Irrational hatreds

rick_chasey

Some people object to “for free” because any sentence containing the phrase will read just as well without the “for,” but it is standard English.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some people object to “for free” because any sentence containing the phrase will read just as well without the “for,” but it is standard English.

Well, that'll teach me. I'm still not sure I would agree with Mr Brians, though.

CiB

rjsterry wrote:

On the subject of Americanisms: we should be careful about slagging them off, as some of them are actually archaic English spellings or figures of speech (Englishisms? Anglisms? Eurgh!) which have dropped out of use in this country.

Ahem.

On page 2 of this thread CiB wrote:

...
And people who insist on using American terms when ours are correct thank you; things like Fall for Autumn, and errr lots of other examples.

And then other people who come in and point out that Americanisms are actually correct, being derived from Old English, and that it's us who are wrong. No no no. It doesn't work like that. Correct English is whatever was common and correct usage from probaly the Edwardian period up to a few years ago, as modern usage and grammar is now officially pants. See?

rjsterry

Nah, they're not derived from Old English. That'd be your Beowulf and such. :P

Having a few books at home that were printed in the Edwardian period, I can confirm that it's noticeably different from even 'proper' modern English.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

Nah, they're not derived from Old English. That'd be your Beowulf and such. :P

Having a few books at home that were printed in the Edwardian period, I can confirm that it's noticeably different from even 'proper' modern English.

All English is derived from Old English, with of course the notable exception of newer words from abroad.

The 'Americanisms are correct' slant comes from the fact that american english has evolved differently, some would argue more slowly, than english english.

I would go on, but I have an irrational hatred of just how boring I can be when I'm waffling on about linguistic history.

SamWise72

soundninjauk wrote:

MichaelW wrote:

TV volume going up at the adds

They're not actually allowed to broadcast adverts any louder. What they do is compress the ever living crap out of them so they appear louder to the listener, especially when you've just come from a much less compressed TV show.

It's the same effect as if you were to switch to Radio 1 from Radio 3 or similar, as popular music is compressed to shoot, especially for radio play. If it's 'louder', then it sounds 'better'.

This is not entirely accurate. The peaks are not any louder, and hence the reading on a db meter isn't higher, either, but the troughs are louder. The net effect is that the background music that Barry Scott is shouting at you over is at all points just as loud as the gunshot on Inspector Morse. It's louder, in real terms.

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Nah, they're not derived from Old English. That'd be your Beowulf and such. :P

Having a few books at home that were printed in the Edwardian period, I can confirm that it's noticeably different from even 'proper' modern English.

All English is derived from Old English, with of course the notable exception of newer words from abroad.

The 'Americanisms are correct' slant comes from the fact that american english has evolved differently, some would argue more slowly, than english english.

I would go on, but I have an irrational hatred of just how boring I can be when I'm waffling on about linguistic history.

Ah, but.....<sits on hands>

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Nah, they're not derived from Old English. That'd be your Beowulf and such. :P

Having a few books at home that were printed in the Edwardian period, I can confirm that it's noticeably different from even 'proper' modern English.

All English is derived from Old English, with of course the notable exception of newer words from abroad.

The 'Americanisms are correct' slant comes from the fact that american english has evolved differently, some would argue more slowly, than english english.

I would go on, but I have an irrational hatred of just how boring I can be when I'm waffling on about linguistic history.

Ah, but.....<sits on hands>

soundninjauk

SamWise72 wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

MichaelW wrote:

TV volume going up at the adds

They're not actually allowed to broadcast adverts any louder. What they do is compress the ever living crap out of them so they appear louder to the listener, especially when you've just come from a much less compressed TV show.

It's the same effect as if you were to switch to Radio 1 from Radio 3 or similar, as popular music is compressed to shoot, especially for radio play. If it's 'louder', then it sounds 'better'.

This is not entirely accurate. The peaks are not any louder, and hence the reading on a db meter isn't higher, either, but the troughs are louder. The net effect is that the background music that Barry Scott is shouting at you over is at all points just as loud as the gunshot on Inspector Morse. It's louder, in real terms.

I was trying to keep it simple. As you point out the actual peak reading is the same, and will never ever go over whatever -db the TX spec is. So at no point is the peak amplitude ever greater. But it still appears louder (peaks and troughs brought closer together, then whole waveform raised up etc. etc.) to the listener. However, the thinking that they've actually 'turned up the volume' is a fallacy.

schlepcycling

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

Verbal wrote:

Definitely wheelie cabin bags. Especially the few miserable occasions when I've had to use the tube and someone cuts in front of you pulling their silly little case behind them so I trip over it. Now I just kick them out of the way.

Watching my mother-in-law eat. It's like listening to a bulldog eat a bowl of casserole.

Junk mail being put through my letterbox even though there is a "no junk mail" sign on my letter box. I've been known, on occasions, to catch them in the act, rip up their pizza/chinese/indian menu, cab card, whatever and throw it in their face. I know it makes me sound like a miserable bugger but then I don't go around putting my rubbish through other peoples letterboxes.

Actually, looking at the above I really need to lighten up...but it's too damn hard!

No junk mail signs on letterboxes (sorry Verbal)
Beware of the dog signs on front doors
Child on board signs on cars

All of them useless

We've been told that due to having 4 'scary' dogs we 'must' have 'beware of the dogs' signs or risk prosecution by members of the public for giving them a bit of a surprise or some such nonsense. My mother has been busy putting up all manner of signs since that visit from the police!

I believe the current one warns about pretty much every hazard available on our property, including the goldfish, underground toads, and an occasionally resident chinchilla.

How about a sign warning of the signs, you'd hate someone to sue you for injuring themselves on one of your warning signs

TuckerUK

soundninjauk wrote:

SamWise72 wrote:

soundninjauk wrote:

MichaelW wrote:

TV volume going up at the adds

They're not actually allowed to broadcast adverts any louder. What they do is compress the ever living crap out of them so they appear louder to the listener, especially when you've just come from a much less compressed TV show.

It's the same effect as if you were to switch to Radio 1 from Radio 3 or similar, as popular music is compressed to shoot, especially for radio play. If it's 'louder', then it sounds 'better'.

This is not entirely accurate. The peaks are not any louder, and hence the reading on a db meter isn't higher, either, but the troughs are louder. The net effect is that the background music that Barry Scott is shouting at you over is at all points just as loud as the gunshot on Inspector Morse. It's louder, in real terms.

I was trying to keep it simple. As you point out the actual peak reading is the same, and will never ever go over whatever -db the TX spec is. So at no point is the peak amplitude ever greater. But it still appears louder (peaks and troughs brought closer together, then whole waveform raised up etc. etc.) to the listener. However, the thinking that they've actually 'turned up the volume' is a fallacy.

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate either.

Using industry standard BBC PPMs as a unit of measure, the spec for broadcast is (IIRC) 6ppm peak with a average of 4ppm. Obviously explosions. shouting, crashes etc. will be hitting 6ppm, but getting the 4ppm average if often quite difficult without compressing the hell out of the programme (especially with films with feature with huge sections of low whispering for example). I have known directors actually forbid the tampering of their audio levels (I'm not quite sure how they think people are supposed to hear the quiet sections).

Adverts of course don't have quiet sections as a rule, and so the whole advert will be banged out at 6ppm, far louder than the programme (unless the ad breaks comes just after a 6ppm explosion/gunshot/song/shout/etc.)

NB. 4ppm is +0dbm and 6ppm is roughly +8dbm, and . Every +3bdm is roughly a doubling of volume, so you can easily see that an advert can easily sound 4 times louder than the programme it follows.

soundninjauk

TuckerUK wrote:

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate either.

Using industry standard BBC PPMs as a unit of measure, the spec for broadcast is (IIRC) 6ppm peak with a average of 4ppm. Obviously explosions. shouting, crashes etc. will be hitting 6ppm, but getting the 4ppm average if often quite difficult without compressing the hell out of the programme (especially with films with feature with huge sections of low whispering for example). I have known directors actually forbid the tampering of their audio levels (I'm not quite sure how they think people are supposed to hear the quiet sections).

Adverts of course don't have quiet sections as a rule, and so the whole advert will be banged out at 6ppm, far louder than the programme (unless the ad breaks comes just after a 6ppm explosion/gunshot/song/shout/etc.)

NB. 4ppm is +0dbm and 6ppm is roughly +8dbm, and . Every +3bdm is roughly a doubling of volume, so you can easily see that an advert can easily sound 4 times louder than the programme it follows.

Happy to be corrected. I come at this from more of a music/recording studio perspective (in the happy world where anything over zero is uncool and to be avoided like the plague).

If they're aiming for a 4ppm average, why do the adverts go out at 6ppm rather than 4ppm? Does that not mean that everything else they broadcast has to be that little bit lower?

And even after all this, are they actually turning up the adverts? Or is it that they just sound louder because there's no dynamic variation, so they all come out in one big block of 6ppm?

(I also thought that a rise of 6db was an apparent doubling of loudness. I'm sure I have a textbook or something on this somewhere, must check).

deptfordmarmoset

schlepcycling wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

dhope wrote:

Verbal wrote:

Definitely wheelie cabin bags. Especially the few miserable occasions when I've had to use the tube and someone cuts in front of you pulling their silly little case behind them so I trip over it. Now I just kick them out of the way.

Watching my mother-in-law eat. It's like listening to a bulldog eat a bowl of casserole.

Junk mail being put through my letterbox even though there is a "no junk mail" sign on my letter box. I've been known, on occasions, to catch them in the act, rip up their pizza/chinese/indian menu, cab card, whatever and throw it in their face. I know it makes me sound like a miserable bugger but then I don't go around putting my rubbish through other peoples letterboxes.

Actually, looking at the above I really need to lighten up...but it's too damn hard!

No junk mail signs on letterboxes (sorry Verbal)
Beware of the dog signs on front doors
Child on board signs on cars

All of them useless

We've been told that due to having 4 'scary' dogs we 'must' have 'beware of the dogs' signs or risk prosecution by members of the public for giving them a bit of a surprise or some such nonsense. My mother has been busy putting up all manner of signs since that visit from the police!

I believe the current one warns about pretty much every hazard available on our property, including the goldfish, underground toads, and an occasionally resident chinchilla.

How about a sign warning of the signs, you'd hate someone to sue you for injuring themselves on one of your warning signs

We got fed up with the local housing people who decided to spend lots of our money putting ''no this...'' and'' No that...'' signs up all over the estate while tearing down any poster pinned up by a resident that we came up with a series of posters like this...

dhope

Cryptic but whiny Facebook updates.
'... is so annoyed with a particular person right now'

Okay, so either say it or don't, but stop fishing :evil:

PBo

bagpipes.

that is all.