This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Will UK climbing forums allow the noisily uniformed to change the meaning of climbing terms just by shear weight of inane comment.
Will the like and dislike buttons help some people to see that although they are allowed to have an opinion their opinion is basically wrong.
Post edited at 09:23
6
1
1
2
1
In reply to Brown:
Have the onsight police got an official outfit now?
*Not normally like me to join the typo police, but it was irresistable.
> Will UK climbing forums allow the noisily uniformed...
Have the onsight police got an official outfit now?
*Not normally like me to join the typo police, but it was irresistable.
1
In reply to Brown:
That process is the reason that we don't currently speak in the English of Beowulf. It is inevitable.
> Will UK climbing forums allow the noisily uniformed to change the meaning of climbing terms just by shear weight of inane comment.
That process is the reason that we don't currently speak in the English of Beowulf. It is inevitable.
1
In reply to Brown: Joining in on the typos etc - I think you want "sheer" not "shear" although "shear weight" would be an ok phrase in the correct context - e.g. wires snapping
In reply to Brown:
All languages change all the time, whether you personally happen to like it or not. Terms "mean" whatever general consensus a particular community understands them to mean at any given point in time, not whatever somebody wrote in a dictionary decades previously.
Also, +1 to all those who have already noted the irony of language pedants who can't be bothered to spell or punctuate their comments correctly.
All languages change all the time, whether you personally happen to like it or not. Terms "mean" whatever general consensus a particular community understands them to mean at any given point in time, not whatever somebody wrote in a dictionary decades previously.
Also, +1 to all those who have already noted the irony of language pedants who can't be bothered to spell or punctuate their comments correctly.
1
In reply to Brown:
I really like some Americanisms such as encouragement on boulder problem "One time that mother" in my best received pronunciation.
I really like some Americanisms such as encouragement on boulder problem "One time that mother" in my best received pronunciation.
2
In reply to AlanLittle:
Yes, change is good when it is for a reason, responding to other changes or evolutions, when it enhances communications and makes things better.
When it's merely the result of ignorance, apathy or laziness then it's not so good and not such a good reason for change, particularly when it degrades precision or confuses efficient communication. Degradation of terminology causes loss of distinctions, that hinders understanding, particularly of more complicated or subtle matters. Words have meaning for a reason.
> All languages change all the time, whether you personally happen to like it or not.
Yes, change is good when it is for a reason, responding to other changes or evolutions, when it enhances communications and makes things better.
When it's merely the result of ignorance, apathy or laziness then it's not so good and not such a good reason for change, particularly when it degrades precision or confuses efficient communication. Degradation of terminology causes loss of distinctions, that hinders understanding, particularly of more complicated or subtle matters. Words have meaning for a reason.
Post edited at 21:26
In reply to Bob:
I must be misunderstanding you because soloing is “free climbing” (in contrast to aid ), as is bouldering, trad climbing and sport climbing. They are all types of “free climbing”, (see Wikipedia). Also see UKC glossary definition of “free climbing”, “Progressing up a route by using your body rather than the gear”.
A genuine question, is this (and it is not CD or the medias fault) because many people struggle with hierarchies as they like to deal with a single issue at a time? or is it something else?
> Probably, in the same way that the ignorant describe soloing as "free climbing".
I must be misunderstanding you because soloing is “free climbing” (in contrast to aid ), as is bouldering, trad climbing and sport climbing. They are all types of “free climbing”, (see Wikipedia). Also see UKC glossary definition of “free climbing”, “Progressing up a route by using your body rather than the gear”.
A genuine question, is this (and it is not CD or the medias fault) because many people struggle with hierarchies as they like to deal with a single issue at a time? or is it something else?
In reply to MikeYouCanClimb:
You and I see the distinction between "free" and "aid" climbing but non-climbers distinguish between "roped" and "free" climbing, i.e. "free climbing" is climbing without ropes and "equipment". (apologies for the excess of quotation marks)
You and I see the distinction between "free" and "aid" climbing but non-climbers distinguish between "roped" and "free" climbing, i.e. "free climbing" is climbing without ropes and "equipment". (apologies for the excess of quotation marks)
In reply to Damo:
Well, yes. And yet I notice neither you nor the OP makes any attempt to cite examples of climbing terms changing their generally accepted meanings through ignorance, apathy or laziness. The OP is evidently too apathetic and lazy to either spell check his post or cite examples of what he is ranting about. (Or has trolled us successfully).
I can and will point to a couple of concrete examples. The distinction between "redpoint" and "pinkpoint" has largely died out, because the relevant community - active sport climbers - is generally of the opinion that it is a distinction that doesn't matter. This isn't laziness or loss of precision, it's a reflection of the fact that that particular kind of hair splitting simply isn't relevant in sport climbing as it is practiced today.
Or, see also recent discussions about Pete Whittaker's "flash" (?) on El Capitan. My impression of the discussions, both here and on supertopo, is that they have generally been constructive and well-informed debates about the grey areas at the edges of this term and what it really means anyway in a big wall context - i.e. adding meaning and precision, not degrading it.
> Yes, change is good when it is for a reason, responding to other changes or evolutions, when it enhances communications and makes things better.
> When it's merely the result of ignorance, apathy or laziness then it's not so good and not such a good reason for change, particularly when it degrades precision or confuses efficient communication. Degradation of terminology causes loss of distinctions, that hinders understanding, particularly of more complicated or subtle matters. Words have meaning for a reason.
Well, yes. And yet I notice neither you nor the OP makes any attempt to cite examples of climbing terms changing their generally accepted meanings through ignorance, apathy or laziness. The OP is evidently too apathetic and lazy to either spell check his post or cite examples of what he is ranting about. (Or has trolled us successfully).
I can and will point to a couple of concrete examples. The distinction between "redpoint" and "pinkpoint" has largely died out, because the relevant community - active sport climbers - is generally of the opinion that it is a distinction that doesn't matter. This isn't laziness or loss of precision, it's a reflection of the fact that that particular kind of hair splitting simply isn't relevant in sport climbing as it is practiced today.
Or, see also recent discussions about Pete Whittaker's "flash" (?) on El Capitan. My impression of the discussions, both here and on supertopo, is that they have generally been constructive and well-informed debates about the grey areas at the edges of this term and what it really means anyway in a big wall context - i.e. adding meaning and precision, not degrading it.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Because the very first reply to the OP was an example.
> Well, yes. And yet I notice neither you nor the OP makes any attempt to cite examples of climbing terms changing their generally accepted meanings through ignorance, apathy or laziness.
Because the very first reply to the OP was an example.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Oh, and because it annoys me too much to trawl back through places I know I will find examples. Such as the increasing use of 'alpine style' to describe simply moving from one camp to the next up high, as I have seen in a few expedition dispatches just this year (two on K2, one on Makalu). These self-flattering uses get repeated by ignorant media and proliferate, becoming acceptable through sheer repetition and volume, despite being factually incorrect and failing to discern between two quite different things.
I'm sick of arguing about it. Examples are everywhere.
> Well, yes. And yet I notice neither you nor the OP makes any attempt to cite examples of climbing terms changing their generally accepted meanings through ignorance, apathy or laziness.
Oh, and because it annoys me too much to trawl back through places I know I will find examples. Such as the increasing use of 'alpine style' to describe simply moving from one camp to the next up high, as I have seen in a few expedition dispatches just this year (two on K2, one on Makalu). These self-flattering uses get repeated by ignorant media and proliferate, becoming acceptable through sheer repetition and volume, despite being factually incorrect and failing to discern between two quite different things.
I'm sick of arguing about it. Examples are everywhere.
In reply to Damo:
I agree with you completely on this... I read a report recently (I forget where I saw it, sorry) where they said they climbed alpine style from Camp 3 onwards... Camp 3... I can't help thinking that unless Camps 3, 2 and 1 were all very close to base camp, there isn't a whole lot of point in using the term 'alpine style' there... Surely you can't just climb a bit of the mountain alpine style, it's either full bore commitment or it's not... Or do the sponsors demand that those words feature in the report these days? Would it really be so bad to just say "we climbed the mountain with three fixed camps in the lower half" if that's what they did? I don't know, maybe the bit they climbed to the top was horrendous and required several bivvies and they felt it met the definition... I hesitate to question people who earn their living or spend their whole lives climbing mountains, but as you say, words do have a meaning, and using a word to describe something other than it's meaning in a report seems misleading...
Words like 'fat', 'thin', 'tall', 'short' etc. might differ in interpretation according to culture and location, but words like 'alpine style' ought to be pretty fixed in meaning across the board, and shouldn't evolve as the taste of the day evolves... If a new style or a tweaked version of an existing style came into vogue, it would surely demand a new name of its own...
I agree with you completely on this... I read a report recently (I forget where I saw it, sorry) where they said they climbed alpine style from Camp 3 onwards... Camp 3... I can't help thinking that unless Camps 3, 2 and 1 were all very close to base camp, there isn't a whole lot of point in using the term 'alpine style' there... Surely you can't just climb a bit of the mountain alpine style, it's either full bore commitment or it's not... Or do the sponsors demand that those words feature in the report these days? Would it really be so bad to just say "we climbed the mountain with three fixed camps in the lower half" if that's what they did? I don't know, maybe the bit they climbed to the top was horrendous and required several bivvies and they felt it met the definition... I hesitate to question people who earn their living or spend their whole lives climbing mountains, but as you say, words do have a meaning, and using a word to describe something other than it's meaning in a report seems misleading...
Words like 'fat', 'thin', 'tall', 'short' etc. might differ in interpretation according to culture and location, but words like 'alpine style' ought to be pretty fixed in meaning across the board, and shouldn't evolve as the taste of the day evolves... If a new style or a tweaked version of an existing style came into vogue, it would surely demand a new name of its own...
In reply to Bob:
The ignorant use the term "free soloing" which really grips my shit.
If "free" means "not weighting the gear" (and we'll wait and see if this is the widely accepted definition) and "soloing" means not having any gear then wtf does "free soloing" mean? Not weighting the gear you didn't have in the first place?
> Probably, in the same way that the ignorant describe soloing as "free climbing".
The ignorant use the term "free soloing" which really grips my shit.
If "free" means "not weighting the gear" (and we'll wait and see if this is the widely accepted definition) and "soloing" means not having any gear then wtf does "free soloing" mean? Not weighting the gear you didn't have in the first place?
In reply to Removed User:
Soloing implies being on your own.
It used to always be assumed that you had no gear as you say. However, thanks to the Americans the term free soloing has become useful to diferentiate between it and aid-soloing and roped soloing.
Soloing implies being on your own.
It used to always be assumed that you had no gear as you say. However, thanks to the Americans the term free soloing has become useful to diferentiate between it and aid-soloing and roped soloing.
1
In reply to Removed User:
Americans who (in some cases) are far from ignorant use "free soloing" because in their country aid soloing is also a fairly normal and widely practiced activity, so for them this is a useful and important distinction.
I'm well aware that this isn't the case in the uk, and that we Brits have traditionally disliked creeping Americanisation of our dialect, but given that w're a small minority of native English speakers in the world it's hard to see how i's ever not going to happen. Plus, in this case, the "intruding" term is actually more precise and specific in the global climbing context.
> The ignorant use the term "free soloing" which really grips my shit.
Americans who (in some cases) are far from ignorant use "free soloing" because in their country aid soloing is also a fairly normal and widely practiced activity, so for them this is a useful and important distinction.
I'm well aware that this isn't the case in the uk, and that we Brits have traditionally disliked creeping Americanisation of our dialect, but given that w're a small minority of native English speakers in the world it's hard to see how i's ever not going to happen. Plus, in this case, the "intruding" term is actually more precise and specific in the global climbing context.
In reply to Removed User:
Exactly. Look at yourselves. You're sounding like ignorant, blinkered elderly little Englanders ranting about change because all change must automatically be bad.
DanM's point about "alpine style" otoh is a good one that I wasn't previously aware of. Clearly there's no hope of the general press understanding anything about the subtleties of mountaineering style, but anybody making that sort of claim in climbing circles should be jumped on with both (cramponed) feet. But I see that as an issue of deliberate lying, not degradation of the language.
> Not in my day. Hence, I presume, the OP.
Exactly. Look at yourselves. You're sounding like ignorant, blinkered elderly little Englanders ranting about change because all change must automatically be bad.
DanM's point about "alpine style" otoh is a good one that I wasn't previously aware of. Clearly there's no hope of the general press understanding anything about the subtleties of mountaineering style, but anybody making that sort of claim in climbing circles should be jumped on with both (cramponed) feet. But I see that as an issue of deliberate lying, not degradation of the language.
In reply to AlanLittle:
Agree with this. Also some routes still get climbed in both free and aided versions (The Nose on El Capitan being the best known example) so to Americans the distinction is valid. I'm not sure if American climbers use "solo" or "ice solo" for soloing ice climbs or maybe some other term.
Aid climbs in the UK have always been a tiny minority of the total number of routes so we qualify the basic term of "soloing" only when it's necessary - why use two words when one will do? Americans have long recognised the British succinctness with language.
The alpine style use of "camp 3" etc. is interesting and may be translation issues rather than obfuscation, I don't know the nationalities of the teams involved. The terms "camp 1", "camp 2" etc have traditionally been associated with fixed rope style expeditions but in this case it may be that they mean "we climbed from our second night's camp to our third" but the explicit use of the term "alpine style" does seem odd.
Back to the phrase "free climbing" referring to "soloing" (prepended with "free" or otherwise), there's an analogy with diving in "Scuba diving" vs "free diving" which differentiates between diving with masses of kit and diving with just a set of flippers. It doesn't make the misuse of the phrase in climbing terms any less incorrect though.
> Americans who (in some cases) are far from ignorant use "free soloing" because in their country aid soloing is also a fairly normal and widely practiced activity, so for them this is a useful and important distinction.
Agree with this. Also some routes still get climbed in both free and aided versions (The Nose on El Capitan being the best known example) so to Americans the distinction is valid. I'm not sure if American climbers use "solo" or "ice solo" for soloing ice climbs or maybe some other term.
Aid climbs in the UK have always been a tiny minority of the total number of routes so we qualify the basic term of "soloing" only when it's necessary - why use two words when one will do? Americans have long recognised the British succinctness with language.
The alpine style use of "camp 3" etc. is interesting and may be translation issues rather than obfuscation, I don't know the nationalities of the teams involved. The terms "camp 1", "camp 2" etc have traditionally been associated with fixed rope style expeditions but in this case it may be that they mean "we climbed from our second night's camp to our third" but the explicit use of the term "alpine style" does seem odd.
Back to the phrase "free climbing" referring to "soloing" (prepended with "free" or otherwise), there's an analogy with diving in "Scuba diving" vs "free diving" which differentiates between diving with masses of kit and diving with just a set of flippers. It doesn't make the misuse of the phrase in climbing terms any less incorrect though.
In reply to Bob:
British. Last week. Here: http://www.makalu2014.com/makalu-update-mon-20th-oct/
>
> The alpine style use of "camp 3" etc. is interesting and may be translation issues rather than obfuscation, I don't know the nationalities of the teams involved.
> The alpine style use of "camp 3" etc. is interesting and may be translation issues rather than obfuscation, I don't know the nationalities of the teams involved.
British. Last week. Here: http://www.makalu2014.com/makalu-update-mon-20th-oct/
In reply to Brown:
Do the like and dislike buttons actually do anything? The fact that the third post was "+1 like" seems to suggest they are just pretty things on the page.
Do the like and dislike buttons actually do anything? The fact that the third post was "+1 like" seems to suggest they are just pretty things on the page.
In reply to Damo:
Apologies for calling you "danm" above. I still suspect that the example you're pointing out is not due to anybody being lazy or uninformed; looks to me more like delberate bending of the truth / misuse of terms in the interests of self publicity.
Not good, but also not what the OP was protesting about.
Apologies for calling you "danm" above. I still suspect that the example you're pointing out is not due to anybody being lazy or uninformed; looks to me more like delberate bending of the truth / misuse of terms in the interests of self publicity.
Not good, but also not what the OP was protesting about.
In reply to Damo:
That's interesting, I read it to mean that they climbed Alpine Style, that is roped/moving together without the use of pre-fixed gear and ropes. Not sure if that counts if they are moving up to a fixed camp, and is that any different to using an alpine hut?
The author also used the phrase "Alpine Style", including quotation marks, possible indicating that they knew it wasn't strictly kosher.
That's interesting, I read it to mean that they climbed Alpine Style, that is roped/moving together without the use of pre-fixed gear and ropes. Not sure if that counts if they are moving up to a fixed camp, and is that any different to using an alpine hut?
The author also used the phrase "Alpine Style", including quotation marks, possible indicating that they knew it wasn't strictly kosher.
In reply to SteveD:
They're moving between fixed camps, on ropes fixed by Sherpas, with Sherpas carrying the gear. None of that is alpine-style.
Alpine -style = no fixed ropes, no Sherpas, no fixed camps, no going up and down, no ferrying loads, ideally with no other teams on the route. Start at the bottom and climb to the top, in one go, either camping along the way and carrying your gear with you each day, or single-push, with no sleeping/camping.
This is not new, this is not pedantic, this is not 'negative'. This is the simple, basic and accepted definition and usage of the term as it has stood for a few decades now.
It's commonly misused because it sounds cooler and sexier than 'regular old style' or 'siege style' or 'we're not good enough to climb it ourselves so we're paying poor locals to carry our stuff for us and put the ropes up for us to haul on' style that is common practice on 8000m peaks nowadays.
Btw, the first British ascent of the SE Ridge of Makalu was by Jon Pratt and Andy Collins in 1995 and was widely recorded as such in AJ, AAJ and High. This team is pushing their attempted 'first' as the first ascent not deviating off the ridge around the gendarme, as others have done i.e. their 'integrale'.
They're moving between fixed camps, on ropes fixed by Sherpas, with Sherpas carrying the gear. None of that is alpine-style.
Alpine -style = no fixed ropes, no Sherpas, no fixed camps, no going up and down, no ferrying loads, ideally with no other teams on the route. Start at the bottom and climb to the top, in one go, either camping along the way and carrying your gear with you each day, or single-push, with no sleeping/camping.
This is not new, this is not pedantic, this is not 'negative'. This is the simple, basic and accepted definition and usage of the term as it has stood for a few decades now.
It's commonly misused because it sounds cooler and sexier than 'regular old style' or 'siege style' or 'we're not good enough to climb it ourselves so we're paying poor locals to carry our stuff for us and put the ropes up for us to haul on' style that is common practice on 8000m peaks nowadays.
Btw, the first British ascent of the SE Ridge of Makalu was by Jon Pratt and Andy Collins in 1995 and was widely recorded as such in AJ, AAJ and High. This team is pushing their attempted 'first' as the first ascent not deviating off the ridge around the gendarme, as others have done i.e. their 'integrale'.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...