newbie looking for a cheap e-bike for commuting. Any recommendation?
- Thread starter trex
- Start date
Pedelecs, semantics....then Mussels comes along and we get......pedantic!.....don't think there is a plural though.
Regards,
Indalo
Regards,
Indalo
Now I am baffled! In what way is the Oxford English Dictionary wrong, for all I did was point out that the word "cheap" simultaneously has diametrically opposed meanings.
In responding to the criticism, I correctly observed that the meaning of the word has long been strongly biased towards negativity and gave examples.
The responses seem to be based on what the word meant to each individual, but that is surely an invalid basis for dispute when the primary purpose of language is communication with others, not oneself.
There is no wrong or right about the word "cheap", just more helpful terms that could be used. Cheap isn't that helpful a term being ambiguous and too widely applied, in my opinion.
But it also an anagram of peach...
Peachy Bikes anybody?
But it also an anagram of peach...
Peachy Bikes anybody?
Last edited:
That's exactly the point I was making originally Bob, and I couldn't understand the objections to the obvious. Language changes and some words, like cheap, lose their usefulness through change in meaning over time. How many in here would describe themselves as gay now.
Peach could be fine for an e-bike make, we've had Apple and Tangerine computers and the Datsun Cherry car. I'm sure others will recall more examples
Well, since you asked.
Dictionaries give meanings; they don't lay down rules but merely tell us that a word means this, or that, or in some cases this AND that, and then leave it for us to use as we freely see fit.
You use 'cheap' to mean tawdry. So do I, as it happens. But as dave8h says, it's all about context. "I want cheap housing" doesn't mean that I want tawdry, sub-standard housing. It means I don't want expensive housing.
So, we - well, as I can only speak for me - I thought you were wrong in your attempt to turn a discussion of possibilities into one of rights and wrongs.
And poetry? Perhaps this does point up a difference in approaches to problems, and to life, and divides us into those inclined to the arts, and those inclined to the sciences. Don't misunderstand me, I see a scientific approach to life as vital; without it we would still be reading chicken's entrails or consulting the stars. But even scientists need art; they need vision, flights of fancy, free imagination.
They need to sit in their laboratories and wonder 'Suppose I stuck an electric motor on that bike? Silly idea, but just suppose it worked.' It worked, giving thousands of us who have very little idea exactly HOW it works a new dimension of delight to our lives.
A
Absolutely not so. Dictionaries have always laid down rules and defined the language, in the course of that becoming the main authorities of national languages. The clearest indicator of this was the work of Joshua Webster in compiling the American English dictionary. For just one example, he disposed of the redundant "u" in such words as colour, ruling the way such words should be spelled in future, a ruling obeyed ever since in the USA. The OED also rule very firmly on meaning, choice, desirability and validity.
Dictionaries also lay down the rules on pronunciation and rule on whether new words appearing are accepted into the dictionary. As the OED will no doubt confirm, they most definitely don't give permission for us to use freely as we think fit. That liberty we take upon ourselves.
I wouldn't question the value of the arts, just their value in a discussion of this sort.
.
Last edited:
No dictionary, from Johnson's onwards, has ever been proscriptive in the way you imagine. No dictionary I have ever read says "don't call anything cheap, unless you mean it is tawdry"!
All they ever say is 'cheap means this, and cheap means that'. After that, context is all.
It really is quite simple.
It's not in my imagination Allen, you clearly have no understanding of the way in which the OED committees operate. Rules are their raison d'etre and the dictionary is a product of their rulings
You also appear to ignore the facts of Websters dictionary's origins.
Maybe when you've learnt something about these things you'll be better placed to discuss them.
You also appear to ignore the facts of Websters dictionary's origins.
Maybe when you've learnt something about these things you'll be better placed to discuss them.
'Twas certain he could write, and cipher too:
Lands he could measure, terms and tides presage,
And e'en the story ran that he could gauge.
In arguing too, the parson own'd his skill,
For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still;
While words of learnèd length and thund'ring sound
Amazed the gazing rustics rang'd around;
And still they gaz'd and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
Lands he could measure, terms and tides presage,
And e'en the story ran that he could gauge.
In arguing too, the parson own'd his skill,
For e'en though vanquish'd he could argue still;
While words of learnèd length and thund'ring sound
Amazed the gazing rustics rang'd around;
And still they gaz'd and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
