Re: An -ism?
raymond o'hara
"Kensington Keith" <b...@com.ws> wrote in message
news:200820041117498156%b...@com.ws...
> Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
Stupidity.
mUs1Ka
> Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
Who is Wilt Chamberlain?
--
Ray
Peter Duncanson
>Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
Possibly "Litotes".
<quote>
n. understatement for rhetorical effect (especially when expressing an
affirmative by negating its contrary); "saying `I was not a little upset'
when you mean `I was very upset' is an example of litotes"
</quote>
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
CB
Typical American understatement. CDB
Richard Maurer
Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
Ray asked:
Who is Wilt Chamberlain?
Wilt Chamberlain was a famous basketball player who scored 20,000.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John Dawkins
wrote:
> Kensington Keith wrote:
> > Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
>
> Who is Wilt Chamberlain?
He was a tall basketball player who scored 100 points in a single game
(once) and 20,000 women (his count) in a single lifetime.
--
J.
raymond o'hara
"mUs1Ka" <mUs...@exite.com> wrote in message
news:2omr2hF...@uni-berlin.de...
Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L akers in the
late 50's and 60's.
he holds the NBA single game point record but he was always outplayed by
the Celtic's Bill Russell.
Daniel James
> > Kensington Keith wrote:
> > > Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
> >
> > Who is Wilt Chamberlain?
>
Ah, he was tall.
Then the answer to the original question would appear to be
"irony".
Snipping just one definition from the NSOED:
The expression of meaning using language that normally
expresses the opposite
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> >Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
>
> Possibly "Litotes".
>
> <quote>
> n. understatement for rhetorical effect (especially when
> expressing an affirmative by negating its contrary); "saying
> `I was not a little upset' when you mean `I was very upset'
> is an example of litotes"
> </quote>
Exactly ... so calling a tall man "tiny" isn't litotes - it states the
contrary rather than negating it.
Saying of him "he's not a small man" would be litotes.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Peter Duncanson
It seems I've stretched the meaning of litotes beyond breaking point.
What I had in mind was "expressing an extreme when the opposite extreme is
in fact the case".
Odysseus
>
[Wilt Chamberlain]
>
> Ah, he was tall.
>
In fact his nickname was "Wilt the Stilt". (I know nothing about
basketball, but I think Chamberlain's must qualify as a 'household
name', at least in North America.)
--
Odysseus
Richard Chambers
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote
> It seems I've stretched the meaning of litotes beyond breaking point.
No, I wouldn't say that! You have simply omitted to confine the stretching
of its meaning within the established safe limits.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
meirman
Keith <b...@com.ws> posted:
>Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
Do you mean oxymoron? I forget the definition, but roughly a
self-contradictory statement.
They all tend to be funny, and for most of the ones I can think of,
the funniness overshadows the oxymoronic aspect, even though the humor
is based directly on it.
Like a big bottleneck in traffic.
Military intelligence.
Government worker.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 20 years
meirman
<waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> posted:
>In article news:<artfldodgr-A9512...@individual.net>,
>John Dawkins wrote:
>> > Kensington Keith wrote:
>> > > Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
>> >
>> > Who is Wilt Chamberlain?
>>
>> He was a tall basketball player ...
>
>Ah, he was tall.
>
>Then the answer to the original question would appear to be
>"irony".
No. It's just a contradiction, a name chosen apparently because it's
something he's not. It lacks the twist that irony requires.
>
>Snipping just one definition from the NSOED:
>
> The expression of meaning using language that normally
> expresses the opposite
Either they mean something else, as examples might show, or they're
wrong, or they're reporting actual but incorrect usage. Someone on
the radio or earlier on this list noted how "irony" is used lately in
many situations where it does not apply.
>Cheers,
> Daniel.
meirman
Chambers" <richard....@NOSPAMntlworld.com> posted:
>
>"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote
>
>> It seems I've stretched the meaning of litotes beyond breaking point.
>
>No, I wouldn't say that! You have simply omitted to confine the stretching
>of its meaning within the established safe limits.
Is this sentence OK in the UK? In the US it would have to be
something like "You have simply FAILED to confine the stretching
of its meaning TO within the established safe limits."
>Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
>
Donna Richoux
> In alt.english.usage on Sat, 21 Aug 2004 12:54:19 +0100 Daniel James
> <waste...@nospam.aaisp.org> posted:
>
> >In article news:<artfldodgr-A9512...@individual.net>,
> >John Dawkins wrote:
> >> > Kensington Keith wrote:
> >> > > Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
> >> >
> >> > Who is Wilt Chamberlain?
> >>
> >> He was a tall basketball player ...
> >
> >Ah, he was tall.
> >
> >Then the answer to the original question would appear to be
> >"irony".
>
> No. It's just a contradiction, a name chosen apparently because it's
> something he's not. It lacks the twist that irony requires.
The "twist" thing is the *American* meaning of irony, or "dramatic
irony." The mere "opposite" thing is *British* irony, and is basically
what Americans would call "sarcasm" -- saying the opposite of what you
mean, for humorous effect. The British use "sarcasm" to mean something
more bitter and vengeful (and some Americans go along with that, too).
The fact that there are pondal differences in the meaning of these two
words has led to some very confusing discussions in the past (especially
since some participants feel they are required to demonstrate irony
while discussing it).
> >
> >Snipping just one definition from the NSOED:
> >
> > The expression of meaning using language that normally
> > expresses the opposite
>
> Either they mean something else, as examples might show, or they're
> wrong, or they're reporting actual but incorrect usage.
I'm afraid it means there are legitimate regional differences in these
terms that you aren't aware of. It took me several years here to realize
the difference, myself.
>Someone on
> the radio or earlier on this list noted how "irony" is used lately in
> many situations where it does not apply.
Well, that's something else again. The feeble "Ironic" song, by Alanis
Morissette. She was heading for dramatic irony, but failed to convey it.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>The "twist" thing is the *American* meaning of irony, or "dramatic
>irony." The mere "opposite" thing is *British* irony, and is basically
>what Americans would call "sarcasm" -- saying the opposite of what you
>mean, for humorous effect. The British use "sarcasm" to mean something
>more bitter and vengeful (and some Americans go along with that, too).
A few people will clothe their anger, bitterness, and need for
vengeance by that one term 'irony', which, to them, justifies their
unpleasantness: thinking of it as irony makes it socially acceptable
to these sorts. Matti stands out in this newsgroup as a good example
of the type who'll often use this sort of unamusing, unpleasant, and
hurtful 'irony', not that he isn't capable of demonstrating the
humorous, 'American' variety, although I suspect that variety is
merely a subset of irony, there not being a sharp distinction between
British and American irony. Even British dictionaries tell us it is
meant to be humorous.
--
Charles Riggs
Daniel James
> [Wilt Chamberlain]
> >
> > Ah, he was tall.
> >
> In fact his nickname was "Wilt the Stilt".
There's catchy.
> (I know nothing about basketball, but I think Chamberlain's must
> qualify as a 'household name', at least in North America.)
Excuse me. I have spent perhaps five weeks in North America in my
life (and those spread over the last twenty years) and had little
opportunity to become familiar with the household names of the area.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
> >Then the answer to the original question would appear to be
> >"irony".
>
> No. It's just a contradiction, a name chosen apparently because
> it's something he's not. It lacks the twist that irony requires.
Irony can have a "twist" (if I understand what you mean by that) but
it certainlt doesn't require one. Sometimes the "twist" is in the
irony itself, and sometimes there is no twist.
You aren't confusing irony with sarcasm, are you? Sarcasm is ironic,
but also carries mockery or insult. Would that be a "twist" to you?
> >Snipping just one definition from the NSOED:
> >
> > The expression of meaning using language that normally
> > expresses the opposite
>
> Either they mean something else, as examples might show, or
> they're wrong, or they're reporting actual but incorrect usage.
No. It means what it says, and it is a correct report of (one of
the) meanings of the word. Unfortunately no examples are given.
Do you want the whole thing? OK, it's not long:
| irony /"VIr<schwa>ni/
| n.E16. [L ironia, Gk eironeia simulated ignorance,
| f. eiron dissembler: see -Y3.]
|
|1 Dissimulation, pretence; /esp/. the pretence of ignorance
| practised by Socrates as a step towards confuting an
| adversary. E16.
|
| 2 The expression of meaning using language that normally
| expresses the opposite; /esp/. the humorous or sarcastic use
| of praise to imply condemnation or contempt. E16.
|
| b An instance of this; an ironical utterance or expression. M16.
|
| 3 /fig/. Discrepancy between the expected and the actual state
| of affairs; a contradictory or ill-timed outcome of events as
| if in mockery of the fitness of things. M17.
|
| 4 The use of language with one meaning for a privileged
| audience and another for those addressed or concerned. E20.
|
| 1 Socratic irony: see SOCRATIC a.
| 4 tragic irony: see TRAGIC a.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony - where it says (among
many other interesting things)
| ... Fowler, in The King's English, says "any definition of
| irony —- though hundreds might be given, and very few of them
| would be accepted -— must include this, that the surface meaning
| and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same".
.. and see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_John
| According to the legend he was a giant of a man with an ironic
| nickname.
Exactly the same situation as with Wilt Chamberlain, as I understand
it.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Daniel James
wrote:
> >No, I wouldn't say that! You have simply omitted to confine the
> > stretching of its meaning within the established safe limits.
>
> Is this sentence OK in the UK?
I wouldn't say it - but the meaning is clear.
I'd say that something that is omitted has to be a thing. A noun or
noun-phrase, but not a ... whatver the infinitive "to confine" is in
that sentence.
> In the US it would have to be something like "You have simply
> FAILED to confine the stretching of its meaning TO within the
> established safe limits."
Yes. I'd go for "neglected" and "to" (and probably omit the "within")
myself.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Exit1
With regards,
M.B. Exit1
Ben Zimmer
BYU's "Silva Rhetoricae" website provides two more appropriate terms:
"meiosis" or "tapinosis".
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/M/meiosis.htm
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/T/tapinosis.htm
CB
"don groves" <(. (@ dgroves ccwebster) net)> wrote in message
news:opsc5r46...@news.web-ster.com...
> understatement to be 'typical' here. Just the opposite, in
> fact. I've always admired the understated UK in that regard.
>
> Oh, you were being ironic. I get it...
> --
Sort of. As a Canadian, I may or may not get to be ironic around here. I
was thinking in my confused way that, as you observed, American humour
typically uses exaggeration more than understatement, but that this case
could be a sort of reverse exaggeration, and at the same time a physical
understatement. Was there also a mild dig at Yankee literal-mindedness?
Yes, but almost on an unconscious level. We carp at you habitually because
we're a bit jealous, you know, and because we do really, really like you.
As comedian Greg Malone said once, leaning over the podium as George H.W.
Bush, "Canada, is America's, inner child. CDB
Raymond S. Wise
Note that meiosis is a type of litotes (according to the "meiosis" page
above) and "tapinosis" is given as a type of meiosis (according to the
"tapinosis" page above), so it too is a type of litotes. In other words,
litotes is not necessarily a negation.
See
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/L/litotes.htm
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Martin Ambuhl
> I've been an American for 68 years and I've never noticed
> understatement to be 'typical' here. Just the opposite, in
> fact. I've always admired the understated UK in that regard.
Understatement may not be typical for the rest of the people of the US,
but it certainly is for Texans. Consider such gems as "George W is not
the dumbest president we've had."
Charles Riggs
ccwebster) net)> wrote:
>That's actually true for many of us. If the immigration laws
>were a bit different, we'd be living up there right now.
How they work in practice may be different from how they are spelled
out on paper, so an immigration official in Canada candidly told me. I
doubt if you'd be hassled if you moved to, say, glorious Quebec or
wonderful Vancouver. If you and your family were to go the official
route many people have dual US and Canadian citizenship. I don't think
the Canadian government creates much of a problem obtaining one. Five
years of residence, I think, as in Ireland, once you get your foot in
the door: evidence you aren't an habitual lawbreaker, plus bank proof
you have the ability to support yourself, being the main criteria in
Ireland anyway.
Oddly enough in Ireland you don't need to know jack-shit about the
country's history or traditions to become a citizen. Different in the
UK and in the US and probably stricter than Ireland in Canada, as
well.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Oddly enough in Ireland you don't need to know jack-shit about the
>country's history or traditions to become a citizen. Different in the
>UK and in the US and probably stricter than Ireland in Canada, as
>well.
Yet in Ireland you must be able to speak Irish Gaelic to be hired for
some government jobs even if the job doesn't require any contact with
Gaelic speakers. In the US, you can be hired by the government to
work with Hispanics and not have to be able to speak Spanish.
Raymond S. Wise
I believe that in some states a government worker is actually *prohibited*
from speaking any foreign language, either to one's cow orkers or to those
receiving government services who speak only that language.
Here's an example where such a restriction was voted down:
http://www.co.arlington.va.us/Departments/Communications/NewsDigest/Scripts/ViewDetail.asp?Index=705
It looks like such discrimination by a private employer is a violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964:
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1038583/posts
Alan Jones
"Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:hj8ji05i537l3j2k8...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:20:25 -0700, don groves <(. (@ dgroves
> ccwebster) net)> wrote:
>
>
> >That's actually true for many of us. If the immigration laws
> >were a bit different, we'd be living up there right now.
> Oddly enough in Ireland you don't need to know jack-shit about the
> country's history or traditions to become a citizen. Different in the
> UK and in the US and probably stricter than Ireland in Canada, as
> well.
I don't think the "history and traditions" requirement yet applies to the
UK, though it's being discussed. The only requirement of this kind is very
recent, and runs: "[Applicants for naturalization] should have a sufficient
knowledge of the English language (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic). There are
exemptions to this requirement, for example if one is old or mentally
handicapped". "Sufficient knowledge" has to be proved by a pass in some EFL
test or certification by an approved person. Otherwise the basic
requirements are to be at least 18 and of sound mind, and to have lived and
worked in the UK for at least 5 years. (It's a bit more complicated than
that, but that's the gist of it. See
http://www.ncadc.org.uk/archives/filed%20newszines/newszine48/naturalization.html
.)
Being a "citizen" is not quite the same thing, if it implies only e.g.
voting or serving in the Armed Forces. Citizens of the Irish Republic have
always been welcome to do both, and of course also to live here, coming and
going as they wish; and citizens of any other EU country have a special
status, too, but without being naturalised.
Alan Jones
Richard Chambers
"meirman" <mei...@invalid.com> wrote
[ . . . ]
> >Ah, he was tall.
> >
> >Then the answer to the original question would appear to be
> >"irony".
>
> No. It's just a contradiction, a name chosen apparently because it's
> something he's not. It lacks the twist that irony requires.
--------------------------------------
Yes, I agree. It is a poor form of irony that merely expresses the opposite
of what is really meant. Anybody can do that. If this were all we need to be
ironic, with a minimal effort we could all be great wits.
The second essential component of irony is the concisely-worded recognition
that we are all lucky to have survived to the present day. Life is full of
dangers. Good irony comments on the insecurity of our very survival.
Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
Pour encourager les autres.
[In answer to the question "Why did they shoot the Admiral?"]
[My thanks to another contributor to aue, possibly Bob Cunningham if my
memory is correct, for telling me the Mrs Lincoln one, about nine months
ago.]
-------------------------------------------
> >
> >Snipping just one definition from the NSOED:
> >
> > The expression of meaning using language that normally
> > expresses the opposite
>
> Either they mean something else, as examples might show, or they're
> wrong, or they're reporting actual but incorrect usage. Someone on
> the radio or earlier on this list noted how "irony" is used lately in
> many situations where it does not apply.
>
------------------------------------
I agree with the radio commentator. Irony is degraded if it is
mass-produced, with nothing more than the simple strategem of saying the
opposite of what you really mean.
------------------------------------
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L akers
> in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single game point
> record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's Bill Russell.
Which Celtic?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Sometimes I think the surest sign
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |that intelligent life exists
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |elsewhere in the universe is that
|none of it has tried to contact us.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Evan Kirshenbaum
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:42:43 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> writes:
>>
>>> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L
>>> akers in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single game
>>> point record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's Bill
>>> Russell.
>>
>> Which Celtic?
>
> Boston - the Seltics.
I know who the Celtics are; I was just unclear on which Celtic owned
Bill Russell. I guess it would have been Walter Brown.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out
|of such a trifling investment of
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |fact.
(650)857-7572 | Mark Twain
Raymond S. Wise
> "Charles Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
> news:hj8ji05i537l3j2k8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 18:20:25 -0700, don groves <(. (@ dgroves
>> ccwebster) net)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's actually true for many of us. If the immigration laws
>>> were a bit different, we'd be living up there right now.
> [...]
>
>> Oddly enough in Ireland you don't need to know jack-shit about the
>> country's history or traditions to become a citizen. Different in the
>> UK and in the US and probably stricter than Ireland in Canada, as
>> well.
>
> I don't think the "history and traditions" requirement yet applies to
> the UK, though it's being discussed. The only requirement of this
> kind is very recent, and runs: "[Applicants for naturalization]
> should have a sufficient knowledge of the English language (or Welsh
> or Scottish Gaelic). There are exemptions to this requirement, for
> example if one is old or mentally handicapped". "Sufficient
> knowledge" has to be proved by a pass in some EFL test or
> certification by an approved person. Otherwise the basic requirements
According to
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971232004
not just those who learned English as a foreign language, but also
Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians must take such a test. I presume
that Americans would have to also.
I learned about that link from a message which was recently posted to
fr.lettres.langue.anglaise .
> are to be at least 18 and of sound mind, and to have lived and
> worked in the UK for at least 5 years. (It's a bit more complicated
> than that, but that's the gist of it. See
>
http://www.ncadc.org.uk/archives/filed%20newszines/newszine48/naturalization.html
> .)
>
> Being a "citizen" is not quite the same thing, if it implies only e.g.
> voting or serving in the Armed Forces. Citizens of the Irish Republic
> have always been welcome to do both, and of course also to live here,
> coming and going as they wish; and citizens of any other EU country
> have a special status, too, but without being naturalised.
Skitt
> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>> don groves writes:
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L
>>>>> akers in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single game
>>>>> point record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's Bill
>>>>> Russell.
>>>>
>>>> Which Celtic?
>>>
>>> Boston - the Seltics.
>>
>> I know who the Celtics are; I was just unclear on which Celtic owned
>> Bill Russell. I guess it would have been Walter Brown.
>
I'm seeing a lot of air-balls ...
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Tony Cooper
ccwebster) net)> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:52:48 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
><kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> don groves <(. (@ dgroves ccwebster) net)> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:42:43 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L
>>>>> akers in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single game
>>>>> point record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's Bill
>>>>> Russell.
>>>>
>>>> Which Celtic?
>>>
>>> Boston - the Seltics.
>>
>> I know who the Celtics are; I was just unclear on which Celtic owned
>> Bill Russell. I guess it would have been Walter Brown.
>>
>
>The coach was Red Auerbach, no idea about the owner.
You're missing it, Don. The team is the Celtics. The "s" is already
there. You made "Celtic" possessive and thus indicated that one
Celtic was involved.
You get one free "Get Out Of Jail Card" because I haven't noticed you
posting here (aue) before. After this, you have to puzzle out the
puzzling on your own.
I'm puzzled, too. Was the error made by o'hara or Groves? The
attributions confuse me.
I think Walter Brown was the owner of the Celtics when
Russell played. The team has changed hands a lot. Auerbach was coach
and general manager.
Maria Conlon
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> don groves wrote:
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>> don groves writes:
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A.
L
>>>>>>> akers in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single
game
>>>>>>> point record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's
Bill
>>>>>>> Russell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which Celtic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Boston - the Seltics.
>>>>
>>>> I know who the Celtics are; I was just unclear on which Celtic
>>>> owned Bill Russell. I guess it would have been Walter Brown.
>>>
>>> The coach was Red Auerbach, no idea about the owner.
>>
>> You're missing it, Don. The team is the Celtics. The "s" is
already
>> there. You made "Celtic" possessive and thus indicated that one
>> Celtic was involved.
>
>
>> You get one free "Get Out Of Jail Card" because I haven't noticed
you
>> posting here (aue) before. After this, you have to puzzle out
the
>> puzzling on your own.
>
>
>> I'm puzzled, too. Was the error made by o'hara or Groves? The
>> attributions confuse me.
>
True. And the attributions seemed okay.
But you did do "Boston - the Seltics." However, that could have been
a typo or a thinko. And come to think of it, the same can be said
for "Celtic's." I don't know about "Get Out Of Jail Card,"
though -- it seems to have the word "Free" missing.
Maria Conlon
Just another evening at the AUE saloon.
Tony Cooper
<mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But you did do "Boston - the Seltics." However, that could have been
>a typo or a thinko.
I would think that would be explanatory rather than an error. Some
might think of the "Keltics" as the Glasgow Celtics are known. There
are many teams called the "Celtics" in the world, but only (TMK) only
the ones in the US are called the "Seltics".
Bill McCray
ccwebster) net)> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:12:41 -0400, Maria Conlon
> <mariaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It was a thinko and a small dig at the proper Bostonians,
> and others who pronounce the word with an S instead of a
> K sound. Unlike the Spanish business I foolishly started,
> the word Keltic is in common use in the US, except in NBA
> basketball.
We in the U.S. tend to pronounce words that we aren't familiar with
the way they look. Versailles, maybe 15 miles west of here is "ver
SAILS" and Athens, even closer, is "AY thins". In Illinois, Cairo is
"KAY roh".
In most cases a "C" before an "E" is pronounced as an "S", so we
pronounce "Celtic" as "Seltic". I'm 64, and it was only in the past
maybe ten years that I have heard of the "Keltic" pronunciation.
Having learned of the original pronunciation, I know use it, except
for the team in Boston.
Bill
Swap first and last parts of username and ISP for address.
Donna Richoux
[About the recent changes to UK language requirements]
>
> According to
>
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971232004
>
> not just those who learned English as a foreign language, but also
> Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians must take such a test. I presume
> that Americans would have to also.
>
> I learned about that link from a message which was recently posted to
> fr.lettres.langue.anglaise .
For some reason that site does not open for me at all. But anyway, if
that's what it says, it's wrong.
There's quite a bit of confusion floating about on what the law requires
(ability, examinations, certificates, etc.) In some articles, the
requirements for the examining *teachers* are made to look like the
requirements for the *applicants*.
The horse's mouth is the UK Home Office site. Info dated 20 August:
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/news/press_releases/new_lan
guage_requirement.html
Notice that it divides candidates into four kinds:
Section 1 applies to people who already speak good English, and who
have an educational qualification which could only have been
obtained by someone who has good English.
Section 2 is for people who have been learning English as a second
language, and who already hold a certificate of knowledge of the
English language which they believe is of a standard as high as
ESOL Entry 3.
Section 3 is for people who are learning English and believe that
they have reached the ESOL Entry 3 standard, but do not have any
certificate to show this.
Section 4 is for people who are clearly not yet at ESOL Entry 3
Level in English.
There was an option discussed recently that may have been lost in the
changes, about native English speakers being vouched for by someone,
perhaps because people couldn't agree on who the qualified "someone"s
were? But anyway, if a person held a diploma from a secondary school in
Australia, say, that would qualify. If they were school dropouts from
Australia, I guess they'd have to take the test.
Daniel James
wrote:
> Yes, I agree. It is a poor form of irony that merely expresses the
> opposite of what is really meant. Anybody can do that. If this were
> all we need to be ironic, with a minimal effort we could all be great
> wits.
Irony is the name given to the rhetorical device of making a statement by
using a word that normall has the opposite meaning.
That is all irony is.
If you seek to be a great wit you have to know not only what irony is, but
HOW and WHEN to employ it with effect. Irony is not automatically witty,
but it is a device used in a certain kind of wit.
[snip paragraph of utter nonsense]
> Apart from that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?
An amusing remark, but not ironic.
> Pour encourager les autres.
> [In answer to the question "Why did they shoot the Admiral?"]
That's not really ironic - either in English or French - because
"encourage" has the meaning of "urge, advise or stimulate" as well as that
of "give courage or hope to".
> Irony is degraded if it is mass-produced, with nothing more than the
> simple strategem of saying the opposite of what you really mean.
Irony is just a device. If used funnily it is funny, if used too often it
is just boring. The same applies to any other rhetorical device.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Mike Lyle
Not quite. Glasgow Celtic, pronounced "Seltic". There used to be a Belfast one, too.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> According to
>
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971232004
>
> not just those who learned English as a foreign language, but also
> Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians must take such a test. I presume
> that Americans would have to also.
>
> I learned about that link from a message which was recently posted to
> fr.lettres.langue.anglaise .
It was in the _Guardian_, too. There the claim was that a certain
Australian writer had actually failed the test. I have no idea if this
was true; but the Immigration specialists at the Home Office tend to
be selected from a particularly nasty pool, so it's plausible. The
Home Secretary, Blunkett, is likewise a nasty piece of authoritarian
goods, of the kind which believes politicians outrank the law.
Mike.
Laura F Spira
> In article news:<pkuWc.419$IR....@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net>, Richard Chambers
> wrote:
>
>>Yes, I agree. It is a poor form of irony that merely expresses the
>>opposite of what is really meant. Anybody can do that. If this were
>>all we need to be ironic, with a minimal effort we could all be great
>>wits.
>
>
> Irony is the name given to the rhetorical device of making a statement by
> using a word that normall has the opposite meaning.
>
> That is all irony is.
Consulting the excellent website "Silva Rhetorica"
(http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm) I think that that is,
strictly speaking, antiphrasis.
We see some paralipsis and the occasional epitrope in aue, along with a
good deal of sarcasmus. Mycterismus would be a bit more challenging.
(Which inevitably reminds me of the good doctor of Utrecht.)
[..]
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Donna Richoux
> "Raymond S. Wise" <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote
> [...]
> > According to
> >
> > http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971232004
Now that link is working for me. At least the page with the first three
paragraphs -- the "more" link isn't working. There's nothing in the
first three paragraphs about native English speakers having to *take a
test*.
(The regulations exempt them, so it shouldn't.)
> >
> > not just those who learned English as a foreign language, but also
> > Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians must take such a test. I presume
> > that Americans would have to also.
> >
> > I learned about that link from a message which was recently posted to
> > fr.lettres.langue.anglaise .
> [...]
>
> It was in the _Guardian_, too. There the claim was that a certain
> Australian writer had actually failed the test.
Take a look at that Guardian article again. What the Australian was
rejected for was from becoming a "designated judge" of others' English!
This is the most confusing issue. It's almost as if the newspapers are
gleefully making trouble. Anyone could be excused for thinking that that
Australian had had a citizenship application rejected, or failed an
examination, or denied an interview, or failed an interview. But it
wasn't any of those things.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1285901,00.html
Pommie lingo test is unfair dinkum, mate
Sarah Hall, political correspondent
Thursday August 19, 2004
Harvey Van Sickle
> Raymond S. Wise <mplsra...@gbronline.com> wrote:
>
> [About the recent changes to UK language requirements]
>>
>> According to
>>
>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971232004
>>
>> not just those who learned English as a foreign language, but
>> also Australians, New Zealanders, and Canadians must take such a
>> test. I presume that Americans would have to also.
>>
>> I learned about that link from a message which was recently
>> posted to fr.lettres.langue.anglaise .
>
> For some reason that site does not open for me at all. But anyway,
> if that's what it says, it's wrong.
>
> There's quite a bit of confusion floating about on what the law
> requires (ability, examinations, certificates, etc.) In some
> articles, the requirements for the examining *teachers* are made
> to look like the requirements for the *applicants*.
>
> The horse's mouth is the UK Home Office site. Info dated 20
> August:
>
> http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/news/press_releases/ne
> w_lan guage_requirement.html
>
> Notice that it divides candidates into four kinds:
>
> Section 1 applies to people who already speak good English,
> and who have an educational qualification which could only
> have been obtained by someone who has good English.
>
> Section 2 is for people who have been learning English as a
> second language, and who already hold a certificate of
> knowledge of the English language which they believe is of a
> standard as high as ESOL Entry 3.
>
> Section 3 is for people who are learning English and believe
> that they have reached the ESOL Entry 3 standard, but do not
> have any certificate to show this.
>
> Section 4 is for people who are clearly not yet at ESOL Entry
> 3 Level in English.
>
> There was an option discussed recently that may have been lost in
> the changes, about native English speakers being vouched for by
> someone, perhaps because people couldn't agree on who the
> qualified "someone"s were? But anyway, if a person held a diploma
> from a secondary school in Australia, say, that would qualify. If
> they were school dropouts from Australia, I guess they'd have to
> take the test.
I seem to have read something very recently which explained that the
problem is that native English speakers from these countries who lack
proof of educational achievement -- like children of recent immigrants
-- are in a legal limbo.
The regulations specify the test to be taken by "second-language"
speakers (so that rules them out); some sort of evidence or personal
vouching is acceptable; but the the list of acceptable evidence and/or
"appropriate" people who can vouch has not been compiled.
Thus, as I understand it, there is a group of people who cannot offer
"acceptable" proof, since no list of acceptable proofs has been
compiled, and therefore no citizenship can be granted.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Charles Riggs
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Consulting the excellent website "Silva Rhetorica"
>(http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm) I think that that is,
>strictly speaking, antiphrasis.
>
>We see some paralipsis and the occasional epitrope in aue, along with a
>good deal of sarcasmus. Mycterismus would be a bit more challenging.
>(Which inevitably reminds me of the good doctor of Utrecht.)
>
I guess you were joking: paralipsis, epitrope, sarcasmus, and
mycterismus, no less? I'm sorry, Laura my pet, but this is
pseudo-intellectualism at its finest. Let's talk plain English.
Skitt
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> don groves wrote:
>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>> don groves writes:
>>>>> Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>>>>>>> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L
>>>>>>> akers in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single game
>>>>>>> point record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's Bill
>>>>>>> Russell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which Celtic?
>>>>>
>>>>> Boston - the Seltics.
>>>>
>>>> I know who the Celtics are; I was just unclear on which Celtic
>>>> owned Bill Russell. I guess it would have been Walter Brown.
>>>
>>> The coach was Red Auerbach, no idea about the owner.
>>
>> You're missing it, Don. The team is the Celtics. The "s" is already
>> there. You made "Celtic" possessive and thus indicated that one
>> Celtic was involved.
>>
>> You get one free "Get Out Of Jail Card" because I haven't noticed you
>> posting here (aue) before. After this, you have to puzzle out the
>> puzzling on your own.
>
> I'll accept the card since I didn't 'get it'.
Now my earlier mention of air-balls should make sense also. Your connecting
it to the "Dream Team" was apropos, though.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> I seem to have read something very recently which explained that the
> problem is that native English speakers from these countries who lack
> proof of educational achievement -- like children of recent immigrants
> -- are in a legal limbo.
>
> The regulations specify the test to be taken by "second-language"
> speakers (so that rules them out); some sort of evidence or personal
> vouching is acceptable; but the the list of acceptable evidence and/or
> "appropriate" people who can vouch has not been compiled.
>
> Thus, as I understand it, there is a group of people who cannot offer
> "acceptable" proof, since no list of acceptable proofs has been
> compiled, and therefore no citizenship can be granted.
And if you think the difficulties are accidental, I fear you're far
too trusting. It's like the nifty one about only being able to claim
political asylum if your papers are in order, and -- at one stage --
only if you made the claim in the country you were trying to escape
persecution in.
Many matters of public policy in Britain appear to be decided not by
Her Majesty's Government, but by a tabloid newspaper called _The Daily
Mail_: they liked Mussolini, too.
Mike.
raymond o'hara
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:vff99z...@hpl.hp.com...
> don groves <(. (@ dgroves ccwebster) net)> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 15:42:43 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
> > <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "raymond o'hara" <re...@comcast.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> Wilt was a 7+ foot center for the Philla.76's and the L.A. L
> >>> akers in the late 50's and 60's. he holds the NBA single game
> >>> point record but he was always outplayed by the Celtic's Bill
> >>> Russell.
> >>
> >> Which Celtic?
> >
> > Boston - the Seltics.
>
> I know who the Celtics are; I was just unclear on which Celtic owned
> Bill Russell. I guess it would have been Walter Brown.
Walter Brown the founder and original owner of the Boston Celtic's was the
owner in Russell's day.
Mike Lyle
> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[...]
> > It was in the _Guardian_, too. There the claim was that a certain
> > Australian writer had actually failed the test.
>
> Take a look at that Guardian article again. What the Australian was
> rejected for was from becoming a "designated judge" of others' English!
>
> This is the most confusing issue. It's almost as if the newspapers are
> gleefully making trouble. Anyone could be excused for thinking that that
> Australian had had a citizenship application rejected, or failed an
> examination, or denied an interview, or failed an interview. But it
> wasn't any of those things.
>
impression, and I'd say the Guardian came pretty close, as you fear,
to doing it on purpose. Present-day sub-editors aren't much cop, but
they aren't _that_ clumsy.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Charles, you're being strabismic.
Mike.
Bill McCray
Make that "... I now use it, ..."
Laura F Spira
<giggle>
Tony Cooper
wrote:
You're not a quick learner, are you?
Richard Chambers
"Laura F Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote
[ . . . ]
> >>>Consulting the excellent website "Silva Rhetorica"
> >>>(http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm) I think that that is,
> >>>strictly speaking, antiphrasis.
> >>>
> >>>We see some paralipsis and the occasional epitrope in aue, along with a
> >>>good deal of sarcasmus. Mycterismus would be a bit more challenging.
> >>>(Which inevitably reminds me of the good doctor of Utrecht.)
> >>>
> >>
> >>I guess you were joking: paralipsis, epitrope, sarcasmus, and
> >>mycterismus, no less? I'm sorry, Laura my pet, but this is
> >>pseudo-intellectualism at its finest. Let's talk plain English.
> >
> >
> > Charles, you're being strabismic.
> >
>
> <giggle>
>
I presume you mean <paroxysmus humorus>.
This may be off-topic, since it is a case of -ysm, not -ism.
Why does "paroxysm" end with "ysm", while most other words of the same
apparent type end with "ism"? Can you provide any other examples of words
ending with "ysm"?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK
Martin Ambuhl
>
> This may be off-topic, since it is a case of -ysm, not -ism.
>
> Why does "paroxysm" end with "ysm", while most other words of the same
> apparent type end with "ism"? Can you provide any other examples of words
> ending with "ysm"?
In addition to paroxysm (and hyper-paroxysm), we have abysm, aneurysm,
(and microaneurysm, osteo-aneurysm) and cataclysm.
Paroxym and aneurysm come from Greek roots ending in -unein, cataclysm
from one ending in -uzein. Those 'u's are upsilons and map easily to 'y'.
Also we have the obsolete terms 'athrysm', a verb (believe it or not)
meaning to burke, and 'helcysm' (silver dross). There is a rare word
tetractysm, the Pythagorean doctrine of the tetractys.
There is an form 'hydrargysm' used incorrectly for hydrargyrum (mercury
poisoning).
Raymond S. Wise
"Richard Chambers" <richard....@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:LvQWc.76$A7...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
MWCD11 shows four words ending in "-ysm." Here they are, with their
etymologies:
abysm
"Etymology: Middle English _abime,_ from Anglo-French _abisme,_ modification
of Late Latin _abyssus_"
aneurysm
"Etymology: Greek _aneurysma,_ from _aneurynein_ to dilate, from _ana-_ +
_eurynein_ to stretch, from _eurys_ wide -- more at EURY-"
cataclysm
"Etymology: French _cataclysme,_ from Latin _cataclysmos,_ from Greek
_kataklysmos,_ from _kataklyzein_ to inundate, from _kata-_ + _klyzein_ to
wash -- more at CLYSTER"
paroxysm
Etymology: Middle English _paroxism,_ from Medieval Latin _paroxysmus,_ from
Greek _paroxysmos,_ from _paroxynein_ to stimulate, from _para-_ + _oxynein_
to provoke, from _oxys_ sharp -- more at OXYGEN
In each case, the "y" is an etymological spelling, going back to either
Latin "y" or Greek upsilon, or both. In a couple of cases, "abysm" and
"paroxysm," the letter had spent time as an "i" before the etymological
respellers got ahold of it.
The "i" in the suffix "-ism," on the other hand, had never been either a "y"
or an upsilon. From the MWCD11 entry for "-ism":
"Etymology: Middle English _-isme,_ from Middle French & Latin; Middle
French, partly from Latin _-isma_ (from Greek) & partly from Latin _-ismus,_
from Greek _-ismos;_ Greek _-isma_ & _-ismos,_ from verbs in _-izein_ -ize"
M. J. Powell
<mplsra...@gbronline.com> writes
>
>"Richard Chambers" <richard....@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:LvQWc.76$A7...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Laura F Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> > >>>Consulting the excellent website "Silva Rhetorica"
>> > >>>(http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm) I think that that is,
>> > >>>strictly speaking, antiphrasis.
>> > >>>
>> > >>>We see some paralipsis and the occasional epitrope in aue, along with
>a
>> > >>>good deal of sarcasmus. Mycterismus would be a bit more challenging.
>> > >>>(Which inevitably reminds me of the good doctor of Utrecht.)
>> > >>>
>> > >>
>> > >>I guess you were joking: paralipsis, epitrope, sarcasmus, and
>> > >>mycterismus, no less? I'm sorry, Laura my pet, but this is
>> > >>pseudo-intellectualism at its finest. Let's talk plain English.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Charles, you're being strabismic.
>> > >
>> >
>> > <giggle>
>> >
>>
>> I presume you mean <paroxysmus humorus>.
>>
>> This may be off-topic, since it is a case of -ysm, not -ism.
>>
>> Why does "paroxysm" end with "ysm", while most other words of the same
>> apparent type end with "ism"? Can you provide any other examples of words
>> ending with "ysm"?
>>
>> Richard Chambers Leeds UK
Everyone seems to have missed it, Laura.
Mike. Your Dutch uncle.
--
M.J.Powell
John Dean
I've reread it several times now since posting it a few days ago in aue
and I'm *still* not sure. But I incline to the idea that the Aussies
mentioned have been rejected for naturalisation, not for being judges.
AFAIK no-one has applied or been invited to apply to become a judge.
http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/news/press_releases/new_language_requirement.html
has the HO guidance. For the 'chat with the designated person' they say:
"An ESOL Initial Assessment should be delivered by a suitably qualified
teacher. You can find out more about undergoing an Initial Assessment
from an ESOL provider. Try private language colleges, or FE colleges in
your area. The number of providers making Initial Assessments available
for these purposes will increase over the coming months."
Which suggests to me that the designated people are those already
involved with ESOL but that there aren't yet enough of them.
Take this chunk from the Guardian article:
"A Home Office spokesman said the list would be determined "shortly" and
would be in place by September 1.
Meanwhile, applicants who have to wait an average seven months for
naturalisation, and who must have lived in Britain for five years, are
fuming at being rejected.
An public figure who has been knighted and has lived in Britain for 44
years has been rejected, ..."
So, (1) The HO are preparing a list of judges. To say the list will be '
determined "shortly" ' suggests to me that nobody is yet officially *on*
the list and, therefore, nobody is officially *off*. So no-one has been
rejected.
(2) "Meanwhile" (ie as a separate issue from the judges) "applicants ...
are fuming". Which applicants? Those who "have to wait an average seven
months for naturalisation, and who must have lived in Britain for five
years". So these are people waiting for naturalisation - not judge
material yet.
(3) Examples of these people who have been rejected for naturalisation?
The knighted public figure and the writer.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Daniel James
Laura F Spira wrote:
> Consulting the excellent website "Silva Rhetorica" ...
"Excellent"? Ah, yes - a fine example of irony. The writer does
indeed seem to be confused by the real meanings of some of the
terms he flaunts, and to cite "examples" that do not demonstrate
the devices described.
I wouldn't go quite so far as Charles's "pseudo-intellectualism at
its finest" (and, indeed, I'm sure I've seen finer
pseudo-intellectualism) but the phrase "smug pretentious claptrap"
springs unbidden to mind.
> I think that that is, strictly speaking, antiphrasis.
Indeed, irony and antiphrasis are pretty-much the same thing.
The other things listed under irony on that website are either not
irony, or are devices that may incorporate irony.
I don't think Mr.Burton (whose website it claims to be) knows a
hawk from a handsaw.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Richard R. Hershberger
Americans who know nothing on the subject almost always pronounce the
word with an /s/, perhaps because of the basketball team or perhaps
because of the spelling. The first thing we learn when we start
studying the Celts (as opposed to the Celtics) is to pronounce the
word with a /k/, so as to make clear that we know to do so. Those who
are study Celtic languages or cultures on a graduate level know that
both pronunciations are defensible, and tend to use whichever is
favored in their department.
As shibboleths go, this is a bad one.
Richard R. Hershberger
Laura F Spira
Not quite everyone, but, true to form, it was the Mikes wot got it.
Laura F Spira
> In article news:<412B319B...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk>,
> Laura F Spira wrote:
>
>>Consulting the excellent website "Silva Rhetorica" ...
>
>
> "Excellent"? Ah, yes - a fine example of irony. The writer does
> indeed seem to be confused by the real meanings of some of the
> terms he flaunts, and to cite "examples" that do not demonstrate
> the devices described.
>
> I wouldn't go quite so far as Charles's "pseudo-intellectualism at
> its finest" (and, indeed, I'm sure I've seen finer
> pseudo-intellectualism) but the phrase "smug pretentious claptrap"
> springs unbidden to mind.
>
>
>>I think that that is, strictly speaking, antiphrasis.
>
>
> Indeed, irony and antiphrasis are pretty-much the same thing.
Obaue: pretty-much? First time I've seen that hyphenated.
>
> The other things listed under irony on that website are either not
> irony, or are devices that may incorporate irony.
>
> I don't think Mr.Burton (whose website it claims to be) knows a
> hawk from a handsaw.
I wouldn't know, I just liked the words. But if I wanted to know more
about rhetoric, please tell me what I should read.
>
> Cheers,
> Daniel.
Since you insist: hurrah! hooray!
Donna Richoux
[about this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1285901,00.html
Pommie lingo test is unfair dinkum, mate
Sarah Hall, political correspondent
Thursday August 19, 2004]
> I've reread it several times now since posting it a few days ago in aue
> and I'm *still* not sure. But I incline to the idea that the Aussies
> mentioned have been rejected for naturalisation, not for being judges.
> AFAIK no-one has applied or been invited to apply to become a judge.
> http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/news/press_releases/new_langu
> age_requirement.html has the HO guidance. For the 'chat with the
> designated person' they say: "An ESOL Initial Assessment should be
> delivered by a suitably qualified teacher. You can find out more about
> undergoing an Initial Assessment from an ESOL provider. Try private
> language colleges, or FE colleges in your area. The number of providers
> making Initial Assessments available for these purposes will increase over
> the coming months." Which suggests to me that the designated people are
> those already involved with ESOL but that there aren't yet enough of them.
>
> Take this chunk from the Guardian article:
> "A Home Office spokesman said the list would be determined "shortly" and
> would be in place by September 1.
> Meanwhile, applicants who have to wait an average seven months for
> naturalisation, and who must have lived in Britain for five years, are
> fuming at being rejected.
>
> An public figure who has been knighted and has lived in Britain for 44
> years has been rejected, ..."
>
> So, (1) The HO are preparing a list of judges. To say the list will be '
> determined "shortly" ' suggests to me that nobody is yet officially *on*
> the list and, therefore, nobody is officially *off*. So no-one has been
> rejected.
>
> (2) "Meanwhile" (ie as a separate issue from the judges) "applicants ...
> are fuming". Which applicants? Those who "have to wait an average seven
> months for naturalisation, and who must have lived in Britain for five
> years". So these are people waiting for naturalisation - not judge
> material yet.
I agree, that "Meanwhile" sentence is the best argument for the other
direction. I think we'd need to see where these facts came from, or
somebody else's report.
However, let me move on to another point, which is that, in any case, it
doesn't say that the Australian and the knight *took* the examination
and *failed* it. Which the hasty reader might also assume.
I don't know if the Guardian writer really knew what went on at all. But
it would be consistent with what says if the Australian and the knight
were fuming because of general bureaucratic delays in their quest for
British citizenship.
I think what someone else said might apply, that only certain people are
allowed to take the test. So if the other people were left in limbo,
that's a problem.
Do I take it that this is not a case of revising some old procedures and
replacing them with new ones, but more like inventing some new
procedures to fill a recently perceived need? People are afraid
immigrants won't assimilate, etc, etc?
Peter Duncanson
>
>Do I take it that this is not a case of revising some old procedures and
>replacing them with new ones, but more like inventing some new
>procedures to fill a recently perceived need? People are afraid
>immigrants won't assimilate, etc, etc?
That's it. New procedures to solve a possibly imaginary problem.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
John Dean
> John Dean <john...@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
>
> [about this article:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,1285901,00.html
> Pommie lingo test is unfair dinkum, mate
>
>> aue and I'm *still* not sure. But I incline to the idea that the
>> Aussies mentioned have been rejected for naturalisation,
>> (2) "Meanwhile" (ie as a separate issue from the judges) "applicants
>> ... are fuming". Which applicants? Those who "have to wait an
>> average seven months for naturalisation, and who must have lived in
>> Britain for five years". So these are people waiting for
>> naturalisation - not judge material yet.
>
> I agree, that "Meanwhile" sentence is the best argument for the other
> direction. I think we'd need to see where these facts came from, or
> somebody else's report.
>
> However, let me move on to another point, which is that, in any case,
> it doesn't say that the Australian and the knight *took* the
> examination and *failed* it. Which the hasty reader might also assume.
>
> I don't know if the Guardian writer really knew what went on at all.
> But it would be consistent with what says if the Australian and the
> knight were fuming because of general bureaucratic delays in their
> quest for British citizenship.
I think so. I have to say it sounds strange to me that someone who lived
here for 44 years and could, presumably, have applied long since for
naturalisation under the *old* procedures feels suddenly compelled to
apply under the *new* procedures.
>
> I think what someone else said might apply, that only certain people
> are allowed to take the test. So if the other people were left in
> limbo, that's a problem.
As my URL from the Home Office indicates, there are various ways of
satisfying the requirements, not all of which involve passing a test.
One way of succeeding is "If you have an educational qualification which
could only have been obtained by someone who speaks good English, we
will accept this as proving that you meet the standard for
naturalisation. This qualification might be, for instance, a GCSE or A
level certificate or a degree or diploma from a University or Higher
Education Institution, either in Britain or another English speaking
country.". I'm guessing the anonymous 30-year-old Aussie quoted by the
Guardian as having " two degrees in English and public communications"
expected to succeed under this head but has failed. The knighted elderly
person (who may or may not be Sir Germaine Greer) might also have
invoked that clause and is also irate at being turned down.
>
> Do I take it that this is not a case of revising some old procedures
> and replacing them with new ones, but more like inventing some new
> procedures to fill a recently perceived need? People are afraid
> immigrants won't assimilate, etc, etc?
Yuh huh. "Love Rat David Blunkett" as the tabloids now refer to him
decided there were votes in suggesting to the British people that
furriners should be made to jump through hoops if they wanted to
contribute to our economic and cultural well-being. The particular
sub-text was, of course, Muslims who are perceived to 'keep themselves
to themselves' (rather like the Brit expats on the Costa del Whatever)
and who may establish a social, cultural and business life for
themselves which doesn't require them to speak English.
Of course, Blunkett can only impose tests where people are seeking
British Nationality. If the entire population of Clermont Ferrand
decided to create a Garden City on the outskirts of Tunbridge Wells and
produce bicyclettes in a totally French-speaking environment they could
do so with impunity. But woe betide any one of them who wanted British
Nationality.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Harvey Van Sickle
> Donna Richoux wrote:
>> Do I take it that this is not a case of revising some old
>> procedures and replacing them with new ones, but more like
>> inventing some new procedures to fill a recently perceived need?
>> People are afraid immigrants won't assimilate, etc, etc?
>
> Yuh huh. "Love Rat David Blunkett" as the tabloids now refer to
> him decided there were votes in suggesting to the British people
> that furriners should be made to jump through hoops if they wanted
> to contribute to our economic and cultural well-being.
The saddest thing isn't that he decided there were votes in this: it's
that he's probably correct in that assessment.
Donna Richoux
It's a little hard to search for news articles, the terms being so
vague. There's no single title or proper name to identify this thing.
But I did find a piece from today at the BBC site:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3595816.stm
It doesn't add much in the way of fact, mostly amused musings. It
includes:
...wrote a mildly annoyed Terry Lane in Melbourne's
Sunday Age. "Already, two Australians wanting to
become Britons have been rejected."
Same people? Different people? Real people or rumor? "Rejected" meaning
"not allowed to take test," or "not allowed to become citizens"? Might
there not be more to the story?
I can just barely imagine someone arguing with a bureaucrat *in English*
about having to prove that they are fluent *in English*... in a TV
comedy sketch, maybe...
"The Age" has a website and Terry Lane appears to be a regular writer
for it, but I don't find this piece.... Ah, searching the Web for a
phrase turned it up, and, yes, Terry Lane based his (must be a he)
column on the Guardian piece. One Australian has become two (just as
Boaz's words for snow went from four to seven to)... Like others, he
confuses the test with the requirements, etc. It is at:
http://www.theage.com.au/handheld/articles/2004/08/21/1092972814456.html
> >
> > I think what someone else said might apply, that only certain people
> > are allowed to take the test. So if the other people were left in
> > limbo, that's a problem.
>
> As my URL from the Home Office indicates, there are various ways of
> satisfying the requirements, not all of which involve passing a test.
> One way of succeeding is "If you have an educational qualification which
> could only have been obtained by someone who speaks good English, we
> will accept this as proving that you meet the standard for
> naturalisation. This qualification might be, for instance, a GCSE or A
> level certificate or a degree or diploma from a University or Higher
> Education Institution, either in Britain or another English speaking
> country.". I'm guessing the anonymous 30-year-old Aussie quoted by the
> Guardian as having " two degrees in English and public communications"
> expected to succeed under this head but has failed. The knighted elderly
> person (who may or may not be Sir Germaine Greer) might also have
> invoked that clause and is also irate at being turned down.
Well, we're probably wasting our time speculating on so little hard
fact. I wish this Australian or Australians would explain. But since
*first* there was talk of finding "judges," and *then* the rules didn't
mention judges and only advanced certificates, I thought (although I
can't be sure) that that meant the judge idea was scrapped just lately
in favor of a more easily administered plan. Bureaucrats love
certificates and credentials, it means all they have to do is look at a
piece of paper instead of, horrors, use their judgement.
John Dean
> Bureaucrats love certificates and credentials, it means all they have
> to do is look at a piece of paper instead of, horrors, use their
> judgement.
As a retired bureaucrat I would just remind you of the old adage about
being careful what you wish for. If you'd like a system where
bureaucrats use their judgement instead of checking existing
credentials, you'd better be prepared for your tax bill to assume
frightening proportions.
I worked in Social Security and the contrast between the staff resources
required to administer the benefits that were paid according to pre-set
criteria and those awarded on a quasi-discretionary basis was
horrendous. Child Benefit (aka Family Allowance) had pretty simple
qualifying conditions and you could show you met them by sending off the
appropriate certificates and credentials to a centre in the North East
where 5,000 Civil Servants ran the scheme that covered some 15 million
beneficiaries. Supplementary Benefits (aka Income Support) was payable
on a means-tested basis requiring fairly detailed information gathering.
Around 30,000 Civil Servants nationally dealt with the scheme that
covered around 3 million beneficiaries.
If the British Government abandoned the idea of accepting existing
certificates and diplomas to establish ability in English and required
every applicant to satisfy the examination of an individual who would
then use their judgement they would need to employ thousands more staff
as well as set up a robust and comprehensive Appeals system for
dissatisfied customers.
Incidentally, I knew many bureaucrats (myself included) who didn't love
certs and credentials (and who begrudged the time spent examining them)
and who got a boost out of using their judgement.
And can you imagine a world where you couldn't cross international
boundaries by showing the credentials that a bureaucrat had issued to
another bureaucrat guarding said boundary? No bureaucratic passport
system, just bureaucrats who listened to your story and used their
judgement to decide if it was OK to let you out of or into the country?
You got the time or inclination for that?
Bureaucracy is abused and misapplied, but in the right place at the
right time in relation to the right system, it's actually a great
benefit.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Daniel James
> > Indeed, irony and antiphrasis are pretty-much the same thing.
>
> Obaue: pretty-much? First time I've seen that hyphenated.
It looks wrong now that I see it again - both because irony is used
other senses than simply antiphrasis (e.g. as in "the irony of
fate", etc.) and because of that hyphen.
Strange, I'm fairly sure I do usually hyphenate "pretty-much" --
though I'm usually the last person to consider hyphenating a
construction, and the first to drop the hyphen and turn it into a
compound word.
"Pretty-much", though, certainly doesn't deserve to be
"prettymuch"; but when the two words "pretty much" are written
separately it seems not to be sufficiently clear that "pretty" is
being used as a modifier of "much", rather than standing as an
adjective with one of its other usual meanings.
I'm clearly in a minority here, though. the first few pages of the
3-million-plus hits for "pretty much" in Google include none that
is hyphenated.
Searching my current (couple of months worth) archive of this
newsgroup I find three separate uses of hyphenated "pretty-much"
(all mine) -- so all I can suggest is that if you haven't seen it
before you haven't been paying enough attention to my posts!
<smile>
> ... I just liked the words. But if I wanted to know more
> about rhetoric, please tell me what I should read.
I think Aristotle is the Authority -- but it's all Greek to me.
Seriously - and I wouldn't count myself an expert - you can't do
better than to read the work of people who do/did it well.
Churchill's political speeches, perhaps? Maybe a little Wilde for
light relief?
> > Cheers,
> > Daniel.
>
> Since you insist: hurrah! hooray!
<smile> No, I meant ... well, you know what I meant, I'm sure.
Cheerio,
Daniel.
[Not a breakfast cereal.]
Bill McCray
<mam...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Also we have the obsolete terms 'athrysm', a verb (believe it or not)
> meaning to burke ...
Darn, you defined the word with another I've never heard of. It
wasn't in one of my dictionaries, but was in the other.
Freddy
> "Kensington Keith" <b...@com.ws> wrote in message
> news:200820041117498156%b...@com.ws...
> > Calling Wilt Chamberlain "Tiny" would be an example of what?
>
>
> Stupidity.
A number of contributors below have defined litotes as the "negation
of the contrary", but I have long believed it referred to the practice
of naming someone or something by a term the opposite of that
applying, for ironic or humourous effect. This is a fairly common
practice in Australia.
Tall people are nicknamed "shorty" and one albino football player (a
long time ago) was called "blackie".
There's also the example of the advetisement in the window for the
lost dog.
LOST:
Blue heeler, one leg missing, mange on back, left eye closed as a
result of hunting accident, urinates continually due to missing penis,
almost deaf, answers to the name "Lucky".
Another example from lore might be the use of "Little John" to
describe the character in the Robin Hood story.
If there's an accurate term for such a practice, I'd like to hear it.
The Nerk
Daniel James
wrote:
> A number of contributors below have defined litotes as the "negation
> of the contrary", but I have long believed it referred to the practice
> of naming someone or something by a term the opposite of that
> applying, for ironic or humourous effect. This is a fairly common
> practice in Australia.
>
> Tall people are nicknamed "shorty" and one albino football player (a
> long time ago) was called "blackie".
Haven't we been through this?
It's irony. The fancy name for using a word with the opposite meaning to
the one you intend is antiphrasis (thank you Laura) but the usage is
ironic.
Litotes would be saying "he's not a short man" of a tall man or "you
haven't got much of a tan" to an albino.
IOW litotes uses a word with opposite meaning and says it *doesn't* apply,
irony uses a word of opposite meaning and pretends it *does*.
Cheers,
Daniel
Laura F Spira
> Litotes would be saying "he's not a short man" of a tall man or "you
> haven't got much of a tan" to an albino.
Litotes or not, I think that second example might well be offensive. YMMV.
Daniel James
Spira wrote:
> > ... saying ... "you haven't got much of a tan" to an albino.
>
> Litotes or not, I think that second example might well be offensive.
> YMMV.
I suppose it might be - depending on context and tone of voice, etc..
Then again, calling a person suffering from melanin deficiency an albino
is probably offensive to some.
"Freddy" mentioned the word "albino", I was just giving an (albeit
clumsy) example of Litotes using that word. I certainly didn't mean to
imply that it wasn't offensive.
Cheers,
Daniel.