Depending on the website I visit the Libyan leader (well he is as I go to press) Gaddaffi’s surname changes. I’ve seen Gadhafi, Kadaffi and Quadaffi on my travels. It seems there are 112 ways to spell the tyrant’s name. Even his “Christian” name is problematic with Muammar or Moammar the top two in the charts.
Another guy who gives me headaches is Mahmoud Abbas or Abu Mazen as he is sometimes called. This man with two names should make his mind up. You don’t see our newspapers writing Cliff Richard or Harry Webb as he is known to some.
I suppose I’m being hypocritical as most of us have alibis (sic) we use in cyber space. Some with multiple identities. I’m now about to venture into dangerous waters as I might upset the owner with this one. Boadicea, seemingly, has a Gadhaffi-like tentacle alternative list of monikers. Boudicca and Bodica, two such examples.
Quickly moving on and finishing with a Royal flush, misspellings don’t bother me when they are still logical. You know what I mean, Rodger instead of Roger, Bryan instead of Brian, Jon instead of John. However, when Freddie is spelled Freddy I blow a fuse. Spell it rite i.e without the y.
Boadicea's Chariot 
How about , Rag head of shit head?
or Shit head even.
Perhaps there’s three of them, you know, like twins but with an extra one 😉
I am going to show my ignorance here. Why should it be ‘ie’ rather than ‘y’, and does that rule apply to all diminutives? Actually, I believe the word I was looking for is a ‘hypocorism’. A brief bit of research seems to imply that both forms are acceptable. Tony and Vicky are more likely to be used than Tonie and Vickie. I think gender sometimes plays a role. Billy for example usually means a boy while Billie means a girl.
As for Rodger, that is usually a surname while Jon is short for Jonathan.
I am not sure why ‘Freddy’ upsets you, or am I missing something?
….while Leslie, never with a ‘y’, is unisex.
Good morning to all aliaseseseses’
Sipu, it’s a Queen thing. Our great Lord Freddie is always Freddie and never Freddy. Thankfully, even in the most illiterate of places no one has got the surname wrong and called him Freddie Jupiter.
I always thought the ie/y usage was simply a matter of choice. In my neck of the woods there’s a lot of Aggie’s running about and a dearth of Stevie’s. Steff being the more popular shortening of Steven.
Hm. Lizzie Borden, Thin Lizzy. You pays yer money……
Hmm!
Leslie for a male, Lesley for a female. In the UK. Search on Google and you’ll find arguments both ways, but this appear to be the outcome for Airstrip 1.
However, I agree with Sipu that -y is usually male, and -ie female, which accords with Queen’s Freddie as a raving poofta. 🙂
Nothing wrong with the more normal Freddy for a proper bloke.
Steff is female only, where I come from, being short for Stephanie. What’s wrong with Stevo?
Morning Bearsy,
Definitely different cultures. If you were called Stevo in Glasgow your life wouldn’t be worth living. The guttural Steff much more manly.
Christopher must be near the top of names that can have many diminutives. Chris, Chrissy, Kris, etc. Strangely enough Kristo or Christo is acceptable in our parts. Again it’s the sounding. The rough sounding r adding a bit of menace.
Ah Freddie M. Well I agree with you there. Any misspelling on that front is pure heresy. For a moment when you said ‘A Queen thing’, I thought that, given your sobriquet, you were referring to a member of the Royal Family!
Hmm Freddy? When my mother came to the UK from Greece in 1946 my fathers family had trouble with her name Eletheria (it means freedom) quite a mouthful for people not used to foreign names or foreigners then, and all foreigners were treated with suspicion due to the war; so they called her Freddy with Y.
Freddie, I’m with you on this one JW, as you already know.
Freddie “a raving poofta” bearsy?? That’s a bit nasty, you obviously know nothing of the great man. He had more of an educated mind, and brilliance in his big toe, than you have in your whole body. Just ask Mary Austin, his common law wife. I don’t often fight someone’s corner, but the blonde does occasional 🙂
And yes, I’ve spelled occasionally wrong above, and I couldn’t give, even the occasional toss 🙂
Haw, JW.
First things, to get it out of the way and in reference to your ‘screensaver’ blog.
I had a practice for the hereafter on Thursday evening, believing that I was about to expire out of sheer embarrassment as the final whistle blew. Mrs M’s assurance that ‘it’s only a game’ did little to lift my mood but, having slept on it and decided to soldier on with supporting the far from mighty JTs, I’m going with ‘It was only ever a game’ when my time comes.
Moving on, I am not convinced about Stevies in Weegieland being called ‘Steff’. I have never heard anyone being called that in any of my visits to your ‘neck of the woods’. In my experience, Stevens are usually Steve or Stevie and Stephens are usually Stephen (or Tim),
Not, of course, that we could ever use ‘Steff’ as an abbreviation over here in Embra. It would cause confusion as to whether one was referring to a friend called Steven or to one’s domestic servants.
On the gutturality of ‘Steff’ I don’t see it. I do have a smattering of guttural patios as a result of said visits to Weegiedom but can’t make ‘Steff’ sound hard.
How unlike that splendid West Coast name ‘Senga’ which is a particular favourite of mine.
Don’t be so bloody rude, Val. You know fuck all about me, and you never bloody will.
Your Freddie was a bleeding poofta, so get used to it. Unnatural, perverted, homosexual twat. Only blithering idiots like you would support him.
Love you too Bearsy.
Check out the lost property department, you might find your sense of humour there.
Apologies JW.
No problems here JW! I was brought up with the spelling ‘Boadicea’. Modern ‘scholarship’ has determined that it should be Boudicca… I get a little tired of having to learn different names for the same places: Peking, Bombay, et al.. I flatly refuse to learn a new name for a woman who inspired me as a child. 🙂
My step-father was ‘Freddie’ – and he certainly wasn’t of the ‘middle gender’…
Look what I found on my bookshelves
I think Antonia Fraser is well established enough to give the correct spelling. 🙂
OZ
Boadicea: I’ve seen both spellings and have seen arguments going back and forth over whether it should be Boadicea or Boudicca. As for the names of towns… China is something else, but what amused me was hearing how many people from India keep on saying Bombay, Madras, Calcutta, and Bangalore. They only used the “new” names in case I didn’t know what the others were! It turns out that the only ones who really have a problem with them are fanatics, anyway.
One is supposed to admire a greasy, slimy bisexual wog that died of aids?
Poofta is FAR too pleasant an appellation Bearsy! Most polite of you!
What the hell is wrong with various people on here?
How can any normal person admire all this vermin just because they sing a few songs?
How the hell can they remember their names in the first place?
Talk about sad empty lives.. if you haven’t got anything better to do why not take up some voluntary work?
Enough to make one puke in one’s morning tea.
OZ, Did you know that Antonia Fraser is the cousin of Harriet Harperson? That itself makes one inclined to have negative sentiments towards her. I never quite forgave Ms Packenham, for dumping her husband for that most boring of all play-writes, Harold Pinter. On that basis alone, I am inclined to mistrust her on most things. In this case, though, I will make an exception. Boadicea it is.
Churchill insisted on calling Turkey’s capital, Ankara by its historical name, Angora.
CO: I take people on an individual basis, the act itself doesn’t bother me that much. What bothers me is the aggressive, in-your-face militant activism which includes burning churches, breaking into clinics, and heckling anyone who doesn’t agree with the militant agenda.
Know anybody who speaks Iceni around here?
Sipu – I didn’t know that. It always amazes me what you can learn here from trivia to real knowledge. The quality of the Charioteers knows no bounds. 🙂
OZ
Good evening, CO.
Absolutely nothing wrong with anybody on here, in my opinion. We all march to different drums and sing along to different tunes. Long may that continue.
It so happens that I am no fan of Mr Mercury either. For me, however, It does not make anybody defective in their life choices just because they do not share our lack of appreciation of his talents.
I seem to remember that you are not enamoured of much, if any, 20th Century music. With you to a large extent but happy to say that I like the music of such poofs celebres as Britten (although I can’t stand any of Peter Pears’ recordings, of course – a rubbish tenor, again in my opinion). Favourite piece of Vaughan Williams is ‘A Shropshire Lad’ with words by that notorious woofter, AE Housman.
Don’t see how it matters if somebody does not share your taste in music and don’t understand why the sexuality of the composer or author should colour your opinion of their talent one way or the other.
Very interesting comment, John and I agree with you. You may remember a post by beanbean Elsewhere, which was an interesting discussion. Not quite related but very close.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/beanbean/beanbean/4938759/Sincerity_in_art/
Don’t let them get to you, Val, Zen will be along soon with a new compilation of Freddie’s.
Boadicea, it is a chore having to learn the new names of countries, capitals etc. The bane in my life is when a football team changes the name of their home ground. I can always remember the former but the new one just won’t stick. The brain probably hasn‘t any spare space left in it.
Mr Mackie,
There’s still only a game to be played at White Hart Lane. You might be changing your tune. Good luck anyway and I hope you keep the score down.
I know hunners of Steffs’. It is obvious we don’t mingle in the same circles. Possibly you need an East end Weegie accent for this one. From the back of your throat hurl the EHHFFF into the atmosphere. Stehhfff.
#26. Different class, Sir.
the royalist,
Sorry if my comments came across as rude. The truth of the matter is that the medication hadn’t kicked in and I didn’t get past the name Quadaffi who of course, as we all know is a murdering scumbag.
Not at all, tocino, that’s him up to 114 now. Even the worst multi-ID’er on our distinguished competition never had as much as that. 🙂
I find queers actions of where and how ultimately disgusting, even worse when bisexual.
The thought of them dripping their aids from sex to sex’s differing orifices is utterly horrific and quite curdles anything they may achieve.
The thought that people may admire this kind of thing makes me extremely glad that I do not actually have to meet some of the people on here, one would not know where they had been and would have me dropping their tableware and glasses in bleach!
I find perversion abhorrent in any way shape or form.
Most heterosexuals appear to be able to discount what they actually DO, I can’t and don’t.
Besides which musicians are there to provide background etc, for the life of me why people should relate to them except in passing is absolutely beyond me. I just don’t think they have enough to occupy their lives.
Re Antonia Fraser. I recall a comment by David Starkey regarding her ‘scholarship’ – he was not impressed. And given his reasons, I’m inclined to agree! It might also be remembered that she is not only related to the dreaded Harriet-woman, but is also the daughter of Lord Longford of the “Let’s release Myra Hindley campaign”.
I endeavour not to dismiss peoples’ achievements because of their relatives, sexual inclinations or other behaviour. But I find it very difficult to understand why the ability to write, sing or, even, play cricket well should excuse what is, for many people, anti-social and unacceptable behaviour.
I listened to a number of ‘tributes’ to the late Amy Winehouse – her appalling behaviour was attributed to her ‘genius’. Is it surprising that so many ‘young’ people have problems with differentiating between ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ when such people are promoted as role models?
It’s ‘cos I’s white, innit?
CO, would I be correct in concluding that you find many varieties of humanity abhorrent, including their ethnic origin, colour, religion, sexual orientation and opinions? You are a walking justification for Equal Opportunities legislation, methinks.
Bearsy: the correct term is “person of pallor”.
Christopher – that’s good, I’d not heard it before. Thanks! 🙂
Boadicea, I have not read any of her works and even if I had, I would not be qualified to comment on her scholarship, having none of my own. However, I would be greatly disappointed had I struggled my way through one of her ‘damned thick books’ only to discover that it was not up to scratch. Taking into account the number she has written and the amount and intensity of original research required for such enterprises, as described by you once long ago, I would find it hard to believe that her scholarship could possibly meet the exacting standards of David Starkey.
That being said, given that Starkey has been described as ‘the rudest man in Britain’ and ‘a misogynist’, I am not sure that he is sufficiently objective to be the sole arbiter on Lady Antonia’s scholastic ability. Considering his sexual proclivities, I am sure that CO would agree.
I’m reading a four volume series about Boadicea at the moment, by Manda Scott. Not sure about the historical accuracy, but a rattling good read. I recommend it if that’s your cup of tea.
Oh, PS. I’ve read a couple of Antonia Fraser’s books and enjoyed them 🙂
Sipu.
I believe that I have mentioned elsewhere that Starkey was my principle lecturer and personal tutor at the LSE. I will refrain from posting the content of his comment here, but given, as you rightly say, his ‘exacting standards’ he may have overstated the case – but I suspect he was quite right.
He certainly had few ‘social skills’ then, and doesn’t seem to have developed any in the intervening years. One was never in any doubt when a piece of work didn’t meet his standards! On the other hand, one was pretty sure that when he said something was excellent – it really was.
As to his being a misogynist, I wasn’t aware that he treated his female students any differently from the men, nor, indeed, did he differentiate between the younger and mature students. He certainly did not suffer fools gladly, but neither did my PhD supervisor – who had a far worse reputation for ‘rudeness’ than Starkey! I don’t believe that his comment was based on a bias against women historians.
I owe a debt of gratitude to Starkey, who went out of his way to help an, at that time, unknown would-be student to get one year’s additional funding and sorted out the Uni to allow me to do my first degree in two rather than three years.
Boa, maybe these days what we would have called academic rigour is now put down to rudeness, given the Bliarite tendency to avoid upsetting anybody!
How interesting that Starkey was your tutor Bo.
I’ve never found him misogynist either, doesn’t seem to like anyone much, can’t say I blame him!
At least he kept his sexual proclivities to himself, one never hears anything much about him and a good job too!
I always got the impression that Antonia Fraser was a bit lightweight, maybe it was writing for a mass audience, not my subject so couldn’t really tell. Books are so much tailored to their market these days.
Quite different to academic papers which are limited circulation. perhaps therein lays the rub?
I think AF is a populist historian, not an academic as such – a bit like Lord Bragg whose name says it all. 🙂
Janus
He could be rude, and he certainly liked to ‘shock’! The Blairite policy of not upsetting anyone has, in my opinion, done more to lower educational standards than just about anything else!
Christina
I tend to think of Antonia’s books as ‘telling the story’ – an accurate account but without too much sparkle! Whereas Starkey’s books, like his lectures, are full of interesting little details that somehow breathe life into the subject. I suspect a lot of people don’t read his books because they might consider them to be too learned – but, in my opinion, he writes well.
One of the great or, perhaps more accurately, dangerous things about the internet is the ability it gives us to research topics about which we, or at least I, heretofore knew nothing about. Starkey is a case in point. I was aware that he was a historian and vaguely recall your saying that he had been your tutor, but beyond that, I knew little about the man. I have not watched his programs nor read any of his books, so it was off to Wikipedia. Not the greatest source of reference, I admit, but enough to provide a cursory background. In any event, given his difficult childhood I think Starkey can be forgiven for his lack of social skills. As for the ‘misogyny’ bit, and leaving aside pots and kettles, here is the quote from whence I gleaned the information.
“In an interview about the series for the Radio Times, Starkey complained that too many historians had focussed on Henry’s wives, and not the man himself. Referring to a “feminised history”, he said: “so many of the writers who write about this are women and so much of their audience is a female audience.” This prompted historian Lucy Worsley to label his comments as misogynous.” (Not sure why ‘focussed’ is spelled that way!)
Because that’s the British spelling, Sipu.
I am interested to hear you say that. I always thought there was only one ‘s’. This site seems to think that either spelling is acceptable but that the single ‘s’ is preferred.
http://www.future-perfect.co.uk/grammartips/grammar-tip-focussed-focused.asp
Can you point me to a reputable authority that will confirm things, one way or the other. I am always amenable to a bit of education.
Fowler.
Sipu, I’ve just googled this:
“When a verb of more than one syllable ends in a single consonant other than w, x or y immediately preceded by a single vowel, the final consonant is doubled before the ending ed only when the last syllable of the verb is pronounced with the heaviest stress. For example:
Infinitive Past Participle
to control controlled
to infer inferred
to occur occurred
to permit permitted
to fasten fastened
to order ordered
to focus focused
to limit limited”
Very interesting, nicht wahr?
Well that was helpful, Janus. Not. I do not have a copy of Fowler otherwise, believe it or not, I would have looked there myself. I was rather hoping for a link.
Further research reveals this:
“Explanation:
The (British) Collins dictionary only lists ‘focused’ and not ‘focussed’.
In Fowler’s ‘Modern English Usage’, the following statement is made:
“the verb makes focused, -cusing (‘ in England commonly, but irregularly, written focussed, -ing ‘ –OED)””
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/English/other/608344-focused_vs_focussed.html
So, while I accept that both versions are acceptable, I am going to stick with the single ‘s’.
Ah, Janus, thank you for your more explicit response. I think we are agreed then. Focused it is.
Typical! I reckon that far too many (male) historians have, in the past, concentrated on men, wars and other such ‘male’ activities… does that make me a man-hater?
In fact, Starkey is probably right – Henry VIII’s marital exploits have been the focus of an awful lot of attention!
Incidentally, I knew nothing about his childhood.
It would seem that I have been too long in Australia. Wiki tells me that the spelling with double-s ‘… is especially common in Australia and New Zealand’. 🙂
Boadicea, I hope the ‘typical’ was aimed at Ms Worsley, rather than at yours truly. You know me, I would never dream of judging anybody based on so limited a knowledge of the individual concerned!
What you say about Henry VIII and his shenanigans in the boudoir makes me wonder how much else of history is shaded out by some of the more salacious events that occurred at the time. Someone should write a series of book about the ’10 important things you never knew about xxx’.
Speaking of things salacious, while in London, I came across a book called ‘City of Sin: London and its Vices by Catharine Arnold’. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/15/catharine-arnold-city-of-sin-book-review.
Fascinating stuff and very amusing in parts and almost shocking in others. So shocking in fact that one rather questions the authenticity. I found it ironic that the court of Edward III, ‘Honi soit qui mal y pense’ and all that chivalrous stuff, was in fact exceedingly debauched. Arnold comes up with some wonderful snippets of information and exposes the peccadilloes of some of history’s characters. Worth a read.
“Egad sir, I do not know whether you will die on the gallows or of the pox.” “That will depend, my Lord, on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress.” (John Wilkes to the Earl of Sandwich) They had until recently both enjoyed the company of a certain (black) prostitute.
Sipu – no the ‘typical’ was not aimed at you!
As the to the veracity of the stories in ‘City of Sin’, which I haven’t read, – one has to remember that human nature, especially male nature, hasn’t changed that much! The public ‘standards’ of morality have rarely equated with the behaviour of people in private.
Ah yes! Human nature. Romance is when he chases her until she catches him. How much more interesting than what else HVIII was up to – if he ever had the time.