Boots' spelling

[Rolfe]

So what's wrong with it? "Homoeopathy" is actually how it's spelled. In recent years there's been a tendency to drop the second "o" (though that's not logical according to the etymology), and this is more pronounced in the US than Britain, but the "oeo" still correct - indeed the more correct - spelling.

The word is German, "homöopathie". As is standard practice, when using a lexicon without umlauts, the umlauted letter is characterised by being followed by an "e", or indeed ligatured to an "e". Well, I suppose the absolutely totally 100% authentic spelling is "homÅ“opathy", but I don't suppose that's what Randi meant, was it?

It just pisses me off when he takes an email or other text from someone using UK spelling (you know, of a language called "English"), and either changes it into vulgar Yank-spelling, or sneeringly adds [sic] to the text as if he's insinuating that the correct version is a mistake.

Get over it, Randi, the US isn't the final arbiter of how the ENGLISH language is spelled. Even when it's translating it from German.
</rant>

Rolfe.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

How is "Yank-spelling" vulgar, and why do you think Mr. Randi sneers? I've never seen him do it.

Who is the final arbiter of language?

If you're referring to Mr. Randi's comments about spelling at the end, I hope you realize he's referring to the following spelling:

"homeopathetic"

which was used by Malcom Dodd., and printed by Mr. Randi unedited.

 

[crimresearch]

Ahhh, the dying gasps of the once mighty imperialists, demanding that the world come back and again be their chattel...

If one ascribes to the 'current usage dictates correctness' maxim, then 'homoeopathy' is a museum relic.

Besides if you take that extra 'O' out, you can always toss it into 'Chumley's' with all the other unneccessary letters.

http://hereditarytitles.com/Page46.html

 

[Rolfe]

Oh, get over it. I suppose the position of the tongue at least half way into the cheek isn't all that obvious over the Internet....

Randi has a dig at other people's spelling and grammar all the time. 95% of the time he's in the right, but quite often he "corrects" or does his little [sic] thing at perfectly correct UK spelling written by UK correspondents. Nobody's insisting that the US should conform to UK spelling, so how about returning the compliment?

In the UK you'll find the homoeopathy spelling about 50% one way or the other. My UK spellcheker in my word processor allows both forms. There has been a recent tendency for the homoeopaths themselves to drop the extra "o", because they think it looks more modern. However, the "oeo" form is still carved in stone (literally) over their London hospital and a few other places. And both veterinary journals where we've been having a bit of a ding-dong on the subject use the "oeo" form as editorial policy.

So if the homoeopaths themselves want to use the "modern" form, then I take great delight in using the older form just to point out how out of date the whole thing is. As if anyone notices.

But really, both forms are correct, and it's just silly to make snide remarks at a company that has chosen to use the form you don't personally espouse. Save the snide remarks for the fact that they charge £4.99 for a teaspoonful of sugar, which is actually labelled as such.

Rolfe.

 

[Jeff Wagg]

i just want to be sure you realize that Randi wasn't commenting on the spelling "homoeopathy" but rather "homeopathetic." If you do realize this, the I have to admit that your "humour" is lost on me.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Save the snide remarks for the fact that they charge £4.99 for a teaspoonful of sugar, which is actually labelled as such.

Rolfe.

Is there a homeopathic (sic) sugar remedy - if so I was wondering how they dispense it?


(I spell it homeopathic 'cos that's how me says it!)

 

[Rolfe]

i just want to be sure you realize that Randi wasn't commenting on the spelling "homoeopathy" but rather "homeopathetic." If you do realize this, the I have to admit that your "humour" is lost on me.

We're talking about two different things here.

In fact I owe Randi an apology - it wasn't him who criticised Boots' spelling at all - it was part of the text of the email from Malcolm Dodds which he reproduced.

Notice that their spelling is as efficacious as their homeopathetic medicines!

The only possible thing he could be referring to is the "homoeopathic" spelling in the leaflet. There's nothing misspelled anywhere.

So, not Randi's fault, though perhaps he could have omitted that baseless accusation from his transcription.

I didn't notice anyone commenting on "homeopathetic" - it's quite a common pleasantry, often seen in the forum.

Anyway [mutters darkly] Randi does so change people's correct UK spelling. I've seen him do it. So there!

Rolfe.

 

[crimresearch]

Rolfe...that's pathetic.

 

[Nucular]

Much as I take delight in vaguely confusing people with talk of archæology, encyclopædias, œsophagi, &c. - and have done for, ooh, æons - I do tend to spell homœopathy its simplified, Americanised way (homeopathy), largely because in searches on the web or in databases it results in more hits.

But anyway, Rolfe, after Mr. Dodd is quoted as saying

Notice that their spelling is as efficacious as their homeopathetic medicines!

Randi follows by admitting,

I took pity, and made certain corrections. This was not an examination of spelling skills ...

So, unless we ask Randi or Mr. Dodd, we'll never know of what those alleged orthographical transgressions consisted.

That said, I agree that Randi has in the past mistaken English correctitude for casual or wanton linguistic violation and incompetence.

 

[Rolfe]

But anyway, Rolfe, after Mr. Dodd is quoted as sayingRandi follows by admitting,So, unless we ask Randi or Mr. Dodd, we'll never know of what those alleged orthographical transgressions consisted.

I thought all that was about Randi's opinion of Mr. Dodds' spelling, which he later acknowledged was intentional for effect anyway.

Mr. Dodds was referring to the Boots leaflet, which I don't think Randi corrected - hard to do anyway as it was an image. Sorry, I realise this has all the importance of [something stunningly unimportant], maybe I should shut up.

Rolfe.

 

[Nucular]

Incidentally, we could hardly call the Boots 'Introduction to Homeopathy' page a showcase of spelling mastery: "homepathic... harmfull... Homepathic... repsonse... medines" - and I'm sure there are more. Perhaps these are similar examples to those so graciously amended by Randi?

But more worrying (if indeed anything can be more worrying than spelling errors) are the repetition of similar claims for their homeopathic products as reportedly found in the pamphlet. Although nowhere is the claim that the products' efficacy has been proven through research, various statements of fact abound, such as

The homepathic [sic] substance mimics the effects of the illness and helps the body's ability to combat the illness.

...

Homeopathic medicines are dilutions of a concentrated solution and are used in the smallest amount that will provoke a healing repsonse [sic].

...

Et cetera.

Terribly misleading information supplied by a company I'm sure most people trust to give good advice. I wonder if this is actually legally pursuable?

 

[Nucular]

I thought all that was about Randi's opinion of Mr. Dodds' spelling, which he later acknowledged was intentional for effect anyway.

Mr. Dodds was referring to the Boots leaflet, which I don't think Randi corrected - hard to do anyway as it was an image.

No, don't think so - the reply itself is explicitly mentioned as the target of correction:

Malcolm, sending me the Boots response above, added:

You are probably as unflabbergasted at their reply as I am unoverwhelmed by it. Notice that their spelling is as efficacious as their homeopathetic medicines!

I took pity, and made certain corrections.

Sorry, I realise this has all the importance of [something stunningly unimportant], maybe I should shut up.

Rolfe.

Not at all, I've always thought of pedantry as the highest calling

 

[Spidey13]

I think people who refuse to put in the extra O are all homophobes.

 

[Mojo]

Terribly misleading information supplied by a company I'm sure most people trust to give good advice. I wonder if this is actually legally pursuable?

I think it's difficult to get action over web pages. If it was a printed or broadcasted advert, the Advertising Standards Authority could deal with it. I'm not sure if they're also responsible for web advertising.

On the other hand, I've got Boots' current leaflet about complementary medicines (I couldn't find the one mentioned in the commentary). It makes a number of claims about the efficacy of homeopathy. I'm wondering whether it's worth submitting it to the ASA.

As it is available at point of sale, I'm also wondering if it counts as a product description. If so, it might also be worth mentioning to the MHRA. The rules for registration of homeopathic medicines state that "the product must ... make no therapeutic claims."

Any ideas?

 

[Mojo]

I've found the reference on the ASA website:

The types of ads we deal with include:

...

Advertisements on the Internet, include banner ads and pop-up ads (not claims on companies’ own websites)

...

Misleading claims about websites should be reported to your local trading standards department.

I assume they mean misleading claims on websites.

I think it's more difficult to get Trading Standards to take action, as they would (I think) have to prosecute, which would need a higher standard of evidence. The ASA can simply order an advert to be withdrawn if it upholds a complaint about it.

 

[Billy]

Get over it, Randi, the US isn't the final arbiter of how the ENGLISH language is spelled.

"Britain and America - two countries divided by the same language" (I forget who said that)

Incidentally, we could hardly call the Boots 'Introduction to Homeopathy' page a showcase of spelling mastery: "homepathic... harmfull... Homepathic... repsonse... medines" - and I'm sure there are more. Perhaps these are similar examples to those so graciously amended by Randi?

Maybe we should just call it HomeoPATHETIC.