I've just received an email from B&O telling me that they've found a winner for their Beolab 9 slogan competition. With respect to the winner (and the setter of the competition) whose first languages are probably not English, it doesn't make sense.

I assume the winner was trying to say that the Beolab 9 is a jewel that can't be worn, unlike other jewels which can be worn.

Therefore, the slogan should be "Not all jewels are designed to be worn". "All jewels are not designed to be worn" suggests that no jewel, whether a loudspeaker or a diamond, was designed to be worn which is clearly nonsense.

Sorry. Being a pedant can be a real burden at times.

 

Some jewels are not designed to be worn -- is what they try to express. And then your suggestion: Not all jewels are designed to be worn, is right; while "all jewels are not designed to be worn" is fuddled.

Jewellers can also work with sound ... erh. It kind of shows up one of B&O's great weaknesses, they're so hung up on what their products look like, that they forget to talk about what they do.

And with 0.7% of the total votes came..

An Audiophiles Wet Dream
Written by Ms. Mary Pezdek | April 19, 2008

Nice...

My guess is it's an attempt to mimic the structure of "All that glitters is not gold," but I agree that it ends up sounding awkward -- "are not designed to be worn" is a more complex verbal phrase than "is not gold."

9 LEE:

And with 0.7% of the total votes came..

An Audiophiles Wet Dream
Written by Ms. Mary Pezdek | April 19, 2008

Nice...

If she thinks a BL9 is : "An Audiophiles Wet Dream"

What would her quote be for the Penta ?..............................

BeoLab 5 - The Audiophile just passed out wearing a gas mask and rubber underwear..

Now stop it - this is a family site!

 

9 LEE:

BeoLab 5 - The Audiophile just passed out wearing a gas mask and rubber underwear..

Now stop it - this is a family site!

"Wasteland" here we come !! loud and clear..........................

good one Lee; but you're right it's a [B&O] family site..............

PL212:

My guess is it's an attempt to mimic the structure of "All that glitters is not gold," but I agree that it ends up sounding awkward ...

Not being a native english speaker, I have to admit that the quote made sense for me and sounded right because I know the "all that glitters is not gold" sentence. May be it is as a reference to that sentence that B&O chose the "all jewels..." sentence.

But still the "audiophiles wet dream" is my favorite

But "All that glitters is not gold" makes sense because it's true. Tinsel glitters and it's not gold and therefore "All that glitters is not gold". It's not that the winning slogan is awkward - it's just plain wrong!

jonnyb:

But "All that glitters is not gold" makes sense because it's true. Tinsel glitters and it's not gold and therefore "All that glitters is not gold". It's not that the winning slogan is awkward - it's just plain wrong!

Speaking of pedantry - the actual saying is :- "All that glisters isn't gold"

It comes from one Shakespears many plays I believe.

Chris.

No reference to 'crown jewels'  :hehe:

I like this one too, especially the "P" in Beolab!!

Medogsfat:

It comes from one Shakespears many plays I believe.

Shakespear's. Argh. I'm sorry. I can't help it.
 

jonnyb:

Medogsfat:

It comes from one Shakespears many plays I believe.

Shakespear's. Argh. I'm sorry. I can't help it.
 

Serves me right.

Gentlemen,

Respect for The Bard, please. His name is Shakespeare -- and therefore it should be Shakespeare's many plays.

 

Merchant of Venice.

All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll'd
Fare you well, your suit is cold.
 

Well I just opened the email and it contradicts itself!!
The opening caption says "Not all jewels are designed to be worn" and it gives the winner's name.
Then a few lines down, it says "All jewels are not designed to be worn" and once again gives the winner's name.
I guess they have either read this thread, but only corrected it once instead of twice, or, misquoted the poor winner so he comes across as having bad grammar, or made the whole thing up and put a ficticious name.
Aren't we nit picky?

Andy T.

Yes, noticed that - and wondered whether they'd managed to put in a fix after ambling over to this thread. Who knows?

 Should have gone with this one:

Penguins on deck! Front and center!

 
 

soundproof:

Gentlemen,

Respect for The Bard, please. His name is Shakespeare -- and therefore it should be Shakespeare's many plays.

Ah. Except that Shakespere spelled his own name in a number of different ways. Shakespeare as the common spelling has just gained currency by sheer repetition. The Elizabethans (and Shaky himself) spelled it differently almost every time they wrote it down.

Yeah, me too!
Something to do with Holsten Pils I believe.

Adny T.

jonnyb:

soundproof:

Gentlemen,

Respect for The Bard, please. His name is Shakespeare -- and therefore it should be Shakespeare's many plays.

Ah. Except that Shakespere spelled his own name in a number of different ways. Shakespeare as the common spelling has just gained currency by sheer repetition. The Elizabethans (and Shaky himself) spelled it differently almost every time they wrote it down.

You're unfortunate, I've studied this. Pour your favourite beverage, sit down and read. And I really do think we should follow the accepted spelling, when we wish to be pedants, if not, whither pedantry?

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html 

That said, Jefferson thought it a sign of a failed imagination if one only knew of one way to spell a word. 

From the link above: 

5. Conclusion

To sum up, none of the three major Oxfordian claims about Shakespeare's name holds up under scrutiny. There were not two separate names, "Shakspere" and "Shakespeare"; rather, they were the same name, with "Shakespeare" being by far the most common spelling both in non-literary references to the glover's son from Stratford and in literary references to Shakespeare as a poet and playwright.

 

Yeah, I googled exactly the same page. It says there were different spellings - that's not disputed. That article argues about whether or not the different spellings were used to refer to two 'incarnations' of the man - the Stratford man and the London playwright.

I wasn't saying Shakespeare is not the most common and accepted spelling, merely that there are other spellings, none of which are incorrect. So if Chris wants to say Shakespear he's not wrong, merely unconventional.

Is it Wednesday already?

Further Googling found me this page which shows that Shakespeare himself appeared not to have ever spelled it 'Shakespeare'.

http://home.att.net/~tleary/sigs.htm

True, that horrendous scrawl is open to interpretation but rather than scupper my point it rather proves it - I think it says Shakespere, someone else think it says Shakespeare.

The point is that spelling wasn't standardised until much, much later. It was remarkable to be able to write at all, let alone agree on spelling. It's this lack of standardisation that lead to huge variations in name spelling. When my mother was researching our family tree years ago, the further back she got the more unpredictable the spelling became.

soundproof, you're right about what the agreed spelling is, but it's really quite an arbitrary choice.

 

hee...

great link...

my favorite excerpt: "The interpretation of the lettering is by"

makes one wonder how any of his works were ever accurately transcribed!

how many hands must have crossed his work to land with what we classify as "his work" today?

hmmm...

I don't know whether this would be a suitable topic for a Wednesday discussion, Andy!  

What is pretty certain is that there weren't many Shakespeares proffering suggestions to B&O for the BL9 tagline. But it's quite funny to read through the ones that are there. I understand that the next competition is for the BL3.

What's that going to be, then? Not all balls are meant to be kicked?

@burantek

Well, it's not as bad as you think. The folios we base the transcriptions on are quite well known and there were a number of copies prepared in his time (they were, after all, performed plays.) And audiences would react to "improvisations" pretty much as will a child if you try to change the bedtime story ...

Another advantage with Shakespeare is that the manner in which he wrote doesn't really leave much opportunity for major changes. In order for the sentences to scan in cadence and rhythm, and for the rhymes (both inside and at the end of sentences) to combine, you end up with pretty fool(scap) proof original work.

Some variations - but amazingly few, given the large body of work.