes the phrase
"Spaniards -- who are poor on such subjects -- ...".

Nigel Greenwood wrote:

"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

...

A friend of mine at college had a Collins. Its description of the
usage of
"educated Northerners" was so ludicrously patronising (and, as far as
we
could tell, wrong) that I've been prejudiced against it ever since :-)

What is it with Collins? In the first (1971) ed of the Collins Spanish
Dictionary, a discussion of terms for birds includes the phrase
"Spaniards -- who are poor on such subjects -- ...".

HarperCollins _is_ owned by Rupert Murdoch, is it not?

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message


HarperCollins _is_ owned by Rupert Murdoch, is it not?

Rupert Murdoch is Australian.

"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:400294D5.5646@worldnet.att.net...
Nigel Greenwood wrote:

"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

...

A friend of mine at college had a Collins. Its description of the
usage of "educated Northerners" was so ludicrously patronising
(and, as far as we could tell, wrong) that I've been prejudiced
against it ever since :-)

What is it with Collins? In the first (1971) ed of the Collins
Spanish Dictionary, a discussion of terms for birds includes the
phrase "Spaniards -- who are poor on such subjects -- ...".

HarperCollins _is_ owned by Rupert Murdoch, is it not?

Rupert Murdoch is Australian. For some Britains, he's positively
antipodean.

Dylan Sung wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:400294D5.5646@worldnet.att.net...
Nigel Greenwood wrote:

"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

...

A friend of mine at college had a Collins. Its description of the
usage of "educated Northerners" was so ludicrously patronising
(and, as far as we could tell, wrong) that I've been prejudiced
against it ever since :-)

What is it with Collins? In the first (1971) ed of the Collins
Spanish Dictionary, a discussion of terms for birds includes the
phrase "Spaniards -- who are poor on such subjects -- ...".

HarperCollins _is_ owned by Rupert Murdoch, is it not?

Rupert Murdoch is Australian. For some Britains, he's positively
antipodean.

He's American

Paul Wood wrote:
Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<a06Mb.2366$q4.2037@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

Andrew Bull wrote:


Larry Trask wrote in message
48c7f19.0401101129.1d9c49bd@posting.google.com>...


First, in a discussion of the '-our' spellings in British English, I
asserted that BrEng distinguishes the two spellings 'rigour' and
'rigor', with each associated with a distinct set of meanings. A
respondent queried this statement, complaining that Collins was the
only British dictionary he could find that recognized such a
difference.

In which case he presumably didn't check Chambers (1998), which also does.

As do Chambers (2003), OED1 (1933), SOED3 (1944, rev 1956), SOED4
(1993)=NSOED, SOED5 (2003), and even COD10 (1999). I hope Larry Trask
doesn't depend on that respondent for serious information.



Hi Martin,

Certainly, the SOED CD has all the nuances that Larry craves for --
if, at 90 pounds sterling, it's a bit expensive. However, it is
fabulous to use, gives etymologies as well and has corpus examples
going back to about the 15 century.

The ones Larry is talking about are the shelf-top one-volume versions,
I think, which all go out at around 30 pounds sterling.

Did you not check the first and last entries in that list? Chambrs (2003)
and COD10 (1999) are "shelf-top one-volume versions." Anyone paying 30
pounds sterling for either has more money than brains.

Hi Martin,

You're clearly not a translator.

First, in a discussion of the '-our' spellings in British English, I
asserted that BrEng distinguishes the two spellings 'rigour' and
'rigor', with each associated with a distinct set of meanings.

Not quite true, Larry. You asserted that BrE uses only rigor. I asserted
that it distinguishes the two spellings.

larryt@sussex.ac.uk (Larry Trask) writes:

[...] A respondent replied by quoting the British (actually
Scottish) dictionary Chambers, which reports both uses. [...]

If you're looking at dictionaries from Scotland, Chambers is not the
only one up here: Collins is located in Glasgow.

"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:btucgi$qsc$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
Dylan Sung wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:400294D5.5646@worldnet.att.net...
Nigel Greenwood wrote:

"Andrew Bull" <andrew@rbull15.freeserve.co.uk> wrote

...

A friend of mine at college had a Collins. Its description of the
usage of "educated Northerners" was so ludicrously patronising
(and, as far as we could tell, wrong) that I've been prejudiced
against it ever since :-)

What is it with Collins? In the first (1971) ed of the Collins
Spanish Dictionary, a discussion of terms for birds includes the
phrase "Spaniards -- who are poor on such subjects -- ...".

HarperCollins _is_ owned by Rupert Murdoch, is it not?

Rupert Murdoch is Australian. For some Britains, he's positively
antipodean.

He's American

Is he? He was a paper editor to begin with in Australia wasn't he?

"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
(much snipped)


Note that _The Century Dictionary_ was edited by one William Dwight

*The Century Dictionary,* an American dictionary of 1895, lists two
definitions which were used earlier than the definitions which are listed in
modern American dictionaries, the latter definitions being that of a
Republican who refused to support his party's nominee in the 1884 election
and that of a political independent.

(more snipped)

Second, I complained about a tendency in Britain to assert that the
American word 'mugwump' means 'chief, boss'. I asserted that the word
has no such meaning, and that it means only 'political independent,
person who declines to take sides'. A respondent replied by quoting
the British (actually Scottish) dictionary Chambers, which reports
both uses.
snap

Larry Trask wrote in message
48c7f19.0401101129.1d9c49bd@posting.google.com>...
snip
Second, I complained about a tendency in Britain to assert that the
American word 'mugwump' means 'chief, boss'. I asserted that the word
has no such meaning, and that it means only 'political independent,
person who declines to take sides'. A respondent replied by quoting
the British (actually Scottish) dictionary Chambers, which reports
both uses.
snap

As an American word it may _no longer_ mean "boss", but in British
English it still does. This is the only sense in which I have met it
being used, although dictionaries do give the alternative meaning of an
(American) independent.

Has it ever been used to describe an independent politician in Britain?
If not, then this must clearly be the secondary meaning.

Paul Wood wrote:

Hi Martin,

You're clearly not a translator.

You clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

Martin Ambuhl <mambuhl@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<YtCMb.5464$i4.4918@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>...

Paul Wood wrote:


Hi Martin,

You're clearly not a translator.

You clearly don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.


Hi Martin, let me relish that.