Matthew
I think you'll find Andrew was correcting himself! I would never confuse the two forms of there/their.
So their!
Phil
Phil Carlisle
Data Standards Supervisor
English Heritage
National Monuments Record Centre
Kemble Drive
Swindon
SN2 2GZ
+44 (0)1793 414824
http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/
The information contained within this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended for the addressee only. If you have received the e-mail in error, please inform the sender and delete it from your system. The contents of this e-mail must not be disclosed to anyone else or copied without the sender's consent.
Any views and opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of English Heritage. English Heritage will not take any responsibility for the views of the author.
-----Original Message-----
From: The Forum for Information Standards in Heritage (FISH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matthew Stiff
Sent: 08 February 2007 11:16
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [FISH] His Dark Materials Thesaurus 3: The Amber Compromise
Phil is correct in his use of "homonym" (although "homograph" would be
equally correct in this instance). There is only one way to pronounce
"brick" (allowing for variations in dialect....).
As a stickler for correct English usage (becoming increasingly colloquial
after a few beers) I think that Phil would not wish to defend his use of
"there". However, I would avoid taking him on in the spelling and grammar
stakes - We could get seriously off-topic and I, for one, would become too
intimidated to write an email without having a copy of Fowlers to hand!
Best wishes,
Matthew
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Larcombe" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [FISH] His Dark Materials Thesaurus 3: The Amber Compromise
> Andrew Larcombe wrote:
>> CARLISLE, Philip wrote:
>>> Now we still have to get round the contentious issue of the B-word (ie.
>>> when is a material, a material and not a form of material).
>>
>> I'm not sure you do. Isn't the problem that labels are being conflated
>> with concepts in much of this debate. We have two concepts (brick the
>> material, brick the object) - have two entries in the hierarchy, one for
>> each concept, they just happen to have a similar label. In terms of
>> disambiguation from a user's point of view, they should marked as
>> homonyms with a reference to their wider term, and a link to there
>> related homonym, eg
>
> Please replace homonym with homograph...and that last sentence should read
> 'link to *their* related...'
>
> Apologies to the grammar police. :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> A
>
> --
> Andrew Larcombe
> Freelance Geospatial, Database & Web Programming
>
> web: http://www.andrewlarcombe.co.uk
> email: [log in to unmask]
> mob: +44 (7760) 258623
> icq: 306690163
>
|