Assume v. Presume

aluminum: "1812, coined by English chemist Sir Humphry Davy (1778-1829), from alumina, name given 18c. to aluminum oxide, from Latin alumen "alum" (see alum). Davy originally called it alumium (1808), then amended this to aluminum, which remains the U.S. word, but British editors in 1812 further amended it to aluminium, the modern preferred British form, to better harmonize with other metallic element names (sodium,potassium, etc.).
Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound. ["Quarterly Review," 1812]"​

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=aluminum&searchmode=none
 
I hate the way people talk about "train stations" these days. Neither is it consistent: ITV news tonight "buses queued outside train stations... short rail journeys...".
 
Buses leave a bus station when they begin a road journey.
Trains leave a train station when they start a rail journey.
 
Black Hole said:
"buses queued outside train stations... short rail journeys...".
Click to expand...
This is exactly the case were it benefits from qualifying which type of station it is. It may surprise you to know that buses are used by many to go to and from a train (or railway) station to a bus station (or terminus).
 
gomezz said:
This is exactly the case were it benefits from qualifying which type of station it is. It may surprise you to know that buses are used by many to go to and from a train (or railway) station to a bus station (or terminus).
Click to expand...
Were/where. This is the home of pedants. :)
 
Yeah, and this pedant thinks that calling a railway station a "train station" is like talking to 5 year olds. For 3 year olds it's a "choo choo station".
 
Charabanc station, you mean. Buses have stops, but the use of language is not about logic - it's about how it was before new expressions which sound odd to those longer in the tooth. So, as a product of the 1950's, I say it's a railway station and that's that.

The only teenagers who can't tell the difference between "dog" and "doggy" are those who have never been taught English at school - ie all of them these days. Stupid argument, and something they would soon get over if their peers ridiculed them for it.
 
Aims=Objectives

(In my book, anyway!)

Trying to distinguish them just ends in confusion, like many such dubious distinctions.
 
Mike0001 said:
So it's a train stop then?

Railway? Autocar? Automobile? Roadway? Where do we stop using these antiquated terms?

(Speaking as a product of the 1940s, Sonny! :D)
Click to expand...


And aeroplane, now being Americanised to airplane.

On another forum someone was bemoaning a British newspaper reporting on someone's construction of a wonderful model (in paper IIRC). The article referred to it being an airplane, which caused this gent great upset "should be aeroplane, we are in England!"
But the model was of a Boeing. So I imagine the makers of the prototype would call it an airplane, so the paper would have been correct.
(And so, what's an Airbus, being a right mish-mash?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top