Why can the BBC not get simple facts even about its own broadcastscorrect?

In article ,
charles wrote:
30 years ago, The BBC's former Science Correspondent didnt' know the
difference between a good picture and a bad (snowy) picture at home
saying "I wouldn't know - I'm only a journalist." This despite the fact
that he saw good pictures in the studio ever day. I suppose he got to
be Science Coreespondent by knowing how to pronunce the words.

A production co-ordinator once asked the engineering department of a long
running drama series if it was shot on 16 or 35mm. After working there for
some months. It was shot on DigiBeta.

--
*If a parsley farmer is sued, can they garnish his wages?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:12:49 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Today that might be "veni, vidi, wiki": I came, I vidded it, I
wikipediaed it.

(For the masses) Wikipedia is too much like hard work.

More like "veni, vidi, tweeted".

In article ,
J G Miller wrote:
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 12:12:49 +0100, Peter Duncanson wrote:

Today that might be "veni, vidi, wiki": I came, I vidded it, I
wikipediaed it.

(For the masses) Wikipedia is too much like hard work.

More like "veni, vidi, tweeted".


I thought it was "veni, vidi, visa"

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

"Peter Duncanson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:49:06 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Bill Wright
saying something like:

'Filmed' implies non-live. How about 'televised'?

It's not short and snappy.
How about 'vidded'?
"I'm gonna vid it."

Hmm. That brings to mind Julius Caesar's "veni, vidi, vici": I came, I
saw, I conquered.
(The Classical Latin pronunciation of "v" was "w")

Does anyone know how the ancient Romans pronounced Latin?

--
Max Demian

On Sunday, April 24th, 2011, at 22:20:18h +0100, Max Demian asked:

Does anyone know how the ancient Romans pronounced Latin?

According to Michael A. Covington, Program in Linguistics,
University of Georgia in the document

"Latin Pronunciation Demystified"

at http://www.ai.uga.EDU/mc/latinpro.pdf

QUOTE

Do we know how the Romans pronounced Latin?

Surprisingly, yes.

UNQUOTE

On 25/04/2011 02:42, J G Miller wrote:
On Sunday, April 24th, 2011, at 22:20:18h +0100, Max Demian asked:

Does anyone know how the ancient Romans pronounced Latin?

According to Michael A. Covington, Program in Linguistics,
University of Georgia in the document

"Latin Pronunciation Demystified"

athttp://www.ai.uga.EDU/mc/latinpro.pdf

QUOTE

Do we know how the Romans pronounced Latin?

Surprisingly, yes.

UNQUOTE

Yes... but... "The pronunciation of Latin becomes much less puzzling
once you realize that there are at least four rival ways of doing it."

Andy

On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:12:10 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:

Yes... but... "The pronunciation of Latin becomes much less puzzling
once you realize that there are at least four rival ways of doing it."

Not as difficult then as the differences in pronunciation of English by
the English in Somerset, Kent, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, West Midlands, Merseyside,
Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Northumberland etc etc.

J G Miller wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 19:12:10 +0100, Andy Champ wrote:
Yes... but... "The pronunciation of Latin becomes much less puzzling
once you realize that there are at least four rival ways of doing it."

Not as difficult then as the differences in pronunciation of English by
the English in Somerset, Kent, Norfolk, Oxfordshire, West Midlands, Merseyside,
Lancashire, South Yorkshire, Northumberland etc etc.
Or the differences between North, West, and south Yorkshire.

Bill

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:31:05 +0100, charles
wrote:

In article ,
Steve Thackery wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message ...


Is 'filmed' not legitimately used in a generic sense like video
footage, dialling phone numbers, fuse boxes etc?


Yes, it is. Of course it's technically wrong,

and of course, real film people "shoot".

If you shot the royal family wouldn't you be a terrorist?
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 15:07:10 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 14:34:30 +0100, Peter Duncanson
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:59:28 +0100, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 22 Apr 2011 01:45:03 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller
wrote:


From http://www.bbc.co.UK/news/uk-13150117

Jchannon: Will the royal wedding be in HD or just upscaled to BBC One HD?

[Peter Hunt, Diplomatic and Royal Correspondent replies]

It won't, as you suggest, be filmed in HD. == filmed? Jchannon never suggested it would be filmed.
Since when (Baird?) has live television been
filmed for transmission?

The broadcasters, particularly SKY News, had wanted to. So the BBC did not paricularly want to do HD?

However, the idea was rejected by the Palace, particularly
because the cameras required would be too large. HD video cameras are too large are they?


Why does the BBC pay idiots to spout such garbage?

The page has now been updated. Peter concedes he was mixing up 3D and
HD. The programme will be 'filmed' in HD.

To OP: if you object to the word 'filmed' would you care to suggest a
more suitable word that complies with the requrements of plain
English.

"Televised" would do in place of "filmed".

The verb "televise" already exists.

But it would not be televised in HD except to those with HD television
sets. Therefore it would be filmed in HD but televised to most of the
population in SD .

It would not be televised at all to the majority of the population
since only a minority will be watching.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.