Maffi Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 FEWER!!!!! In this case it can be 'less' "Consisting of a smaller number" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/less I didnt look at the lock numbers - but there was a water treatment works (I could tell by the smell!) on the far bank. It was on the locks to the North of that! Was that up above Winkwell There is a lock up there that is signed posted to be left empty due to flooding the lock house basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 Well over 2000miles and close to 2000 locks I have only ever left a gate open when a boat was coming. However many have opened after I closed them. I did not go back to close them again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveC Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 We cruised the K&A in 2009 where the guidance varies from lock to lock. Leaving aside the river sections, the locks as built had the bywash weir within the lock chamber thus the top gates and one paddle should remain open to maintain the correct level otherwise water rises to the level of the top of the main body of the gates. Signs were often erected to inform boaters re the protocol at locks and as improvements are made, new bywashes are constructed extracting the water from immediately above the lock per the norm elsewhere. Then both gates and all padels should be closed. However some of the signs with the instruction to leave top gates and a paddle open are now a part of a listed structure and thus require permission to be changed!!! Also, some locks without notices are the older type requiring gates to be left open whilst others are structured such that all gates and paddles should be closed! However, baters having their first expeerience away from the K&A can be excused for leaving gates open??? There are no notices saying leave top gates and a paddle open - there was one a few years ago when a ground paddle was in danger of collapse and the lock had to be left full and the paddle up to take the pressure off the paddle (I think it was about lock 69 give or take a couple) but that is the only instance of having to leave TOP gates open. Many locks need BOTTOM PADDLES left open to enable a flow to lower pounds or sometimes to prevent flooding of adjacent properties. Hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadeToScarlet Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 I can think of one situation when you could only leave top gates open, maybe bottom gates- and that's as a butty steerer working down narrow locks with only one other person steering the motor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
furnessvale Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 If it was a set of rules then single handing would be outlawed. Bloody hell Carl, don't give them ideas, the BW health and safety mob are mad enough! George ex nb Alton retired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesWoolcock Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 Just had a pint with John Jackson who used them last year said the Garrison Locks bottom gates don't all close when the top paddles are drawn. I went down in September and all those did that I recall ( or I used like this? ) But happy to stand corrected. James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 I can think of one situation when you could only leave top gates open, maybe bottom gates- and that's as a butty steerer working down narrow locks with only one other person steering the motor. Why should that be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Ibis Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Edited- replied with wrong account! Edited April 16, 2012 by Black Ibis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinClark Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 FEWER!!!!! In this case it can be 'less' "Consisting of a smaller number" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/less Sorry, Maffi, but Chertsey is quite correct. In this case it must be 'fewer'. To say "and it is less letters" is incorrect, as is that Free Dictionary definition, I'm afraid. 'Less' means 'consisting of a smaller quantity'. When things are countable, the word to use is 'fewer'. Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadeToScarlet Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Sorry, Maffi, but Chertsey is quite correct. In this case it must be 'fewer'. To say "and it is less letters" is incorrect, as is that Free Dictionary definition, I'm afraid. 'Less' means 'consisting of a smaller quantity'. When things are countable, the word to use is 'fewer'. Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start? Half an hour after the Pedants'. (Here we go....) Why should that be any different? Because in that situation it's almost impossible to close gates after you. T Having said that, it's rare to see a pair being moved by just two people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_fincher Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start? This is always such dangerous territory to enter, isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FadeToScarlet Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 There's a reason why the Private Eye column is Pedantry Corner..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinClark Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 This is always such dangerous territory to enter, isn't it? What makes you think it wasn't a deliberate test to see who was awake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Because in that situation it's almost impossible to close gates after you. T Having said that, it's rare to see a pair being moved by just two people. No more difficult than when single handing. Don't say it cant be done, work out how it can be done. Edited April 16, 2012 by Maffi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 16, 2012 Report Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Sorry, Maffi, but Chertsey is quite correct. In this case it must be 'fewer'. To say "and it is less letters" is incorrect, as is that Free Dictionary definition, I'm afraid. 'Less' means 'consisting of a smaller quantity'. When things are countable, the word to use is 'fewer'. Sorry, what time does the Pedants meeting start? You chosedefinition No 1 and I chose definition No 3 1. Not as great in amount or quantity 3. Consisting of asmaller number. The end of the line was referring to the fact that the first two words quoted had "a smaller number" of letters than the second pair of words. This you cannot deny surely? "and it is less letters" is not what was said Even if it is only a "rule of thumb" I tend to say "obey"and "break" rather than "follow" and "notfollow", because I'm lazy and it is less letters. Is what was said. To take "and it is less letters" in isolation and say it is wrong isfolly. In the context of the whole sentence 'it' is correct. You cannot deny that there is a smaller number of letters in 'obey' & 'break' than there are in 'follow' & 'not follow'. Given that that is thecase then definition 3 applies. I say that for two reasons 1. The vast majority of the population say less. It's the people's language. 2. If you insist on saying fewer then you are denying English as a living language (see 1 above) and should therefore accept American as the true English. (American Congress: Language Decision 1805) Edited April 17, 2012 by Maffi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinClark Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) You chose definition No 1 And I chose definition No 3 1. Not as great in amount or quantity 3. Consisting of a smaller number. No! I chose definitions from more reliable dictionaries! Oxford: "a smaller amount of; not as much" [linky] Cambridge: "a smaller amount (of); not so much, or to a smaller degree" [linky] The end of the line was refering to the fact that the first two words quoted had "a smaller number" of letters than the second pair of words. This you cannot deny surely? "and it is less letters" is not what was said Even if it is only a "rule of thumb" I tend to say "obey" and "break" rather than "follow" and "not follow", because I'm lazy and it is less letters. Is what was said. To take "and it is less letters" in isolation and say it is wrong is folly. In the context of the whole sentence 'it' is correct. Now you are being silly! The words I quoted were exactly the words Dave used at the end of his post. The words he used earlier in the sentence make no difference to whether "less" or "fewer" should have been used. You cannot deny that there is a smaller number of letters in 'obey' & 'break' than ther are in 'follow' & 'not follow'. Given that that is the case then deffinition 3 applies. I don't deny that there is a smaller number of letters in those words. That is irrelevant to the argument. A smaller number of letters = fewer letters, not less letters. Your definition 3 is incorrect. I say that for two reasons 1. The vast majority of the population say less. It's the peoples language. 2. If you insist on saying fewer then you are denying English as a living language (see 1 above) and should therefore accept American as the true English. ( American Congress Language Decision 1805) Because a lot of people do something that does not mean that it is correct. The vast majority of drivers sometimes exceed speed limits but that doesn't make it right. Yes, "standards" slip, but that is all the more reason to make sure that people know what the "standards" are. In any case, I know that Dave knows how to use words correctly and suspect that he used "less" in a joking way. I knew I shouldn't have replied to you, Maffi, as I remember previous prolonged arguments. I will think what I want to think about this and you will think what you want to think, and each of us will know that we are right! Edited April 17, 2012 by MartinClark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 (edited) No! I chose definitions from more reliable dictionaries! Oxford: "a smaller amount of; not as much" [linky] Cambridge: "a smaller amount (of); not so much, or to a smaller degree" [linky] Now you are being silly! The words I quoted were exactly the words Dave used at the end of his post. The words he used earlier in the sentence make no difference to whether "less" or "fewer" should have been used. I don't deny that there is a smaller number of letters in those words. That is irrelevant to the argument. A smaller number of letters = fewer letters, not less letters. Your definition 3 is incorrect. Because a lot of people do something that does not mean that it is correct. The vast majority of drivers sometimes exceed speed limits but that doesn't make it right. Yes, "standards" slip, but that is all the more reason to make sure that people know what the "standards" are. In any case, I know that Dave knows how to use words correctly and suspect that he used "less" in a joking way. I knew I shouldn't have replied to you, Maffi, as I remember previous pointless arguments. I will think what I want to think about this and you will think what you want to think, and each of us will know that we are right! Maffi 1 - 0 Martin Edited April 17, 2012 by Maffi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iain_S Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Maffi 1 - 0 Martin I don't see how Martin got less than Maffi Iain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitchell Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Is it not fewer ? ....im running . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 The populace determine the language. Academics only catalogue it and highlight trends. I don't see how Martin got less than Maffi Iain His argument resorted to insults and put downs and unrelated history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartinClark Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Maffi 1 - 0 Martin Hi, Maffi. I am glad to see you have highlighted the bits of my post that you liked! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mykaskin Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 No more difficult than when single handing. Don't say it cant be done, work out how it can be done. It can be done, but doing it with a single motor or with a pair are two completely different things. First, with a single motor, I usually stick Victoria in reverse as it passes the gate, jump off, swing the gate shut, and then jump back on and put it in forward before the rudder hits anything. With a pair, the butty steerer doesn't have as easy access to the back of the boat - usually much higher than a motor's counter (even Victoria's!), and also the motor steerer can't see easily how close the back of the boat is to things so there is a risk of breaking the 'ellum. Bringing a pair to a stop usually means jack knifes and windage problems, and you can't bring the boats into the lock mooring to pick up the crew member because the butty stern will waggle away from the wall. With three, it is usually possible by bringing the pair into the bank, and sometimes by stopping in the lock mouth (with someone on the 'ellum keeping it away from things and giving a warning if it gets too close to anything). Hope that helps with the understanding of the issues. Cheers, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maffi Posted April 17, 2012 Report Share Posted April 17, 2012 Hi, Maffi. I am glad to see you have highlighted the bits of my post that you liked! Ho ho ho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now