Sight versus site: one more time!
 

A sight is something one goes to see.

A site is the location of the sight.

I'd like to start a similar thread on high tea vs afternoon tea! :-)

Do I sight you because of this site but maybe the far sighted are over the hill rather than under the hill. Is High Tea with alcohol and afternoon with pablum? Youth wants to know :)

Also, cite is to quote authority, sighed is to have exhaled, side is a lateral part, and Sayed is an Arabic name.

Am I the only person left who writes it as pabulum? Pablum is a brand name, if I recall correctly from my youth......Perhaps this could be another thread for warring orthodoxies.

Ha! too funny!

personally, i refrain from correcting those on their grammar unless they have struck a nerve with me. in the big scheme of things, it isnt so important. many people just type fast for these forums and eschew proper grammar.

A multi-lingual Dane once told me that he had more trouble learning English than any other Indo-European language, including Icelandic. I asked him why.

"Well, because of your bizarre orthography. Sometimes 'read' is pronounced 'red' and sometimes 'reed' - and this kind of confusion is ubiquitous."

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

Though the tough cough and hiccough ought to plough them through the dough.

And a site can be a sight and a sight can be a site.

I'm sightless in gaza!!

Actually, I'm intrigued by how many people on this forum put "nite" instead of "night".
Is it now standard spelling in the US?

Yes, there's our old friend "high tea" where they thing that "high" means "posh".

Yes, oldie, some people do thing the strangest thinks.

Underhill:

Not so.

A sight is indeed something to see - and nothing else. A site is a location where all manner of things might happen.

Stonehenge, Pompeii, the Acropolis at Athens, Angkor Wat or the medieval church at the end of my street are "sights" only if you think they're just there to be gawped at.

If you're interested in interpreting the millions of clues about their history they contain, or that lie buried, or want to understand how they've related to their environment and their people since they were first built, they're "sites".

Archaeologists investigate sites, not sights. Historians interpret sites. Urban planners, conservationists and local communities debate what to do with sites. Governments squabble over encouraging or limiting access. Sites are living parts of a society: sights are the boring backdrops of tourists' photographs.

The flowers in my back garden are a splendid sight - or would be if the damn things remembered it's spring. But that garden is far more interesting as a site, stuffed as it is with relics of what people have been doing to that bit of land for the past two or three thousand years.

Oldie, according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000

"Nite" is defined as NOUN Informal Night.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but people use "nite", "tho", etc., as shortcuts, not out of not knowing the correct spelling, usage.

I have been enjoying the book "Eats Shoots & Leaves", by Lynne Truss. It's not about spelling, but punctuation (think about the title with and without commas). At what point do you sigh, remind yourself that language is a dynamic thing, and give in to the lowest common denominator?

Robespierre (or anyone):

Have you ever read "The Chaos"?

http://paul.merton.ox.ac.uk/language/poem.html

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head.

Maybe part of the confusion comes in when people go to historic "sites" to see the "sights". So they end up saying "we want to see the historical sights of Rome" when they really mean the "sites". I not only visit the sites, but when I'm there I often am impressed by the sight I see, as well as the site in general. The Colliseum is a site, but it is also a sight, so no wonder people sometimes get confused.

Is anyone else worried that our language is being hopelessly corrupted by internet 'text typing' and other aforementioned shortcuts? Not that I think it's a terrible thing to shorten medieval spellings of 'night' and 'though' to 'nite' and 'tho'... I'm more worried about the fact that many younger folks today no longer know the difference between such shortcuts and the official version. They speak in acronyms, sometimes no longer knowing what the acronyms stand for (indeed, or what an acronym is).

I don't speak through ignorance here -- I teach at a vocational college, and there are many students who have their GED rather than a diploma, or should never have received their diploma based on lack of reading, writing, speaking or math ability.

Our language is slowly and silently slipping into ebonics :(

Incidentally, it's "Colosseum." ;-)

Yea. I "sighted" that just after I posted.

>according to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000

"Nite" is defined as NOUN Informal Night.<

Another example of the general lessening of standards.

What will happen when the young people shorten "sight" to "site" and won't know that there is a difference?

Tonite I shall sit and mull on which site to cite, alrite?

((I))

Ah, language. Several people have even questioned me on the spelling of my screen name, asking why it isn't Neapolitan. According to some dictionaries, Neapolitan is an adjective -- in the style of Naples. But Neopolitan is a person from Naples. Yet you can find a mixed use and even a back up in some dictionaries, indicating that Neapolitan might also be correct as a person from Naples. Which should we believe?

I'm surprised that people are so short of time that "night" (five characters) needs to be shortened to "nite" (four, thus saving a whole keystroke), or that people need to shorten "with" to "w/" (saving another two keystokes). What do people do with all this extra time in their lives?

Greendragon-- What exactly is your definition of ebonics? I am sorry, but I was very offended by your usage of the term.

As an African-American, I do not believe in the term "Ebonics". I also do not believe that language is in any way a determining factor of a person's level of intelligence.

While I do agree that reading is an essential need and that we need to do more of it our public schools, I also fight against those that negatively stereotype people for talking in the dialect of their neighborhood or community.

Not all language that you feel is inferior would be classified as "ebonics". I also feel that you may be using this term in a way to negatively slight certain populations.

I believe that a person can speak "slang" and also speak professionally. I think being able to go between those two different modes of speaking is a learned skill that is useful.

I would be very curious to see what you feel is ebonics and who you feels uses this "language".

GreenDragon, my heart is with you, except for the ebonics comment, but I have to say that a language purist has a hard roe to how!

All languages change with time (whether the French Academy chooses to accept that or not!) and, so far as English is concerned, it is hard to know what the "official version" is. For many years as an editor I stuck with the Webster's Third Edition as my ultimate dictionary reference, but when my copy of it finally disintegrated and I couldn't find another, I gave in to the 21st century, grumbling all the way, of course.

In spite of the fact that current English usage often offends my ear, it seems to me that language must be responsive to the needs of its time. The speed of communication is a primary concern these days, thus nite for night in The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition as MissPrism points out, and so on. Add to that the decline in educational standards over the past several generations and you wind up with a supposedly literate adult population with a seriously diminished vocabulary, very little understanding of grammar and spelling deficiencies that curl this editor's hair.

Sorry if I came off harsh regarding the "ebonics" issue...

I am just not a fan of that term, and I feel that many people missed the issue around it. And I also feel that some people may be under the impression that the schools somehow want to teach this "dialect" or that all people of certain populations speak this way. Being from the culture that is named in this term, it is somehow irritating when people look at me in shock when I speak professionally or show off my odd and extensive vocabulary....as if they are surprised that I am able to speak a certain way other than what they deem as "ebonics".

Usually they will say things like "my, you are so articulate!".

Sigh.

Returning to the original theme of this thread. The use of "site" instead of "sight" may be yet another internet convenience. The "nite" vs "night" example was also mentioned above.

I have never understood this tendency. It seems that if anyone would have been desperate to use every abbreviation possible it would have been those poor ancient souls that had to write everything in longhand. And, yet, somehow most of them managed to resist this temptation.

Today, despite ergonomic keyboards, hotkeys, cutting and pasting, word completion software, etc., many internet users compulsively abbreviate or shorten words. It is even more puzzling when this effort only saves one or two letters.

Incidentally, the terms "site" and "sight" might be exchangeable in some contexts. When you are visiting a famous landmark, are you going to the "site" or the "sight"? In other words, are you going to the location or the thing? It's a matter of interpretation.

Gee, Underhill, you started a thread on this exact same topic back in June 2005. Did you scream as promised? Many times or just once?

When someone takes the time and effort to post a detailed trip report, I prefer to focus on the content and the poster's eagerness to share their travel experiences, rather than race for my Big Red Pen to note down all the grammar and spelling fox paws.

Most Fodorites express themselves fairly well. If they make a few grammar and spelling mistakes along the way, they could be due to jet lag, clumsy fingers, family distractions, or who knows what.

OK, now can we talk about seeking "advise"?

Hi birthdaygirlstrip
>Sorry if I came off harsh regarding the "ebonics" issue...<

Understandable.

The problem arose from some "Academics" who tried to convince us that what was merely uneducated American Englsh slang was somehow a language derived from African roots and should be accepted alongside standard American English - if not allowed to supplant it in the classroom.

It should not be surprising, then, that some laypersons would have gotten the idea that all Black African Americans spoke that way.

((I))

From an old UPI Stylebook (United Press International)

"A burro is an ass. A burrow is a hole in the ground. As a journalist, you're expected to know the difference."

I love that one.

Jules

I wish to apologize if my use of the term 'ebonics' offended anyone. It was not meant to be such!

I use the term to describe the manner of speech of many of my students. They are not all of one race, nor are the majority African-American. They are all, however, from a lower economic spectrum, and invariably are getting back into college after being away for some time, due to working, marriage, childbirth, etc.

The fact that they ARE back in college and attempting to learn encourages my faith in the future. However, the speech patterns that they come in with are very similar, and tie in to what the linguists have termed 'ebonics'. I used the term as a description of the dialect used by that particular economic stratum.

I am disheartened when I hear anyone who cannot communicate well in their native language. This does not include people for whom English is a second language (I live in Florida, we have lots of them!) -- they are usually trying hard to become bilingual, another laudable effort. But those who should have been taught to communicate well in English and CANNOT even when they try... that's a tragedy. Whether it is because they didn't care during school, or their parents didn't help, or they have ADD, or whatever the reason is, they are at a serious disadvantage in life. I do my best to correct this in class -- even though I am not an English teacher (I teach Accounting!)

My DH is going back to school at this same college. He is currently taking college English, and supports my opinions of the general lack of communication skills in the student body. Some are still passed in the English class. That's sad.

The language may change, but speaking and writing it correctly seems to have gone out of style, especially with the advent of the internet. In posts it's easy to tell the difference between an error caused by speed and one that comes from not knowing the correct word form.

How many spellings have we seen for itinerary?

A site is a blob of land where something is located--perhaps even a sight. A sight is something worth seeing for some reason. A site might be worth going to or not.

My house site is located at -----. But, as much as I do like my house, I wouldn't consider it a sight for sightseeing.

And then, there's leary used to mean leery and weary used for wary.

This has absolutely nothing to do with "site" or "sight" or anything else discussed on this thread, but I would like to know why people can't seem to spell "itinerary" correctly.

>there's leary used to mean leery and weary used for wary.<

and there's "loose" for "lose", "lead" for "led", "gaUntlet" for "gantlet" and 100 different ways to spell "itinerary".

((I))

I felt no hope for the future when I recently received an email that began...

"Could you help us with planning our trip to Province. We are recent college grajuates...."

Sigh. A sign of the "pass them along" and get them out of school ?

PB

It is not the point vernacular that matters.


VS