• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Assume v. Presume

When I was a kid I had trouble knowing what an "oscilloscope" was, let alone trying to say it. Luckily, now many years have past, I not only know what one is and am able to use one to good effect, but I can also pronounce much harder words.
 
I could spell long words like oscilloscope and haemoglobin, it was simple words that gave me trouble. I guess it was to do with the kind of books I liked.
 
Discrete / discreet, complimemt / complement are ones that always give me pause / paws for / four thought.
 
ISIS or ISIL. You choose! You also get to choose what the first stands for. Also whether to say isil or I S I L.
 
I have long been critical of TV news headlines which start (by way of fictitious example for illustrative purposes) "8 out of 10 of the over-75's want to be euthanised. That's according to a survey by..."

I notice this particularly on the BBC Wales regional news bulletins, and I suspect it is characteristic of the style of one particular news editor. It gives undue prominence to a factoid that is not sustained when looked at more deeply, and I suspect many viewers will have ingested the first sentence and then glaze over for the rest.

I also wish they would stop reporting what they expect to happen in the immediate future and concentrate on what did happen in the immediate past.

Now it seems that somebody found guilty of something in a trial definitely did it. No, they didn't definitely do it, they have only been found guilty of doing it. Unless it's an open-and-shut case of course.
 
Being found innocent of destroying incriminating evidence worries me more. Mind you, what can you expect when your legal team has a bottomless budget, pitted against the state's shoestring one. Justice it is not!
 
I don't think dictionaries were written for pedants, or even that it is possible to write a dictionary for pedants.
 
Isn't it the dictionary that would be the embodiment of a pedagogue? Either way, I envisage infinite recursions.
 
How many words do we need to regard as axiomatic, ie, that we can assume everyone knows what they mean, before the whole dictionary becomes accessible?

Also, could there be an individual, let's say you Black Hole, who has an entirely non-standard understanding of that basic set of words, and who then gets a completely different interpretation of the whole dictionary?
 
I'm sure somebody must have worked that out, but I'm not convinced the precise and complete definition of any word (in all contexts) can be completely pinned down, unless one freezes the language (or creates an artificial subset of it, with standardised definitions - as per the legal profession). It strikes me as a difficult task, even to create a standardised artificial subset, that is logically complete and free from contradiction (hence the continuing arguments in law over the exact interpretation of contracts and statutes).

I also don't think it is possible for any one person to claim to have a standard understanding of any particular word, which is why I go to lengths (when necessary) to explain exactly what my understanding of a word is, and therefore what I mean when I use it in a particular context. That may or may not accord with your (or any other individual's) understanding, but it is just as valid (presuming it has been given appropriate consideration).
 
Seen on a giant banner on a school wall this afternoon:

We open at 8am prompt everyday

Composed by a hardworking head teacher, maybe?
 
Back
Top