liquidator said:

According to Webster's and Princeton University the words are pretty much
interchangeable.

That's like saying brass bolts and steel bolts are pretty much
interchangeable. All the dictionaries are telling you is that you won't be
misunderstood by choosing one word or the other. You have omitted to
enrich your opinion with the stylistic inflection, and concomitant
connotation, of choosing grammatical over grammatic. Furthermore, it's not
a question merely of meaning but also of usage. Why are both words current
and equally prescribed if no difference exists? One would expect the
less-used word to fall into disuse or archaism. And yet both are still
easily recognizable as commonly used.

While I agree grammatical sounds less clumsy, I spent time as a journalist,
where if two words are synonyms, the shorter is generally preferred. There
the concern is fitting information into less space, the economics being
space is sold for money.

"Journalistic style" is the apotheosis of elegance in writing. All
newspapers also require omitting the serial comma (sorry, don't know the
Brit term) in the same cause of saving space.

Actually I was defending you. Complete mastery of the language is not
necessarily part of getting an engineering degree.

The Usenet law about a grammar flame (or is that grammer flayme?)
automatically engendering a grammatical error was fulfilled.






--

Lionella loves the Krooborg from afar. With mud on top.

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hey, Keefie, I don't mind an entertaining fellow like you hijacking my
threads for your amateur recording efforts, but some of these guys
exist solely for the purpose of eating alive those who poach on their
preserves.


:-)

Sounds a bit ominous.....

But I hafta say - anyone crossposts into ukra gets treated as 'fair game' in
my book, although I admit I didn't spot it until too late! (Too fekkin' late
now anyway.... :-)



When they finish with you,


Hah!

Do they know the *Tiger Hand* move...??

See:

http://www.rockpapersaddam.com/one.html


for clarification....


you might enjoy this, in which I put the
seal of doom on Slapdash Krueger's pretentions to being a recording
engineer:

http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1

Heh-heh!


This I particularly like:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg


I want one!! :-)

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:19:22 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"



Not necessarily - check your Webster's. (It probably depends on the way it
is used in a specifical context.... ;-)


Grammatical would certainly be the common usage today.

Now, as you obviously have a little time on your hands, you might be
interested in this (which I nearly didn't bother to post, due to its
near-uselessness):


I have recorded this array of speakers:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show...r%20lineup.JPG


With a single (ribbon) mic, set back in a reet lazy-like, 'catch-all'
postion thus:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/mic%20setup.JPG


And (as well as a lot of 'roominess') captured the following:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20A.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20B.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20C.wav

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/Speakers%20D.wav


I would be interested in any comment you have and also which one you think
'best' or 'least worse'...?? (Or order them in accord with your preference?)

(I am only really interested in a direct comparison between two of the
speakers in question and may well post a better-miked comparison shortly,
but have included them all here out of casual interest....)



Hard to tell them apart, with the exception of C, which seems to be
falling over a bit in the bass. The amount of room makes the
comparison hard though.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:35:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


This I particularly like:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg


I want one!! :-)



I think that is what they used to compile that "Love" abortion of old
Beatles tunes. Not this high-tech version though, the base model.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Jason Lavoie wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:
Graham "Poopie" Stevenson claims to be a qualified engineer. Yet he
wrote:

Andre Jute wrote:

There is a mechanical property of metals that most of the qualities in
a rod is concentrated in the narrow section of the rim.

Is that so Jootikins ?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's exceedingly unprofessional lack of
professional gravitas.

I expect that if true, this knowledge must be widely available. How about a cite
?

We'll skip lightly over Poopie's illiterate use of the verb "cite" for
the noun, "citation", or Poopie's appalling misuse of that concept when
he means "reference".

But what sort of an engineer has never heard of Timoshenko's Strength
of Materials? Several hundred editions were published in the last
hundred years. It is a reference known to every engineer and techie, to
every scaffolder and rigger. But Graham "Poopie" Stevenson is ignorant
of Timo!

Is there is anyone who was at college with Poopie Stevenson who can
confirm his claim that he qualified as an engineer? Not that a diploma
guarantees competence -- we've seen quite a few diplomaed quarterwits
on these newsgroups over the years -- but at least its lack would be a
start towards explaining Poopie Stevenson's ignorance on this and other
matters essential to any self-respecting engineer.

Andre Jute
The trouble with Poopie is not what he doesn't know, but what he knows
for certain that isn't true. --- with apologies to Mark Twain

those of use who are not mechanical or structural engineers will almost
certainly not be familiar with timmy's strength of materials.
electrical engineers are not required to study structures at length.

Jason

That may be true, Jason, but if you cast your mind back I think you
will discover that the reason pipes are preferred to rods was mentioned
in the first ten minutes of whatever time was given to structures.
Poopie Stevenson above admits that he is ignorant of an engineering
fact known by every hotrodder in the world. And, if he doesn't know any
hotrodders to straighten him out, he claims to have associated with
rock groups, so how come he lacks the curiosity in forty years to ask
the roadies and riggers why they use tubes rather than rods for
erecting stands? I mean, this idiot Poopie Stevenson has the monumental
cheek to lecture people who actually build their own gear on "science",
but he has no common curiosity, and no common sense either, just a
little bit of rote learning that he spouts as rules of thumb as if he's
frightened that thought will tarnish him.

timmy's strength of materials.

Timoshenko was an educated Ukrainian of Victorian times. He would not
have spoken with the strangled peasant accent later popularized by
Kremlin-dwelling Ukrainian scum like Kruschev. So the likelihood is
that he would have pronounced his name tea-moe-shank-ko, not
tim-mo-shenko. So I prefer Timo to Timmy, though I surely admire your
familiarity with the great man.

Andre Jute
Impedance is futile, you will be simulated into the triode of the Borg.
-- Robert Casey

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 16:35:49 -0000, "Keith G"
wrote:


This I particularly like:

http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg


I want one!! :-)



I think that is what they used to compile that "Love" abortion of old
Beatles tunes. Not this high-tech version though, the base model.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Now just wait and see how many people don't grasp that Don is making a
joke, and write in to ask where they can buy the same gear as the
Beatles were recorded on...(The URL is below, fellers.)

I've always wondered if that handsome little man in the piccie on the
box at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ProSoundStudio.jpg
is Gupta "Dashmeboss" Mokkerjee the Acolyte or Arny "Slapdash" Krueger.


For elucidation, see:
http://groups.google.ie/group/rec.au...ab2e5873e3e7a1

Andre Jute
This is the season for exposing heathen hypocrites skulking in the pews.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:27:47 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:12:57 -0500, "liquidator"
wrote:

And the fact that he makes grammatic errors only reinforces he's an
engineer.

Pot/kettle?

"grammatic" should be "grammatical"

"only reinforces he's" should be "only reinforces the supposition that
he's"

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Nope. Look it up.

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

--
Eiron.

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Don Pearce wrote:

On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 18:36:20 +0000, Eiron wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

The word "grammatic" isn't even in Merriam-Webster online. In
Dictionary Online it is given the meaning "of or pertaining to
grammar", which is not the usage we had here, which was of the correct
use of grammar - the word for which is grammatical.

The OED has no entry for grammatic.

Mine does, and that's just the Shorter OED.
When I'm feeling really pedantic I cycle seven miles to the public
library to consult the full 24 volume edition.

Quite so. But grammatic and grammatical mean two quite different
things. You can talk about the grammatic structure of a sentence, but
if you are discussing the correctness of that structure, the word is
grammatical.

Americans often have trouble with different meanings. See alternate and
alternative for example.

Graham