Annual Forces Circus Time At Greyskull - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Annual Forces Circus Time At Greyskull


Recommended Posts

The whole bigging up of heroes in the last few years has been to detract from the more dubiously motivated conflicts that we've been involved in

further back in time there was no need to constantly bang the heroes drum as it was universally accepted we were in the right

Edited by Bino's
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The whole bigging up of heroes in the last few years has been to detract from the more dubiously motivated conflicts that we've been involved in

further back in time there was no need to constantly bang the heroes drum as it was universally accepted we were in the right

That about sums it up. No just at ibrox, all over the place. I may not look it (not a word) but i am old enough to remember when the only time we remembered/celebrated the armed forces was november 18th. Edited by daddybuc16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That about sums it up. No just at ibrox, all over the place. I may not look it (not a word) but i am old enough to remember when the only time we remembered/celebrated the armed forces was november 18th.

11th?

I agree that Bino's right, certainly the first bit. Whether or not the earlier conflicts were 'universally' accepted to be right, we just didn't big things up back in the day. I blame Lady Di's driver. It's also the influence of the USA - forces fetishization is rampant over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11th?

I agree that Bino's right, certainly the first bit. Whether or not the earlier conflicts were 'universally' accepted to be right, we just didn't big things up back in the day. I blame Lady Di's driver. It's also the influence of the USA - forces fetishization is rampant over there.

Apologies. Feck knows why i had the 18th in mind. Probably means i have something important to do that i will probably forget about until the 27th that will land me in trouble wi the wife. :lol: Edited by daddybuc16
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a propaganda machine orchestrated by the governments of the day to make people think twice about critising their financial based decisions in going to war.

If we critise the wars "we" involve ourselves in them we are being disrespectful to the Heroes who put their lives on the line for us, for a wage and a pension.

There is little doubt as to the reason rangers embroil themselves in it. It's clear to all looking in and observing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's been a propaganda machine orchestrated by the governments of the day to make people think twice about critising their financial based decisions in going to war.

If we critise the wars "we" involve ourselves in them we are being disrespectful to the Heroes who put their lives on the line for us, for a wage and a pension.

There is little doubt as to the reason rangers embroil themselves in it. It's clear to all looking in and observing.

Nail on head

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if there are kids signing up who now expect more respect than was afforded in the past, as a result of the officially sanctioned heroes narrative?

Doubt it. Nobody I know who's serving classifies themselves as a "hero".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11th?

I agree that Bino's right, certainly the first bit. Whether or not the earlier conflicts were 'universally' accepted to be right, we just didn't big things up back in the day. I blame Lady Di's driver. It's also the influence of the USA - forces fetishization is rampant over there.

Those pesky yanks are also responsible for people using Z when everyone knows it should be an S !! its bloody annoying ;-)

Edited by Nobby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those pesky yanks are also responsible for people using Z when everyone knows it should be an S !! its bloody annoying ;-)

*sigh*

Uh oh.....

I know. Still, I don't think I've given the lecture on this version of the board. I'll try to keep it brief.

Nobby, the -ize suffix is not an Americanization. It was the standard form in British English until the mid 20th century. It is also the 'more correct' form.

The suffix comes originally from the Greek in which language it was was formed using the letter zeta (ζ) which transliterates into English as z. For some reason, the French form -ise started increasingly to appear in print following WWI, and it became the dominant form after WWII precisely because people assumed that -ize was an American import (the original form continued to be used in the States).

The better British publishing houses (eg: Oxford University Press, Faber) still use -ize, and the OED gives it as the primary spelling - if I look up, say, 'real...' in my 2008 edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary it states: "realize or realise". It was also, rather tellingly, the form used by the Times until that once proud journal was bought by Murdoch.

Edited by DonnyTJS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

I know. Still, I don't think I've given the lecture on this version of the board. I'll try to keep it brief.

Nobby, the -ize suffix is not an Americanization. It was the standard form in British English until the mid 20th century. It is also the 'more correct' form.

The suffix comes originally from the Greek in which language it was was formed using the letter zeta (ζ) which transliterates into English as z. For some reason, the French form -ise started increasingly to appear in print following WWI, and it became the dominant form after WWII precisely because people assumed that -ize was an American import (the original form continued to be used in the States).

The better British publishing houses (eg: Oxford University Press, Faber) still use -ize, and the OED gives it as the primary spelling - if I look up, say, 'real...' in my 2008 edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary it states: "realize or realise". It was also, rather tellingly, the form used by the Times until that once proud journal was bought by Murdoch.

Should that no be Concize then? Too many daft rules in English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should that no be Concize then? Too many daft rules in English.

No, the -ise in Concise isn't a suffix - you can tell this because there's no such word as 'Conc'. Compare, for example, 'realize', 'organize' or 'Americanize'. Plain and simple, nowt daft about it at all. (one slightly confusing one is 'advertise', but that's because 'advert' is a contraction rather than a proper root).

I think he was winding Donny up as already had the lecture, plus he put a winkey smilie.

I refuse to acknowledge the winky smilie. Still looks like a stroke victim to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

I know. Still, I don't think I've given the lecture on this version of the board. I'll try to keep it brief.

Nobby, the -ize suffix is not an Americanization. It was the standard form in British English until the mid 20th century. It is also the 'more correct' form.

The suffix comes originally from the Greek in which language it was was formed using the letter zeta (ζ) which transliterates into English as z. For some reason, the French form -ise started increasingly to appear in print following WWI, and it became the dominant form after WWII precisely because people assumed that -ize was an American import (the original form continued to be used in the States).

The better British publishing houses (eg: Oxford University Press, Faber) still use -ize, and the OED gives it as the primary spelling - if I look up, say, 'real...' in my 2008 edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary it states: "realize or realise". It was also, rather tellingly, the form used by the Times until that once proud journal was bought by Murdoch.

Interesting stuff. What about the likes of honour/honor and rumour/rumor etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*sigh*

I know. Still, I don't think I've given the lecture on this version of the board. I'll try to keep it brief.

Nobby, the -ize suffix is not an Americanization. It was the standard form in British English until the mid 20th century. It is also the 'more correct' form.

The suffix comes originally from the Greek in which language it was was formed using the letter zeta (ζ) which transliterates into English as z. For some reason, the French form -ise started increasingly to appear in print following WWI, and it became the dominant form after WWII precisely because people assumed that -ize was an American import (the original form continued to be used in the States).

The better British publishing houses (eg: Oxford University Press, Faber) still use -ize, and the OED gives it as the primary spelling - if I look up, say, 'real...' in my 2008 edition of the Concise Oxford English Dictionary it states: "realize or realise". It was also, rather tellingly, the form used by the Times until that once proud journal was bought by Murdoch.[/quot

Donny, apologies if you've done nothing else today you've educated this ignorant Englishman. I will stop getting stressed reading our American cousins documents immediately !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the -ise in Concise isn't a suffix - you can tell this because there's no such word as 'Conc'. Compare, for example, 'realize', 'organize' or 'Americanize'. Plain and simple, nowt daft about it at all. (one slightly confusing one is 'advertise', but that's because 'advert' is a contraction rather than a proper root).

I refuse to acknowledge the winky smilie. Still looks like a stroke victim to me.

I used to use the word "Conc" on almost a daily basis. It was an abbreviation though. Is an abbreviation not a word then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to use the word "Conc" on almost a daily basis. It was an abbreviation though. Is an abbreviation not a word then?

It's not a 'root' word, and suffixes are attached to roots.

And Nobby: no bother. Thing is, hardly any bugger knows this anymore; particularly English teachers - to their shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not a 'root' word, and suffixes are attached to roots.

And Nobby: no bother. Thing is, hardly any bugger knows this anymore; particularly English teachers - to their shame.

To be fair, if it was actually that important somebody would have invented the spell checker centuries ago. As long as folk understand what you mean, the spelling bit isn't that important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, if it was actually that important somebody would have invented the spell checker centuries ago. As long as folk understand what you mean, the spelling bit isn't that important.

I agree. Nothing wrong with using 'realise' / 'organise' etc, it's just that the '-ize' version unnecessarily gets people's backs up. And that's not their fault, it's the parlous state of English teaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...