Gene L 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 This has probably been addressed in previous threads, but if so, I can't find them. I use "tie" or "tier" as opposed to "tye" and "tyer" which I find to be an unnecessary and obvious affectation. In addition, "tye" has a separate meaning having nothing to do with fly tying... (oops, slipped a "y" into my language. "Tie, tier, tying, etc.". It's an irregular verb and it's in the dictionary. I'm not a grammar Nazi, but object to creating argot for our sport. How about you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flat Rock native 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 This has probably been addressed in previous threads, but if so, I can't find them. I use "tie" or "tier" as opposed to "tye" and "tyer" which I find to be an unnecessary and obvious affectation. In addition, "tye" has a separate meaning having nothing to do with fly tying... (oops, slipped a "y" into my language. "Tie, tier, tying, etc.". It's an irregular verb and it's in the dictionary. I'm not a grammar Nazi, but object to creating argot for our sport. How about you. Too late, it is already embedded in our nomenclature. In my opinion, you are on a Quixotic Quest at best, especially given the international scope of tying endeavors. No point in exalting form over substance, we know what others mean. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tidewaterfly 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 I use tie, & tyer. Used to use "tier", but too many folks confused it with it's "level" or "step" use. As stated most know what it is you're saying. I see many using vice instead of vise, and although I agree it's usually a vice for the majority of us, there is a difference as far as definition. All of these are widely used & accepted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flat Rock native 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 I use tie, & tyer. Used to use "tier", but too many folks confused it with it's "level" or "step" use. As stated most know what it is you're saying. I see many using vice instead of vise, and although I agree it's usually a vice for the majority of us, there is a difference as far as definition. All of these are widely used & accepted. Case in point: fly-tying, flytying, or fly tying? All, have passed and all have flunked "spell-checking, spellchecking, and spell checking" applications on various systems and devices for me. None were flagged as I keyed this post.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene L 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Vice is proper in England, it's "vise" over here. I think Noah Webster liberated us from such English spelling as "tyres" for tires, "waggons" for wagons, and it goes on. The result of an American nationalistic departure and distinctive language after the War of 1812. I see "tye" equal as the faux spelling of "shoppe". It's an attempt to I don't know what. Perhaps to add age, which isn't really an issue. Perhaps it sounds good to some, but to me it doesn't. It's a fake term, invented in the 20th Century after Ben Johnson pretty well established the rules. Yes, we know what is being said when the use of "tye" is used, but one has to ask "Why" it's being used to describe a common noun or a verb, and I can't identify a good reason. If anyone can, I'd like to address all reasons. "Flie?" No. But I've seen it used. Once. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flat Rock native 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Gene, I apologize for failing to answer your question. I,too, object to "creating" argot for our sport. I just don't believe it was anyone's conscious choice, it just kinda, sorta, coulda evolved. If it does not hinder honest and sincere communication, I believe I should let it slide. If it does I have to dig deeper, if it is important; and I break through the argot, most of the time. Thanks for provoking thoughtful discussion, hope many others will chime in, too! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene L 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Yes. If we're creating an argot let us not slip into unnecessary spelling, or at least provide a reason for this spelling. Does "tye" create a level of understanding over the common verb (and especially the noun) of "tie?" I'm more interested in the reasoning for doing so rather than the English application. For me, it's an economy of language. I tend to not visit "Shoppes" because I think they're phony and use the common spelling to advance a commercial agenda. I've never seen a "Flie Shoppe" but would avoid it if such a thing presented itself. It isn't American. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flat Rock native 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 ... Yes, we know what is being said when the use of "tye" is used, but one has to ask "Why" it's being used to describe a common noun or a verb, and I can't identify a good reason. If anyone can, I'd like to address all reasons. "Flie?" No. But I've seen it used. Once. Now you have me fact-checking myself. I plead guilty to promoting some argot, although not creating it. This relates to my banter with petegray about our mutual interest in what he calls Phly Welding or LCA Magic. As explained to me, when Pete first began to post his patterns he caught a monstrous ration of bullshit for having the audacity to label his productions "flies," from certain quarters. Thus, in a somewhat defensive, but undeterred, posture, he started referring to his work as Phlyes or Phlies(spelling alert now) in order to distinguish them from those traditionally tied. I have joined in his fun, or Phun, and plan to keep doing so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Floatfisher 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Are we not an INCLUSIVE forum? If we are then it really doesn't matter if we use "American English" or "the Queen's English" and spelling. We all know what we are conversing about anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bimini15 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 About the original question: A lot of this happens in English because it is a relatively young language with lots of intake from different early and not so early languages. Sort of brought them all in with their differences, and that made for lots of inconsistencies in the resulting modern English: goose, geese vs moose, mooses; mouse, mice vs house, houses; think about the words rough, drought, fought: three different pronunciations for the same vowels -ou-, and on and on. For Spanish speakers, learning English spelling is no picnic, lemme tell ya... Romance languages have a more prescribed, earlier, common trunk, Latin, to which different regional languages where added in different degrees. This resulted in Spanish, French, Italian, etc being clearly different from each other. But they have been pretty set and consistent in their own grammar, spellings and pronunciations for much longer. This is of course a gross oversimplification of things. And here I was, thinking that my linguistics classes had been a waste of time... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bugsy 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Same as Jim, I use tie(v) and tyer(n). Is there a good reason for me to change,...that is, other than possibly causing a member some grief? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flat Rock native 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 .. It isn't American. I must respectfully dissent. Such tactics or marketing strategy, in my view, are as "American" as "Hotdogs, Apple Pie and Chevrolet" or however the cliche goes. Pretty sure a Dead President once stated something to the effect of "The business of America is Business." Still the mantra but Ironic, if it was Hoover teetering on the precipice of the Great Depression. Nonetheless, it is cool with me if you never shop at a Shoppe. I celebrate our freedom of choice and find it easy to disregard labels, pretentious or otherwise. For me it will always be: let's cut to the chase; and I will forever be chasing quality and value when picking where I spend my moola. Thus, economy of language is subordinate to "economics" but that is just what is right for me. I am also glad that I am mostly bald, thus I get to avoid Barbre Shoppes. And hair gel, and all those accoutrements. I comb with a washcloth, too, multi-tasking all the way. I see your point just do not agree. So, later dude as I must sign off now to get up early and monitor some bids on ebay for Luddite friend who needs some new snowmobile clothes. Let's keep it real and Rust Never Sleeps and so on. Peace out, friend! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gene L 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Are we not an INCLUSIVE forum? If we are then it really doesn't matter if we use "American English" or "the Queen's English" and spelling. We all know what we are conversing about anyway. Yes, but why? Shoppe for shop. Olde for old. I don't think the English even use this obscure spelling so I believe it's not the QE, but a affectation to apply for some reason for which I'm not familiar. Is there a reason other than ego for describing a "tie" as a "tye?" If so, I'd like to see it articulated. Additionally, I'm not sure the English ever used "tye" for "tie." Seems to be an American affectation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bimini15 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 Shoppe and Olde are still used today in the US to give a sense of tradition, of things done the old fashion way. It is marketing. The chocolate from the chocolate shop on the corner is good, but the same from Ye Olde Chocolate Shoppe is so much better... And the same from the Boutique Le Chocolatier is “la petit mort”, but freaking expensive. Back to tie vs tye, it could be a regional thing, or a socioeconomic difference that got lost over time, or when it came over to America. What I think is funny is that nobody wonders about tieing vs tying. Both are in the dictionary, but we all say tying. My hunch is that tying took the prize a long time ago just because it is one letter shorter, easier to spell, saved time and space in printing, etc... It is linguistic economy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flat Rock native 0 Report post Posted December 10, 2017 OK, good theory by Bimini on general principles As far as fly tying goes, I am going to charge Dame Julianna Berners with this crime of confounding OUR terminology; but ...... as we now know "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"... And yes to the question of INCLUSIVENESS, Steel may explain it better, but our mission is to make people comfortable when expressing quite a diverse panalopy of ideas and opinions cause, after all, that is what learning is all about. Just keep it tied to flies and fishing, in the main, and we be fine here. Good night. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites