It's a magazine, not a clip!!!!!!!!!!!!


PDA

GunNut
March 29, 2003, 09:05 PM
Is it just me or do way too many people call handgun magazines clips??????:banghead:

Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine, Magazine,

NOT CLIP..


Now I feel better...:neener:

Steve

If you enjoyed reading about "It's a magazine, not a clip!!!!!!!!!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Schuey2002
March 29, 2003, 09:12 PM
I've got clips clamped to my magazines; and magazines clamped to various clips... :p

longeyes
March 29, 2003, 09:17 PM
if you think magazines shouldn't be called clips!:)

In fact you might be GunNut.:D

Standing Wolf
March 29, 2003, 09:31 PM
Yup. I feel approximately the same way when people fail to distinguish between bullets and cartridges.

firestar
March 29, 2003, 09:35 PM
I don't really care.:rolleyes:

Quartus
March 29, 2003, 09:37 PM
We can't blame the antis for being ignernt if we insist on being the same way.


Garands use clips. Most everything else uses magazines.



And don't shoot your gun unless you are really upset with it. But if you do, make sure you are a safe distance away, and watch out for ricochets. Oh, well, if its a tuppergun maybe that's not a problem.

I hope to get some range time in soon - I want to fire a new toy.

Zundfolge
March 29, 2003, 09:49 PM
ignernt?


ignorant :neener:




It is one way to spot newbies and non-gun folk ... I'm always impressed when I hear someone say Magazine.


On Mail Call, R. Lee put it straight; "A clip feeds the magazine, a magazine feeds the gun."

JohnKSa
March 29, 2003, 10:00 PM
Ok, while we're on the subject.

It's muzzle BRAKE, not muzzle break.

...and...

It's APERTURE sights, not aperature.

flinch
March 29, 2003, 10:03 PM
Hello,

According to The Unabridged Random House Dictonary of the English Lanuage: Clip=
" a metal frame or container holding cartridges for a magazine rifle or automatic pistol."

Sounds like a clip can be a magazine and a magazine can be a clip be it rifle or pistol.

GunNut
March 29, 2003, 10:13 PM
I guess if it's in the dictionary it absolutely has to be correct..:D

Steve

jmbg29
March 29, 2003, 10:18 PM
Sounds like a clip can be a magazine and a magazine can be a clip be it rifle or pistol.No, it just means that "The Unabridged Random House Dictonary of the English Lanuage" got it wrong.

The people that invented the devices get to define what they are, and what they are to be called. Not some well-meaning poindexter at random house. Sorry, that's just the way the world works.

There are pistols that take clips. The "broomhandle" Mauser is the most famous of these. Its ejection port has a cut-out machined in it that accepts a stripper clip with which one loads the fixed magazine.

Many military rifles also have this feature. Others have detachable magazines that may be loaded using stripper clips, while the M1 Garand uses an enbloc clip.

OTOH the vast majority of modern firearms that are capable of repeated fire, employ a magazine that uses no "clips" enbloc or otherwise.

Jesse H
March 29, 2003, 10:22 PM
I heard the word clip at the gun range repeatedly today and I did not see a single Garand. Grrrrr.

It's like when people say RPMs.

Revolution per minutes?

Okiecruffler
March 29, 2003, 10:39 PM
When I refer to the clips for my mauser/nagant/sks, and some arrogant SOB, who isn't even involved in the conversation, proceeds to inform me that it's called a magazine so that his goon squad of buddies will think he's so smart. It's happened 3 times in the past 2 months. Me personally, for all I care you can call it "that bullet holding thingy", as long as we both know what we're talking about why should we care.

coonan357
March 29, 2003, 10:48 PM
I love it when someone tries to correct me on my Lebel's clip , Its not a magazine but an actual clip ( just like the garands ) its not a little metal box . :neener:

DMK
March 30, 2003, 01:08 AM
I was browsing around in a gunshop the other day and had to chuckle to myself when I noticed Marlin had labeled the packages of their mags as "clip magazine".

They also call them all "clips" on a page labeled "magazines" at their website: https://www.marlinfirearms.com/store/magazines.php

Hkmp5sd
March 30, 2003, 01:33 AM
http://000buck.d2g.com/firearms/thereisadifference2.jpg

Blackhawk
March 30, 2003, 02:12 AM
Ever heard what they call the area of a war ship where the bangy thingys are stored...? :rolleyes:

jmbg29
March 30, 2003, 03:24 AM
You mean the "clip", as in they took a torpedo in the "clip" and all hands were lost? :D

Blackhawk
March 30, 2003, 03:41 AM
Zactly! :D

Then, of course, ask any Vietnam War LRRP veteran how they used to tape two "banana magazines" together.... :rolleyes:

A word means what people who use it intend it to mean, and that's how the meanings end up in the dictionary.

Luddites never could understand that.

BamBam
March 30, 2003, 04:57 AM
Also,
Unless it says Wham-O on it, it's not a Frisbee....it's a flying disc.

faustulus
March 30, 2003, 05:30 AM
while we are at it...
The phrase is "you can't eat your cake and have it too" not "you can't have your cake and eat it too"

there is no such word as irregardless.

There is no such thing as a "Congressional Medal of Honor"

the word 'Neanderthal is prounouced "Ne-ander-tal"

the phrase is not "I could care less" it is "I couldn't care less"

Hal
March 30, 2003, 05:53 AM
GunNut (Steve),
I just timed it. In the time it took to type, format and edit your initial post,,,


I loaded a clip for my Kimber w/8 bullets :D

Oh and faustulus
ya missed 2.

dictionary is misspelled twice in this thread

:D

yankytrash
March 30, 2003, 07:31 AM
The man who spends his life picking apart other people's words will only die early and ornery.

Loosen up, and don't be so quick to judge a "newbie". That newbie that lacks your precious book knowledge might be able to pick up that rifle of yours and mangle the center ring without even caring what a "clip" is supposed to becalled.
That "newbie" might've learned the terminology from someone who fought, and perhaps died, so that you could live your bitter days analyzing your precious words. He might even be one of those guys that fought.

When my father-in-law or my boss's older brother relate stories of the nightmare they went through in Vietnam and Cambodia in the 60's, I could care less that they say things like, "I put 4 30rd clips in this canteen pouch, 4 in this pouch, 2 here, 3 there, and 6 more behind me." The point of the story is that they had to carry "clips" because of the daily fear that if they ran out of ammo in the jungle, that they might all die. Hell, they can call it a banana clip for all I care. As long as we all know what they mean, it's good enough for me.

There's alot of words I use that might not be correct, whether in definition, context, spelling, grammar use, or pure lack of the knowing the right word for it, but what I say is not mistaken until some yahoo analyzes my every word.


Loosen up. Chew on that one awhile. You and the horse you rode in on. SHTF. Go to you-know-where. Have a sun-shiney day.

None of it means a thing, but you knew what I was sayin, didn't ya. That fact makes it right, regardless.


Edit: One more and I'm done: I'm goin bow huntin this spring.;)

GrantLee63
March 30, 2003, 07:38 AM
...... Patridge sights are referred to as Partridge !!

IT'S PATRIDGE NOT PARTRIDGE !!!!!!!!!!:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

Feanaro
March 30, 2003, 07:50 AM
So GunNut, got any spare clips for a 1911? :p

JohnMc
March 30, 2003, 08:22 AM
The dictionary folks go by usage, not whether or not it's the correct technical term for a thing. Language changes.

This thread reminds me of the two cursors on a computer.
When windows (not necessarily Windows TM), first came into use, computers already had a cursor; it's the up and down bar where the letters appear when you type.
The computer folks came up with a good, seperate name for the thing that moves when you move your mouse: a pointer.

However, as we know, most everybody calls the pointer a cursor and a magazine a clip. I try to use magazine and pointer, but I think it's a battle I've already lost...

John

45King
March 30, 2003, 08:57 AM
If you don't think misuse of language can't have serious consequences, all you have to do is look at the "assault weapons" ban.

The definition of assault weapon, by the folks who invented it, is "a sub-caliber weapon capable of selective fire." If shooters and gun owners had always been careful to call the semi-auto look-alikes by a different term, the AW ban might not have ever come to pass. However, because WE made the linguistic mistake of lumping the semi's in with the full-auto's, that gave the anti's a point of leverage.

I prefer the term "military look-alike" to either AW or "black gun." Sure, it's not as easy to say, but wouldn't it be worth that tiny bit of extra effort?

Say what you mean and mean what you say.

JohnMc
March 30, 2003, 09:31 AM
45King,

I'm not trolling here, but I think the liberal pansies would have banned what they banned regardless of the terminology. The Remington 7400 was specifically mentioned as being OK, otherwise it would have been banned, for example.

Plus, the hi-cap mag ban portion of the 1994 law kept me from getting a 12 shot mag with my MkII, ferocious assault weapon that a .22 pistol is. Those 2 extra .22 rounds make all the difference when assaulting an armed fortress.

The so-called F-troop and their ilk would ban everything, allowing hunters to have maybe a single shot rifle or shotgun. These jerks refuse to understand "...shall not be infringed." whatever the language.

JohnMc

PS: Join NRA or GOA!

Ryder
March 30, 2003, 10:02 AM
I'm not too picky about terminology issues. I figure as long as people can understand the meaning it's acceptable.

I have a tendency to call them a magazine or clip depending on the following:

In pistols a 25 auto doesn't have a magazine. Nor does a 22, a 380, or a 9mm. 45's do have magazines though :)

All my centerfire rifles have magazines no matter the caliber. But my rimfire rifles have clips.

I have one shotgun with a clip (probably because it only holds 2 shells).

Is that wierd or what? :neener:

Study Butte
March 30, 2003, 10:29 AM
Grammar and spelling ninjas.:barf:
Especially on a bbs.

beckrodgers
March 30, 2003, 10:37 AM
Of course your correct. The F b i story with J Stewart on the firing line with thompson used the term clip when ref. mags. Also the Duke in Back To Bataan used clip for mag. Been countless uther examples as well in real life . Bothers me to some end . what of the legality of being charghed w/a hi cap clip when really it is a mag?Thanks

Serpico
March 30, 2003, 10:40 AM
By the way...a horse champs at the bit....it doesn't chomp...

Fed168
March 30, 2003, 11:04 AM
Clips are for ties, hair, and M1 Garands. With the class I am in now, if you call it a C-word, you get to wear one in your hair.

BamBam
March 30, 2003, 11:08 AM
Common mis-used terms that I think matter:

Extractor for ejector.
Ejector for extractor.

Blackhawk
March 30, 2003, 11:32 AM
Those are just plain wrong, BamBam.

longeyes
March 30, 2003, 11:38 AM
What ticks me off is when I ask for Fiocchi (that's Fee-OKEE, paisans!) and the gun shop guy corrects me with Fee-OCHEE. It's enough for make me reach for my Beretta...

jmbg29
March 30, 2003, 11:44 AM
dictionary is misspelled twice in this threadDon't look now Hal, but you missed lanuage in the double spelling mistake. :p :D

JohnMc, I think you missed 45King's point. One of the ways that liberal :cuss:ing pansies proliferate is through abuse of language. For instance, they turn "progressive" into a euphemism for totalitarian socialism, in their attempt to sell the foolish a bill of goods.

Words, and their meanings, matter.

jsalcedo
March 30, 2003, 11:58 AM
I agree that language and usage are important when talking about our favorite pastime.

My pet peeve is the word lose as in misplace.

The last 5 years has seen nearly half of English speakers
use loose instead of lose.

"Loose" is not tight

"Lose" is when something you own goes missing.

The other one is "for sell" or "garage sell"

Its "for SALE" for god sake

Oh well I'm off my rant now.

I like it when people correct my usage and pronunciation
because ignorance sucks.

BHP9
March 30, 2003, 12:54 PM
Words and their definitions change over time. At one time the word An't was not in the dictionary. When we were in school we were constantly reminded of this and constantly reminded not to use the term. Did anyone pay attentionto this? Of course not because the culture had changed and now behold the word An't is in the dicitionary.

The times have changed and the word "clip" today has the same meaning as magazine. Just about everyone uses the two terms interchangeably even though technically it is wrong. People who know better, like myself, still continue and will continue to use the terms interchangeably. It is something you will have to learn to live with and get used to because it will not go away.

firestar
March 30, 2003, 01:28 PM
the word 'Neanderthal is prounouced "Ne-ander-tal"

Right and wrong. Both spellings and both pronunciations are correct. Neanderthal is the original way to spell and say it, Neandertal is the more modern way but neither way in incorrect.


Why do people get so angry over such minor things.:rolleyes: I admit some things bother me because it makes it hard to clearly understand what someone is talking about but words that don't have a clear defination should be givin some lee-way. My favorite example is the word "Pistol". Some peole seem to think that "pistol" can only mean a semi-automatic handgun but I can't find ANY reason for this. I have researched this and I don't see anywhere where there is a clear point that it can only mean a semi-auto.

Mike Irwin
March 30, 2003, 01:33 PM
Maybe because of the noise that they make when they lock home?

CLICK! or CLIP!

Now, if you'll excooze me, I have to put some bullets in my clip... :)


the phrase is not "I could care less" it is "I couldn't care less"

Well, not in my case. But I'm trying REALLY hard to develop even more apathy, so perhaps, someday, I couldn't care less... :p


Also, don't forget rifles such as the Lebel (mentioned above) and the Carcano, which like the M1 require the clip to be inserted into the magazine for the rifle to feed. No clip, and your magazine is worthless.

LiquidTension
March 30, 2003, 01:58 PM
I agree with you Mike. When I use that phrase, I use it like this: "I could care less....but that would be rude."

M60
March 30, 2003, 02:18 PM
OK, I'll play. One of my pet peeves is when someone says "C.I.B. badge" or "V.I.N. number". Oh! Another one of those pet peeves of mine. While in the Army, I was stationed in Europe. It drove me nuts to hear someone say "How much is that in American?" The word is Dollars damn it! It can be "U.S. Dollars" or just plain "dollars". We do not use " the U.S. American" for money.

OK, i'm done. Thanks for your time.


The Pig.

Mike Irwin
March 30, 2003, 02:21 PM
Me, I've always wondered if they speak American over in Europe...

I don't get bent over the term "American," "French," "Swiss," etc., when talking about money, though. To me it's just understood if you're asking American, you're asking about dollars.

Sort of like if you ask for ammo for your Luger, you're talking about 9mm, right? :D

coonan357
March 30, 2003, 02:25 PM
Thanks for clearing that up for us all MIke . as my southern grandparents used to say I could care not less ...

cordex
March 30, 2003, 02:33 PM
what of the legality of being charghed w/a hi cap clip when really it is a mag?
Doesn't happen.
You'd be charged with owning a post-ban "Large capacity ammunition feeding device"

Mike Irwin
March 30, 2003, 02:38 PM
I'd thank you, Coonan, but I couldn't care less...

OH MY GOD! I did it! I've reached apathy!

Now if I could only care about it....

BOBE
March 30, 2003, 03:40 PM
There used to be a fellow (Norm Crosby) who made a living on stage misspronouncing (sp) words and we have used a whole thread doin it fer free. :rolleyes:

pax
March 30, 2003, 03:42 PM
*yawn*

Guess what, folks. You speak a living language. Usage changes over time.

That's not a bad thing. It's just the way life is. Deal with it.

The grammar rules have shifted in my lifetime, and so have the commonly-accepted usages of a lot of words (anyone else remember when 'unique' actually meant one-of-a-kind, and was never a comparative term?)

I think you're going to have to concede this battle is lost, GunNut. Magazines are clips, to 90% of the people in the world.

But if you feel like tilting at windmills, you could also chide people for saying 'nukular' when they mean 'nuclear.' :D

pax

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll

Flying V
March 30, 2003, 04:03 PM
I want to know when magazine/clip confusion began. Can we blame it on the Garand, or does it predate that fine rifle?

Shoeless
March 30, 2003, 04:46 PM
I think proper grammar, usage of language and spelling is very important! If it ceases to become important to intelligent people, it will all eventually be dumbed down.

Do we really want to live in a society where people routinely accept sub-standard English as "the norm" simply because it appeals to the lowest common denominator? I don't want to live in a country where those who are intelligent and can speak and write properly are the minority. What ever happened to standards?

Should we start teaching that there are no "wrong" answers on tests because it's too hard to bother teaching the right answers, or because it might hurt a kid's self-esteem if he's found to be "wrong"? Oh wait... we're already doing that. I think they call them "alternative answers"...

It makes me sick to think that some kids are being told that it's just fine to have the wrong answer and no, you're actually not wrong, you just have a "different" answer than the right one. Jesus, how confusing and disgusting is THAT?

But I digress... my point is that communication is the key to commerce, success and keeping a credible reputation in this world. If you can't communicate clearly and effectively you are stifling your chances of being successful.

Shoeless

NC Shooter
March 30, 2003, 05:16 PM
The instructor in our concealed carry class would place a hair clip in the hair of the first person that said clip instead of magazine. The clip would stay there until the next person said clip by mistake.

It did not take long for the proper usage of the word to take hold.

Mark

faustulus
March 30, 2003, 05:29 PM
Right and wrong. Both spellings and both pronunciations are correct. Neanderthal is the original way to spell and say it, Neandertal is the more modern way but neither way in incorrect.

Ask a German where the "Ne-ander-thal" valley is and see if they don't disagree with you. I understand that it has become accepted, but that doesn't make it right. It doesn't really bother me how someone says it or if they call it a magazine or a clip, as long as I can understand what they are saying. My point was that many people tend to get too uptight about how to say this or that and fail to understand that language is a very impercise tool. But it is just a tool, the goal is communication and if it is achieved it really doesn't matter if something is a clip or a magazine or a mag or a bullet holding and feeding device.

Mike Irwin
March 30, 2003, 06:15 PM
"but that doesn't make it right..."

Sure that makes it right, Fastulus. It makes it right in the languages that have adopted, AND adapted, the word.

Every language is full of words from other languages that have been "adapted," with the spellings changed to meet the nuances of the adopter's language.

That's part of the living language that Pax is talking about.

Now, everyone be good lads and lasses, or you'll be forced to sit through my rendition of the "Great Vowel Shift," and why the Scots speak English, but it's a lot different than our English.

voilsb
March 30, 2003, 06:34 PM
Mike, I actually think I might want to see this "great vowel shift" and diatrabe on dialect

BerettaNut92
March 30, 2003, 06:36 PM
What's wrong with clips? I read clips when I'm in the restroom.

CRUSHER
March 30, 2003, 06:38 PM
Ahmen !

JohnMc
March 30, 2003, 07:02 PM
jmbg29,
I did get 45king's point, but the liberal pansies proliferate like all other forms of pond scum; by replication, whether you want them to or not. I just think they would have got the ban through in '94 whether they called it the "assault weapons ban" or "the autoloading, high capacity street thug weapons ban." Remember, these were the heady days of the Clinton White House.
The thing they do with language is use it to hide their true intentions, like Handgun Control, Inc becoming the Violence Policy Institute, a limp-wristed liberal wolf in sheep's clothing.

That said, I just looked on the Million Mom March (Million Sheeple Stampede, if you ask me) website and saw this term, "Assault pistol". So they'll make up a bad sounding term, whether a real one exists or not.

They suck.

John

faustulus
March 30, 2003, 07:59 PM
Mike,
I agree with you that language changes and really that was the point I was trying to make. No one says "Ne-ander-tal" which is the way the valley where the fossil was found is called. Yet everyone knows what i am talking about if I say someone is a "Ne-ander-thal" I think langauge is something that changes but the idea I was trying to get across is that trying to control it is like trying to hold water in a clinched fist. In other words I was being a smart(donkey) :)

samualt
March 30, 2003, 08:55 PM
Anyone who has owned an SKS knows the difference between a clip and a magazine. My SKS used to take clips (Stripper Clips) untill I modernized the weapon and now it takes regular magazines.

People who use the word clip to mean mag are just showing they arn't gun-worthy.

BTW, I rarley say "magazine" but just "mag". I suppose that is wrong also and means I am not grammer/spelling-worthy! :D

Mike Irwin
March 30, 2003, 10:07 PM
I'm going to suggest ammending the language to once and for all get around this fight...

How about Clizine?

Magip?

How about if I just go back to drinking heavily?

Mike Irwin
March 30, 2003, 10:09 PM
Voilsb,

Yow.

In every group there's a true maniac...

OK, you asked for it.

But, this page can explaine it in much more tedious detail than I could ever hope to muster...

The Great Vowel Shift (http://icg.harvard.edu/~chaucer/vowels.html)

Okiecruffler
March 31, 2003, 07:37 AM
I always have a good chuckle when I see an American talking about how important "proper" English is. We have butchered the language, bent and twisted and tortured it for our own use. And that's a good thing, we are Americans, we are allowed. I have an uncle who spent several goverment paid jungle vacations in a place that wasn't exactly a tourist's dream. When he asks me to hand him a clip for his AR, my only reply is, "Yes, sir". I figure he deserves at least that much.

However, there are some things that have changed that are annoying. I remember when harass wasn't pronounced "harris", and when Uranus was the punchline to several astronomer jokes. I miss those jokes.

Feanaro
March 31, 2003, 07:53 AM
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=200175

Okay, so all of them are clips except the third one, right? :D

45King
March 31, 2003, 08:30 AM
American English is the most dynamic language in the world, no doubt, and it is indeed a living language. However, this does not eliminate the necessity for accuracy.

How many of you have debated with anti-rights types about the meaning of "A well regulated Militia?"

Just because "it's come to be accepted" doesn't make it right, does it? After all, "it's come to be accepted" that the goons of the Fedgov have almost unlimited power, hasn't it? "It's come to be accepted" that US v Miller means that gov't has the right to put all sorts of restrictions on firearms ownership, yet a careful reading of the actual decision shows that the court uttered a ruling that was absolute nonsense, to wit: a tax on firearms that are not military weapons is OK because they bear no relationship to a militia, but the same tax is applied to weapons which ARE military issue and therefore DO bear a relationship to a militia.

Sure, the antis would probably have come up with some other name if we hadn't used it, and the results might have been the same. However, there is no sense in giving your enemy any degree of aid or comfort, is there?

"Say what you mean and mean what you say" speaks to levels far beyond mere gramatical accuracy, or even legal accuracy.

"Say what you mean and mean what you say" is the essence of HONOR.

DCR
March 31, 2003, 11:09 AM
Anyone who gets fired up about "clip" v. "magazine" must, in order to avoid the brand of hypocrite, avoid using modern idioms and colloquialisms, revert to classic spelling and pronunciation, and avoid any word which has been adapted from other languages or derived from past usages since time immemorial.

Frankly, I'd appreciate it if they would - they wouldn't have much they could say.;)

Get off your high horse; there's more to life than your exercise in mental masturbation to feed your exaggerated sense of false intellectual superiority. Think about something that really makes a difference in the world. Improve yourself by reading about something you know little about. Spend your time sending lead downrange - with your devices that use clips or magazines, whatever the case may be. But don't waste electrons writing about this anymore; it's a tired topic. Keep your mouth shut when someone doesn't use words according to your idealized model of reality - you can walk away feeling superior and not look like an *** trying to point out that you think someone else is stupid by correcting them, and both of you can continue enjoying your day.

Carlos Cabeza
March 31, 2003, 12:14 PM
I know what a person means when they say clip or magazine. It's not enough for me to resort to petty hostilities. I don't even bother to correct them, I merely make a mental correction for my own sake. Clip, Magazine..........which ever suits you......:cool:

Mike Irwin
March 31, 2003, 12:24 PM
And 45 gets the prize for cutting RIGHT to the heart of the matter.

How can we set the tone and timbre of the firearms rights discussion if even we, as firearms owners, can't get the terminology right?

That gives the antis free-range license to use terms like "Ultra powerful fully automatic assault weapon" when talking about a Ruger 9mm semi-automatic carbine...

Archie
March 31, 2003, 01:07 PM
Originally, a pistol was a one handed weapon with the chamber integral with the barrel.
By that definition, a revolver cannot be a pistol. But a Contender or Encore is. As are most semi-autos. But time and mediocrity marches on.

I favor precision in oral and written communication.
At one time, "gentleman" meant a man who had a title and owned property. Could be a complete knee-biter, but he was a gentleman.
The word has been popularized, and now means hardly anything.

Don't get me started on "infer" and 'imply".
=============
Archie the old fashioned grump

aerod1
March 31, 2003, 01:33 PM
A magazine usually has a spring and a follower and a clip doesn't. Plus, you can load a magazine from a clip but you can't load a clip from a magazine.

Jim Hall

ed dixon
March 31, 2003, 01:33 PM
I feel bad about this(that's right, not badly).

ball3006
March 31, 2003, 02:13 PM
of the sound it makes when inserted into the firearm. Doesn't take much to figure this out. Or mayby some of you have been shooting without muffs too long and cannot hear it. Same thing when people call firearms "weapons". They are an inanimate object until used as such. None of my firearms are weapons because I do not use them as such....chris3

LawDog
March 31, 2003, 03:21 PM
When I hear, or see, imprecise language being used, I simply assume that the individual using the language: a) Doesn't care enough to research the proper language, b) Knows the correct language, but can't be bothered to use the correct language.

And there's always: c) Was educated in the American Public School system.

Whatever the reason, use of incorrect language is part of my first and subsequent impressions of a person.

If you don't care enough about about guns or shooting to research and use the proper language of guns or shooting, then I have to wonder how deep the carelessness runs; about what other aspects of guns or shooting you are equally careless about.

There is a gentleman in town who is a part-time gunsmith/shooting coach. The first time I met him, he offered me some opinions on the quality of the M1A 'clip' I was inspecting.

This gentleman doesn't care enough about firearms to learn and/or use the correct nomenclature, yet he wishes my business? I will not be sending one of my expensive rifles to him, nor shall I recommend his classes to any of my friends.

Both rifles and friends are too dear to me that I would risk them only to find out that his carelessness with the English language extends to his gunsmithing/teaching skills.

And any shooting advice he gives me will be written off as hot air, or carefully verified with someone who does care enough about teaching the art of shooting that he (or she) would research and use the proper terminology.

Just my two cents worth.

LawDog

Mike Irwin
March 31, 2003, 04:01 PM
Archie,

Just for discussion's sake, I think you're reading too much into the word "integral."

From Merriam-Webster

1 a : essential to completeness : CONSTITUENT <an integral part of the curriculum> b (1) : being, containing, or relating to one or more mathematical integers (2) : relating to or concerned with mathematical integrals or integration c : formed as a unit with another part <a seat with integral headrest>
2 : composed of integral parts
3 : lacking nothing essential :


From those definitions (and skipping the ones obviously related to mathematics), integral does not necessarily mean "one unit."

If you use definition 1 or defintion 3, a revolver does qualify as a pistol.

Using 1C, however, does support the "barrel-chamber as one unit" argument.

My American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives the first definition of integral as being "Essential or necessary for completeness, constituent.

So, I'd have to say that yes, a revolver can, by these definitions (especially the primary definitions) be called a pistol, as in Colt's Revolving Pistol.

The overall point, though?

I'm at work, and I'm bored. :)

Shoeless
March 31, 2003, 11:16 PM
Hell, for those who think language and proper terminology isn't important, why not just call a rollerblade a"roller skate" and a ten-speed bike a "tricycle"? Can I order a Big Mac when I really want a Quarter Pounder? How about calling chicken wings as "chicken fingers"?

A magazine and a clip are two entirely different devices. To wish that the terms would not be used interchangably isn't elitist, it just expresses a desire for clear and concise communication. And I agree with another poster who said that if we in the firearms community don't bother to use the correct terminology, why should the media or the anti's?

Shoeless

Mike Irwin
March 31, 2003, 11:26 PM
"a"roller skate"

Why not? It's an in-line roller skate... :)

And you know what they call a Quarter Pounder in France? le Royal...

They use the metric system, you know...

Thank you, John Travolta. :D

freeride21a
April 1, 2003, 12:21 AM
Ive seen a few of my images posted, now, name the firearms the mags come from :D

here is another one to help

http://000buck.d2g.com/firearms/magazines.jpg

faustulus
April 1, 2003, 01:21 AM
45King,
"Say what you mean and mean what you say"

It doesn't matter what you say it only matters what someone hears. Words are about communication, you can use all the "right" words in the world and not get your point across. You can of course say that the impetus to understand is on the listener but the listener would disagree. It is harder to follow your statement than it at first seems.

firestar
April 1, 2003, 01:25 AM
faustulus wrote:

Ask a German where the "Ne-ander-thal" valley is and see if they don't disagree with you. I understand that it has become accepted, but that doesn't make it right.

Both spellings are correct and the only spelling that has become accepted is the newer and no more correct "Neandertal", "Neanderthal" is both the original spelling of the place "the Neander vally" and the hominid. While there may be two correct way to spell the common name, there is only one correct scientific spelling "Homo neanderthalensis", note the "thal" not the "tal". So in that sense, the "thal" spelling is if anything, more correct.

I have had this argument with my know it all friend who seems to have a very strick idea of the way the English language should be used. It may be hard to understand but there are sometimes more than one correct way to say and spell a word in the English language. I am not an expert but it bothers me when someone tries to correct someone for doing something that is correct.

Like someone said, English is a living language and people have to learn to keep up. The English you learned in school as a child may have changed meanings, added new meanings or been regulated to the trash heep of words no longer used.

When faustulus wrote: "I understand that it has become accepted, but that doesn't make it right."

He is wrong. Once a word has become accepted into everyday speech, it will become right and it will be added to the Dictionary. That is a the nature of how we get new words.

45King
April 1, 2003, 08:41 AM
faustulus wrote:It doesn't matter what you say it only matters what someone hears. Words are about communication, you can use all the "right" words in the world and not get your point across.

If I say exactly what I mean without using ambiguous terms, and the listener doesn't "get it," it means he/she is either ignorant or stupid, or both. Concerning certain subjects, usually philosophical in nature, words can indeed sometimes fail, and you can get into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type discussions. However, on most subjects, this degree of ambiguity doesn't exist, and certainly not on technical matters.
Words are indeed about communication; If we wish to have a discussion about trees, and to you "tree" means the traditional definition, but to me, a "tree" is what you would call a shrub, are we going to be able to have any sort of meanigful discourse on the subject? No, not until we agree on a common definition of "tree."

faustulus wrote:You can of course say that the impetus to understand is on the listener but the listener would disagree.

That's reality; the impetus IS on the listener to understand*; the impetus on the speaker is to speak clearly. Any other view is a distortion of reality. This raises the possibility that the listener who cannot understand something plainly said is not only ignorant and/or stupid, but perhaps irrational as well. If this is the case, then so what? Who really cares if an ignorant/stupid/insane person understands them or not? More to the point, who would WANT to be understood by someone who is ignorant/stupid/insane? If someone who suffers from that combination CAN understand something another person says, it may be an indication that the speaker suffers the same problems. (FWIW, I don't bother to debate anti's too much any more, because running my head into the solid granite wall of ignorance/stupidity/irrationality doesn't change what passes for their tiny little minds at all, and it makes my head hurt.)

*If the listener does not understand, he/she can always ask for clarification; "the only dumb question is the one that remains unasked."

Thanks for the back-up, Mike I. Nail-on-the-head.
One of the basic rules of warfare; if you want to win, you set the terms and conditions of battle, and let the enemy react to you. If the enemy sets same, you have gone to a defensive posture and can only react to him. There is no victory in defense.

From Dean Speir's The Gun Zone (http://communities.prodigy.net/sportsrec/gz-directory.html)

This is the law:
• The purpose of fighting is to win.
• There is no possible victory in defense.
• The sword is more important than the shield and skill is more important than either.
• The final weapon is the brain.
• All else is supplemental.
- John Steinbeck (courtesy of Ken Campbell)

45King
April 1, 2003, 09:47 AM
I just can't let this slide....

What's the difference between "accuracy" and "truth?"

Crystal clear example? U.S. v Miller:

"It is not within judicial notice" that a sawed-off shotgun is part of militia equipment (non-quoted section a paraphrase.)

Is this statement accurate? Yes, it is. No one presented to the justices any evidence to the contrary.

Is it true? No. Short barreled shotguns have been used by our military since 1775.

Always strive for accuracy AND truth. Don't allow sloppiness in the use of language to provide our enemies with even the tinest bit of leverage to use in their favor.

Dean Speir
April 1, 2003, 03:24 PM
&nbsp;

Blackhawk asserts: A word means what people who use it intend it to mean, and that's how the meanings end up in the dictionary.

Luddites never could understand that. You mean, of course, "pedants."

I think 45King, Shoeless, LawDog, GunNut, Samualt, et al… yeah, even Mike Irwin… have made a compelling brief for calling something by it's proper name.

Most telling is the argument that how can we get upset at the anti-gunners and the mainstream media… but I repeat myself… for screwing up nomenclature if we are too lazy to get it right ourselves?!? And that's what it is, laziness and sloppy thinking… those LCDs who would argue otherwise would reduce our language to some universal argot devoid of character and in this instance, our firearms heritage.

And I have no problems with being deemed a "language pedant."

Comes then JohnMc citing "like Handgun Control, Inc becoming the Violence Policy Institute."

Would it be churlish of me to point out that Handgun Control, Inc. (nee "National Council to Ban Handguns), became "the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence." The "Violence Policy Institute" is actually the "Violence Policy Center," a non-profit "think tank."

&nbsp;

MMcCall
April 1, 2003, 03:48 PM
The whole mag vs. clip debate is yet another reason why anti's find gun owners arrogant and cliquish.

I've personally witnessed a gunshop commando jump some poor lady's **** because it was her first time in a gun store, and she DARED to call a magazine a clip. He basically ran a new shooter (not to mention potential customer) out of the shop because of some stupid semantic horse crap.

I call them magazines, usually shortened to 'mags', because that's the way I was brought up. To get your panties in a bunch becuase someone misuses the word is just stupid.

pax
April 1, 2003, 04:01 PM
Accuracy matters.

The sky is not falling.

Here endeth the lesson.

pax

No one would talk much in society if they knew how often they misunderstood others. -- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

Mike Irwin
April 1, 2003, 04:19 PM
Well :cuss: you very much for the "compliment," Dean! :)

TallPine
April 1, 2003, 04:26 PM
So ... I gotta ask ... is a revolver speedloader a "clip" ????

JohnMc
April 1, 2003, 04:36 PM
Dean,

I don't feel you're churlish for correcting me and I stand so corrected. I hope my point wasn't lost in my error.


I also thought my computer pointer story illustrated my belief that we should try to use correct terminology. I just wanted to say that sometimes, the change is overwhelming; French grew from Latin, that sort of thing.

I surely didn't think this discussion would get this big. Whew!

John

Mike Irwin
April 1, 2003, 05:15 PM
Tall Pine,

I'd say yes, it is. A revolver cylinder qualifies as a magazine, so the device feeding ammo into the magazine qualifies as a clip.

A stripper clip can be called a speedloader.

spacemanspiff
April 1, 2003, 05:21 PM
okay, can someone please explain why the word 'stripper' is used in reference to 'clips'? my interest is automatically piqued whenever i hear the word 'stripper' and on this board it always leads to a disappointing discussion.
:evil:

45King
April 1, 2003, 05:45 PM
Spiff, it's 'cause when you load a magazine with a clip, you "strip" the cartridges out of it.

Memory from one of the Able Team books:

Girl: "I'm a stripper."
Carl "Ironman" Lyons: "Paint, film, or clothes?"

Brad Johnson
April 1, 2003, 06:24 PM
Since we're on the subject.....

library, not liberry

nuclear, not nucular

realtor, not realitor

and just to set the record straight...

cavalry - a military term

calvary - a biblical term

Now I have to go load some bullets in my clip.

:D

Brad

Mike Irwin
April 1, 2003, 11:11 PM
Also,

It's Ordnance, not ordinance.

Ordnance is firepower, ordinance is a stipulation or law.

It's also Leupold the optics maker, not Leopold, or Leeapold.

Malone LaVeigh
April 2, 2003, 01:18 AM
Ah, yes, magzazine...

Good FRENCH word.

faustulus
April 2, 2003, 02:29 AM
firestar,

It is the Neanderthal valley that is the name of the area. The word is German. They pronounce the 'th' as a hard 't' How many Thomases do you know who prounouce their name "Thom-as"? Again I am not arguing right or wrong only that while English is a living language words meanings, spellings and pronunciations change from town to town and nation to nation. All language changes and there in lies the problem. Trying to shape the language is one thing, trying to control it is another. Words don't cease to have meaning, they simply have meaning added to them. There is one of the problems. When I said that becoming accepted doesn't make it right I was refering to the loss of meaning. It is only right to the parties who are agreeing upon its meaning. So language is not only living it is contextual and completly self referential.

Also just because a word is in the dictionary doesn't mean it is correct or even that it is the most accepted term. There are reams of papers written on how who chooses words and how they are chosen. Even different dictionaries disagree.

45King,

If I say exactly what I mean without using ambiguous terms, and the listener doesn't "get it," it means he/she is either ignorant or stupid, or both.

Being from the Great State of South Carolina I bet there are half a dozen things you can say to people from the north or west and they wouldn't have a clue what you meant, yet someone from North Carolina would understand instantly. But you are right in a sense this is a philosopical arguement.
A listern cannot always ask for clarification because the speaker may be dead. And some would argue that the speaker himself couldn't clarify because of the impercision of language.


It is built around the philosophy of deconstruction, you can take it or leave it but it asks some interesting questions about the nature of language and how men communicate.

samualt
April 2, 2003, 03:48 AM
We can solve this whole thing about Clip vs Magazine by asking one simple question:

Which name did "The Duke" (John Wayne) use in the film The Green Berets, 1968 ?

That should settle it!

:D

fivepaknh
April 2, 2003, 05:14 AM
The setting dictates the importance of proper terminology. If I'm at a range and ask another veteran shooter to pass me a clip, when in fact it's a magazine, I've still effectively conveyed my message. If I'm teaching a newbie about firearms, I'm certainly going to use proper terminology. I'd also be sure to take it a step further to explain to the newbie that they may hear the words clip and magazine used interchangeably. I use the word clip all the time now just to piss people off.


DCR
Get off your high horse; there's more to life than your exercise in mental masturbation to feed your exaggerated sense of false intellectual superiority. Think about something that really makes a difference in the world. Improve yourself by reading about something you know little about. Spend your time sending lead downrange - with your devices that use clips or magazines, whatever the case may be. But don't waste electrons writing about this anymore; it's a tired topic. Keep your mouth shut when someone doesn't use words according to your idealized model of reality - you can walk away feeling superior and not look like an *** trying to point out that you think someone else is stupid by correcting them, and both of you can continue enjoying your day.

Very well said. I'm curious how anal the language nazis are when discussing a subject other than firearms. :rolleyes:

Shoeless
April 2, 2003, 09:26 AM
I've personally witnessed a gunshop commando jump some poor lady's **** because it was her first time in a gun store, and she DARED to call a magazine a clip. He basically ran a new shooter (not to mention potential customer) out of the shop because of some stupid semantic horse crap.

That's how a lot of the gun industy is for some reason. It sucks that people act that way, especially to new shooters. I would never take that tone.

When a student says "clip" I smile and say (in a kind and gentle manner) "actually, a clip goes into your hair or helps you to load a magazine... this is called a magazine."

I then follow it up with "it's understandable that you'd use the word clip, because that's what they call it on tv and in the movies." They are always happy to have been corrected and they feel more informed afterward.

New shooters are already feeling like everyone knows more than they do -- they don't want to look dumb, and I think they're grateful for the learning.

Shoeless

aerod1
April 2, 2003, 02:35 PM
I agree with Shoeless and I would certainly refrain from using the words "stupid, ignorant and lazy". That does nothing for the already tainted image we have as gun owners. The gun world has a bad image, partly because we earned it. Mostly it is because the public has been misinformed by the anti gun society and media. I would never call someone stupid over mistaking a clip vs. a magazine. This is not what the gun world is about.
Just my honest opinion.
Jim Hall

Silent Bob
April 2, 2003, 06:07 PM
I call them magazines (actually I say "mags" for short), not clips, but I can think of much better things to get riled up over than people calling magazines clips. I'll call it a "bullet box" if I want.

Dennis
April 3, 2003, 09:37 AM
My goodness! Vocabulary and grammar present such wonderful possibilities for extended disputation!

And we have not yet discussed:
- the bastardization of the terms assure, ensure, and insure;
- proper use of punctuation with (and within) quotation marks, the differences between the American and British (aka English) customs (both of which are used formally in the United States), and some of the exceptions;
- the incomprehensible confusion over “formerly” and “formally”;
- the abuse (especially in the legal field) of “shall” and “will” with verb forms;
- using nouns as verbs;
- the differences between the “United States” and “America”;
- whether non-standard jargon and colloquialisms also are “dishonorable”;
- whether or not to egregiously split an infinitive is illiterate, and
- many more “truly important” discussions (which, for the moment, I shall hold in reserve).

If adhering to grammatical rules (which are subject to debate and change) is the sole measure of “honor,” then America assuredly has lost the concept. As for me, I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous non-standard speech to willful obfuscations intended to intimidate rather than elucidate.

Tell ya what, guys. If you’re taking fire and your buddy yells, “I’m out! Throw me a clip!” I doubt that’s the time to chastise him for syntax or jargon! Let’s just support our troops and ensure their magazines are full of ammo. (Yes, I’m the devil! :D )

By the way, doesn’t anyone believe it might be a good idea to be HALF as intense about the unconstitutional powers usurped by our government as we are over the use or abuse of such easily understood terms as “magazine” and “clip”?

Sheesh! Call it "jargon" and move on. ;)

GunNut
April 3, 2003, 09:52 AM
Pretty bad, my most successful post (100+ responses) is about the magazine vs. clip debate.

Sorry for starting this, just had to get it off of my chest.

But, my Glock does take a magazine......:neener:

Steve

pax
April 3, 2003, 09:53 AM
Dennis,

Very well said.

pax

The English have no respect for their language, and will not teach their children to speak it. It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth, without making some other Englishman despise him. -- George Bernard Shaw

Dennis
April 3, 2003, 04:16 PM
Thank you, Pax. :)

spacemanspiff
April 3, 2003, 04:41 PM
that does it! i'm going back to grunts and exaggerated gestures to communicate my needs, starting.....NOW!

ugh....

Mike Irwin
April 3, 2003, 04:47 PM
"Very well said. I'm curious how anal the language nazis are when discussing a subject other than firearms."

At the office? Very. It's what I'm paid to do.

In discussions where correct usage can be at the heart of understanding, or confusion? Very.

Among friends who know what I mean (in other words, more informal and colloquial), not as much.


But, in situations where the improper use of a term could create or expand confusion, or give a competitor an advantage? EXTREMELY.

Mike Irwin
April 3, 2003, 04:52 PM
Dennis,

"- proper use of punctuation with (and within) quotation marks, the differences between the American and British
(aka English) customs (both of which are used formally in the United States), and some of the exceptions;"

I'm game. I have this type of discussion with my coworkers, on average, twice a month. ;)


"- using nouns as verbs;"

Yep, that can certainly weird the language...


"As for me, I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous non-standard speech to
willful obfuscations intended to intimidate rather than elucidate."

There's the rub, the heart of the problem.

Often "non-standard" speech is, by its very nature ambiguous, so it becomes unclear and fosters confusion.

firestar
April 3, 2003, 05:01 PM
In cases like magazine vs. clip and pistol vs. revolver (or whatever), I think there really is no concensus on what is absolutly correct. Calling a revolver a pistol is not incorrect by any clearly defined defination but calling a glock a revolver is incorrect and we all know why.

I think people just like to feel special, they think they know something that not everyone knows and it makes them feel smart. If someone tell me that they need a new clip for there 9mm, I know exactly what they mean, you have to try to misunderstand to not get it.

Bullets are borderline as far as I'm concerned. Sometimes I do not understand what is meant when someone calls something a bullet. If it is someone who is new to guns then I assume they mean cartridges but if it is someoen who should know better and they call cartridges bullets, then it gets confusing.

I think my point is, is anyone really getting confused by the use of the words magazine and clip? Is it a problem or are people just acting like that snobbish gunstore owner that ran the little old lady out of the store? We should watch how we act, we want more people to be drawn to shooting and gun owning, we don't want to drive people away by acting like a bunch of know it all jerks.

Dean Speir
April 3, 2003, 06:29 PM
&nbsp;

Two excerpts from the writings of the late Richard Mitchell, who passed on 27 December 2002. Those not familiar with his name might however recognize The Underground Grammarian (http://www.sourcetext.com/grammarian/index.html), celebrated thoughout Jeff Cooper's most entertaining Gargantuan Gunsite Gossip: Two things, then, are necessary for intelligent discourse: an array of names, and a conventional system for telling. The power of a language is related, therefore, to the size and subtlety of its lexicon, its bank of names, and the flexibility and accuracy of its telling system, its grammar. And… Bad writing is like any other form of crime; most of it is unimaginative and tiresomely predictable. The professor of education seeking a grant and the neighborhood lout looking for a score simply go and do as their predecessors have done. The one litanizes about carefully unspecified developments in philosophy, psychology, and communications theory, and the other sticks up the candy store. Just so…

Mr. Mitchell's Less Than Words Can Say is highly recommended reading.

seeker_two
April 4, 2003, 10:37 AM
So, did Gun Parts Corp. send me three MAGAZINES for my Firestar 9mm or three CLIPS?...:scrutiny:

(...and is all this ruckus REALLY necessary?..:rolleyes: )

Dennis
April 4, 2003, 01:19 PM
Mike,

You say, “I'm game. I have this type of discussion with my coworkers, on average, twice a month.”

Hmm. I sense a baited hook. Let me circle without biting….

If the workers of a typical organization spend very much time discussing questions concerning grammar or style, then I am forced to suspect a lack of leadership in that organization. Such arguments usually are a waste of our most precious and irreplaceable resource—time—because the questions can be resolved in minutes. Buy a “style” book that most closely approximates the style your leader requires of his subordinates. There are many different (usually self-proclaimed) authorities in the field of English (or American English) grammar and style so find the one that best suits your needs.

Without an agreed-upon final authority, arguing style is seldom conclusive. There are too many opinions (and opinions are like…., most people have at least one, and most of them stink) concerning style to resolve such questions without a unifying document—for example, a style book.

OTOH, if style is merely something preferable rather than mandatory or universal, let style follow substance. I will pay you the compliment of suspecting you agree.

Note in the preceding sentence, the “OTOH” in no way interfered with your understanding of my sentence. It is, as you know, accepted in this forum as an understandable replacement for the phrase, “On the other hand.”

Therefore, to blame every misunderstanding upon the “transmitter” (the speaker or writer) is blatantly dishonest. The “receiver” (the listener or reader) must share some responsibility in the science and art of communication.

If (God and George Bush forbid it) you were in a foxhole and you (under extreme pressure of mortal combat) yelled for a “clip” rather than a magazine for your M-16 or Beretta, I doubt that even you would appreciate the ammo carrier (burdened with “magazines” for both your firearms) answering back, “I don’t have any clips!”

Again, the “receiver” must share some responsibility in the process of interpersonal communication.

An honest mistake by the “transmitter” can be understood as unintentional. Competency in vocabulary and style is no longer a requirement for graduation from government schools or most universities. Some people have neither the talent nor the time to educate themselves or, more likely, they recognize no need to do so.

However, for a “receiver” (again, a listener or reader) to willfully misunderstand the transmitter’s attempt to communicate is dishonest. It is the “receiver” in this case who deserves our disdain.

Note my earlier statement, "As for me, I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous non-standard speech to
willful obfuscations intended to intimidate rather than elucidate."

You replied, “There's the rub, the heart of the problem. Often ‘non-standard’ speech is, by its very nature ambiguous, so it becomes unclear and fosters confusion.”

While I agree with your statement, it does not apply to my statement. I clearly stated, “UNambiguous.” Some other thoughts come to mind.
- Non-standard speech is not necessarily ambiguous.
- So-called “standard” speech is not necessarily clear, concise, accurate, or even truthful.
- Perceived specialized needs (e.g. scientific, social, etc.) may create “non-standard” jargon which is both necessary and clear to those who use the terms.
- Colloquial expressions, though “non-standard,” may facilitate accurate communication among the users.
- The pedant’s efforts to “educate” those whom he considers his “inferiors” is often (to use your word) more an attempt at self-aggrandizement than honest assistance.

For these reasons and others I still believe my preference is valid when I say, “As for me, I prefer clear, concise, unambiguous non-standard speech to willful obfuscations intended to intimidate rather than elucidate.”

Furthermore, jargon, colloquial expressions, and acceptable language usage must change to cope with changing needs. I doubt that Chaucer used terms capable of expressing the technical differences between DSL and dial-up, that Shakespeare spoke of “foam rubber,” or Robert Burns felt a need to describe modern “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”

Likewise, my unabridged dictionary has no explanation for “blogger” though we seem to have many, even here, who might epitomize the concept. ;)

So I’ll not take that baited hook. I merely am saddened at the time we spend on needlessly divisive, pseudo-academic topics such as this rather than honest, diligent efforts to restore Constitutional law in the United States.

Also, when the initiator brags that this was done merely to stir the pot because “It was a LOT of fun,” it reduces the initiator to the level of “troll.” And all of us who responded (including you and me, Mike) took his bait.

www.familyfriendsfirearms.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12673

griz
April 4, 2003, 04:14 PM
Improper language usage is something up with which I will not put.:neener:

Mike Irwin
April 4, 2003, 05:18 PM
Griz,

Thank you for channeling Sir Winston...

Mike Irwin
April 4, 2003, 05:40 PM
"If the workers of a typical organization spend very much time discussing questions concerning grammar or style, then I am forced to suspect a lack of leadership in that organization."


Don't jump to too many conclusions, you'll hurt yourself.

I the lead technical editor/chief grammar problem solver/question answerer in a group of about 300 to 350 people.

It's a group of software developers who also have to do some of the writing.

You can lead a web developer to a grammar text, but you cannot make him link...

The "discussions" are no more than a few minutes in length, working with someone who may have written a set of release notes last year, and nothing since, and can't remember where the punctuation goes in a sentence that's enclosed in quotes.

I teach regular classes, but attendance is not mandatory, nor will I make it mandatory.

That way either I, or one of the editors under me, is sure to get a pass at the document. That's not just job security, it's a necessity.

Most of the people who work here, those under the age of 30 and with technical degrees, were never required to take a college grammar or composition class. Their ability to convey in writing any but the simplest concepts is sadly lacking.

It's a sad fact that writing concisely seems to be a dying art, and is being replaced with the ability to program concisely.


At no point did I ever attempt to blame all of the problems on the transmitter. While I agree that the receiver must share some of the burden, at the same time, the greater burden is on the person conveying the information. He has something to share; he has to do it in a way that promotes the greatest understanding among parties. It that means taking out (or defining) specific jargon or colloquialisms that the receiver may not understand, that's the conveyer's job. The old axiom applies -- Know your audience, and speak to them, not above them, or around them.

OTOH perhaps isn't such a great example given the computer literacy of the group here. That's a common net abbreviation, as are ROFL, CUL8R, etc.

But, were I to say to you, "I need to readen the living room," would you necessarily know what I mean? Not everyone does. It's Pennsylvania Dutch colloquial meaning "I need to clean, or straighten up, the living room."

Were I in a foxhole, in a combat situation, I suspect that would mean that I, and the others there with me, had gone through a military indoctrination where the accepted terms had been drilled into us by the instructors.

I sincerely doubt that there would be any misunderstanding.

Ultimately, though, you miss the overall point that I, and others, have tried to bring out in this entire thread.

I we, as gun owners, lapse into colloquial and "understood" terms when referring to our firearms, where one object has multiple meanings, how can we as a group hope to define the greater public image of these items based on fact, and not hysteria and hyperbole?

I ask again, which would you rather have one of your gun owning friends say when talking about his post-ban Colt Sporter?

Semi-automatic rifle....

or

Assault rifle....

Which would you rather see printed in the newspapers?

If we can't educate our own to use the correct terminology, how can we ever hope to educate others?

Blackhawk
April 4, 2003, 06:02 PM
Dean Speir wrote:Blackhawk asserts:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A word means what people who use it intend it to mean, and that's how the meanings end up in the dictionary.

Luddites never could understand that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean, of course, "pedants." No, I meant Luddites meaning "those who are opposed to change."

Blackhawk
April 4, 2003, 06:06 PM
freeride21a, the caption on the right side of your graphic exposes one of my peeves -- dropping the "r" on "your". Magazine you use for you firearm!:rolleyes:

Dean Speir
April 4, 2003, 07:41 PM
&nbsp;

Blackhawk, still fighting a rearguard action, declaims:No, I meant Luddites meaning "those who are opposed to change." The very point of many here is that words have a specific meaning, and you're attempting to redefine "Luddite" more broadly. From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition:Lud·dite noun

[list=1]
Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.

One who opposes technical or technological change.[/list=1] Just as all "ammunition charging devices" are not "clips" (or "magazines"), the Luddites resisted not simply change, but "technical or technological change."

&nbsp;

coonan357
April 4, 2003, 07:50 PM
I cannot believe an english class broke out from a discussion about someone misusing a word ... :D and I thought I was in a gun forum ..:scrutiny:

spacemanspiff
April 4, 2003, 08:04 PM
limo is NOT a word! when we get back its coming off the board...

Mike Irwin
April 4, 2003, 08:29 PM
"Limo is not a word!"

Well.....

Don't be too hasty...

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?limo


It's entering the vernacular, just as camo is for camouflage.


"I cannot believe an English class broke out..."

I know! Isn't it GREAT? I love discussions such as these! :)

pax
April 4, 2003, 08:39 PM
It's entering the vernacular, just as camo is for camouflage.

And just as clip is for magazine.

pax, tiptoeing quietly away

Words are, of course, the most powerful drug used by mankind. -- Rudyard Kipling

Mike Irwin
April 4, 2003, 08:50 PM
"And just as clip is for magazine."

On the surface that would seem to be a good example of the argument supporting that transposition, but it's really not, Pax.

Limo and camo are shortened versions of the correct word, just as mag is for magazine.

If I'm looking at a limo, though, I don't call it a station wagon, because it's not a station wagon, it's a limo.

coonan357
April 4, 2003, 09:36 PM
AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! MIKE!!!!:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Mike Irwin
April 5, 2003, 01:58 AM
Coonan,

Why are you sniffing your rake against a turnip?

eotp
April 5, 2003, 03:49 AM
"And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!"

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptously. "Of course you don't --- till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "

"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,' " Alice objected.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master --- that's all."




:D



from THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS by Lewis Carroll (except for the Smilie)

Baron Holbach
April 5, 2003, 08:20 AM
An excerpt:

"A magazine is a device that hold cartridges. It holds cartridges in place, one on top of another, so that the gun may strip
them off and fire them. Not all guns load via magazines. The ones that do are usually autoloaders. Magazines are flat
boxes, enclosed on five sides and open at the top. One loads cartridges into the top. Once loaded with a magazine,the
gun takes a cartridge from the top of the magazine and fires it. The magazine has a spring in it that pushes the next
cartridge in line to the top of the magazine. After a gun fires, it extracts the next cartridge from the magazine. A clip is
different from a magazine, and in the modern world far rarer. A clip is a bent piece of metal that holds cartridges in a
row. The cartridges are not enclosed in any way like they are in a magazine. Clips are most often used as disposable
loading devices for guns, especially rifles, that have built-in magazines. Some guns, however, do accept a clip and use it
as part of their firing cycle. The obsolete US service rifle, the M1 Garand, uses a unique style of clip called a bloc that
one actually loads into the rifle. The bloc is ejected from the rifle whenthe last cartridge is fired."

http://members.aol.com/vaquero760/ammo/apart1.htm

coonan357
April 5, 2003, 11:47 AM
huh?????? what mike??? sniffing rakess??? only thing I sniff is gunpowder to see if its bad and I hate turnips.....:barf: :barf:

Phil Ca
April 5, 2003, 12:28 PM
As long as were on the correct "word" subject: How many people pay attention to the words, "Lose", and "Loose"?? Even on the printed news it comes out wrong sometimes and the news readers make the mistake as well.

:D

pax
April 5, 2003, 01:23 PM
Mike Irwin,

Limo and camo are shortened versions of the correct word, just as mag is for magazine.

If I'm looking at a limo, though, I don't call it a station wagon, because it's not a station wagon, it's a limo.

You're right.

But most of us drive a "car" (short for "carriage," which is technically incorrect) rather than an "automobile" (which is technically correct but a pain in the patooty to pronounce).

pax

English? Pfffffttt, what do I need to learn that for? I'm not going to England! -- Homer Simpson

Mike Irwin
April 5, 2003, 02:02 PM
"huh?????? what mike??? sniffing rakess??? only thing I sniff is gunpowder to see if its bad and I hate turnips....."

Coonan,

That statement is correct. If you take into account the juxtapositional relativity that makes an incorrect word the correct word. :)


"But most of us drive a "car" (short for "carriage," which is technically incorrect)"

Sandbag time!

Car, as in carriage, is actually a double shortening of Horseless Carriage.

Given that auto bodies, up until around 1910 or even later, were largely made by the same shops that made carriages and wagons, it's not as incorrect as it would seem to be. They were both made in carriage works.

This is an example of the adoption of terms across technology as technology advances.

I'm not so sure that the same can be said of the melding of clip and magazine.

Magazine is an example of the adoption of terms across technology. A magazine originally started out as a room in which to store power and shot, and only as technology advanced, and firearms became capable of multiple shots, was the term extended to firearms themselves.

Clip was an entirely new word in the equasion.

Anyway, back to carriages...

Fisher, which was/is? the body division for GM, started making carriage bodies in the early 1800s.

Brewster's another good example, from Long Island. They made wagons and carriages, then auto bodies, then in a leap of faith went into the military fighter business, and gave us the F2F Brewster Buffalo... A friend's Grandfather was an aeronautical engineer working for Brewster just before and during WW II working on aircraft design. Neat guy.

Just for fun, here's a neat early GM ad mentioning Fisher...

http://images.goantiques.com/dbimages/MRC159968*013010100.jpg

I distinctly remember a tag on the door frame of my Grandparents 1963 or so Chevrolet Chevelle stating "Fisher Auto Body" with that 4 wheeled carriage in the center of the oval.

GinSlinger
April 5, 2003, 02:38 PM
Furthermore, ultimate means final, not best. "For the ultimate in _____ try _____." in an advert frightens me into thinking that that product or service will terminate me.

:p

GinSlinger

Mike Irwin
April 5, 2003, 04:48 PM
Gin,

Give you absolutely nothing if you can tell us what penultimate means without looking it up...

pax
April 5, 2003, 07:50 PM
Mike,

The one before the final one.

pax

With a knowledge of the name comes a distincter recognition and knowledge of the thing. -- Henry David Thoreau

Bowlcut
April 5, 2003, 07:54 PM
Well Im sorry. Cause I know I caught myself 4 or 5 times today saying clip instead of magazine.. Just habbit growing up redneck I guess. Well growing up redneck then having the gangster rap teenage years a few years ago... If Easy E calls it a clip why cant i :scrutiny: But I did correct myself most of the time today.

Mike Irwin
April 5, 2003, 09:06 PM
What is an Easy E?

I know what an Easy Out is... :)

JerryN
April 6, 2003, 01:58 AM
It aint PATRIDGE or even PARTRIDGE. Its Ruffed Grouse, dammit! Although all of the old timers in NH called it a "pah-trige", its a freakin ruffed grouse, OKAY???!!!

Those "civil unionists" in VT call is a "cute woods birdie", but thats beside the point. VT aint earth.

:confused: :uhoh: :fire:

coonan357
April 6, 2003, 01:59 AM
which is nothing like easy off .... which isn't too easy to remove . :D didn't snff rake stepped on it and wacked me in the nose :D :scrutiny:

Mike Irwin
April 6, 2003, 05:20 PM
Phil,

I've got terrible problems at times with loose and lose, or chose & choose, as well as several other word pairs like that.

Blackhawk
April 6, 2003, 06:09 PM
Dean Speir wrote: The very point of many here is that words have a specific meaning, and you're attempting to redefine "Luddite" more broadly. From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lud·dite noun

Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.

One who opposes technical or technological change.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just as all "ammunition charging devices" are not "clips" (or "magazines"), the Luddites resisted not simply change, but "technical or technological change."
A luddite is "One who opposes technical or technological change." If you can't parse that, try this "One who opposes technical change."

Why, oh why, are pedants so unimaginative...? :neener:

PsyWarrior
April 6, 2003, 06:34 PM
The one that really drives me nuts is where these idiots confuse I for me. For example, It was given to her and I. Sorry, but I is the subjective form and Me is the objective form of the pronoun.
I, he, she, we and they did. It was done to me, him, her, us and them. Get it straight. OK, they can't tell the difference between a device used to load a magazine and a magazine, but they should at least know who the heck did it and who it was done to.:banghead:

As to the original problem, I got into a discussion with an idiot trying to sell a (NIB price) $169 22cal rifle for $200 when he really showed his butt and announces that it even includes the 10 rd clip:cuss: . At which time I informed him that he was not only a trying to rip people off, but was stupid and didn't know anything about firearms either.

griz
April 7, 2003, 06:56 AM
At the risk of straying WAY of topic, a question for Pax and Mike:

Why are railroad cars called cars? Did carriage makers also make railroad cars?

I’m sitting here praying that I didn’t make an error in English. If I split a participle or dangled an infinitive I’m gonna just cry.

GinSlinger
April 7, 2003, 11:01 AM
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


car

\Car\, n. [OF. car, char, F. cahr, fr. L. carrus, Wagon: a Celtic word; cf. W. car, Armor. karr, Ir. & Gael. carr. cf. Chariot.] 1. A small vehicle moved on wheels; usually, one having but two wheels and drawn by one horse; a cart.

2. A vehicle adapted to the rails of a railroad. [U. S.]

Note: In England a railroad passenger car is called a railway carriage; a freight car a goods wagon; a platform car a goods truck; a baggage car a van. But styles of car introduced into England from America are called cars; as, tram car. Pullman car. See Train.

3. A chariot of war or of triumph; a vehicle of splendor, dignity, or solemnity. [Poetic].


So it seems that car (for automobile or railcar) DOES NOT derive from carriage.... I have lived my life deluded.

GinSlinger

MeekandMild
April 7, 2003, 11:07 AM
OK, so what magazines do you guys like? My favorites are "American Rifleman", "Discovery" and "National Geographic".

I find if you fold up a "Discovery" magazine it can carry 2 boxes of shells in from the store.

:D

If you enjoyed reading about "It's a magazine, not a clip!!!!!!!!!!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!