To be nitpicky, neither one is true.
Try holding your ring finger away from the heel of the thumb when snapping your fingers. Do you get the snapping noise? I don’t, even though the middle finger hits the heel of my thumb.
What actually causes the noise is air being compressed in the space enclosed by the ring finger, the middle finger and the heel of the thumb.
‘Many important buildings, especially in the 17-19th century, were designed by master-builders or engineers, not architects. Petty semantics, but in this case probably true.’
Absolutely… Castle Howard and Blenheim Palace in England were designed by Vanbrugh, a playwright and dilletante, who became the greatest architect of his age.
ar·chi·tect n. 1. **One who designs and supervises the construction of buildings or other large structures. **
He may not have been previously an architect, or trained as one, or certified as one, but he is one.
NB: one definition for doctor requires a license, another doesn’t.
Except the title ‘architect’ is a legally protected word to relate to a specifically qualified individual , not ncessarily subject to a dictionary definiton.
Designing a building does not make you an architect. Only legal registration with the appropiate body does. (ARB in the UK)
(But I’ll leave this alone from now on and apologies for the hi-jack.)
OK, Aro (just arguing for the fun of it, so don’t take it personally), then in the 17th century could ANYONE be an architect, given that there were no appropriate bodies to legally register with?
In which case, what would you call someone of the 17th century who spent their life designing and supervising the construction of buildings?
I think ‘petty semantics’ describes a lot of the list we’re discussing. Along with ‘well, duh’.
And when I snap, there’s two parts to the noise: a drawn-out scrape of my finger against the end of my thumb, and then the thunk of my finger against my palm (i.e. root of my thumb). Maybe that’s just how us geniuses snap, though.
With all due respect to Chronos and Walloon, the whole cent/penny controversy seems to me a bit like saying,
“Contrary to popular belief, there is no such bill as a ‘buck’ in U.S. currency! It is a ‘One Dollar Federal Reserve Note’.”
If you debunk a debunking, is that the same as bunking the original story?