One for the spelling police
Discussion
singlecoil said:
whoami said:
singlecoil said:
Censorious said:
Fortunately, the old chaps ticker must have been in decent order (or he was a bit mutton).
Being old, he could hardly have been lamb.Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a contraction of Mutt and Jeff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt_and_Jeff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
singlecoil said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt_and_Jeff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
In your first link it clearly confirms my point.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
Also see;
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/mutton
whoami said:
singlecoil said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt_and_Jeff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
1) In your first link it clearly confirms my point.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
2) Also see;
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/mutton
2) Perhaps you should send in a correction.
I daresay many people do think the mutton is a contraction of Mutt and Jeff, but they are as wrong as the people who believe that decimate is the equivalent of destroy.
singlecoil said:
whoami said:
singlecoil said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt_and_Jeff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
1) In your first link it clearly confirms my point.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutt
There's no demonstrable relationship between 'Mutt' and 'mutton'. Their sharing their first four letters is coincidental.
Mutt'n (being a contraction of Mutt and Jeff) would have been ok, if a bit odd. The proper contraction of 'Mutt and Jeff' is 'Mutt'.
2) Also see;
http://www.cockneyrhymingslang.co.uk/slang/mutton
2) Perhaps you should send in a correction.
I daresay many people do think the mutton is a contraction of Mutt and Jeff, but they are as wrong as the people who believe that decimate is the equivalent of destroy.
I don't need to send in a correction as it's already there.
Copied from your link supporting your point of view
"In rhyming slang, "mutton" is used as a shortening of "Mutt'n'Jeff", meaning "deaf"".
Oh, and you conveniently ignored the link I supplied.
Apology accepted.
whoami said:
I know.
Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a contraction of Mutt and Jeff.
No, it isn't. If you're using the term 'contraction' in it's grammatical application, which as this is SP I assume you are, you most certainly cannot add 'on' to 'mutt'. Note your cockerney link said 'shortening' not 'contraction'. The fact is that a grammatically correct contraction of 'mutt and' would be 'mutt'nd...'.Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a contraction of Mutt and Jeff.
If your post had read "Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a shortening of Mutt and Jeff [in rhyming slang]" you would have had a point.
goldblum said:
whoami said:
I know.
Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a contraction of Mutt and Jeff.
No, it isn't. If you're using the term 'contraction' in it's grammatical application, which as this is SP I assume you are, you most certainly cannot add 'on' to 'mutt'. Note your cockerney link said 'shortening' not 'contraction'. The fact is that a grammatically correct contraction of 'mutt and' would be 'mutt'nd...'.Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a contraction of Mutt and Jeff.
If your post had read "Mutton is perfectly acceptable as a shortening of Mutt and Jeff [in rhyming slang]" you would have had a point.
It's getting better...
Digger said:
goldblum said:
Hilts said:
I love these spelling police tear ups.
Why's that then?http://youtu.be/5BV8KfpE3BA
goldblum said:
Digger said:
goldblum said:
Hilts said:
I love these spelling police tear ups.
Why's that then?http://youtu.be/5BV8KfpE3BA
http://youtu.be/4VdCsXuccgU
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff