Signage pet peeves

[Special K]

"Historical Site"

[agentsteel53]

"Historical Site"

what's wrong with that?

[Special K]

"Historical Site"

what's wrong with that?

It should be "Historic Site".

"Historical" merely means the site is old, while "historic" implies significance.

[NE2]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historical

[Special K]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historical

Exactly.

[NE2]

Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

[Special K]

Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

[kphoger]

I always mutter to the passenger:  "As opposed to a mythological landmark".....

[NE2]

Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

Yes, that means it's a synonym for historic meaning a ("famous or important in history"). Learn to read a dictionary.

[Special K]

Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

Yes, that means it's a synonym for historic meaning a ("famous or important in history"). Learn to read a dictionary.

You're adorable.  Not only are you stubbornly mistaken, but you're condescending, too.

historic vs. historical

[Kacie Jane]

Go exactly yourself. "2: famous in history"

Well, read it again...

"2: Famous in history: HISTORIC".

Yes, that means it's a synonym for historic meaning a ("famous or important in history"). Learn to read a dictionary.

You're adorable.  Not only are you stubbornly mistaken, but you're condescending, too.

historic vs. historical

I'm pretty sure I would trust a dictionary more than someone's blog.

To be clear, I'm pretty sure that Special K is correct that "historic" should be preferred, but NE2 is also correct that "historical" is perfectly acceptable.

[agentsteel53]

Fucking grammatical prescriptivist.

thanks for update.  using condom?

[Alps]

From that grammarist site: "Historic means (1) momentous or (2) historically significant. Historical means (1) of or relating to history, or (2) of or relating to the past."

* A historic site is historically significant.
* A historical site relates to history and the past.

Different meanings, both valid in this context. We're done here. Let's move on.

[kphoger]

According to the Associated Press Stylebook:

"A historic event is an important occurrence, one that stands out in history. Any occurrence in the past is a historical event."

That a dictionary allows an alternate definition merely means that people have started to use the term in that way; the fact remains that people have started to use the term in error.

Webster's 1828 dictionary defines historical thusly:

historical
HISTOR'ICAL, a. [L. historicus.] Containing history, or the relation of facts; as a historical poem; the historic page; historic brass.


1. Pertaining to history; as historic care or fidelity.

2. Contained in history; deduced from history; as historical evidence.

3. Representing history; as a historical chart; historical painting.

As you can see, its meaning has descendeded from that of historic; no mention in the definition was made of noteworthy significance.  That distinction has grown since the 18th Century, and has consistently been associated with the word historic, the two only becoming widely conflated due to popular ignorance in recent times.

[Alps]

Long story short, we've identified that this is definitely among people's pet peeves. (:

[flowmotion]

Okay, then what about that long, congested, 6-lane urban arterial in Eau Claire? (locally known as Clairemont Ave BTW) (and yes Google has 12 going through downtown like its still 1935)

The US Route system was intended to be for intercity travel, not just busy streets in some small/midsized town. Nobody is taking 12 to Eau Claire, except for the locals who could find their way otherwise. 

[PurdueBill]

historical
HISTOR'ICAL, a. [L. historicus.] Containing history, or the relation of facts; as a historical poem; the historic page; historic brass.

1. Pertaining to history; as historic care or fidelity.

2. Contained in history; deduced from history; as historical evidence.

3. Representing history; as a historical chart; historical painting.

Seems to me that many, if not most places that are signed as Historical Sites might fall under #3--representing history the same way a painting or something might.  And using the Grammarist link above, "historic" has a definition of "historically significant"--using the term "historical" in the definition of "historic"!

In a totally unrelated area, the $2 million bid on an item up for bids on The Price Is Right was an historic moment (in that field), as was the first spin of the big wheel and the retirement of Bob Barker.  Shower Game, Hurdles, and Bump are historical pricing games that are so because they are retired artifacts of the show--possibly not significant in the minds of fans of the show but part of the history of the show.

As far as "incorrect" use becoming dominant, isn't language development/etymology kind of like most proper speed limits--cases of "majority rule"?  Language changes over time, or else we'd all be speaking Old English or something even older.  Words can be legislated (like in France) but that doesn't mean that people will follow the legislated words and meanings.

It's worth noting that in the US, there are National Historic Sites and National Historical Parks, both federal designations.  The federal reasoning is that a site can be historic in and of itself, but a park that is created by the government or private entity encloses resources that are historical in nature--the park itself is not historic, but its resources are.  So, a sign for a Historical Site introduces an interesting cross between the two names.

[route56]

I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

Hang on, wouldn't 21st Street North be the 2100 line... 20XX to the south, 21XX to the north.

Also, is the 2100 N/2200 N markers on 21st, or on the cross street markers.

In Lawrence, the block number on the street name sign is the block number of that street in the location of that sign.

For Example, Monterrey Way is the 3900 West line. The Street Marker for 7th and Monterrey Way is on the northeast corner - the block number for Monterrey Way is 600, West 7th is 3800. The Marker for 8th Street is on the southwest corner, so the block numbers are 800 for Monterrey Way and 3900 for West 8th (some of the early block number signs do have a directional indicator, but current ones do not unless it is a numbered street or is a north/south street north of the 100 block line)

[kphoger]

I was speaking not of addresses jumping when they cross the street, but that the street blade does not actually say the imaginary street address at the corner.  21st Street North in Wichita is the imaginary 2200 line; to me, blades on both sides of the street should say 2200 N.  But, they don't: ones on the south side say 2100 N, while ones on the north side say 2200 N.  That's my pet peeve.

Hang on, wouldn't 21st Street North be the 2100 line... 20XX to the south, 21XX to the north.

Also, is the 2100 N/2200 N markers on 21st, or on the cross street markers.

In Lawrence, the block number on the street name sign is the block number of that street in the location of that sign.

For Example, Monterrey Way is the 3900 West line. The Street Marker for 7th and Monterrey Way is on the northeast corner - the block number for Monterrey Way is 600, West 7th is 3800. The Marker for 8th Street is on the southwest corner, so the block numbers are 800 for Monterrey Way and 3900 for West 8th (some of the early block number signs do have a directional indicator, but current ones do not unless it is a numbered street or is a north/south street north of the 100 block line)

No, there is no zero line in Wichita, therefore street addresses are 100 off from the street number.  Confusing until you figure it out, then not so bad.  I'm confused by what you mean about cross street markers.  The street signs are on the corners, which is to say they are on both streets.  ??

[J N Winkler]

Hang on, wouldn't 21st Street North be the 2100 line... 20XX to the south, 21XX to the north.

No.  That would be true only if numbered streets gave their numbers to the "out" block.  In Wichita they give their numbers to the "in" block.  (The "in" block is the block immediately adjacent to the street that is between that street and the dividing line for addresses.)

An address numbering plan where block numbers are integer multiples of 100 has addresses with a minimum of three digits if numbered streets give their numbers to the "in" block; if they give their numbers to the "out" block, then addresses can have as few as one digit because there are zero blocks along the dividing lines.

Also, is the 2100 N/2200 N markers on 21st, or on the cross street markers.

In Wichita, block references are on the cross-street markers.  In other words, they refer to addresses actually found on the cross streets.

In Lawrence, the block number on the street name sign is the block number of that street in the location of that sign.

For Example, Monterey Way is the 3900 West line. The Street Marker for 7th and Monterey Way is on the northeast corner - the block number for Monterrey Way is 600, West 7th is 3800. The Marker for 8th Street is on the southwest corner, so the block numbers are 800 for Monterey Way and 3900 for West 8th (some of the early block number signs do have a directional indicator, but current ones do not unless it is a numbered street or is a north/south street north of the 100 block line)

7th and Monterey is in the southwest quadrant of Lawrence's address numbering plan.  The method used for indicating block numbers on street name blades is precisely the same as that used in Wichita except for the absence of a compass-point indicator, but numbered streets in Lawrence give their numbers to "out" blocks rather than "in" blocks as in Wichita.

[route56]

OK, based on what Johnathan had said, I have to disagree with you. I think it makes more sense for the street sign to have the block number correspond to the block that the sign is located.

[kphoger]

That implies a basic difference in how we perceive the signs.  I don't naturally see the number as a "block number", but rather more as a line on a cartesian plane; you naturally see the number as a "block number".  This is why it irks me that the number does not correspond to an x or y value, whereas you find it completely logical

[vtk]

I'm peeved at Central Ohio's tendency not to put block numbers at all on street signs, but they keep the directional prefix – which I generally* consider to be the +/- of the house number or block number, and not actually part of the name of the street.  It's possible this practice has led people to believe otherwise, actually.  But if I'm on the East Side and I come to a road like 5th Ave, the sign that just says E 5th Ave doesn't really help me know which way to turn if I'm looking for a specific address; it only tells me I'm east of High St which I already know.  Considering the fact that even the more orderly parts of Columbus don't have a correlation between numbered streets and addresses, having house/block numbers on the street signs would be helpful here.

*I'm aware that there are a few places here and there where a directional prefix actually distinguishes between two separate roads, often half-circles, and apparently all the numbered streets in Cleveland.  In these cases I do consider the direction word to be part of the name, and the line is blurred between those and roads whose names just happen to begin with a direction word such as North Star Rd, Westpark St, or North Broadway.

[tdindy88]

I'm not sure if this refers to what was being talked about further up on this thread, but one thing that always got me about block numbers was the way Indianapolis did theirs on the street signs. There are three classes of street signs, ones for stoplight intersections, one for intersection with at least one major street, and then one for minor street intersections. On the first two, the block number that is on the sign doesn't refer to the block number on the street you are crossing, but rather the street you are on. For example, here is the intersection of 38th Street and Meridian Street:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38th+and+Meridian+Indianapolis,+IN&hl=en&ll=39.824795,-86.15707&spn=0.003881,0.009978&sll=39.824828,-86.156852&layer=c&cbp=13,82.05,,0,-14.17&cbll=39.824786,-86.156846&hnear=E+38th+St,+Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&t=h&z=17&panoid=5SU9so7DVbm10nsCGQJwwg

This scene should be looking east at 38th Street and has Meridian Street on the street sign with 0/0 above it, which refers to block number along 38th Street (as Meridian is the divider between west and east addresses.) The addresses at this intersection would be 3800 Meridian Street and 0 (East or West) 38th Street.

This is another one, of the second class of street signs at the intersection of Central Avenue and 57th Street, which shows the 5700 block number  for Central Avenue on the 57th Street sign and 500 East on the Central Avenue. Remember the addresses would be 5700 Central Avenue adn 500 East 57th Street.

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=38th+and+Meridian+Indianapolis,+IN&hl=en&ll=39.857137,-86.150161&spn=0.000016,0.009978&sll=39.824828,-86.156852&layer=c&cbp=13,46.41,,1,-2.97&cbll=39.857026,-86.150164&hnear=E+38th+St,+Indianapolis,+Marion,+Indiana&t=h&z=17&panoid=zKFeDOTZqogOe_rk_2R3eQ

So my question is, is this normal to have something like this or unusual, and what are your thoughts about it.

[on_wisconsin]

This is a good and worthy discussion (street numbering) but could it possibly moved to its own thread?