Letters to The Economist

	Letters published in the Irish Times
	Letters published in the Sunday Times
	Letters published in the Irish Independent
	Letters submitted but not published in 2006, 2007 and 2008

THE ECONOMIST 3rd-9th JUNE 1995

Available in print issue only (no internet version)

Small goods

SIR-As you discuss the gradual shift of rich economies from manufacturing to services, as well as the slow merging of the two elements, I have noticed a subtle shift in your own metaphor for manufacturing. For years, you have described it as the business of producing things you can drop on your foot (something you cannot do with services). Yet of late, most recently in your May 6^th issue ("Name calling and its perils"), manufacturing has inexplicably become associated with objects you can drop on your toe.

The things you drop are obviously getting smaller. Will the next victim be your toenail ? And after that, no victim at all - signifying that manufacturing and services have finally become indistinguishable ?

TONY ALLWRIGHT
The Hague

THE ECONOMIST 12TH FEBRUARY 2000
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=280540

SIR—Since Mr Robinson is evidently a geometrically curious fourth line of a triangle**, and the hypotenuse at that, please clarify which of the three esteemed ministers he is lying alongside (no innuendo please), and what are the policies or characteristics of the other two that have resulted in them lying at right angles to each other. Is this all part of New Labour’s joined-up government?

TONY ALLWRIGHT
Killiney Heath,
Ireland

**ref : http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=277390

http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=289660

SIR—Dennis Woodman and Tony Allwright (Letters, February 12th) refer to Bagehot and political triangles. In fact, the hypotenuse is a line between two angles, so what is wrong with a fourth person being the hypotenuse between two of the three people who are presumably at the points of the triangle? The question then arises, which of the three is right and which two are acute (although, surprisingly, none is obtuse)?

KEITH WATSON
Hong Kong

THE ECONOMIST 8th DECEMBER 2000

Subject : Rail Safety (in the UK)

Click on the button

THE ECONOMIST 19th DECEMBER 2006
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8447435

A Bird's Tale

Three letters appeared, with mine - as shown in red - sandwiched in the middle. My original letter, before the editor's deletions (as indicated below, after the letters), covered most of the territory of the other two letters.

SIR – Naile Berna Kovuk's indignation at Turkey being named after poultry is misplaced (Letters, December 2nd). The bird was actually named after the presumed country of origin, not vice versa. When first encountered, the turkey was confused with guinea-fowl, known then as turkeycocks. They were introduced to Europe from their native Africa via Turkey. The rest is (etymological) history.

Michael Metcalf
New York

SIR – English merchants in Turkey discovered a most delicious bird to eat and exported it back to England, where it became very popular, and was known as a “Turkey bird” or simply a turkey. There are odd names for a turkey in other languages as well, where the bird always seems to have come from somewhere else. In Turkey itself it is known as hindi (meaning from India), in Italy tacchino (peacock) or pollo d'India (India again); in Arabic it is called an “Ethiopian bird”.

Tony Allwright
Killiney, Ireland

SIR – The Poles call the same species indyk, perhaps after the French name for it, dinde (of the Indies). The Portuguese call it peru. The turkey is a truly global bird and should be used as a fitting symbol for the next round of World Trade Organisation talks.

Konrad Brodzinski
London

My original letter, showing the editor's deletions ...

SIR, - “Only in English is my home country named after poultry. Its proper name is Turkiye, meaning the land of the Turks,” says Naile Berna Kovuk (Letters, November 30th). He's got it back-to-front. It is the poultry of that name which is named after his country.

~~Long before Europeans discovered America,~~ English merchants in Turkey ~~had~~ discovered ~~the çulluk,~~ a most delicious bird to eat [and exported]~~. They began exporting~~ it back to England, where it became very popular, and was known as a ‘Turkey bird’ or simply a ‘turkey’. ~~Then, when the English came to America, they noticed large edible birds which looked like big versions of çulluks, so they called them ‘turkey’ also, which has stuck to this day.~~

~~Yet~~ there are odd names for a turkey in other languages as well, where the bird always seems to have come from somewhere else. In Turkey itself it is known as hindi (meaning from India); ~~in France dinde (also from India);~~ in Italy tacchino (peacock) or pollo d'India (India again); ~~in Brazil it's peru; in Greece gallapoula (French girl);~~ in Arabic an Ethiopian bird~~; in Persian it's buchalamun (a chameleon). And in India, it's a turkey~~. Yours etc,

The letter is based on a blogpost I wrote in October 2004 entitled “Talking Turkey”.