-
How is the area described in the article not "the foremost part or area" of the station?
Well, the area described in the Hansard link isn't part of the station at all.
That's all kinds of confusing. Are you saying that Hansard has correctly used the term 'forefront' because it implies not being part of the building?
No, I'm saying that the misuse of "forefront" clearly is confusing, because it led you to confuse a discussion about the area in front of the building, with one about the front of the building.
The bit I quoted from Hansard is talking about the open area in front of the building, and not part of the structure itself.
This is not the "foremost part or area" of the station, because it isn't part of the station at all. It's an open area in front of the station building, which is not part of that building.
It's a bit like a courtyard, but not enclosed, and in front of (or to the fore of) the station. A forecourt, in fact.
So a station forecourt is part of the station,
A station forecourt isn't part of the station building, it's just an open space in front of it.
I guess it's part of the station complex in some sense, but the whole reason for that Hansard question was that ownership of and responsibility for the forecourt is less clear than for the station itself.while a station forefront isn't?
I'm not sure what that means, if anything. It can't have a backfront/rearfront/aftfront, it can't have side-fronts. Do you just mean the "front"?
-
No, I'm saying that the misuse of "forefront" clearly is confusing, because it led you to confuse a discussion about the area in front of the building, with one about the front of the building.
Where have I done that?
The bit I quoted from Hansard is talking about the open area in front of the building, and not part of the structure itself.
And Hansard refers to it as a 'forefront'. Are you saying that's incorrect or correct usage? (genuine question).
while a station forefront isn't?
I'm not sure what that means, if anything. It can't have a backfront/rearfront/aftfront, it can't have side-fronts. Do you just mean the "front"?
"Station forefront" isn't a widely used term, but I'm assuming you're intelligent enough to understand it in the context of the article Oliver originally had a problem with. I'm assuming you didn't read it and draw an utter blank at the word "forefront" as if it was:
Multi-million pound plans to redevelop the gesploiven of a south London train station have been criticised by residents for delivering "next to nothing".
Criticising the apparent tautology of the word forefront isn't really valid here. You'd not make similar complaints if it were used as in: "a cabinet post thrust him to the forefront of British politics".
-
A station forecourt isn't part of the station building, it's just an open space in front of it. I guess it's part of the station complex in some sense, but the whole reason for that Hansard question was that ownership of and responsibility for the forecourt is less clear than for the station itself.
In the ES article, the forefront (or forecourt if your prefer) is unambiguously a part of the station complex in the same way that a garage forecourt is part of a garage complex. If you were standing on a garage forecourt putting petrol in your car, you wouldn't say you weren't at the garage.
-
The Hansard question was about the area in front of the station, and not the front of the station itself.
Oliver suggested, and I agree, that the use of "forefront" there was a mistake.
You asked
How is the area described in the article not "the foremost part or area" of the station
and I pointed out that it specifically didn't refer to the front of the building. If you thought it did, due to the use of the word "forefront", then that confirms the word is misleading, because it misled you.
On the other hand, if you're talking about the ES article while I was still taking about that Hansard question, then we're completely at cross purposes š¢
-
A station forecourt isn't part of the station building, ...
In the ES article, the forefront (or forecourt if your prefer) is unambiguously a part of the station complex ...
Yeah, I was only looking at the Hansard question about King's Cross, where the forecourt isn't part of the station.
It seems reasonable to consider the open-air bit of a bus station part of the station itself, and the same for a garage as you say. It's not even confusing in this context - but I'd still choose forecourt.
-
"Many thanks for your notes, I will review and revert back if necessary."
My manager sent this to me and it saddens me. I did search it on google so that I wasn't getting het up over nothing and in this context he is sort of right but google says it is used like this in India. -
Roads Plod use of "would of" where "would've" should've been used boils my piss. It was a link via BBC News.
https://twitter.com/Trafficwmp/status/860822161426194432 -
*should of
-
Why I ort a!
-
Some of 'you guys' don't even type sentences.
-
'Fallen fowl.'
-
I have a colleague who consistently says "Pacifically" instead of "Specifically" and when I call her out she just laughs.
Also she keeps saying things are "Rediklus"
Aside from that, most emails are met with "oh my god", "good god", "for Godssake" regardless of content. Mostly they are not relevant but she blasphemously heralds each and every one. -
Sounds like a right leg end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76Aj53MbyKU&list=PL511E6F206D175777&index=11
&v=76Aj53MbyKU -
Wrong video- it is the playlist of secret life of hoodies rather than the pacific one which was about pacifics. Can't be bothered to fix.
-
The use of "none" as a prefix when "non" is what is meant. Common in written form but also annoyingly prevalent in the spoken word.
-
Common in written form but also annoyingly prevalent in the spoken word.
I read this a bit baffled, but then realised that none and non are not homophones in every accent (as they are in mine).
-
Cunts using the term "My heart was going ten to the dozen". It's nineteen to the dozen you fuckwits.
useless
fizzy.bleach
Constable_Savage
duncs
Scilly.Suffolk
wmialil
sausagefingers
Miitch
johnnyhotdog
DethBeard
salmonchild
itsbruce
Hefty
hanford-
Post a reply
About
Loosing? Learn the English language, people!
Posted by
Describing a word as 'incorrect' suggests there is an immutable, correct version of every word. Which implies that someone at some point has decided all meanings are final. I just don't think it's that concrete. Meanings are constantly changing and have been for hundreds of years. I'm playing an Oliver Kamm-esque devil's advocate role here, I'll admit. ;)