Common mistakes or misnomers

[Over over under steer]

There’s instead of there are

People use there’s instead of there are dealing with plurals. It’s got so bad that even BBC Radio 4 is guilty of it now, previously my gold standard.

[Evoluzione]

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Evoluzione said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Evoluzione said:

Doofus said:

Evoluzione said:

2 sMoKiN bArReLs said:

Ooh, I’ve got another

Spiral staircase

Go on, i'll be that person. Why is spiral staircase wrong?

Strictly speaking they're helical, not spiral.

The Oxford and Cambridge dictionaries don't support that.

It’s one of them that’s changed.

When I was a kid it was inflammable that burnt and non inflammable that didn’t.

Now it’s flammable that burns and inflammable that doesn’t

As said, a spiral is purely a 2 dimensional shape

Sorry I disagree. There are different types of spirals, flat and downward. A staircase is a downward spiral.
If you think you can't have a spiral staircase then you have to write to all the dictionaries and ask them to change it.

I am about a hundred. When I was a kid we were taught that a spiral is purely a 2 dimension thing. Things may have changed.

You’ve given me another! Downward spiral!

Shut up and get writing
We had the window board/Cill argument recently and I did email Collins to inform them they were incorrect They wrote back that they'd bring it up at their next review.

[Evoluzione]

StevieBee said:

Evoluzione said:

StevieBee said:

When people say, "I recycle my waste"...... No you don't!

Waste is something that has reached the end of its useful and economic life.

Recycling is a material - a commodity - that requires placing back into the supply chain.

I don't think that's totally correct. Recycling is putting to good use something which would otherwise be treated as waste.
Once some items have been used we have to make the choice whether to recycle or throw in a hole and cover it up.
It isn't always about economics. It's cheaper to chuck some things in a hole than it is to recycle them, but we do re-use them.

Ah, well... you've unlocked the subject of much debate amongst the waste management illuminati!

But in the context of the thread subject and household recycling, my definitions stand as they are those embedded in legislation.

At a theoretical level, there is no such thing as waste as there is always something that can be done with it but economics, technology and practicality determine otherwise. Thus waste is defined as something that has no further practical or economic use.... on other words, it's not recycling.

Recycling is a material / commodity and therefore not waste.

You can therefore put out your cans, glass, paper, etc.. for recycling. But you cannot put out your waste for recycling because there's no means or purpose for waste to get recycled.

It's perhaps a bit pedantic on the terminology but ....it's PH!

I respectfully disagree
One mans waste is another mans treasure. You mention 'waste' in your last sentence, but don't specify what it is. What is it to you in this case?

You say there is no such thing as waste, but I can think of a few - nuclear waste being one.

On a personal level I'm a big recycler, not much goes in the bin here. Mainly plastics and glass.

[motco]

jayymannon said:

One that I first saw in the Council thread, Chester Drawers.

Bit old now but a small ad for a Fiat Mirror Fury and a portable typewriter by Sniff Coroner

[Roofless Toothless]

Windowscreen.

[Wacky Racer]

Evoluzione said:

One for you Wackeh; it's said Coronation Street is a cobbled street, but it isn't. They are actually stone setts.
Cobbles are irregular shapes like small boulders used as they were found, setts are regular and have been (manually) squared off.

It's Wacky btw.

(Love your house thread)

[Louis Balfour]

Roofless Toothless said:

Windowscreen.

I have never, ever heard anyone refer to a windowscreen. This isn’t just you, is it?

[Roofless Toothless]

As on another thread, ‘who’s fault?’

[21TonyK]

Food related...

Naan bread

Marinade and marinate

Proof and proove

Coldslaw

[Roofless Toothless]

Louis Balfour said:

Roofless Toothless said:

Windowscreen.

I have never, ever heard anyone refer to a windowscreen. This isn’t just you, is it?

You’ve been lucky. I’ll have to introduce you to my brother.

[Wacky Racer]

My mum once told me my driving was too erotic

[Evoluzione]

Roofless Toothless said:

Windowscreen.

Rear windscreen.

[StevieBee]

Evoluzione said:

StevieBee said:

Evoluzione said:

StevieBee said:

When people say, "I recycle my waste"...... No you don't!

Waste is something that has reached the end of its useful and economic life.

Recycling is a material - a commodity - that requires placing back into the supply chain.

I don't think that's totally correct. Recycling is putting to good use something which would otherwise be treated as waste.
Once some items have been used we have to make the choice whether to recycle or throw in a hole and cover it up.
It isn't always about economics. It's cheaper to chuck some things in a hole than it is to recycle them, but we do re-use them.

Ah, well... you've unlocked the subject of much debate amongst the waste management illuminati!

But in the context of the thread subject and household recycling, my definitions stand as they are those embedded in legislation.

At a theoretical level, there is no such thing as waste as there is always something that can be done with it but economics, technology and practicality determine otherwise. Thus waste is defined as something that has no further practical or economic use.... on other words, it's not recycling.

Recycling is a material / commodity and therefore not waste.

You can therefore put out your cans, glass, paper, etc.. for recycling. But you cannot put out your waste for recycling because there's no means or purpose for waste to get recycled.

It's perhaps a bit pedantic on the terminology but ....it's PH!

I respectfully disagree
One mans waste is another mans treasure. You mention 'waste' in your last sentence, but don't specify what it is. What is it to you in this case?

You say there is no such thing as waste, but I can think of a few - nuclear waste being one.

On a personal level I'm a big recycler, not much goes in the bin here. Mainly plastics and glass.

OK... so, going back to the original point of wrongness in what people say... i.e. "I recycle waste".

For a material to be recyclable, there must exist the technical capacity and systems to do so and demand for that material amongst manufacturers who buy it (generating the revenue to pay for the systems and technology).

Waste is determined as material that cannot be recycled - by which I mean there exists no demand for it and thus no technology or systems to process it.

Thus waste and recycling are two entirely different things.

You can recycle your plastic, bottles, cans, paper, etc.

But you can't recycle waste because there's no means to do so. Waste is defined by its unrecyclablity.

I'm cheating slightly because what I originally said was "I recycle MY waste" and here the definitions blur because what defines waste is also influenced by where it's generated. So in the household, plastic, bottles, cans, etc are considered waste because you no longer have any need or use for them.

So in this sense, you're not wrong. But neither am I.

The theory on there being no such thing as waste is a broad one and one that changes over time. Around the world, landfills are being mined for material once thought to have reached the end of its economic and useful life but we now know to retain much use and, crucially, value (mainly Plastics and Electrical Circuit boards). Polystyrene (the lightweight packaging stuff) can be recycled, there's equipment and processes that can do this. But at the moment, the cost is too high and the demand for the end product insufficient to justify doing so on any major scale. We can then explore the whole circular economy (recycling) - v - linear economy (Energy from Waste) thing but that's for another thread.

[2xChevrons]

Evoluzione said:

Roofless Toothless said:

Windowscreen.

Rear windscreen.

Oooh, that reminds me. When I started on the lowest rung of employment as a motoring journalist one of the first tasks handed to me was to reply to readers' letters. And one of the first was someone who had written in - by snail mail - to complain about how our price guide in the back of one of the magazines had a listing for a 'Volkswagen Beetle (Split-Screen)'. His contention was that you can either have a windscreen (which shields the occupants from the breeze as the car moves forward) or a rear window, so you can't have a Beetle with a split rear screen, because there's no such thing as a rear windscreen. You have to have 'Split-Screen' VW buses and 'Split-Window' Beetles.

This discussion went back and forth (all via letters) across several issues. I came to the conclusion that he's probably right in the technical and linguistic sense but why would you write in to a publisher to point this out and why would you argue the toss (and pay for the postage to do so!) over the course of many weeks. If I recall he didn't even own a VW.

[R56Cooper]

2xChevrons said:

Evoluzione said:

Roofless Toothless said:

Windowscreen.

Rear windscreen.

Oooh, that reminds me. When I started on the lowest rung of employment as a motoring journalist one of the first tasks handed to me was to reply to readers' letters. And one of the first was someone who had written in - by snail mail - to complain about how our price guide in the back of one of the magazines had a listing for a 'Volkswagen Beetle (Split-Screen)'. His contention was that you can either have a windscreen (which shields the occupants from the breeze as the car moves forward) or a rear window, so you can't have a Beetle with a split rear screen, because there's no such thing as a rear windscreen. You have to have 'Split-Screen' VW buses and 'Split-Window' Beetles.

This discussion went back and forth (all via letters) across several issues. I came to the conclusion that he's probably right in the technical and linguistic sense but why would you write in to a publisher to point this out and why would you argue the toss (and pay for the postage to do so!) over the course of many weeks. If I recall he didn't even own a VW.

Suspect he was a retired!

[Drew106]

J4CKO said:

Brought used in place of bought.

I am not spelling or grammar pedant but that one gets right on my tits, seems to be an age thing with younger folk getting it wrong.

Do they teach that in schools ? Its the wrong word, its not hard.

I assumed this was a midlands thing? Very common around here, most guys in the office under 30 regularly say brought instead of bought.

[Wacky Racer]

On Facebook groups.

Thank you for excepting me.......

[paulguitar]

Saying 'loose' instead of 'lose'.

DRS system.

DRS 'wide open'.

[motco]

2xChevrons said:

Evoluzione said:

Roofless Toothless said:

Windowscreen.

Rear windscreen.

Oooh, that reminds me. When I started on the lowest rung of employment as a motoring journalist one of the first tasks handed to me was to reply to readers' letters. And one of the first was someone who had written in - by snail mail - to complain about how our price guide in the back of one of the magazines had a listing for a 'Volkswagen Beetle (Split-Screen)'. His contention was that you can either have a windscreen (which shields the occupants from the breeze as the car moves forward) or a rear window, so you can't have a Beetle with a split rear screen, because there's no such thing as a rear windscreen. You have to have 'Split-Screen' VW buses and 'Split-Window' Beetles.

This discussion went back and forth (all via letters) across several issues. I came to the conclusion that he's probably right in the technical and linguistic sense but why would you write in to a publisher to point this out and why would you argue the toss (and pay for the postage to do so!) over the course of many weeks. If I recall he didn't even own a VW.

...in green ballpoint on a sheet torn from a spiral bound shorthand pad?

[Evoluzione]

StevieBee said:

Evoluzione said:

StevieBee said:

Evoluzione said:

StevieBee said:

When people say, "I recycle my waste"...... No you don't!

Waste is something that has reached the end of its useful and economic life.

Recycling is a material - a commodity - that requires placing back into the supply chain.

I don't think that's totally correct. Recycling is putting to good use something which would otherwise be treated as waste.
Once some items have been used we have to make the choice whether to recycle or throw in a hole and cover it up.
It isn't always about economics. It's cheaper to chuck some things in a hole than it is to recycle them, but we do re-use them.

Ah, well... you've unlocked the subject of much debate amongst the waste management illuminati!

But in the context of the thread subject and household recycling, my definitions stand as they are those embedded in legislation.

At a theoretical level, there is no such thing as waste as there is always something that can be done with it but economics, technology and practicality determine otherwise. Thus waste is defined as something that has no further practical or economic use.... on other words, it's not recycling.

Recycling is a material / commodity and therefore not waste.

You can therefore put out your cans, glass, paper, etc.. for recycling. But you cannot put out your waste for recycling because there's no means or purpose for waste to get recycled.

It's perhaps a bit pedantic on the terminology but ....it's PH!

I respectfully disagree
One mans waste is another mans treasure. You mention 'waste' in your last sentence, but don't specify what it is. What is it to you in this case?

You say there is no such thing as waste, but I can think of a few - nuclear waste being one.

On a personal level I'm a big recycler, not much goes in the bin here. Mainly plastics and glass.

OK... so, going back to the original point of wrongness in what people say... i.e. "I recycle waste".

For a material to be recyclable, there must exist the technical capacity and systems to do so and demand for that material amongst manufacturers who buy it (generating the revenue to pay for the systems and technology).

Waste is determined as material that cannot be recycled - by which I mean there exists no demand for it and thus no technology or systems to process it.

Thus waste and recycling are two entirely different things.

You can recycle your plastic, bottles, cans, paper, etc.

But you can't recycle waste because there's no means to do so. Waste is defined by its unrecyclablity.

I'm cheating slightly because what I originally said was "I recycle MY waste" and here the definitions blur because what defines waste is also influenced by where it's generated. So in the household, plastic, bottles, cans, etc are considered waste because you no longer have any need or use for them.

So in this sense, you're not wrong. But neither am I.

The theory on there being no such thing as waste is a broad one and one that changes over time. Around the world, landfills are being mined for material once thought to have reached the end of its economic and useful life but we now know to retain much use and, crucially, value (mainly Plastics and Electrical Circuit boards). Polystyrene (the lightweight packaging stuff) can be recycled, there's equipment and processes that can do this. But at the moment, the cost is too high and the demand for the end product insufficient to justify doing so on any major scale. We can then explore the whole circular economy (recycling) - v - linear economy (Energy from Waste) thing but that's for another thread.

We have to decide whether something is waste or recyclable.

Anyhow, lets have a game of 'Recycle or waste'. Come on Stevie, SPIN THAT WHEEL!

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, click.

So Stevie, for 2 points:




Someone has carelessly thrown chips on the floor. Recycle or waste?

Come on Stevie, clock is ticking.
10 seconds.....