the king of england vs king of england
chance
2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
What is the difference between a simple 'king' and 'the king' in the examples?
Is it a matter of 'style'?
TIA
CK
tony cooper
wrote:
I would consider both versions to be the same *if* the second
capitalized "King". In #2, "King of England" is a title. In #1, it's
a description.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Alan Munn
tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
They're still not absolutely identical. The bare 'King of England' can
only be used as a predicate:
Henry is the King of England.
The King of England is Henry.
Henry is King of England.
*King of England is Henry.
I saw the King of England last week.
*I saw King of England last week.
And even as a predicate, it has interesting restrictions:
Who is that?
(That is) The King of England.
(That is) *King of England.
Alan
tony cooper
I don't agree. I don't see that "king" needs to be capitalized unless
it is part of the title and not just a job description.
Alan Munn
tony cooper <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I wasn't really concerned about the spelling. The main point is that
syntactically they're quite different from each other. I actually think
that both forms can appear with a capital or not.
The president of the U.S. is Barack Obama.
The President of the U.S. came to our school and gave a speech.
If you google "elect him president" you'll get both spellings.
Alan
Nick
All that works just the same (possibly barring the comment at the top
about capitalisation) for "captain of the football team".
John is [the] captain of the football team - "the" can be omitted
The captain of the football team is John - not here it can't.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Alan Munn
Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
Right. That's why I think the capitalisation issue is a bit of red
herring.
Alan
António Marques
I don't think 'the' belongs with what follows it. The difference between the
orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only one
king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction. And the reason A) 'The King
of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order. In
short, I don't think distribution analysis is helpful at all.
Alan Munn
António Marques <anton...@sapo.pt> wrote:
If you mean just 'king' then yes, but otherwise, what else could the
'the' belong to?
> The difference between the
> orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only one
> king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction.
This is an interesting observation. So that means we shouldn't be able
to say:
Who was the king of England in the period 1154-1199?
Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?
but we can say
Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
pair is bad.
What about:
During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
> And the reason A) 'The King
> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.
I thought that's what I said.
> In
> short, I don't think distribution analysis is helpful at all.
Well it shows that the article-less one MUST be a predicate. (I.e., it
doesn't simply become a proper name, for example.)
Alan
Peter T. Daniels
> In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,> > > In article<873a3ece5r....@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> > > Nick<3-nos...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> > >> Alan Munn<am...@msu.edu> writes:
> > >>> In article<00bbi51hmsclqb1e3u51psjaqm00e68...@4ax.com>,
> > >>> tony cooper<tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 11:48:57 +0900, "chance"<cinci...@yahoo.co.kr>
"king of England," of course
> > The difference between the
> > orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only one
> > king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction.
>
> This is an interesting observation. So that means we shouldn't be able
> to say:
But as Nick showed, it's not a semantic thing at all, but a syntactic
thing.
> Who was the king of England in the period 1154-1199?
> Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?
You can't ask the latter (unless you're quite ignorant about US
history), because it's well known that there were four presidents of
the US in the 1960s (in the 1860s too, for that matter).
> but we can say
>
> Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
> Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
>
> While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
> pair is bad.
>
> What about:
>
> During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
> Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it is
part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of March
1921.)
Alan Munn
<2b9bc496-df07-4270...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Dec 14, 9:12�am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Yes, of course. Ellipsis wasn't my friend there. I was agreeing that
'the' doesn't belong to 'king' but if it doesn't belong with 'king' it
must belong with 'king of England'.
>
> > > The difference between the
> > > orignal two sentences, for me, is that 1) clarifies that there was only
> > > one
> > > king, while 2) doesn't enforce that restriction.
> >
> > This is an interesting observation. �So that means we shouldn't be able
> > to say:
>
> But as Nick showed, it's not a semantic thing at all, but a syntactic
> thing.
I think that's what I showed. Nick added another data point.
>
> > Who was the king of England in the period 1154-1199?
> > Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?
>
> You can't ask the latter (unless you're quite ignorant about US
> history), because it's well known that there were four presidents of
> the US in the 1960s (in the 1860s too, for that matter).
Does this judgement persist for you if you have an explicit quantifier?
For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who was the president?
or (perhaps importantly)
For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who the president was?
Is there a difference for you?
>
> > but we can say
> >
> > Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
> > Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
> >
> > While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
> > pair is bad.
> >
> > What about:
> >
> > During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
> > Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
>
> No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
> although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it is
> part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of March
> 1921.)
What about
For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the president.
Alan
Pat Durkin
news:amunn-92BE73....@nothing.attdns.com...
> In article
> <2b9bc496-df07-4270...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> > In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >
>> >
>> > > > of red
>> > > > herring.
>> >
>> > > I don't think 'the' belongs with what follows it.
>> >
>> > If you mean just 'king' then yes, but otherwise, what else could
>> > the
>> > 'the' belong to?
>>
>> "king of England," of course
>
> Yes, of course. Ellipsis wasn't my friend there. I was agreeing
> that
> 'the' doesn't belong to 'king' but if it doesn't belong with 'king'
> it
> must belong with 'king of England'.
>>
>
>>
>>
>> You can't ask the latter (unless you're quite ignorant about US
>> history), because it's well known that there were four presidents
>> of
>> the US in the 1960s (in the 1860s too, for that matter).
>
> Does this judgement persist for you if you have an explicit
> quantifier?
>
> For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who was the president?
>
> or (perhaps importantly)
>
> For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who the president was?
>
> Is there a difference for you?
>
>>
>> >
>> > What about:
>> >
>> > During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S.
>> > Harding,
>> > Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
>>
>> No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
>> although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it
>> is
>> part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of
>> March
>> 1921.)
>
> What about
>
> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
> president.
Because Republicans ran the country in the '20s, the country's economy
was destroyed. Will we never learn?
For the first 8 years of the the current millennium, a Republican sat
in the oval office. For 20 of the past 30 years, a Republican was the
leader of this country -- and look where we are today!
Peter T. Daniels
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 9:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <hg5c80$r6...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Since change-of-president has never coincided with the change from one
year to another, that fails for 1961, 1963, and 1969.
> or (perhaps importantly)
>
> For each year of the 60s, can you tell me who the president was?
>
> Is there a difference for you?
I suspect "... who was ..." would be frowned upon by stylists, but
it's certainly acceptable colloquial.
> > > but we can say
>
> > > Who was King of England in the period 1154-1199?
> > > Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
>
> > > While I prefer the latter, I'm not totally convinced that the former
> > > pair is bad.
>
> > > What about:
>
> > > During the 20s, A Republican was the president of the U.S. Harding,
> > > Coolidge and Hoover were all Republicans.
>
> > No good! It has to be "Republicans were ..." (And Wilson wasn't;
> > although 1920 isn't part of the 3rd decade of the 20th century, it is
> > part of the 1920s, plus he was in there until the beginning of March
> > 1921.)
>
> What about
>
> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the president.
That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels:
But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
(Those who were presidents were R/republicans)
And "..., a president was a Republican",
and "..., a president was republican".
(To be president one had to be a R/republican)
And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there was a
among them, that would be the president)
Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
> [I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]
>
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
> >> president.
>
> > That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
>
> But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
> and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
> (Those who were presidents were R/republicans)
The matter of republican vs. royalist does not arise in American
politics. It's not a non-proper adjective in American.
> And "..., a president was a Republican",
> and "..., a president was republican".
> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more than
one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
(Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
> And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there was a
> among them, that would be the president)
Hunh?
Senator Robert Taft of Ohio (he was some close relation to President
Taft) was known as "Mr. Republican," but that was well before my time.
> Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?
Possibly?
Andrew B.
> Who was the president of the U.S. in the 60s?
This allows the quibble answer "He was a small boy called Barack
Obama".
> Who was President of the U.S. in the 60s?
This doesn't.
Bill McCray
> On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> And "..., a president was a Republican",
>> and "..., a president was republican".
>> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>
> Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more than
> one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
> (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
And yet one of our states had two of its native sons serving as
President simultaneously.
Bill in Kentucky
Trond Engen
> On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...
... an unusually sloppy post even for him, er, me:
>> [I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]
>>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
>>>> president.
>>>
>>> That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
>>
>> But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
>> and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
>> (Those who were presidents were R/republicans)
>
> The matter of republican vs. royalist does not arise in American
> politics. It's not a non-proper adjective in American.
OK. I thought of English in general.
>> And "..., a president was a Republican",
>> and "..., a president was republican".
>> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>
> Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more
> than one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
> (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
No, you're right. I meant to substitute a more general introduction
before the comma, but somehow I forgot. But see that what I'm after is
clearer if we just drop it:
(1) The president is a Republican.
(2) The president is republican.
(3) A president is a Republican.
(4) A president is republican.
(5) The president is the Republican.
I was trying to explore what the articles do here, and under what
conditions these are valid sentences. I don't think I'm up to it
anymore, but when did that stop me?
>> And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there
>> was a among them, that would be the president)
>
> Hunh?
If you can't even read thoughts, I might as well give up communicating
with you.
"If there was a _Republican_ among them, that would be the President."
In my simplified example (5) above the the-the construction presupposes
that there's one Republican and one president and equals the two. In the
original pretext this is generalized to mean that whereever there's a
Republican available, that's the one who will be president. Or that's
how I hear it.
> Senator Robert Taft of Ohio (he was some close relation to President
> Taft) was known as "Mr. Republican," but that was well before my
> time.
>
>> Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?
>
> Possibly?
First, and banally, the subject has to be at least as definite as the
predicate*. Second, tentatively, the interpretation of each sentence is
the result of a pragmatic interpretation of each step of removal from
the unmarked case. Or some such. Perhaps related: The article-less forms
feel almost as part of the verb. Or as nominal verbs, being verbed by
the copula. And while am floating: Is that why languages can lose the
copula and push the noun in the slot?
Does this make any sense at all? Is there a syntactician in the audience?
* Or that's what I thought until now. One may stress the definite
article in (5).
--
Trond Engen
Peter Moylan
> Because Republicans ran the country in the '20s, the country's economy
> was destroyed. Will we never learn?
> For the first 8 years of the the current millennium, a Republican sat
> in the oval office. For 20 of the past 30 years, a Republican was the
> leader of this country -- and look where we are today!
This isn't just an American thing. Something comparable happens nearly
everywhere.
The right-wingers get into power, deregulate everything, and sell off
the country's public assets. Wealth moves from the public sector to the
private sector. Deregulation destabilises the markets.
Eventually even Blind Freddie can see that something is wrong. The
government is kicked out, and the left-wingers get into power. Left with
a mess to clean up, the new government has to go into debt to buy back
the farm. Public spending goes up.
The economy starts to recover, but electorate becomes nervous about the
rise in public spending. The new government is also kicked out. We're
back to the start of the cycle.
This wouldn't be so bad if it were a zero-sum cycle. What seems to
happen in practice is that the very rich make a net profit out of each
cycle, leaving the country as a whole a little poorer at the end of each
recovery.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter T. Daniels
Jefferson Davis was born in Kentucky?
They weren't both President (where the capitalization signifies a
specific office). They were presidents of two different nations.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote...
>
> ... an unusually sloppy post even for him, er, me:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> [I haven't read the whole thread. Dangerous.]
>
> >> Peter T. Daniels:
>
> >>> On Dec 14, 11:12 am, Alan Munn <am...@msu.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>> For each full four year term of the 20s, a Republican was the
> >>>> president.
>
> >>> That's true, but artificial. Would feel better without "the."
>
> >> But "..., the president was a Republican" (not "a Democrat"),
> >> and "..., the president was republican" (not "royalist").
> >> (Those who were presidents were R/republicans)
>
> > The matter of republican vs. royalist does not arise in American
> > politics. It's not a non-proper adjective in American.
>
> OK. I thought of English in general.
I suppose you can come up with a nation that has presidents where
"republican vs. royalist" is an issue?
> >> And "..., a president was a Republican",
> >> and "..., a president was republican".
> >> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>
> > Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more
> > than one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
> > (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
>
> No, you're right. I meant to substitute a more general introduction
> before the comma, but somehow I forgot. But see that what I'm after is
> clearer if we just drop it:
>
> (1) The president is a Republican.
> (2) The president is republican.
If you substitute some other predicate adjective in (2), you'll see it
makes perfect sense.
> (3) A president is a Republican.
> (4) A president is republican.
Uninterpretable?
> (5) The president is the Republican.
If there are five people in the room, and we know that four of them
are Democrats, and the other one is Bush or Bush, then the sentence is
interpretable (and fatuous).
> I was trying to explore what the articles do here, and under what
> conditions these are valid sentences. I don't think I'm up to it
> anymore, but when did that stop me?
English articles are hard.
> >> And what about "..., the president was the Republican"? (If there
> >> was a among them, that would be the president)
>
> > Hunh?
>
> If you can't even read thoughts, I might as well give up communicating
> with you.
>
> "If there was a _Republican_ among them, that would be the President."
It would be rather unusual that an individual's party affiliation was
more salient than his present or past office.
> In my simplified example (5) above the the-the construction presupposes
> that there's one Republican and one president and equals the two. In the
> original pretext this is generalized to mean that whereever there's a
> Republican available, that's the one who will be president. Or that's
> how I hear it.
>
> > Senator Robert Taft of Ohio (he was some close relation to President
> > Taft) was known as "Mr. Republican," but that was well before my
> > time.
>
> >> Is this a definiteness hierarchy thing?
>
> > Possibly?
>
> First, and banally, the subject has to be at least as definite as the
> predicate*. Second, tentatively, the interpretation of each sentence is
> the result of a pragmatic interpretation of each step of removal from
> the unmarked case. Or some such. Perhaps related: The article-less forms
> feel almost as part of the verb. Or as nominal verbs, being verbed by
> the copula. And while am floating: Is that why languages can lose the
> copula and push the noun in the slot?
>
> Does this make any sense at all? Is there a syntactician in the audience?
>
> * Or that's what I thought until now. One may stress the definite
> article in (5).
It might be easier to see what you're talking about if you didn't use
presidents and Republicans, since the one is a very small set and the
other an endangered species.
Mike Lyle
[...]
>
> This isn't just an American thing. Something comparable happens nearly
> everywhere.
>
> The right-wingers get into power, deregulate everything, and sell off
> the country's public assets. Wealth moves from the public sector to
> the private sector. Deregulation destabilises the markets.
>
> Eventually even Blind Freddie can see that something is wrong. The
> government is kicked out, and the left-wingers get into power. Left
> with a mess to clean up, the new government has to go into debt to
> buy back the farm. Public spending goes up.
>
> The economy starts to recover, but electorate becomes nervous about
> the rise in public spending. The new government is also kicked out.
> We're back to the start of the cycle.
>
> This wouldn't be so bad if it were a zero-sum cycle. What seems to
> happen in practice is that the very rich make a net profit out of each
> cycle, leaving the country as a whole a little poorer at the end of
> each recovery.
Which, of course, is because money is power in countable form: those who
have one get the other, and those who don't generally don't. Let's not
neglect the subtle twist, that those with are in a position to accuse
those without of having too much.
--
Mike.
Bill McCray
Yes, Jefferson Davis was a Kentuckian, too. Both he and Lincoln held
the title of President. The fact that they were in two different
countries doesn't negate that.
Bill in Kentucky
Peter T. Daniels
Would you be comfortable with "Queen Victoria had several nephews who
were King simultaneously." (or whatever the historical fact might be)
Bill McCray
> On Dec 15, 5:08 pm, Bill McCray <mccrayb...@springmind.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 5:20 pm, Bill McCray <mccrayb...@springmind.com> wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 14, 3:43 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>>>>>> And "..., a president was a Republican",
>>>>>> and "..., a president was republican".
>>>>>> (To be president one had to be a R/republican)
>>>>> Those are uninterpretable, because it's not possible to have more than
>>>>> one president at a time, so the indefinite article can't be used.
>>>>> (Assuming that your ellipsis represents "For each ... 20s.")
>>>> And yet one of our states had two of its native sons serving as
>>>> President simultaneously.
>>>> Bill in Kentucky
>>> Jefferson Davis was born in Kentucky?
>>> They weren't both President (where the capitalization signifies a
>>> specific office). They were presidents of two different nations.
>> Yes, Jefferson Davis was a Kentuckian, too. Both he and Lincoln held
>> the title of President. The fact that they were in two different
>> countries doesn't negate that.
>>
> were King simultaneously." (or whatever the historical fact might be)
Sure, why not? Obviously they couldn't be kings of the same country,
but certainly could of separate countries. And Elizabeth II is queen of
several countries.
Bill in Kentucky
Peter T. Daniels
Really? I'd like some confirmation of both those claims from
"royalists"!
I'd have no problem with "VR had several nephews who were kings
simultaneously."
Pat Durkin
news:D8SdnW9vU8-QlLXW...@earthlink.com...
same time,
but it appears not (though Lincoln, as a militia captain, was
nominally superior to Davis _after_ Davis' service in Wisconsin during
the Black Hawk War, though only for a few months.) They were in
Illinois together, though.
http://www.nndb.com/people/336/000050186/
One site, which I have lost sight of, calls Davis the "Lincoln of the
South". And he certainly looks like Lincoln in the site listed above.
Jerry Friedman
...
> 'The King
> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.
...
It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase. "No
niggard are you, Eomer...."
More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective complements,
especially in academic and other formal writing. They still sound
strange to me.
As far as I can tell, though, you're right that in *"King of England
is Henry" the first phrase can't be the complement (or the subject).
--
Jerry Friedman
PaulJK
Re the second claim:
Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926) is the queen
regnant of sixteen independent sovereign states known informally as
the Commonwealth realms:
the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados,
the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu,
Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda,
and Saint Kitts and Nevis.
She holds each crown separately and equally in a shared monarchy,
as well as acting as Head of the Commonwealth, and Supreme Governor
of the Church of England.... etc....
pjk
Iain
> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
--Iain
António Marques
> On Dec 14, 5:48 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
>
>> 'The King
>> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
>> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
>> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.
>
> It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase. "No
> niggard are you, Eomer...."
Would that work with 'A niggard', or is it restricted to negatives?
> More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective complements,
> especially in academic and other formal writing. They still sound
> strange to me.
Could you give an example, please?
CDB
> Jerry Friedman wrote, on 16-12-2009 04:31:
>> ....
>>> 'The King
>>> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry'
>>> doesn't is that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without
>>> T can't be the subject and english doesn't allow
>>> Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order. ....
>>
>> It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase.
>> "No niggard are you, Eomer...."
>
> Would that work with 'A niggard', or is it restricted to negatives?
>
>
>> More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective
>> complements, especially in academic and other formal writing. They
>> still sound strange to me.
>
> Could you give an example, please?
"Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, that leads to life, and
few there be that find it." That last one seems to be a pronoun.
Peter T. Daniels
Really? Several Canadians over the years have denied that she's Queen
of Canada. She does of course have some sort of official title in what
passes for a Constitution up there, but Queen?
And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
while ago?
> > I'd have no problem with "VR had several nephews who were kings
> > simultaneously."-
Cheryl
She's Queen of Canada. I don't think any Canadian have denied she's
Queen; a number of us think she shouldn't be Queen any longer, but her
role hasn't been changed. I don't think it should be, really, I like
having a head of state who isn't a politician, and all her
representatives in Canada have been locals for decades.
> And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
> while ago?
Speaking from this distance, Australia has more of a republican
sentiment than Canada does, but that sentiment doesn't appear strong
enough to have caused a change in the Queen's role there either.
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Yes. She is Queen of Canada.
From the website of the Governor General of Canada:
http://www.gg.ca/document.aspx?id=13288
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of Canada and Head of State.
The Governor General is the representative of the Queen in Canada.
>And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
>while ago?
>
No. Australia had a referendum to become a republic of a particular
kind. The voters said "No".
>> > I'd have no problem with "VR had several nephews who were kings
>> > simultaneously."-
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)
Evan Kirshenbaum
He may have been, but looking at Google Books sources from the 1770s,
he seems to have been described (in current events) both as "the king
of England" or "the king of Great Britain".
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Adam Funk
(meta-nitpick)
Isn't any king of the UK (since the Act of Union) also simultaneously
king of England and king of Scotland?
--
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of
the American public. [Mencken]
PaulJK
never talk crap? :-)
> She does of course have some sort of official title in what
> passes for a Constitution up there, but Queen?
>
> And how old is that information? Didn't Australia change its status a
> while ago?
No, both Australia and New Zealand are officially still monarchies.
When ERII dies though, all bets are off.
Stan Brown
<iain_i...@hotmail.com>:
Nope. The UK came into being in 1801. From 1707 till then it was
Great Britain.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Iain
> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:21:40 -0800 (PST) from Iain
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> > > 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> > > 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> > Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>
> Nope. The UK came into being in 1801. From 1707 till then it was
> Great Britain.
In 1707 it was referred to as the 'United Kingdom', whatever its
reach.
--Iain
Iain
> Iain <iain_inks...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > On Dec 14, 2:48 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote:
> >> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> >> 2. Who was king of England during the American Revolution?
>
> > Nitpick: The King was of the UK during the American Revolution.
>
> He may have been, but looking at Google Books sources from the 1770s,
> he seems to have been described (in current events) both as "the king
> of England" or "the king of Great Britain".
That's because England was another name for Britain until the mid
twentieth century, in addition to being the name for the middlemost
country of the island.
--Iain
James Hogg
Yes. The OED has a quotation from 1734 and defines the term, as used
before the union with Ireland in 1801, as "the kingdom of Great Britain".
--
James
Nick
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> Really? Several Canadians over the years have denied that she's Queen
>> of Canada. She does of course have some sort of official title in what
>> passes for a Constitution up there, but Queen?
>
> She's Queen of Canada. I don't think any Canadian have denied she's
> Queen; a number of us think she shouldn't be Queen any longer, but her
> role hasn't been changed. I don't think it should be, really, I like
> having a head of state who isn't a politician, and all her
> representatives in Canada have been locals for decades.
The critical thing there is that she's Queen of Canada and Queen of the
UK [of ...]. These are two entirely separate roles she fills. She's
not part (or all) of some separate entity that both the UK and Canada
are subordinate to. Complicated (and something we Brits probably
understand far worse than anyone else - which can give us the wrong idea
of the status of, particularly, some of the smaller Commonwealth
nations).
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
John Kane
> 1. Who was the king of England during the American Revolution?
Technically there was no King of England during the American
Revolution just as there is no Queen of England now.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
John Holmes
>
> Speaking from this distance, Australia has more of a republican
> sentiment than Canada does, but that sentiment doesn't appear strong
> enough to have caused a change in the Queen's role there either.
About 80% of Australians are in favour of becoming a republic, but they
are about equally divided on the method of choosing a new head of state
(whether elected, or appointed by a joint sitting of both houses of
parliament). So it is a kind of stalemate at the moment where neither
alternative can get a clear majority of support.
--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>Cheryl wrote:
>
>>
>> Speaking from this distance, Australia has more of a republican
>> sentiment than Canada does, but that sentiment doesn't appear strong
>> enough to have caused a change in the Queen's role there either.
>
>About 80% of Australians are in favour of becoming a republic, but they
>are about equally divided on the method of choosing a new head of state
>(whether elected, or appointed by a joint sitting of both houses of
>parliament). So it is a kind of stalemate at the moment where neither
>alternative can get a clear majority of support.
I understand that if "Australia", that is, the federation known as the
Commonwealth of Australia, were to adopt a republican constitution the
constituent states would still be constitutional monarchies.
Peter Moylan
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:31:15 +1100, "John Holmes" <see...@instead.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Cheryl wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking from this distance, Australia has more of a republican
>>> sentiment than Canada does, but that sentiment doesn't appear strong
>>> enough to have caused a change in the Queen's role there either.
>> About 80% of Australians are in favour of becoming a republic, but they
>> are about equally divided on the method of choosing a new head of state
>> (whether elected, or appointed by a joint sitting of both houses of
>> parliament). So it is a kind of stalemate at the moment where neither
>> alternative can get a clear majority of support.
We are united on just one point: we don't want the sort of republic that
would permit someone like GWB to be elected president. There are varying
opinions, but basically we are worried about the possibility that if the
position were filled by election then a politician would get the job. We
are further worried that if the head of state were appointed by
parliament then a politician would again get the job.
Ideally, we would like a system where anyone who really wanted to run
for office would be excluded from running for office.
> I understand that if "Australia", that is, the federation known as the
> Commonwealth of Australia, were to adopt a republican constitution the
> constituent states would still be constitutional monarchies.
That is true. Because Australia is a federation, the constituent states
also have their constitutions. Each state at present technically has a
head of state who is the Queen or the Queen's representative. This is
largely a ceremonial position, we assume, but we have had an example in
living memory where the Queen's representative sacked the government. It
is generally assumed that if the federal entity were to become a
republic then the states would alter their constitutions accordingly,
but of course there is no guarantee that that would happen.
In Australia, as in the USA, some states lean to the political left and
some lean to the right. That makes it difficult to talk about a
"national sentiment". A question that goes to referendum in the federal
sphere must be passed by a majority of voters _and_ by a majority of
states. Most referendum proposals fail because of the second condition.
Of the 44 questions put to referendum since 1906, only 8 have passed.
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
Peter T. Daniels
Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
today.
Jerry Friedman
> Jerry Friedman wrote, on 16-12-2009 04:31:
>
> > On Dec 14, 5:48 am, António Marques<antonio...@sapo.pt> wrote:
> > ....
>
> >> 'The King
> >> of England is Henry' works and B) *'King of England is Henry' doesn't is
> >> that in A) TKoE is the subject while in B) KoE without T can't be the
> >> subject and english doesn't allow Prediacte-Copula-Subject word order.
> > ....
>
> > It's archaic and very rare when the complement is a noun phrase. "No
> > niggard are you, Eomer...."
>
> Would that work with 'A niggard', or is it restricted to negatives?
There's something strange about the emphasis in "A niggard are you,
Eomer." I'd want it to be "A niggard are you indeed" or something.
My feeling about this is very vague.
A couple of affirmative examples from elsewhere in _The Lord of the
Rings_:
"Far away is your home and small concern of yours are the troubles of
this land."
"A lesser son of great sires am I, but I do not need to lick your
fingers."
(For no points and without consulting the book, who wants to name the
scene, the speaker of each sentence, and the person addressed in
each?)
> > More frequent are sentences of this form with adjective complements,
> > especially in academic and other formal writing. They still sound
> > strange to me.
>
> Could you give an example, please?
You mean a real one instead of the one I just made up?
"Included are surrounding public lands administered by the State of
New Mexico as well as the Bureau of Land Management, and some private
lands."
"Separating the Tusas from the Jemez Mountains is the southern Chama
Basin. It is filled with sandstones and shales of Jurassic and
Triassic age. Present are fossils of the Upper Triassic that include
conifers and cycads. Of particular importance for the extant flora
are outcrops of Todilto gypsum which harbor edaphic endemics such as
_Abronia bigelovii_ and _Astragalus micromerius_."
Reif et al., "Floristic Studies in North Central New Mexico, U.S.A.
The Tusas Mountains and the Jemez Mountains." _J. Bot. Res. Inst.
Texas_ 3(2): 921-961. 2009. I omitted the references.
That last paragraph is really anomalous. It's on page 924, and the
first sentence is on page 921; I didn't see any of these backwards
sentences anywhere in between. And lots of academic authors never use
this construction.
--
Jerry Friedman
Trond Engen
... /may/ give asinine results. It depends highly on what questions the
constitution (prescriptive or descriptive -- I liked the terms) allows
for referendum.
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
Maybe different parts were contributed by different authors, and you
found a paragraph by an author with a really bad tic. Maybe it's the
senior author and no one dared fix it.
Peter T. Daniels
The rules for getting on the ballot are _very_ restrictive in New York
City, yet the asinine concept of "term limits" was passed by the
voters _twice_ (shortly before I moved back to New York).
John Holmes
>
> Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
> today.
That's why we don't have government by referendum. Why do you people
allow it in America?
Peter Moylan
> On Dec 19, 12:27 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>> Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
>>> today.
>> ... /may/ give asinine results. It depends highly on what questions the
>> constitution (prescriptive or descriptive -- I liked the terms) allows
>> for referendum.
>
> The rules for getting on the ballot are _very_ restrictive in New York
> City, yet the asinine concept of "term limits" was passed by the
> voters _twice_ (shortly before I moved back to New York).
By "term limits", do you mean the sort of rule that, for example,
prevents the president of the USA from staying in office for more than
two terms?
In many countries, the removal of term limits is the first step in
somebody's move towards becoming dictator for life.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 12:27 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>>> Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
>>>> today.
>>> ... /may/ give asinine results. It depends highly on what questions the
>>> constitution (prescriptive or descriptive -- I liked the terms) allows
>>> for referendum.
>>
>> The rules for getting on the ballot are _very_ restrictive in New York
>> City, yet the asinine concept of "term limits" was passed by the
>> voters _twice_ (shortly before I moved back to New York).
>
>By "term limits", do you mean the sort of rule that, for example,
>prevents the president of the USA from staying in office for more than
>two terms?
>
>In many countries, the removal of term limits is the first step in
>somebody's move towards becoming dictator for life.
Yes, "term limits" refers to the number of terms an office holder can
be in that office. It varies by city, county, state, and federal
office.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
DKleinecke
Here in California we have it because it was the only way for Hiram
Johnson to take the state away from the Southern Pacific Railroad and
give it back to the people.
sjde...@yahoo.com
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
> > today.
>
> That's why we don't have government by referendum. Why do you people
> allow it in America?
We don't, at the federal level. There isn't actually a national
electorate for anything--even the president isn't chosen through
popular vote.
States are free to govern themselves as they see fit (assuming they
comply with applicable federal law, including the Constitution). It's
roughly evenly split; about half of states do allow for some form of
binding referendum. They are more common in Western states, which
historically have a stronger populist streak.
At the time they were implemented in California, that state also put
into place a recall system (whereby a sitting governor or other
elected official can be removed from office by popular vote). That
combination was a hallmark of the Progressive Era, which put a high
value on direct democracy as a means of combating corruption. Women's
suffrage was also championed by progressives, though their record of
support for poor, uneducated, and minority voters is decidedly less
progressive.
Cheryl
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Dec 19, 12:27 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>>>> Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
>>>> today.
>>> ... /may/ give asinine results. It depends highly on what questions the
>>> constitution (prescriptive or descriptive -- I liked the terms) allows
>>> for referendum.
>> The rules for getting on the ballot are _very_ restrictive in New York
>> City, yet the asinine concept of "term limits" was passed by the
>> voters _twice_ (shortly before I moved back to New York).
>
> By "term limits", do you mean the sort of rule that, for example,
> prevents the president of the USA from staying in office for more than
> two terms?
>
> In many countries, the removal of term limits is the first step in
> somebody's move towards becoming dictator for life.
>
On the other hand, with elections after a specified period, the
government in power gets to plan for the election from a position of
strength for the entire period of their mandate - and if that's combined
with the second part of a 'can't run again' rule, they go to the
opposite extreme and become lame ducks. The possibility of losing a vote
of confidence or getting a minority government keeps them on their toes,
or should.
Our current leader, much influenced by US political theory, instituted
fixed terms not so long ago on, as far as I can see, no more reason than
'they do it that way in the US, so it must be good'.
Fortunately, he'd left a loophole, so that when *he* wanted to call an
election ahead of time, he could do so. I can't say I grieved much when
that decision didn't work out well for him.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
Ah, I was assuming it mean that you can only stay in power 4 years, or 5
years, or whatever. That is, the length of the term, not the number of them.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Dec 19, 12:27 pm, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
> >>> today.
> >> ... /may/ give asinine results. It depends highly on what questions the
> >> constitution (prescriptive or descriptive -- I liked the terms) allows
> >> for referendum.
>
> > The rules for getting on the ballot are _very_ restrictive in New York
> > City, yet the asinine concept of "term limits" was passed by the
> > voters _twice_ (shortly before I moved back to New York).
>
> By "term limits", do you mean the sort of rule that, for example,
> prevents the president of the USA from staying in office for more than
> two terms?
That is in fact the NYC situation -- two four-year terms for city-
level offices (mayor, public advocate, comptroller; and city
councilpersons). But the enacted rule contained a proviso that the
term-limited officials could vote themselves eligibility to run a
third time, and when Bloomberg and a sizable majority of the Council
invoked that this year, there was a huge backlash and he was reelected
by a far smaller margin than last time or than expected (despite it
being the most expensive privately financed election campaign in
history), and a number of councilpersons who had voted to overturn
term limits were turned out.
I wasn't here when it happened, but the term limits campaign was
created and financed by a NYC billionaire. I don't know what his
reasons were, but it's highly likely that its success was due to the
fact that it would prevent New York's first African American mayor
from running a third time. (In his reelection, he narrowly defeated
Giuliani.) The only beneficial effect of term limits was that it kept
Giuliani from running for a third term in 2001 -- remember that on
September 10, 2001, Giuliani couldn't have been elected dogcatcher (is
there anyplace where dogcatchers are elected?), and a few days after
9/11 he proposed that the 2001 mayoral election be canceled entirey
and that he be maintained as mayor for life (or, for as long as he
felt like).
> In many countries, the removal of term limits is the first step in
> somebody's move towards becoming dictator for life.
In this country, George Washington rather surprised everyone by
declining to run for a third term in 1796, thus setting the precedent
at the highest level. FDR was the first one to break the tradition
(for good reason), in 1940, and the republican "Do-Nothing Congress"
during the Truman administration put through the term limits amendment
to the Constitution -- thus screwing themselves royally, since both
Eisenhower and Reagan would have easily won a third term.
There are and should not be "term limits," because that's why we have
elections. Every two years for Representatives, every six years for
Senators. (Each state and municipality sets its own rules for term
length and limits; sometimes towns have "managers," not mayors, who
are appointed to civil service jobs by the town council or whatever,
not elected, and thus have no fixed term.)
Peter T. Daniels
>
> > Government by referendum gives the asinine results seen in California
> > today.
>
> That's why we don't have government by referendum. Why do you people
> allow it in America?
"We people ... in America" don't. "Them people in California" do, and
it was instituted about a century ago as a good-government measure --
there were lots of historical news stories last year when Prop. 8
narrowly won.
California propositions are nowadays (any more?) fought in media
campaigns, where those with the most money and the most fanatical
supporters are the ones that win.
This is quite different from the "town meetings" tradition in New
England, where all the voters in a town are expected to assemble to
discuss issues and come to a decision (not necessarily by consensus,
but at least all views are properly heard and, hopefully, understood).
Chuck Riggs
More generally, "term limits" refers to the length of time an
officeholder can legally remain in office, which is what Peter Moylan
had in mind, I believe. A better name for it might be "term
limitation".
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs,
An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE
tony cooper
wrote:
Not really. There is no specified length of time involved in "term
limits" since the "term" changes from office-to-office. A term can be
one year or whatever number of years the term of the office entails.
Chuck Riggs
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Looking at the question more broadly, in the case of dictators, who
rule around half the world's population, term limitations are the
salient feature of their tenure, not term limits.
Peter Moylan
I agree with you, without reservation. Whether the restriction is
expressed in years or in terms is a matter of detail. The important
distinction is between "the defined limit" and "forever".
Someone - I think it was Tony - has suggested that limits are
unnecessary because the elections define the limits. The catch is that
there have been far too many elections where we're pretty sure that the
election result does not reflect the will of the electorate. That
includes countries where the people would have said "it will never
happen here".
Besides, the GWB years have taught us that you can fool a majority of
the people most of the time.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Someone - I think it was Tony - has suggested that limits are
>unnecessary because the elections define the limits.
No, that wasn't me.
>The catch is that
>there have been far too many elections where we're pretty sure that the
>election result does not reflect the will of the electorate. That
>includes countries where the people would have said "it will never
>happen here".
>
>Besides, the GWB years have taught us that you can fool a majority of
>the people most of the time.
--
Peter T. Daniels
> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:37:16 +1100, Peter Moylan <gro.nalyomp@retep>
> wrote:
>
> >Someone - I think it was Tony - has suggested that limits are
> >unnecessary because the elections define the limits.
>
> No, that wasn't me.
He may have put a parliamentary spin on my pointing out that we have
"term limits" -- they're called elections. Because our elections come
at regular, predetermined intervals. You only get to be president for
four years, representative for two years, senator for six years, then
you have to try again and hope you did well enough to get reelected.
Whereas Mr. Brown can call an election whenever his popularity soars
above 50%.
> >The catch is that
> >there have been far too many elections where we're pretty sure that the
> >election result does not reflect the will of the electorate. That
> >includes countries where the people would have said "it will never
> >happen here".
>
> >Besides, the GWB years have taught us that you can fool a majority of
> >the people most of the time.
How _did_ he manage to soar above 50% the first week in November 2004?
(and not for ages before or after)
António Marques
My impression is that he won because, unlike his opponent, he didn't
try to pretend he was something he was not. That's very much
appreciated in a politician. I don't think americans can claim to have
been fooled - they got what they voted for. (In his first term it
might be argued that he did a u-turn from his originally isolationist
stance - but 9/11 can't be argued away.)
John Dean
>
> Besides, the GWB years have taught us that you can fool a majority of
> the people most of the time.
Or we could face the unpleasant conclusion that not many of the people were
fooled - they got what they wanted.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Robert Bannister
It would seem that New South Wales could benefit from a ruling that
prevented the same party from staying in power for decades, although
over the years, you seem to have suffered under Labor rather more often
than under the others.
--
Rob Bannister
Cheryl
> I agree with you, without reservation. Whether the restriction is
> expressed in years or in terms is a matter of detail. The important
> distinction is between "the defined limit" and "forever".
>
> Someone - I think it was Tony - has suggested that limits are
> unnecessary because the elections define the limits. The catch is that
> there have been far too many elections where we're pretty sure that the
> election result does not reflect the will of the electorate. That
> includes countries where the people would have said "it will never
> happen here".
>
> Besides, the GWB years have taught us that you can fool a majority of
> the people most of the time.
>
Sometimes the will of the electorate, as determined by perfectly legal
and normal procedures, is directly contrary to the will of some subset
of the electorate and/or directs disasterous policy decisions. There's
nothing to indicate that the will of the electorate will always have the
support of any given sub-group or person (like me, for example) or will
be wise in any given situation.
Rule by the will of the electorate is just better than other options.
Most of the time. Sometimes it's marginally better, and sometimes it
leads the country in really bad directions.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
What did Kerry "pretend" not to be?
James Hogg
Why didn't you ask that question?
--
James
Peter Moylan
> It would seem that New South Wales could benefit from a ruling that
> prevented the same party from staying in power for decades, although
> over the years, you seem to have suffered under Labor rather more often
> than under the others.
NSW suffers from bad government no matter which party is in power. Part
of the reason is that the people who really run the state have no
trouble figuring out who to switch their bribes to when there's a change
of government.
I have to admit that we're at a low point right now. I've seen some bad
premiers in the past, but this latest one so completely lacks
plausibility that even Palin would look better. But what can we do? The
present government deserves to be thrown out, and probably will be; but
the reason it's stayed in power for so long is the complete lack of a
credible opposition. No matter who wins the next election, we'll wind up
with government by people who can't be trusted with the keys to the state.
Cheryl
That's a common problem. I've often looked at a government, thought they
deserved to be thrown out, then looked at the opposition and shuddered
at the thought of them being in power. One of the greatest gifts for any
government is a disorganized or disreputable opposition. Infighting
among the opposition is good, too.
--
Cheryl
Chuck Riggs
Yes, you can never overestimate the mediocrity of the
boob-tube-watching, football-adoring majority, IMO. That said,
democracy provides a populace safeguards few other systems can, the
ideal, benevolent dictator often being difficult to trust, in the long
haul.
António Marques
Very little indeed!
Kerry pretended to be mostly everything for most people. That often pays
off, but not always.
Take Obama in contrast. As much as people complain that Obama is all talk
and no substance, the fact is that he didn't try to present himself as
anything other than a very left of centre (as far as that is measured in
mainstream US politics) person with nonetheless a quite pragmatic approach
to problem solving. People were able to see what they were voting for.
Take Bush in contrast. He never posed as an intellectual. He never posed as
a 'moderate'. He showed himself for what he is - a staunch 'social
conservative' with very little trust in diplomacy, making no half-hearted
decisions. People were able to see what they were voting for.
Peter T. Daniels
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
What??
Peter T. Daniels
So you're in the camp that claims that Obama's entire campaign was a
lie?
I don't know how much about the health care debate filters across the
ocean, but for the past six months Obama did _nothing_ to promote the
health care reform ideas supported by his "base"; the Administration
provided _no_ ideas or guidelines for Congress to work with; the
"single-payer," i.e. European-style, system was excluded even from
preliminary discussion; and after the Senate finally cleared a bill
by explicitly bribing the Senator from Nebraska, he actually _praised_
the result as "real reform" -- but all it is is massive subsidies to
private insurance companies (it's no surprise that the stock of health
insurance companies has risen by almost 25% so far this week).
His long-delayed Afghanistan strategy was also seen as a betrayal by
his "base," but eventually the soundbites from the campaign were found
in which, while mainly talking about Iraq, he had said he would
escalate in Afghanistan. His Nobel speech went some way toward
justifying the policy.
Obama has most certainly not been governing from left of center.
> Take Bush in contrast. He never posed as an intellectual. He never posed as
> a 'moderate'. He showed himself for what he is - a staunch 'social
> conservative' with very little trust in diplomacy, making no half-hearted
> decisions. People were able to see what they were voting for.-
No, they saw an image of "The Decider." It's even more clear from
their respective behaviors this year that bush was a nothing and all
the "Deciding" was by cheney.
James Hogg
> On Dec 23, 1:24 am, James Hogg <Jas.H...@gOUTmail.com> wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Dec 22, 7:41 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 22, 9:53 am, tony cooper
>>>>> <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 22:37:16 +1100, Peter Moylan
>>>>>> <gro.nalyomp@retep> wrote:
>>>>>>> Besides, the GWB years have taught us that you can fool a
>>>>>>> majority of the people most of the time.
>>>>> How _did_ he manage to soar above 50% the first week in
>>>>> November 2004? (and not for ages before or after)
>>>> My impression is that he won because, unlike his opponent, he
>>>> didn't try to pretend he was something he was not. That's very
>>>> much appreciated in a politician. I don't think americans can
>>>> claim to have been fooled - they got what they voted for. (In
>>>> his first term it might be argued that he did a u-turn from his
>>>> originally isolationist stance - but 9/11 can't be argued
>>>> away.)
>>> What did Kerry "pretend" not to be?
>> Why didn't you ask that question?
>
> What??
I didn't understand your question. Ant�nio Marques wrote that Bush,
unlike Kerry, "didn't try to pretend he was something he was not". This
implies that Kerry pretended to be something he was not. Some people may
wonder what Ant�nio thinks Kerry pretended to be. If you are one of
those people, your question should have been:
What did Kerry "pretend" to be?
On the other hand, if you agree with Ant�nio that Kerry was a pretender,
then you might have asked the rhetorical question:
What did Kerry *not* pretend to be?
The question you actually write seems to fall between those two stools.
--
James
António Marques
On the contrary, where do you get that idea?
> I don't know how much about the health care debate filters across the
> ocean, but for the past six months Obama did _nothing_ to promote the
> health care reform ideas supported by his "base"; the Administration
> provided _no_ ideas or guidelines for Congress to work with; the
> "single-payer," i.e. European-style, system was excluded even from
> preliminary discussion; and after the Senate finally cleared a bill
> by explicitly bribing the Senator from Nebraska, he actually _praised_
> the result as "real reform" -- but all it is is massive subsidies to
> private insurance companies (it's no surprise that the stock of health
> insurance companies has risen by almost 25% so far this week).
So do you think the Administration could/should have directed the process or
not?
> His long-delayed Afghanistan strategy was also seen as a betrayal by
> his "base," but eventually the soundbites from the campaign were found
> in which, while mainly talking about Iraq, he had said he would
> escalate in Afghanistan. His Nobel speech went some way toward
> justifying the policy.
Even here it was clear at the time that he regarded Afghanistan as a very
different case from Iraq. In fact, I think about every time he mentioned the
war(s) it was to say that while Iraq had been wrong and should be gotten out
of, Afghanistan was the just one and could not be abandoned. And for years
we heard Democrats say that one of the major problems with Iraq's war was to
have diverted attention and resources from the one in Afghanistan. Could it
be that the message got to our shores clearer than it ringed at home?
> Obama has most certainly not been governing from left of center.
I think only those who thought that because he got elected he would do
things according to what his 'base', as you call it, wanted, have reason to
believe his campaign was a lie. In a democracy, when you get elected, it's
because a plurality of the people chose you, even if your 'base' is somewhat
fringe, and that means you can't rule ignoring the majority. But the people
in the 'base' don't seem to understand that. The fact is that if the
candidate had stayed true to the base, they wouldn't have been elected. It's
not because a left of centre person became President that the country has
'moved to the left'. What it means is that that person was able to convince
enough people that their interests would be better served by having that
specific person, who happens to think left of centre, as President - but
that implies diluting those parts of the candidate's thining that are more
offending to the general populace. You try to get too much against that, you
get unrest and accomplish nothing. That's not perfect, but that's as good as
it gets.
>> Take Bush in contrast. He never posed as an intellectual. He never posed as
>> a 'moderate'. He showed himself for what he is - a staunch 'social
>> conservative' with very little trust in diplomacy, making no half-hearted
>> decisions. People were able to see what they were voting for.
>
> No, they saw an image of "The Decider." It's even more clear from
> their respective behaviors this year that bush was a nothing and all
> the "Deciding" was by cheney.
Oh, what matters is that 'decisions' were made, what difference does it make
who really made them? You vote for one, you get the whole package. Even
before Iraq many viewed the Bush/Cheney dynamics as you put them. (Don't
russians nowadays vote merrily for Medvedev because they know that's how
Putin wants it?)
I happen to have a different reading of their respective behaviours this
year. Would you rather have Bush speaking out on policy?
Peter T. Daniels
Antonio wrote of bush:
"unlike his opponent, he didn't try to pretend he was something he was
not."
Which is to say, his opponent (Kerry) tried to pretend he was
something he was not.
What something-that-he-was-not did Kerry pretend to be?
Or, changing the object from a complex noun phrase to a pronoun, and
lowering the negative back to the clause it originated in,
James Hogg
Ah, that simplifies things. He pretended not to be everything except
what he pretended to be. Ant�nio can tell us what that was.
Or Ant nio, as you call him.
--
James
Peter T. Daniels
>
> Or Ant nio, as you call him.
No; I don't try to input accents (because I'd have to look up a table
for the code).