Electricity meter checking, NSW

[David]

On 10/2/2013 11:57 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

"Sylvia Else"
On 2/10/2013 8:37 AM, Phil Allison wrote:
"F Murtz"

one article

http://www.project.nsearch.com/profiles/blogs/big-brother-to-switch-off-your-fridge-power-giants-to-make


** You would have to be very stupid to swallow one word of that drivel -
load and supply frequency are NOT related in the simplistic way being
suggested.

Blackouts, when they do occur, are not across the *whole supply grid* but
particular sub stations that experience faults or overheating of the
transformers.

For example: NSW, SA, VIC and QLD are all one grid and so share a common
frequency - which is derived and controlled from hydro generators in the
Snowy mountains.

Anyone who cares to check the frequency will see that variations from
50Hz
are small ( typically +/- 0.1Hz ) and are largely independent of the
time
of day or weather.

FYI.

Tasmania shares power with VIC via an under sea cable - but that cable
uses
DC so the frequency in Tasmania is not locked to the main grid.



A short term drop in frequency is an indicator that power demand is
momentarily exceeding supply.

** No it is not.




... Phil

Yes it is.

That is why power utilities install under frequency load shedding
relays. If the power system frequency drops it indicates that the load
exceeds the supply. The under frequency load shed relay sheds some load,
often industrial furnaces, smelters etc, which get special electricity
rates.

David

 

[F Murtz]

Bob Milutinovic wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40 years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a 'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous cells,
in series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be able
to mount the cells on ancillary buildings, or create a frame
specifically to hold them - assumign the entirety of the yard isn't
obscured by trees.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the English
language get a hold in Australia.

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b the
top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or unexpected
heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]

 

[yaputya]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...

Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40 years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a 'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an
oven, refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]

"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

 

[Bob Milutinovic]

"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40 years
as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a 'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous cells,
in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be able
to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b the
top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or unexpected
heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who can't
be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared decades
ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words of Douglas
Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a wonder their bums
don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in their own minds at least),
they've taken to adding ludicrous colloquialisms and bastardisations to
their dictionaries.

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

 

[F Murtz]

yaputya wrote:

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.

Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

than

 

[yaputya]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...

yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".

Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the Concise and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?

See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?

 

[yaputya]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2ofj0$mih$1@dont-email.me...

yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.

Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary

Yeah? Something in there you want to quote or what?

See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

than

 

[yaputya]

"Bob Milutinovic" <cognicom@gmail.com> wrote in message news:l2n9gg$ips$1@dont-email.me...

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:bb7mrbFpampU1@mid.individual.net...
On 4/10/2013 6:28 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.


The role of a lexicographer is to describe a language as it is used. It is not their function to seek to tell a population how
they should use their language.

Woe betide us then; within a decade they'll have "SMS speak" entered as legitimate words, given its propensity of use :-/

--
Bob Milutinovic
Cognicom

Oxford English Dictionary Adds Selfie, Derp, FOMO And More Words We Use Online
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/new-words-dictionary_n_3829770.html

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 5/10/2013 6:47 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bb7mrbFpampU1@mid.individual.net...
On 4/10/2013 6:28 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.


The role of a lexicographer is to describe a language as it is used.
It is not their function to seek to tell a population how they should
use their language.

Woe betide us then; within a decade they'll have "SMS speak" entered as
legitimate words, given its propensity of use :-/

Such is the process by which languages evolve. The mechanisms for
evolution seem to include stupidity, ignorance, laziness, emulation of a
desire status (copying the way the yanks speak), etc., ad nauseam.
Indeed, about the only mechanism conspicuous by its absence is any kind
of considered deliberate modification.

Despite all that, languages do not decay into uselessness because a
process of darwinian selection prevents it - any change that tends to
make the language less useful gets dropped exactly because it doesn't
get used.

Of course, little of the change seems to serve any useful purpose, and
people have been frustrated by it for centuries. No doubt they will
continue to be in the future. One thing is for certain, though; it's not
going to stop.

Sylvia.

 

[Glenn B]

On 5/10/2013 4:47 AM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

"Sylvia Else" <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
news:bb7mrbFpampU1@mid.individual.net...
On 4/10/2013 6:28 PM, Bob Milutinovic wrote:

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.


The role of a lexicographer is to describe a language as it is used.
It is not their function to seek to tell a population how they should
use their language.

Woe betide us then; within a decade they'll have "SMS speak" entered as
legitimate words, given its propensity of use :-/

DILLIGAF LOL ROFLMAO

 

[F Murtz]

yaputya wrote:

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the Concise and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?

Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why
would I need other dictionaries?

 

[yaputya]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2p6nm$av5$3@dont-email.me...

yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?

Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?

See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.

 

[F Murtz]

yaputya wrote:

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2p6nm$av5$3@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?



Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.

A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing
that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any
fad new word before you could sneeze.
the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new
word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may not have taken
hold otherwise.

 

[yaputya]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2qhfd$tv7$1@dont-email.me...

yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2p6nm$av5$3@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any
word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the
Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?



Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.






A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any fad new word before you could sneeze.

I can't find any such criticism of the Macquarie. Perhaps you are misinformed.

the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may
not have taken hold otherwise.

I doubt if dictionaries "legitimise" new words that way, the word has to be in
common use before it is included. You may not be using it but many others
would be doing so. The dictionary follows usage, not the other way round.

 

[F Murtz]

yaputya wrote:

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2qhfd$tv7$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2p6nm$av5$3@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any
word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the
Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?



Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.






A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any fad new word before you could sneeze.

I can't find any such criticism of the Macquarie. Perhaps you are misinformed.

the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may
not have taken hold otherwise.

I doubt if dictionaries "legitimise" new words that way, the word has to be in
common use before it is included. You may not be using it but many others
would be doing so. The dictionary follows usage, not the other way round.



And when challenged say indignantly, it is a word, it is in the dictionary.

 

[yaputya]

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2rfo2$3gd$1@dont-email.me...

yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2qhfd$tv7$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2p6nm$av5$3@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2o565$iha$1@dont-email.me...
yaputya wrote:
"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:l2lv3k$s75$1@dont-email.me...
Bob Milutinovic wrote:
"yaputya" <yaputya.leftlegin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bb7a70FmlrgU1@mid.individual.net...

"F Murtz" <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l2l6p7$sli$1@dont-email.me...
Jeßus wrote:
On Thu, 3 Oct 2013 06:04:06 +1000, "Bob Milutinovic"
cognicom@gmail.com> wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote in message
news:bb10b1Fd0m9U1@mid.individual.net...
On 2/10/2013 6:58 AM, Jeßus wrote:
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:05:57 +1000, Trevor Wilson
trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

I recieved a letter yesterday, telling me that Ausgrid wish to
perform
maintenance on my meter. Smells like a con to me. In almost 40
years as
an electricity consumer, I've never heard of a meter requiring
maintenance. I suspect they simply wish to fit my home with a
'smart
meter'. I don't want a smart meter.

Anyone else recieved this bullshit?

Things are not going to improve over time, why not go solar?


**Too many trees sheilding my roofs. I'm looking at amorphous
cells, in
series/parallel that may mitigate the worst of the problems.

Round-up... Copper nails... ;-)

Seriously though, depending on the size of your yard, you might be
able to
mount the cells on ancillary buildings,

That's what I did, as I didn't want panels or invertors on the house
itself. I split the panels between two shed rooves, it did mean a
second invertor and power board though.

BTW, the plural is "rooves" - don't let the Septification of the
English
language get a hold in Australia.

I wondered if someone was going to comment on that



The oxford english dictionary allows both

oxford dictionary.
roof // n. & v.
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)


1 a the upper covering of a building, usu. supported by its walls. b
the top of a covered vehicle. c the top inner surface of an oven,
refrigerator, etc.
2 the overhead rock in a cave or mine etc.
3 poet. the branches or the sky etc. overhead.
4 (of prices etc.) the upper limit or ceiling.
v.tr.
1 (often foll. by in, over) cover with or as with a roof.
2 be the roof of.
go through the roof colloq. (of prices etc.) reach extreme or
unexpected heights.
hit (or go through or raise) the roof colloq. become very angry.
a roof over one's head somewhere to live.
under one roof in the same building.
under a person's roof in a person's house (esp. with reference to
hospitality).
roofed adj. (also in comb.).
roofless adj.
[Old English hrof]


"Rooves" is definitely an outdated spelling from the 19th century.
The 1982 Australian Maquarie dictionary only has "roofs".

Pandering to the lowest common denominator, no less - i.e., those who
can't be imbued with a clue even with a four-by-two.

The maintainers of these dictionaries are the same ones who declared
decades ago that the letter "H" was a vowel. The folk who, in the words
of Douglas Adams's character Zaphod Beeblebrox, "are so unhip it's a
wonder their bums don't fall off." So in an effort to be "cool" (in
their own minds at least), they've taken to adding ludicrous
colloquialisms and bastardisations to their dictionaries.



The dictionary I quoted (old copy)OED is usually recognised as the benchmark, Websters is American and macquarie has any
word
yelled three times in their hearing.

You don't seem to realise what you have posted!
n. (pl. roofs or disp. rooves //)
The "disp." means DISPUTED.


Disputed does not mean incorrect.

Not correct either, eh? Hardly a ringing endorsement of it!
Words are NEVER removed from the OED so obsolete and disputed forms like "rooves"are there for ever.
As I posted elsewhere, if you look at ACTUAL usage of *British English* in the
British National Corpus, "roofs" has 100 times more entries than "rooves".


Your insulting comment about the Macquarie is just silly. The Macquarie contains
FEWER entries than the OED.

If correct I wager that they have many more "NEW" words.

I am correct.
As of 30 November 2005, the Oxford English Dictionary contained approximately 301,100 main entries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_English_Dictionary
Macquarie Dictionary Data - The full edition consists of over 140,000 references and over 210,000 definitions while the
Concise
and
other smaller editions as well as educational dictionaries are also available.
http://www.macquarieonline.com.au/anonymous@919CA23945883/-/p/dict/dataDeals.html

Wanna bet? OK, first you have to define exactly what you mean by "NEW" words.
Words added to the latest edition?
Words added since the first edition?
Be precise.
Then provide some evidence of how many:
1) "NEW" words are in the OED?
2) "NEW" words are in The Macquarie Dictionary?



Have you worked out what you meant by "NEW" words yet?




See if you can find "rooves" in the Cambridge University Press British English dictionary:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/

Can't find it in that British English dictionary, eh?




Don't need to as the OED is recognised as the benchmark of english, why would I need other dictionaries?

The point is, you were putting shit on the Macquarie (which IS the benchmark of
Australian English, by the way) because it didn't have "rooves". What you fail to
realise is that the OED NEVER deletes words, so they put in notations like "disputed"
and "obsolete" in entries for outdated words like "rooves". Most other dictionaries
simply delete such oddities after their usage falls to almost nothing.






A poster stated that it was rooves, I posted the OED version showing that it prefered roofs but could be rooves.

When maquarie dict. first started it was known for inserting almost any fad new word before you could sneeze.

I can't find any such criticism of the Macquarie. Perhaps you are misinformed.

the trouble with doing this prematurely is that it legitimises the new word therefore accelerating its introduction when it may
not have taken hold otherwise.

I doubt if dictionaries "legitimise" new words that way, the word has to be in
common use before it is included. You may not be using it but many others
would be doing so. The dictionary follows usage, not the other way round.



And when challenged say indignantly, it is a word, it is in the dictionary.

Do you actually have a copy of The Macquarie Dictionary? Can you cite some examples of
"macquarie has any word yelled three times in their hearing." that have gotten you so upset?