Check out https://writingexplained.org/oriented-vs-orientated-difference for what is the consensus view, namely, as that piece concludes, this is not just a British-American variation in usage but a very close to right and wrong usage: "strongly preferred" vs. "widely shunned."
"While there isn’t a functional difference between these words, there is clear winner in the orientated vs. oriented debate.
'Oriented' is much more widely used and is strongly preferred.
'Orientated' is not incorrect but is widely shunned."
De gustibus, of course, but 'oriented' is much preferable to 'orientated,' because it is a past participle derives from the verb 'to orient' (i.e., how participles work) rather than from the noun 'orientation' as a latter-day invention. No one is confused by the word usage, as noted in the article, but it is an unnecessary distraction to readers or listeners and 'oriented' is "strongly preferred" in both the US and UK.
I hope very much that my aside on this issue is not your only take-away from this long podcast, Hinky-punk! Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagreed. 'Orientated' is well established in British English, which is the English Rowling uses, it is certainly not 'widely shunned' as that article claims. I should know because I live in the UK. 😊 https://grammarist.com/usage/orientate/
Moving on, I find the suggestion that Charlotte was murdered intriguing, but I still think that suicide is the most likely answer, especially given her multiple previous attempts to kill herself. Similarly, I suspect it's more likely that Leda is Ted's child (given the almost 20-year age gap) rather than Strike. I look forward to seeing if either of these theories prove true!
I don't think it says what you think it says, though:
"[D]espite what some reference books say, the word [orientate] is not more common in 21st-century British English than orient, which prevails by a large margin."
While allowing that the usage is not uncommon and "not wrong" per se, the grammarist offers numerous examples of where "orientate would bear replacement with orient," and cites only one usage, a remarkably narrow one, where the reverse is true.
I don't understand, consequently, why you offer this as a support to your assertion that the backformation is "well established" in the UK, i.e., an accepted variant; the grammarist repeatedly notes that the word orientate is controversial and orient much preferred where you live.
I'm almost confused by your claim that Ted is 20 years older than his younger sister. That would put his birth at 1932. If Joan is in her mid-sixties in 2020 (Troubled Blood), then she was born in the early to mid 1950's, which would also make her twenty years Ted's junior -- not to mention that Ted would be a man in his late 80's. Please share the text I've overlooked that puts his birthday between WWI and WWII.
I think this now officially qualifies, alas, as a hijacked thread. Any thoughts on the Fourth Generation idea? Anyone?
Troubled Blood takes place between 2013-2014, not 2020, so Joan would have been born in the late 1940s. However Lucy mentions in The Running Grave (which takes place in 2016) that Ted is 79. So that means Ted was born in 1936-1937, which means it's entirely possible he could have fathered a child in 1953-1954. 😊
Apologies for the 2020 gaffe; that of course was the year Troubled Blood was published (face palm). Thank you for being so gracious in your correcting me on this point.
The infamous guitar-shaped headstone on the Strike teevee adaptation has Leda's birthyear as 1952. I'm guessing your 1953-1954 dating is textual and therefore preferable; please let me know where you found that.
If Ted was born in 1936-1937, then he was 45 or 46 years old in 1982 during the Falkland campaign. I hope Nick Jeffery will reveal the age limits on enlistment at that time and if he thinks Ted would have been nearing retirement if he enlisted at the conventional age (in his 20s). There is no mention -- I think! -- of Ted being on a military pension so Lucy's age estimate may be a Rowling gaffe.
I suspect not and am delighted by this theory. I hope you'll write it up for a proper post or send the link to another place online if someone else has already written it up!
Not only are you and Nick helping JKR fans now but JKR fans later. Later fans will look back from the future and they won't understand the past, that is, now. With luck they will have the work the fourth generation is doing to consult.
JKR's "On Writing" videos remind me somewhat of "My Novel" by Edward Bulwer-Lytton, another harried popular British author.
“Again, Rowling's use of the word orientated, which is incredibly grinding. The word is oriented.”
Maybe in American English. 'Orientated' is perfectly correct British English. Just like 'aluminum' vs 'aluminium'.
We'll have to agree to disagree here!
Check out https://writingexplained.org/oriented-vs-orientated-difference for what is the consensus view, namely, as that piece concludes, this is not just a British-American variation in usage but a very close to right and wrong usage: "strongly preferred" vs. "widely shunned."
"While there isn’t a functional difference between these words, there is clear winner in the orientated vs. oriented debate.
'Oriented' is much more widely used and is strongly preferred.
'Orientated' is not incorrect but is widely shunned."
De gustibus, of course, but 'oriented' is much preferable to 'orientated,' because it is a past participle derives from the verb 'to orient' (i.e., how participles work) rather than from the noun 'orientation' as a latter-day invention. No one is confused by the word usage, as noted in the article, but it is an unnecessary distraction to readers or listeners and 'oriented' is "strongly preferred" in both the US and UK.
I hope very much that my aside on this issue is not your only take-away from this long podcast, Hinky-punk! Thank you for sharing your perspective on the matter.
Yes, we will have to agree to disagreed. 'Orientated' is well established in British English, which is the English Rowling uses, it is certainly not 'widely shunned' as that article claims. I should know because I live in the UK. 😊 https://grammarist.com/usage/orientate/
Moving on, I find the suggestion that Charlotte was murdered intriguing, but I still think that suicide is the most likely answer, especially given her multiple previous attempts to kill herself. Similarly, I suspect it's more likely that Leda is Ted's child (given the almost 20-year age gap) rather than Strike. I look forward to seeing if either of these theories prove true!
Thank you for the link, Hinkypunk!
I don't think it says what you think it says, though:
"[D]espite what some reference books say, the word [orientate] is not more common in 21st-century British English than orient, which prevails by a large margin."
While allowing that the usage is not uncommon and "not wrong" per se, the grammarist offers numerous examples of where "orientate would bear replacement with orient," and cites only one usage, a remarkably narrow one, where the reverse is true.
I don't understand, consequently, why you offer this as a support to your assertion that the backformation is "well established" in the UK, i.e., an accepted variant; the grammarist repeatedly notes that the word orientate is controversial and orient much preferred where you live.
I'm almost confused by your claim that Ted is 20 years older than his younger sister. That would put his birth at 1932. If Joan is in her mid-sixties in 2020 (Troubled Blood), then she was born in the early to mid 1950's, which would also make her twenty years Ted's junior -- not to mention that Ted would be a man in his late 80's. Please share the text I've overlooked that puts his birthday between WWI and WWII.
I think this now officially qualifies, alas, as a hijacked thread. Any thoughts on the Fourth Generation idea? Anyone?
Troubled Blood takes place between 2013-2014, not 2020, so Joan would have been born in the late 1940s. However Lucy mentions in The Running Grave (which takes place in 2016) that Ted is 79. So that means Ted was born in 1936-1937, which means it's entirely possible he could have fathered a child in 1953-1954. 😊
Apologies for the 2020 gaffe; that of course was the year Troubled Blood was published (face palm). Thank you for being so gracious in your correcting me on this point.
The infamous guitar-shaped headstone on the Strike teevee adaptation has Leda's birthyear as 1952. I'm guessing your 1953-1954 dating is textual and therefore preferable; please let me know where you found that.
If Ted was born in 1936-1937, then he was 45 or 46 years old in 1982 during the Falkland campaign. I hope Nick Jeffery will reveal the age limits on enlistment at that time and if he thinks Ted would have been nearing retirement if he enlisted at the conventional age (in his 20s). There is no mention -- I think! -- of Ted being on a military pension so Lucy's age estimate may be a Rowling gaffe.
I suspect not and am delighted by this theory. I hope you'll write it up for a proper post or send the link to another place online if someone else has already written it up!
I suppose I'll have to occidentate my way to this.
Not only are you and Nick helping JKR fans now but JKR fans later. Later fans will look back from the future and they won't understand the past, that is, now. With luck they will have the work the fourth generation is doing to consult.