EBME Forums Forums Free discussion Free discussion Spelling & language issues

===========================================================
EDIT! - This series of posts was removed from another thread.
Mike started this thread with post #62784 (8 posts down).
===========================================================


As a slight aside to the main topic, I always thought that foetal was the correct spelling and that fetal was an Americanisation similar to oesophagus/esophagus.
However fetal is derived from the Latin fetus and it is the Greek derived words that have the diphthongs in them.
So fetal is correct and foetal is an Englishisation (as oposed to an Americanisation).
Robert

You may be right there, Robert - about it resulting from the perpetuation of an historical error, but ...


Which is good enough for me!

Source:- Wikipedia

Geoff,
Yes it is the official British English spelling but it is wrong. I wonder how the o slipped in there way back then.
Where I currently work they use the "correct" (without the o) spelling in all official paperwork and on signs and it does not look right.
Robert

We have to blame it all on good old Saint Isidore*, apparently.

Do you mean "correct" as in "politically correct"?

Yes, I have already realised that anything that smacks of British Tradition must be considered inherently evil by default, to be mocked, and destroyed at all costs!

Meanwhile, I shall insist on continuing to use it myself until I "shuffle off ..." (as it were).

Is anaesthesia (from the Greek - and, therefore, correct) still allowed by the NWO Thought Police, I wonder ... or has that one been "rationalized" (read as:- dumbed down) as well?

See also:- orthopaedic, paediatric et al.

* "The last scholar of the ancient world"!

Why is it that we have to change the spellings of words that we have used for ages just to suit modernity. As far as I am concerned it is foetal (British) for me and not fetal (American).

And as for allowing sulfur to be used in chemistry exam answers and not deducting marks.
We seem to be bringing a lot of the ways of a certain colony back to the motherland - or should that ne momland?
Have you noticed that even if you set all the settings on your computer to British English Internet Exploere still has "favorites"?

I think there was a pedantic consultant who insisted that the Trust used the "correct" (pedant) spelling of fetal.
Robert

PS Are we getting a little off topic?

Sorry to be pedantic Robert, but if you're referring there to the USA - well it was never a single colony, was it? It was usually reckoned to be thirteen, if I remember rightly. "Divide and Rule", don't forget.

But I can agree that we're seeing a lot of the ways from many other former colonies being brought back to the Motherland ... and not all of them good, either.

In passing, did anyone else notice the recent news item about "protests" in Hong Kong? They were making a fuss about wanting independence, yet were waving the good old (pre-1996) flag as a rallying point? Seemed a bit ironic to me.

By all means start a new thread, Robert; this is far more interesting than the usual stuff about users not being able to use the kit properly.

Following on from the recent post where a few of us hijacked a thread about 'foetal' heart rate monitoring, can I make a few points about the 'hijacked' comments.

As I mentioned, I don't really see why we have to use the imported version of words that have been perfectly understood in British English for generations.

Geoff - yes, I think it was the 13 original colonies that you mentioned. They, of course are represented as the 13 stripes on the flag of the USA. However, 13 colonies eventually led to 'States rights' which eventually led to the US Civil War. That war was about preservation of the Union of course and not about the abolition of slavery as commonly believed.

Regarding the comment about recent demonstrations in Hong Kong and the waving of the pre 1996 flag - wasn't Hong Kong handed back to China for administration in 1999. I think so, unless my memory is failing me.

I would say that the reason for what we might call (by way of a shorthand notation) the "dumbing down" referred to is so that the whole world can communicate effectively (that is, not only converse, but understand one-another as well). If that means that we also have to swallow hard and tolerate a kind of universal pidgin English, then I guess (there you are, an "Americanism" right there!) that's a small price to pay.

It was either that, or Esperanto!

Like almost all wars (right up to the present day), the American Civil War need never have been fought (and then certainly not on such an horrendous scale), as sooner or later (usually the latter, sadly) everyone - or rather, those who survive - have to actually sit down and talk through their differences. I think it's known as "coming to terms".

But, put simply, we may attribute its causes to what we now know as a "North-South Divide" ... again, something that we're still familiar with, in many parts of the world, today. And (as you have already pointed to) disagreements over the need for "ever closer union" (... h'mmm, now where have we heard that before?).

Meanwhile, I believe that sovereignty of Hong Kong was transferred from the United Kingdom to the People's Republic of China at midnight on 30th. June 1997, officially ending 156 years of British colonial rule. I was out there myself from November 1974 to November 1976 - two years of pidgin English, yet I lived to tell the tale!

The appalling loss of indigenous languages world-wide seems to be gathering pace. If this eventually leads to a version of pidgin English/French/Spanish then that is far too high a price to pay in my opinion.

We all need to communicate, but it seems to me that as human animals the more we communicate, the more it leads to war, disaster and calamity. There is nothing wrong with trying to communicate in another persons language. Let's not dumb down to a common denominator.

Now, 'ever closer Union'. Yes, that led to the US Civil War, political war in the EU/EEC/Common market for the past 30 years and at present is leading to a possible break up of the UK. Sometimes I despair.

I stand corrected about Hong Kong. 1997 indeed. I just couldn't recall a date of 1996 in my head about transfer of sovereignty/administration over there. Good that you communicated with the locals there in 'pidgin English', but you still speak your lingo and they still speak theirs. Nothing in language lost there then. The world would be a much sadder place if we lose any more languages.