Binocular or binoculars?

[LukeSkywatcher]

50 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

As topless Cleopatra's oarsmen rowed, I took my repose across the lake. (Can I say that on here? If not, she can be wearing a Barbour jacket if the mods insist...)

Olly

Ohhhhh matron!!!!

[wimvb]

54 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Can I say that on here? If not, she can be wearing a Barbour jacket if the mods insist...

Why would she need to? Clearly, it is the oarsmen who are topless. Or should that be "bare chested"?

I have working knowledge of a few languages, and find the english language most suited for word play. (According to a former colleague, French is better for swearing.)

A bit of plural trivia:

as was already noted in this thread, the plural of 'datum' is 'data'. This is also so in Swedish. But, in Swedish, the plural of a noun ending in -a, is formed by replacing the '-a' with '-or'. So the plural of 'data' would be 'dator'. Which is the singular form of the Swedish word for 'computer'. The plural of which is 'datorer'.

"Savvy?"

Edited April 30, 2022 by wimvb

[ollypenrice]

9 hours ago, wimvb said:

Why would she need to? Clearly, it is the oarsmen who are topless. Or should that be "bare chested"?

I have working knowledge of a few languages, and find the english language most suited for word play. (According to a former colleague, French is better for swearing.)

A bit of plural trivia:

as was already noted in this thread, the plural of 'datum' is 'data'. This is also so in Swedish. But, in Swedish, the plural of a noun ending in -a, is formed by replacing the '-a' with '-or'. So the plural of 'data' would be 'dator'. Which is the singular form of the Swedish word for 'computer'. The plural of which is 'datorer'.

"Savvy?"

Perhaps English is good for wordplay because of its enormous vocabulary, estimated at being three to six times larger than French, for instance. (It depends rather on what is to be counted as a word, English lexicographers being more lax than French ones. That's to say that they are... ahem... laxicographers...)

Olly

Edited May 1, 2022 by ollypenrice

[StevieDvd]

4 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

Perhaps English is good for wordplay because of its enormous vocabulary, estimated at being three to six times larger than French, for instance. (It depends rather on what is to be counted as a word, English lexicographers being more lax than French ones. That's to say that they are... ahem... laxicographers...)

Olly

The words spoken could have been 'rows across the lake' or 'rose across the lake'  - it was 19 to 1 on being rows (as in rowing) and I was the odd one. The 19 others said there could only be that spelling and challeged me to find another. I said 'the plane took off and rose across the lake as it gathered speed' and ' autumn leaves on the surface seemed to join up in rows across the lake'

I guess that I was on the course as I had just been promoted up and had to go through several training courses, the other more senior management probably were just stubborn & fixed in their views and needing re-training.😉

[ollypenrice]

39 minutes ago, StevieDvd said:

The words spoken could have been 'rows across the lake' or 'rose across the lake'  - it was 19 to 1 on being rows (as in rowing) and I was the odd one. The 19 others said there could only be that spelling and challeged me to find another. I said 'the plane took off and rose across the lake as it gathered speed' and ' autumn leaves on the surface seemed to join up in rows across the lake'

I guess that I was on the course as I had just been promoted up and had to go through several training courses, the other more senior management probably were just stubborn & fixed in their views and needing re-training.😉

My first thought was, 'The sun rose across the lake,' but I wanted to find something more quirky. Funnily enough, 'rows' across the lake didn't come to me quickly despite the fact that it is perfectly normal to row on a lake.

Olly

[Gfamily]

19 hours ago, StevieDvd said:

 

One example was to make up a sentence using the words "xxxx across the lake" where xxxx was a word rhyming with nose but beginning with an 'r' instead of 'n' (obviously he spoke this hence my use of the xxxx). Everone but me was convinced it could only be the one word meaning/spelling.

Due to the wide variety of fish species, at spawning time there was a mix of roes across the lake 

Similarly

The boatman refused to take the fallow deer, but was happy to take the roes across the lake 

Alternatively

After the explosion in the Greek letter factory there was a scattering of rhos across the lake

I think I saw that 'rose' has the most homophones of any word

🙂 people on this forum are wise, others are idiots

Edited May 1, 2022 by Gfamily

[BinocularSky]

You missed the glorious red rose across the lake...

[ollypenrice]

2 hours ago, Gfamily said:

Due to the wide variety of fish species, at spawning time there was a mix of roes across the lake 

Similarly

The boatman refused to take the fallow deer, but was happy to take the roes across the lake 

Alternatively

After the explosion in the Greek letter factory there was a scattering of rhos across the lake

I think I saw that 'rose' has the most homophones of any word

🙂 people on this forum are wise, others are idiots

Excellent!  However, might there be a wisp of doubt concerning roes and rows (or rose) as homophones? Rose and rows, yes, but does the 'o' in roes not hover for a moment, making it a slightly longer vowel? Perhaps not, because our reading ear is not quite the same as our aural one. My father, a Yorkshireman, could never consider weight and wait as homophones. The former was pronounced way-eet while the long a sound in wait was pronounced as in the word air.

Olly

[Gfamily]

10 minutes ago, ollypenrice said:

Excellent!  However, might there be a wisp of doubt concerning roes and rows (or rose) as homophones? Rose and rows, yes, but does the 'o' in roes not hover for a moment, making it a slightly longer vowel? Perhaps not, because our reading ear is not quite the same as our aural one. My father, a Yorkshireman, could never consider weight and wait as homophones. The former was pronounced way-eet while the long a sound in wait was pronounced as in the word air.

Olly

Well, at least any disagreements about homophones won't result in rows. 

[ollypenrice]

25 minutes ago, Gfamily said:

Well, at least any disagreements about homophones won't result in rows. 

No, you can disagree about homphones on dry land, well away from boats...

lly

[cajen2]

Ah, 'rows' of soldiers and 'rows' between people in Emmerdale...an example of a heterophone!

[Chaz2b]

Okay! Stop it, I now need to take a pair of a pill and lay down.

chaz……linguistically challenged .

[WJC]

[Alan White]

I cannot believe that I have resisted commenting so far..... shameful on my part.
Anyway, ahem.

In asnwer to Binocular or Binoculars, who cares what you call them, just get em out and use them!
The most portable instrument you can have, excepting the good old Mark 1 eyeball.

 

 

[WJC]

This is just how a valuable language is destroyed. It is accepted by the uncaring. 

[StevieDvd]

Language evolves it would be futile to try and keep it static.

[WJC]

ABSOLUTELY! But ... I feel my opinion is just as valid as those of anyone else that haunts these forums. And that opinion is the language should be altered by those a little farther up the academic and linguistic food chain and not those who do so out of ignorance. In some ways, we are all ignorant. But then, those of us who are should not be left to alter the language for the others. Today, we hear, read, and see, "FOR FREE" everyday, even though it is incredibly poor grammar. 

[Zeta Reticulan]

Grammar is a convention.

[Steve Ward]

On 28/04/2022 at 16:51, ollypenrice said:

Very true! I never fail to point this out, giving it the full pedant, to anyone else watching. It's a curious convention. It would be interesting to see the reaction if a film director decided to do it properly.

Olly

 

I think the correct depiction of said view in the movie  "Greyhound" raised it from a good movie to a great one in my opinion .... 😀

 

That said I'd never realised that the US Navy had developed such an advanced image-stabilisation system for their binoculars as early as 1942  ... 🤣

 

 

Edited August 27, 2022 by Steve Ward

[Stu]

5 hours ago, WJC said:

ABSOLUTELY! But ... I feel my opinion is just as valid as those of anyone else that haunts these forums. And that opinion is the language should be altered by those a little farther up the academic and linguistic food chain and not those who do so out of ignorance. In some ways, we are all ignorant. But then, those of us who are should not be left to alter the language for the others. Today, we hear, read, and see, "FOR FREE" everyday, even though it is incredibly poor grammar. 

Your opinion is, of course, just as valid as anyone else’s on the forum, but that’s the point isn’t it? Everyone has a different opinion so people will disagree with you! So long as it is done politely that’s fine.

Whilst I agree with you that language should be respected and only altered from a position of knowledge, that is unfortunately not how it happens at all! It evolves naturally as everyone uses it over the years. New words are invented and become adopted officially once they gain widespread acceptance.

Like you, I abhor ‘For Free’, ‘sat sitting’ and many other corruptions of the language and will continue to use the ‘correct’ forms, but it often appears to be a losing battle.

Oh, and without wishing to be deliberately contrary, I’ve always worn pants, not a pant, so I have always used binoculars, not a binocular 😀. That’s just how my brain works.

[Alan White]

I didn’t realise that the  thread was about linguistic use and grammar, 
Honestly I was sure the OP asked about what we used when describing the double barrelled instrument of a Binocular.

Languages evolve, have local variation and there is no correct form, only the form in use at the time due to evolving.

In the UK we have a flippant sense of humour, often missed by those who speak the language but not a native.

We all have an opinion, all equally valid in a society that holds free speech as a core value.
I however will not pitch in suggesting that someone is uncaring and uneducated!
 

[F15Rules]

I recall that about 20 years ago we hosted 3 young men of c 19-21 from Texas for a few days. They were part of a choir and I'll never forget the rendition one morning by one of them, on our patio, of The Star Spangled Banner..made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up! Amazing voices!

Anyway, we got chatting about how they loved our accent, so I asked if they'd like to learn how to greet a stranger in the accent of our Royal Family (most Yanks seem fascinated by the Royals🤔).

Of course, they said something like "Yes Sir, that would be real neat!!" (so polite, they were..😂)..

So I said, "I'll ask you 3 questions, and you just speak out loud the answers"..

Q1. What do we breathe in to our lungs?

A1 - "air"

Q2. What do most of us have on our head?

A2 - "hair"

Q3. What do you call a Fox's shelter?

A3 - "lair"

I then said.."Correct!! Now speak your 3 answers slowly out loud to hear exactly how the Queen would greet a stranger".. (go on, do it!!)...

Sorry..😂 

Dave

[JeremyS]

1 hour ago, Stu said:

Oh, and without wishing to be deliberately contrary, I’ve always worn pants, not a pant

Ah, but do you wear them outside your trousers, Stu? 😊

[Knighty2112]

Well of course it’s has got to be binoculars for ever!
 

Kind of funny but I have just for the 1st time last night ever watched the 1964 movie “My Fair Lady”, and was amused in some small way between the snobbish and priggish linguistic Professor Henry Higgins, and Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle. As for the English language (in its many variations around the world) evolves constantly, else we would all still be talking the stilted English of yesteryear.  In my lifetime I have seen/heard many words that back when I was a child had a totally different meaning than they do in todays English. New words have been added in, and some old words dropped totally (for good or bad). Now I am no English language expert and would never claim to be (this is my opion only and don’t expect everyone to agree with it) but would I like the English language to only be dictated down to us poor, uneducated masses by erudite people like Henry Higgins who would favour that his version of English be set in stone forever, and the voices of the likes of Eliza (i.e you and me, or is that you and I? ) be silenced? Eye thunk ya’ll no me ansa ta that as a big fat Nooooooo Guvna!  

[Mandy D]

10 minutes ago, Knighty2112 said:

Well of course it’s has got to be binoculars for ever!
 

Kind of funny but I have just for the 1st time last night ever watched the 1964 movie “My Fair Lady”, and was amused in some small way between the snobbish and priggish linguistic Professor Henry Higgins, and Cockney flower girl Eliza Doolittle. As for the English language (in its many variations around the world) evolves constantly, else we would all still be talking the stilted English of yesteryear.  In my lifetime I have seen/heard many words that back when I was a child had a totally different meaning than they do in todays English. New words have been added in, and some old words dropped totally (for good or bad). Now I am no English language expert and would never claim to be (this is my opion only and don’t expect everyone to agree with it) but would I like the English language to only be dictated down to us poor, uneducated masses by erudite people like Henry Higgins who would favour that his version of English be set in stone forever, and the voices of the likes of Eliza (i.e you and me, or is that you and I? ) be silenced? Eye thunk ya’ll no me ansa ta that as a big fat Nooooooo Guvna!  

Unfortunately, much of the time, the English language tends to devolve, rather than evolve. Today, we seem to be heavily influenced by American TV and movies. English grammar is "you and I". It is the Americans that suggest that "me and you" is correct.