networkn:

 

I *HATE* it when people say Often with a T. I cringe every time. 

 

 

 

Do you prefer Offen of Ofden?

jonb:

 

networkn:

 

I *HATE* it when people say Often with a T. I cringe every time. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you prefer Offen of Ofden?

 

Offen. Not sure why you'd ever say Ofden, the T is silent and there is no D.

networkn:

 

Offen. Not sure why you'd ever say Ofden, the T is silent and there is no D.

 

If you have a nasal condition.

networkn:

 

I *HATE* it when people say Often with a T. I cringe every time. 

 

I'll admit this is the first I've ever heard that the T is meant to be silent. A quick Google indicates that either is acceptable.

I've been sitting here for a couple of minutes saying it out loud both ways trying to figure out how I naturally say it.

Paul1977:

 

networkn:

 

I *HATE* it when people say Often with a T. I cringe every time. 

 

 

I'll admit this is the first I've ever heard that the T is meant to be silent. A quick Google indicates that either is acceptable.

 

I've been sitting here for a couple of minutes saying it out loud both ways trying to figure out how I naturally say it.

 

It's not acceptable to the Queen :) It's not acceptable to any teacher I came across in any of my classes upto and including high school. 

I guess like lots of things, over time lots of things have become "acceptable" that aren't to me.

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

Offen. Not sure why you'd ever say Ofden, the T is silent and there is no D.

 

 

If you have a nasal condition.

 

 

 

I'd be more tolerant of someone who had a speech impediment, temporary or permanent. 

Apparently the T did not used to be silent. Until the 17th century it was pronounced. Then it wasn't. Now it is again, sometimes. Sources say both are now acceptable. Not sure what the Queen thinks about that.

networkn:

 

Rikkitic:

 

networkn:

 

Offen. Not sure why you'd ever say Ofden, the T is silent and there is no D.

 

 

If you have a nasal condition.

 

 

 

 

I'd be more tolerant of someone who had a speech impediment, temporary or permanent. 

 

 

 

My work history has made me very tolerant of language be it written or oral, I am more interested in what folks say or write and not how they say it or write.

networkn:

 

I guess like lots of things, over time lots of things have become "acceptable" that aren't to me.

 

Why does the word "curmudgeon" (with a silent D) spring to mind? ;)

MikeAqua:

 

From this morning - taxi drivers who brake in multiple sharp pulses of braking rather than one smooth one.  Very unpleasant. 

 

Taxi drivers who frequently brake and accelerate rather than maintain a steady speed, again un-comfortable and costing them more fuel.

 

Even worse, bus drivers who do this while you are a standing passenger 

Such as the word knight. It once was pronounced with a hard k.

People who neglect to change their addresses. Still get the occasional snail mail addressed to people who don't live here.

DarthKermit:

 

People who neglect to change their addresses. Still get the occasional snail mail addressed to people who don't live here.

 

We still get mail from a bank for the guy that we bought the house off... he rented it to us for 2 years before we bought it 3 years ago.

So he hasn't changed his address in over 5 years. :/

BlueShift:

 

MikeAqua:

 

People who use versing as verb for competing with someone: "I'm versing bob in tennis". 

 

If versing were a verb surely it would derive from verse -  to speak or composed.

 

Or the equally cringe-worthy past tense: "I versed Bob in tennis"

 

Versed is an adjective that means skilled or knowledgeable about something.

 

 

Seems to be very common amongst the kids these days. Odds are it will pass into normal usage. They are taking a valid anglicized latin word, versus, and converting it to a verb which is more economical than using the more correct "competing against" and more specific than the equally-sized "playing".

 

So "Our team is versing St John's this week" is quicker and sounds less formal than "our team is competing against St John's this week" and implies competition better than "our team is playing St John's this week".

 

It rubs me the wrong way too, but whatcha gonna do, its a living language, it grows, it changes...

 

The difference is that when I was growing up, either your teachers or your parents or both would tell you to speak properly. Today, apparently no one cares...!

A similar one that rubs me up the wrong way is when people ask you to 'uplift' something instead of collect it or pick it up!

surfisup1000:

 

Geektastic:

 

  

 

I disagree. You should, as a competent driver, always be aware of your speed. That does not require staring at the speedo - the information is quickly and easily gained in a passing glance, combined with your own experience and judgement. Speeding fines are voluntary payments.

 

 

Hard to tell what you disagree with, as I made several points. 

 

However, I disagree with your single point. It is impossible to stick to the exact speed limit. Road contour, speedo errors/jitter, wind conditions etc can all contribute to a slight variation in speed. 

 

Even the most competent driver in the world could not drive the limit. 

 

If police do not want drivers to exceed 50kph in a 50 at all, it would be preferable to reduce the speedlimit to 45kph with a 5kph tolerance. Many of our open roads are completely unsuited to a 100kph speed too. In those cases i'd support 0 tolerance, or, even better a reduction in the actual limit. 

 

 

 

So err on the safe side and drive at 5kmh less than the speed limit. I have been driving for over 30 years and have less than half a dozen speeding tickets in that time, every one of which I fully accept was my fault for not paying attention.

It does not matter what the limit is: it is not a target...! It is the driver's responsibility to decide what speed is correct up to that maximum. Take for example a random 100kmh road: if the limit was raised to 500kmh, you would have to be stark staring mad to even consider driving the average NZ road at that speed despite the fact that legally you could.

I absolutely agree that the limits are wrong in many cases, simply because there are many idiots on the road who are unable to exercise judgement when deciding what speed is appropriate and they are in need of being told to only drive at 80 or whatever instead of 100. They will probably still speed, because they are bad drivers who think rules apply to anyone but them, but you can't legislate for idiots in advance really. I suppose we could set a minimum IQ of 120 for getting a driving licence but I suspect that we would be short of a lot of necessary drivers if we did...!