thinkinginimages
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,806
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,489
But not "ginormous". That's just a silly word, but Webster has it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
"Gear" or "gears" ?
- Thread starter glassoholic
- Start date
pannumon
Senior Member
The point was that sometimes it goes the other way around.
Maybe in 2100 gear is an obsolete term, and maybe then the proper form is gears.
I certainly am not prone to say what terms mean in English, but as as I have understood, gear is what you have, and kit is something that belongs together, for example what you carry with. Yes, this is what you just said, but those are two completely different things, right?
Last edited:
thinkinginimages
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,806
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 1,489
You're absolutely right. I never picked up on using "gear" for camera equipment. I'm not really sure why, either.
The questions I heard more often were usually "what camera do you use?" or a variation of that. It was more related to a system. "Kit" was used more collectively, as in "do you have your kit with you?" or "grab your kit and lets go".
It's hardly a rule, but probably more specific to the people I've worked with over the years. You pick on their lingo and adopt it for clarity.
The questions I heard more often were usually "what camera do you use?" or a variation of that. It was more related to a system. "Kit" was used more collectively, as in "do you have your kit with you?" or "grab your kit and lets go".
It's hardly a rule, but probably more specific to the people I've worked with over the years. You pick on their lingo and adopt it for clarity.
JaKing
Veteran Member
Highly unlikely. Millennials seem generally to contract things, often to gibberish.
pannumon
Senior Member
Millenials? There will be like 8 generations of youngsters defining the language before 2100. This is like how our grandparents would be explaining to their grandparents how they were using the language in a new way, and how their grandparents did not get it. I am having a hard time understanding the words and symbols the people 10 years younger than me are using. And I'm like in the Internets all the time!
Edit.: I changed the grandparents part. And I still not like it, but the point is there anyway.
Last edited:
Messier Object
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 13,909
- Solutions
- 15
- Reaction score
- 14,947
History and origins are important John, but things evolve especially with technology.
The word “data” is a good example. Once it was solely the plural of “datum”, now with the advent of IT industries it’s also correct to use “data” as singular , eg the IT guy may say “the data is being transferred at 10 Gbps”. The IT guy has no knowledge of or interest in the actual datum points. To him the data is like a pile of sand that needs to be moved or stored. The size, shape, colour and composition of the individual grains is irrelevant.
The environmental scientist may also say “the data are crucial to my research”. To her the datum points, their values and how they are interpreted are what’s important.
Data is, data are - both OK in the right context.
And I can see how “gears” may be correct in some contexts, eg a bag of camera gear is on the floor, with a bag of sewing gear, a bag of fishing gear and a bag of sporting gear.
What are all these gears doing on the floor ?
Like “fish” and “fishes” with different species present we invoke the “-es” form.
But “forums” and “fora” . . . I can’t see any context in which “forums” is correct :-(
Peter
The word “data” is a good example. Once it was solely the plural of “datum”, now with the advent of IT industries it’s also correct to use “data” as singular , eg the IT guy may say “the data is being transferred at 10 Gbps”. The IT guy has no knowledge of or interest in the actual datum points. To him the data is like a pile of sand that needs to be moved or stored. The size, shape, colour and composition of the individual grains is irrelevant.
The environmental scientist may also say “the data are crucial to my research”. To her the datum points, their values and how they are interpreted are what’s important.
Data is, data are - both OK in the right context.
And I can see how “gears” may be correct in some contexts, eg a bag of camera gear is on the floor, with a bag of sewing gear, a bag of fishing gear and a bag of sporting gear.
What are all these gears doing on the floor ?
Like “fish” and “fishes” with different species present we invoke the “-es” form.
But “forums” and “fora” . . . I can’t see any context in which “forums” is correct :-(
Peter
Last edited:
JaKing
Veteran Member
Peter, while I agree that forum/fora is correct per its direct Latin origin, "forums" regularizes that in accordance with common English form. After all, Latin has been a dead language for over a millennium.
Personally, I mostly use "fora".
Similarly, the only "I" in Latin is a short "I". Many modern pronunciations that are derived from Latin roots are now pronounced with a long "I", e.g. "dinosaur".
The English of Chaucer (or New Zealand, USA) is very different from Southern Received Pronunciation of the modern UK.
Personally, I mostly use "fora".
Similarly, the only "I" in Latin is a short "I". Many modern pronunciations that are derived from Latin roots are now pronounced with a long "I", e.g. "dinosaur".
The English of Chaucer (or New Zealand, USA) is very different from Southern Received Pronunciation of the modern UK.
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
In some countries the plural is just repeating the first word - eg: Wagga Wagga and Grong Grong and not Waggas or Grongs - but there is only one Wagga Wagga or Grong Grong so we just call it Wagga (and presumably “Grong”).
But if there were more Waggas then there surely would be a problem ....
... we are all mad in Australia
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
you'll find in sceptered isles that most of the oi polloi liberally make use of "slang" in their everyday communications, couple this with regional accents and it can be a little difficult to understand certain individuals, for my sins i have to help some Dutch citizens this morning with their usage of the English language.....they'll be singing along to Mary Poppins and sounding like **** van Dyke in no time, that i can assure you
Olymore
Senior Member
Actually the English adopted it from their German (Angles & Saxon) conquerors.
With a healthy dose of French added when they conquered England (and gave them words such as conquer)
Considering the origins of the Royal Family it seems appropriate to call it the Queen's English.
--
There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Beware of Geeks bearing Gifs
With a healthy dose of French added when they conquered England (and gave them words such as conquer)
Considering the origins of the Royal Family it seems appropriate to call it the Queen's English.
--
There are 10 types of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.
Beware of Geeks bearing Gifs
Last edited:
New Day Rising
Veteran Member
Interestingly, sugar has taken on an additional specific meaning that has become countable - a specific measure of a teaspoon or sachet full of sugar. So it is acceptable language to ask for a coffee with two sugars.
Water as a countable noun is similar though less precise, though it becomes concise in context. For instance, it can be valid in a shop to ask for two waters when it is clear in contact that this means two bottles of water. In a cafe, 'two waters' might be easily understood in context as two glasses of water.
Even asking for 'two milks' can be valif when there is a shared understanding of the measure on offer.
camera gear.
Most of the the grammatical error examples on Grammarly ad on YouTube are those that only native English speakers would make (Your - You're etc.). Then there are probably a lot of basic errors I make all the time, that none of the native English speakers would ever do.
Feel free to correct my language on this message.
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
the language has a whole host of influences from all over the globe so it has become much more than it ever was, i live in the Netherlands these days and there are certain elements common with the Dutch language/dialect, grammar not being one of them, but Dutch is far more closer to German than English is these days
pannumon
Senior Member
I meant generation of "slang". The internet, online video games, smartphones etc. have all revolutionized the way language is used. There are also plenty of totally new words.
I believe the change in English language is not as big as in many other languages, that are influenced by English (English is the dominant language in the internet).
It's easy to see how English language has evolved by comparing the written and the spoken language. I would say that most of the changes are irrelevant from the perspective of language being more understandable. The example of peas having a separate singular form basically makes the language more understandable, though.
Good to have some serious international co-operation - at least when it is written it sounds much the same ....
W
Wu Jiaqiu
Guest
it got cancelled unfortunately, it's something voluntarily i do as the University where i live in the Netherlands has decided English will be it's main language.....yup crazy i know, so all meetings must be in English and whilst the Dutch are OK using English they need help with diction and extending their vocabulary, i've also suggested they talk with different English native speakers from around the world as it helps with different accents they will face.....plus free coffee and cookies
I think that we should state here that Australians think kindly about these placenames and always know that the correct name is the repeated one - but lazy conversational speech refers to these places by the single utterance of the name - this is no disrespect given or taken as far as I know.This is actually because those place names come from an Aboriginal language (of which there are many and were many more). Pluralisation is achieved in many Aboriginal languages by repeating the word.In some countries the plural is just repeating the first word - eg: Wagga Wagga and Grong Grong and not Waggas or Grongs - but there is only one Wagga Wagga or Grong Grong so we just call it Wagga (and presumably “Grong”).
But if there were more Waggas then there surely would be a problem ....
... we are all mad in Australia
Here in Canberra we have an area that was known as Mugga Mugga. There is an historic Mugga Mugga homestead still, Mugga Mugga Lane, Mount Mugga Mugga. The word Mugga comes from the Ngunnawal/Ngambri language and means 'diamond python'. Mugga Mugga refers to the fact that there used to be a lot of pythons. Sadly there are none at all now as the early settlers made them extinct.
Often the meanings get lost in time and the placename simply indicates the naming of the place.
I have looked up “Wagga” and it seems to either mean “crow” which is an introduced species as far as I know in Australia, but maybe it was introduced a long time ago. Others are “reeling as if sick” or “dancing and sliding”.
So we could say that Wagga Wagga was either a place of many crows or both other meanings could indicate a place of much dancing or a host area for local gatherings or corroborees. If the latter is more acceptable - it is to me - then we can either go to dance or see it as a place where a lot of others are dancing. Nice thought.
I thought that the location of traditional dance areas were known as Boree, but maybe it varied according to the local language prevailing.
JaKing
Veteran Member
Then there's Cunna-bloody-mulla ... ;-)
The issue here is that language is often used loosely where there is no definitive description. Also it comes to be adopted with subtle variations in various parts of the world. Eventually a loose description become adopted by enough people to make it a proper word.
In my mind both “gear” and “kit” are still “loose” words that are pressed into decribing what is “equipment” where the word “equipment” does not satisfy the user of the word.
To my own mind “gear” is more “mechanical-oriented” whilst “kit” is more like what a soldier would own and carry as his necessary clothing and other essentials (in a kit bag). But none of these is a wrong word and people can generally figure out what is meant by association with other words or in the context of the other subject matter.
Gears might take some work to take the imagination of the native-English speaking world as it flies in the face of the conventions that are drummed into us at school.
There is another word in American English that truly grates on British English ears and that is “gotten” which we were always instructed as should be “forgotten”. It is technically a correct usage but we were told that theere was always another word that could be used.
Because we were told that this was not a good word to use - it does come accross as a “common” word to us. But I forgive its use as it is just another way of expression.
Will we get “U” speak from persistent texting on mobile phones - a form of Pidgin English?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum