ARGH!
The Man-Like Madness
lighter in my housemate's room and he crashed.
I just found my lighter.
ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fucking Gremlins I tell ya.
GOBLIN
==================================from the sufi
Mullah Nasrudin once entered a store and asked
the proprietor, "Have you seen me before?"
"No," was the prompt answer.
"Then," cried Nasrudin, "How do you know it is me?"
Alain
<mka...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>The last four cigarettes I lit, I had to use the toaster, because I left my
>lighter in my housemate's room and he crashed.
>
>I just found my lighter.
>
>ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do you argh now that not only you have smokes, but found back said
lighter?
>Fucking Gremlins I tell ya.
That's why I have several lighters. They can't take'em all.
However, if there was a fire, my apartment would probably explode,
whiping out the whole flat. Okay, a tad exagerative.
Alain.
Maitre dans l'art d'allumer les pets.
exile
} Fucking Gremlins I tell ya.
There's only one variety of gremlins that smokes... that being the rare
Himalayan red headed gremlin. These gremlins are notable in that they {as
the name implies} have flaming bright red hair, do smoke, only rarely steal
all the food from your refrigerator, do not often eat the cat or perform the
traditional gremlin "cat letting" rituals which entail nailing the cat to the
pantry door and swatting it with stale spaghetti until it's sufficiently
tenderized {This is thought to be because there's very little spaghetti in
the Himalayas.} and absolutely will not climb under your sink and empty all
of your cleaning supplies onto the floor of the cabinet.
These gremlins, being as rare as they are {and lacking the cat thing} are
highly prized as household "caretakers" and can bring a really hefty price at
auction.
My advice would be to get a cardboard box, a stick and some string, make a
live trap and bait it with a gin and tonic.
Oh... and read "making a buck off of the gremlin in the closet." a great book
that's just chock full of handy "gremlin safari" tips.
{exile}
Without taking a step outdoors You know the whole world; Without
taking a peep out the window You know the colour of the sky. The
more you experience, The less you know. {Tao De Jing}
http://www.freespeech.org/apophysis {v6.o} ICQ# 47439354
The Man-Like Madness
Alain wrote in message <37ea9c84...@news.planet-int.net>...
>>The last four cigarettes I lit, I had to use the toaster, because I left
my
>>lighter in my housemate's room and he crashed.
>>
>>I just found my lighter.
>>
>>ARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Why do you argh now that not only you have smokes, but found back said
>lighter?
Because I ran upstairs, through the non-smoking parts of the house, with a
lit cigarette. ANd because I spent twenty minutes tearing apart my room
looking for a book of matches. And my lighter was under my keyboard the
entire time.
>>Fucking Gremlins I tell ya.
>
>That's why I have several lighters. They can't take'em all.
Yeah, well, my friend skeep reducing down to one. One of my housemate's
keeps buying lighters identical o mine, and then stealing mine.
>However, if there was a fire, my apartment would probably explode,
>whiping out the whole flat. Okay, a tad exagerative.
Eek.
GOBLIN
==================================
MC MCH/HY++/SX S- W- N+ PCM/EC++ D
A a+ C++(+) G++(+) Q+(+) 666++>+ Y
GC98 xTUbba3baSdaiaaaGcGa74ewBUWSg
rwjhaqaaa#4####d7w6aaH7mbiGPfechb#
caHdaezo7cdbsSbqgEMRFaaaaacuswa
The Man-Like Madness
>
> Himalayan red headed gremlin. These gremlins are notable in that they {as
> the name implies} have flaming bright red hair, do smoke, only rarely
steal
> all the food from your refrigerator, do not often eat the cat or perform
the
> traditional gremlin "cat letting" rituals which entail nailing the cat to
the
> pantry door and swatting it with stale spaghetti until it's sufficiently
> tenderized {This is thought to be because there's very little spaghetti in
> the Himalayas.} and absolutely will not climb under your sink and empty
all
> of your cleaning supplies onto the floor of the cabinet.
AH! Stop feeding my delusions! Stop it right now I say!
God, I'm bad enough with this stuff, I don't need you helpoing reinforce my
belief in gramlins. Ever since I started believing int he little fuckers my
stuff started to go misisng. Or break down. It's driving me crazy.
Sometimes I even think I see them.
You proably think I'm kidding...
> These gremlins, being as rare as they are {and lacking the cat thing} are
> highly prized as household "caretakers" and can bring a really hefty price
at
> auction.
>
> My advice would be to get a cardboard box, a stick and some string, make a
> live trap and bait it with a gin and tonic.
Hey, hey, that just might work. Usually I hunt them with one of those
little kid's "ray gun" zappy things. Flashing lights and loud noises scare
them off.
> Oh... and read "making a buck off of the gremlin in the closet." a great
book
> that's just chock full of handy "gremlin safari" tips.
Hah, wait til you see my website, once I'm done with it.
It contains instructions on how to summon and control Goblins, and how to
Gremlin-proof your house (my old place was, I haven't done it to my new
place yet).
Gremlins, and this is a little known fact, are actually a form of Goblin.
Specifically, they are Goblins who have rebelled against the Goblin King and
now work as freelance or independent troublemakers.
Mages who work with Goblins tend to draw the wrath of Gremlins. Not that
Gremlin wrath is particularly dangerous (unless say, you have a mechanical
slide built in to your stairwell), but they sure are annoying...
sinister dexter
> However, if there was a fire, my apartment would probably explode,
> whiping out the whole flat. Okay, a tad exagerative.
Mine sure would, for the flash paper and flash powder in it.
> Maitre dans l'art d'allumer les pets.
Er... whoa there, Alain! :)
This reminds me of Spanish 3, when the phrase of the moment was "El gato
fume cuando encéndolo."
sinister dexter
--
my hollow hill: http://www.jps.net/insanity/vixen
"Do not imagine that Art is someting which is designed to give
gentle uplift and self-confidence. Art is not a brassiere."
Alain
<mka...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>Alain wrote in message <37ea9c84...@news.planet-int.net>...
>>lighter?
>
>Because I ran upstairs, through the non-smoking parts of the house, with a
>lit cigarette.
And it's bad?
>ANd because I spent twenty minutes tearing apart my room
>looking for a book of matches. And my lighter was under my keyboard the
>entire time.
Always look under your kboard, dude. Sometimes, you might even find
money. It's magic.
Wow! I just did it and I found a pin I lost a while ago! See?
>>>Fucking Gremlins I tell ya.
>>
>>That's why I have several lighters. They can't take'em all.
>
>Yeah, well, my friend skeep reducing down to one. One of my housemate's
>keeps buying lighters identical o mine, and then stealing mine.
You must enforce certain basic rules of ownership, that's all. Install
traps and keep an agressive attitude in your struggle to maintain your
lighter wealth's integrity.
>>However, if there was a fire, my apartment would probably explode,
>>whiping out the whole flat. Okay, a tad exagerative.
>
>Eek.
Like I said, I was exagerating. I don't think the explosion would go
beyond my room, the kitchen and the bathroom.
Alain.
Alain
<sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
>
>> However, if there was a fire, my apartment would probably explode,
>> whiping out the whole flat. Okay, a tad exagerative.
>
>Mine sure would, for the flash paper and flash powder in it.
Flash powder? What for, photography?
>> Maitre dans l'art d'allumer les pets.
>
>Er... whoa there, Alain! :)
Hey, it's not just a stupid thing to provoke laffs. First, it burns
the methane, therefore eliminating the nauseous odor and it can be
used to take photos in dark places without the need of any fancy flash
module.
>This reminds me of Spanish 3, when the phrase of the moment was "El gato
>fume cuando encéndolo."
What does it means?
Alain.
Fsshhhflash! Et la lumiere fut.
Et dieu vit que cela sentait bon.
sinister dexter
[re magnesium flash]
> Would be cool and easy to do.
Cool, yes. Easy, I have my doubts... we always had problems handling the
stuff in high school chemistry... of course, we were a bunch of 15-year-olds
who wanted to fuck around with stuff that would fizz, flash or go boom,
so...
> >"The cat smokes when I light it on fire."
>
> Weird... Is it supposed to mean literally what it apprently means?
Well, it's not a cultural idiom or anything. "El gato fume cuando encéndolo"
was just something a friend came up with in the middle of Spanish class. So
yes, it's supposed to mean it literally. Bob was a bit of a weird guy.
("Otro gallo nos cantará," on the other hand, literally means "Another
chicken will sing to us," but is apparently an actual idiom meaning
something along the lines of the English "that's a horse e of a different
color," IIRC.)
> Well, spanish and french are two latin languages.
True. I had a singing class one quarter, and we used this coursebook made up
buy this Italian guy some time in the last century. Thus, all the songs were
in Italian. I didn't have much problem memorizing them because I'd had
enough Spanish that I knew what the words meant (and the places where the
translations given were totally off in left field), as opposed to the poor
saps with no Latinate language training who were trying to memorize what
was, to them, nonsense sounds.
> Remark, I have
> difficulties understanding spanish.
So do I , these days ;) I haven't had any instruction in Spanish in.. oh.. a
little over four years now. I'm incredibly rusty at best. Mostly my
vocabulary has gone to hell.
> L'insomnie provoquee par d'angoissantes introspectives.
> Je deteste.
You hate what now? Insomnia causes introspective whats? See, I told you I
don't get it all :)
sinister dexter.
En boca cerrada no entran moscas.
A caballo regalado no se le mira los dientes.
(er.. I think I may have the grammar wrong in the second one.)
--
Gothae Tersus Novitas
my hollow hill: http://www.jps.net/insanity/vixen
"The devil has, like, some serious problems."
Alain
<sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
>
>[re magnesium flash]
>> Would be cool and easy to do.
>
>Cool, yes. Easy, I have my doubts... we always had problems handling the
>stuff in high school chemistry... of course, we were a bunch of 15-year-olds
>who wanted to fuck around with stuff that would fizz, flash or go boom,
>so...
Well... It seems rather easy. When I see people using it, they simply
pour some of it on the flash thingy and light it up.
Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, etc.
heheh
>> >"The cat smokes when I light it on fire."
>>
>> Weird... Is it supposed to mean literally what it apprently means?
>
>Well, it's not a cultural idiom or anything. "El gato fume cuando encéndolo"
>was just something a friend came up with in the middle of Spanish class. So
>yes, it's supposed to mean it literally. Bob was a bit of a weird guy.
I see. I agree. heh
>("Otro gallo nos cantará," on the other hand, literally means "Another
>chicken will sing to us," but is apparently an actual idiom meaning
>something along the lines of the English "that's a horse e of a different
>color," IIRC.)
And this particular english idiom would mean? "That's a different
thing" maybe? Hmm...
>> Well, spanish and french are two latin languages.
>
>True. I had a singing class one quarter, and we used this coursebook made up
>buy this Italian guy some time in the last century. Thus, all the songs were
>in Italian. I didn't have much problem memorizing them because I'd had
>enough Spanish that I knew what the words meant (and the places where the
>translations given were totally off in left field), as opposed to the poor
>saps with no Latinate language training who were trying to memorize what
>was, to them, nonsense sounds.
*shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
even worse than spanish! Latin languages aren't made to be sung and
the opera is a pure auditive agression. Fer real.
>> Remark, I have
>> difficulties understanding spanish.
>
>So do I , these days ;) I haven't had any instruction in Spanish in.. oh.. a
>little over four years now. I'm incredibly rusty at best. Mostly my
>vocabulary has gone to hell.
No no... What I meant is that I can barely understand 20-30% of a
simple text (ie: newspapers with very international/easy words and
expressions) heh... You, on the other hand only need to "refresh" your
language machine. Besides, if you wanna keep it fresh and functional,
read/post to some spanish n.g. Excellent immersion, trust me.
>> L'insomnie provoquee par d'angoissantes introspectives.
>> Je deteste.
>
>You hate what now?
Oh, insomnia in general. But even more insomnia caused by...
>Insomnia causes introspective whats?
...anguishing introspective.
>See, I told you I don't get it all :)
If you did, you'd be a master of linguistic. I could definitively use
such an innate skill, considering the type of study I decided to go
for.
>sinister dexter.
>En boca cerrada no entran moscas.
>A caballo regalado no se le mira los dientes.
>(er.. I think I may have the grammar wrong in the second one.)
heh I won't be the guy who'll tell you what's grammatically incorrect
on that one as I didn't understood a word of it ;)
Alain.
klaatu
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 02:13:47 -0700, "sinister dexter"
> <sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
> >Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
> >
> >[re magnesium flash]
> >> Would be cool and easy to do.
> >
> >Cool, yes. Easy, I have my doubts... we always had problems handling the
> >stuff in high school chemistry... of course, we were a bunch of 15-year-olds
> >who wanted to fuck around with stuff that would fizz, flash or go boom,
> >so...
>
> Well... It seems rather easy. When I see people using it, they simply
> pour some of it on the flash thingy and light it up.
> Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, etc.
> heheh
>
> >> >"The cat smokes when I light it on fire."
> >>
> >> Weird... Is it supposed to mean literally what it apprently means?
> >
> >Well, it's not a cultural idiom or anything. "El gato fume cuando encéndolo"
> >was just something a friend came up with in the middle of Spanish class. So
> >yes, it's supposed to mean it literally. Bob was a bit of a weird guy.
>
> I see. I agree. heh
Um, this friend of mine has a great list of silly things to say in spanish,
such as "mi camisa es de pilo" (my shirt is made of hair) and something one
needs everyday, to the effect of "there's been a chemical spill, please hose
me down".
>
> >("Otro gallo nos cantará," on the other hand, literally means "Another
> >chicken will sing to us," but is apparently an actual idiom meaning
> >something along the lines of the English "that's a horse e of a different
> >color," IIRC.)
>
> And this particular english idiom would mean? "That's a different
> thing" maybe? Hmm...
Yup. English has some odd idioms, some of which are fairly obscure.
Occasionally it's considered creative to mix them. For instance, there is
the expression of "looking in the wrong neck of the woods" which has to do
with at least knowing there's something to look for, but looking in the
wrong general area within the larger domain where the solution may be found.
Similarly there is "barking up the wrong tree" meaning that one's close to
the prey but is taking the wrong specific approach. One can combine these
into "you're barking up the wrong tree, but in the right neck of the woods",
more specifically saying that you are, so to speak, "following the wrong
tracks on the correct path".
Sort of like, "I knew I should have taken a left at Albuquerque".
>
> >> Well, spanish and french are two latin languages.
> >
> >True. I had a singing class one quarter, and we used this coursebook made up
> >buy this Italian guy some time in the last century. Thus, all the songs were
> >in Italian. I didn't have much problem memorizing them because I'd had
> >enough Spanish that I knew what the words meant (and the places where the
> >translations given were totally off in left field), as opposed to the poor
> >saps with no Latinate language training who were trying to memorize what
> >was, to them, nonsense sounds.
>
> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
> even worse than spanish! Latin languages aren't made to be sung and
> the opera is a pure auditive agression. Fer real.
Yikes! Try a German opera sometime. Heck, try singing in English sometime,
one is almost forced to resort to idiom.
>
> >> Remark, I have
> >> difficulties understanding spanish.
> >
> >So do I , these days ;) I haven't had any instruction in Spanish in.. oh.. a
> >little over four years now. I'm incredibly rusty at best. Mostly my
> >vocabulary has gone to hell.
>
> No no... What I meant is that I can barely understand 20-30% of a
> simple text (ie: newspapers with very international/easy words and
> expressions) heh... You, on the other hand only need to "refresh" your
> language machine. Besides, if you wanna keep it fresh and functional,
> read/post to some spanish n.g. Excellent immersion, trust me.
>
> >> L'insomnie provoquee par d'angoissantes introspectives.
> >> Je deteste.
> >
> >You hate what now?
>
> Oh, insomnia in general. But even more insomnia caused by...
>
> >Insomnia causes introspective whats?
>
> ...anguishing introspective.
Either this is a common phrase to francophones gothiques, or you are
becoming Camus.
>
> >See, I told you I don't get it all :)
>
> If you did, you'd be a master of linguistic. I could definitively use
> such an innate skill, considering the type of study I decided to go
> for.
This is very strange, almost the entire phrase above is cognates, and none
of these "faux amis" words either. I didn't even have to get out the pocket
dictionnaire.
>
> >sinister dexter.
> >En boca cerrada no entran moscas.
> >A caballo regalado no se le mira los dientes.
> >(er.. I think I may have the grammar wrong in the second one.)
>
> heh I won't be the guy who'll tell you what's grammatically incorrect
> on that one as I didn't understood a word of it ;)
>
> Alain.
--
Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
Alain
>Alain wrote:
<snip>
>Um, this friend of mine has a great list of silly things to say in spanish,
>such as "mi camisa es de pilo" (my shirt is made of hair)
heh... My father, when not wearing anything on his torso, could say
the same.
>and something one needs everyday, to the effect of
>"there's been a chemical spill, please hose me down".
I don't understand the meaning of "hose me down" (especially if it's a
multiple meaning expression)
>> And this particular english idiom would mean? "That's a different
>> thing" maybe? Hmm...
>
>Yup.
I'm good.
>English has some odd idioms, some of which are fairly obscure.
>Occasionally it's considered creative to mix them. For instance, there is
>the expression of "looking in the wrong neck of the woods" which has to do
>with at least knowing there's something to look for, but looking in the
>wrong general area within the larger domain where the solution may be found.
>Similarly there is "barking up the wrong tree" meaning that one's close to
>the prey but is taking the wrong specific approach. One can combine these
>into "you're barking up the wrong tree, but in the right neck of the woods",
>more specifically saying that you are, so to speak, "following the wrong
>tracks on the correct path".
>
>Sort of like, "I knew I should have taken a left at Albuquerque".
Yes, so it is in french. However, it can be dangerous to do so...
Sometimes you lose yourself in the meanings and end up with particurly
funny things.. heh
>> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
>> even worse than spanish! Latin languages aren't made to be sung and
>> the opera is a pure auditive agression. Fer real.
>
>Yikes! Try a German opera sometime. Heck, try singing in English sometime,
>one is almost forced to resort to idiom.
English *sounds* good in most modern types of music. So does German.
Opera? I think opera is monstruous, no matter which language is
used... heh French has it's few exceptions, naturally. People like
Jean Leloup or Serge Gainsbourg managed to give good modern stuff in
french.
>> ...anguishing introspective.
>
>Either this is a common phrase to francophones gothiques, or you are
>becoming Camus.
Angoissantes introspectives? Hell... It's not common, nor it is
special/odd in any way... Hmm... I was merely sharing about my
unpleasant situation. Which keeps reoccuring daily, lately.
>> If you did, you'd be a master of linguistic. I could definitively use
>> such an innate skill, considering the type of study I decided to go
>> for.
>
>This is very strange, almost the entire phrase above is cognates, and none
>of these "faux amis" words either. I didn't even have to get out the pocket
>dictionnaire.
heh... I was talking about french in general. Someone with strictly no
prior training in french, but a few distant years in spanish, able to
clearly understand anything I'd write in french would truly be a
magician of languages.
Alain.
klaatu
>
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:41:20 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >Alain wrote:
> <snip>
> >Um, this friend of mine has a great list of silly things to say in spanish,
> >such as "mi camisa es de pilo" (my shirt is made of hair)
>
> heh... My father, when not wearing anything on his torso, could say
> the same.
>
> >and something one needs everyday, to the effect of
> >"there's been a chemical spill, please hose me down".
>
> I don't understand the meaning of "hose me down" (especially if it's a
> multiple meaning expression)
A hose is the flexible rubber tube used to put water on the garden, or for a
fireman to use to direct a spray at a fire, also useful to deliver water to
someone who has been drenched with chemicals. Also, to "hose someone" can be
slang, mostly to indicate disrespect generally of a sleazy nature, as in
when someone might just take off on their own to go to a movie, when all of
the friends have been waiting for them in order to all go to a restaurant.
I'm not sure of the etymology.
In this case, though, the guy is saying mostly that he's covered with
chemicals, please wash him off.
>
> >> And this particular english idiom would mean? "That's a different
> >> thing" maybe? Hmm...
> >
> >Yup.
>
> I'm good.
>
> >English has some odd idioms, some of which are fairly obscure.
> >Occasionally it's considered creative to mix them. For instance, there is
> >the expression of "looking in the wrong neck of the woods" which has to do
> >with at least knowing there's something to look for, but looking in the
> >wrong general area within the larger domain where the solution may be found.
> >Similarly there is "barking up the wrong tree" meaning that one's close to
> >the prey but is taking the wrong specific approach. One can combine these
> >into "you're barking up the wrong tree, but in the right neck of the woods",
> >more specifically saying that you are, so to speak, "following the wrong
> >tracks on the correct path".
> >
> >Sort of like, "I knew I should have taken a left at Albuquerque".
>
> Yes, so it is in french. However, it can be dangerous to do so...
> Sometimes you lose yourself in the meanings and end up with particurly
> funny things.. heh
Ah, yes. Malaprops. An art form of their own. Need I say, "Jerry Lewis"?
>
> >> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
> >> even worse than spanish! Latin languages aren't made to be sung and
> >> the opera is a pure auditive agression. Fer real.
> >
> >Yikes! Try a German opera sometime. Heck, try singing in English sometime,
> >one is almost forced to resort to idiom.
>
> English *sounds* good in most modern types of music. So does German.
> Opera? I think opera is monstruous, no matter which language is
> used... heh French has it's few exceptions, naturally. People like
> Jean Leloup or Serge Gainsbourg managed to give good modern stuff in
> french.
>
> >> ...anguishing introspective.
> >
> >Either this is a common phrase to francophones gothiques, or you are
> >becoming Camus.
>
> Angoissantes introspectives? Hell... It's not common, nor it is
> special/odd in any way...
Well, I think it's commonly referred to in this NG with the expression "hand
| staple| forehead"...
> Hmm... I was merely sharing about my
> unpleasant situation. Which keeps reoccuring daily, lately.
>
> >> If you did, you'd be a master of linguistic. I could definitively use
> >> such an innate skill, considering the type of study I decided to go
> >> for.
> >
> >This is very strange, almost the entire phrase above is cognates, and none
> >of these "faux amis" words either. I didn't even have to get out the pocket
> >dictionnaire.
>
> heh... I was talking about french in general. Someone with strictly no
> prior training in french, but a few distant years in spanish, able to
> clearly understand anything I'd write in french would truly be a
> magician of languages.
Well, it's for sure that both are Latin languages, definitely the
conjugations of verbs and particular nouns in common usage will be
different, but many words will have the same Latinate roots. It would be far
more difficult, for instance for someone with skill in German to try to
understand either French or Spanish...
>
> Alain.
--
"We look through a glass but darkly:
What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
than what we believe is colored by what we see."
sinister dexter
> Well... It seems rather easy. When I see people using it, they simply
> pour some of it on the flash thingy and light it up.
> Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, etc.
Oh, sure, it always looks easy in the movies.. :)
>>"that's a horse e of a different
> >color," IIRC.)
>
> And this particular english idiom would mean? "That's a different
> thing" maybe? Hmm...
Yeah, with connotations of the two being just wholly different, unrelated,
you can't deal with them in the same way.
> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
> even worse than spanish!
Actually, it's not that bad. English is more consonant-y, whereas the
Latinates seem to emphasize vowel sounds more - Spanish and Italian seem to,
anyway - so it's a lot easier to sing, since the vowel is where the
vibration is.
> No no... What I meant is that I can barely understand 20-30% of a
> simple text (ie: newspapers with very international/easy words and
> expressions) heh...
Ah... I don't do *so* badly reading Spanish... I can probably understand
about 50% of it and get a decent gist if it's not too complex. I can't
understand spoken Spanish any more, though, and I can't speak it myself.
> >> L'insomnie provoquee par d'angoissantes introspectives.
> >> Je deteste.
> >
> >You hate what now?
>
> Oh, insomnia in general. But even more insomnia caused by...
> ...anguishing introspective.
Ah. "Provoked by." I was reading "provoquee" as an active verb. Am I wrong
that there should be accent marks there? Provoquée or provoqueé or
something? I have no idea how to spell French.
> If you did, you'd be a master of linguistic. I could definitively use
> such an innate skill, considering the type of study I decided to go
> for.
I am actually pretty good.. I pick up languages quickly.
> >En boca cerrada no entran moscas.
> >A caballo regalado no se le mira los dientes.
> >(er.. I think I may have the grammar wrong in the second one.)
>
> heh I won't be the guy who'll tell you what's grammatically incorrect
> on that one as I didn't understood a word of it ;)
They mean "flies do not enter a closed mouth" (I don't know what its
idiomatic meaning is - probably something about not gossiping or something)
and, surprisingly, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" :)
sinister dexter
sinister dexter
> needs everyday, to the effect of "there's been a chemical spill, please
hose
> me down".
Lol.. now I'm going to have to dig up the Spanish dictionary and figure that
one out.
> Sort of like, "I knew I should have taken a left at Albuquerque".
But really, what I'm trying to say is I HATE SAUERKRAUT!
(ahem!)
> Yikes! Try a German opera sometime.
Die (der?) Zauberflaute? yikes.
> This is very strange, almost the entire phrase above is cognates, and none
> of these "faux amis" words either. I didn't even have to get out the
pocket
> dictionnaire.
"L'insomnie provoquee par d'angoissantes introspectives. Je deteste."
I think I got stuck on "d'angoissantes." That word I couldn't recognize at
all. I also got wrong which part of the sentence "provoquee" was referring
to - I was reading the thing as "Insomnia provokes something-something
introspective. I hate it." Of course, if I'd read it twice I would have seen
"par" and then duh, "provoquee par" would have been "provoked by." But I'd
still be lost on "angoissantes."
sinister dexter
But not to understand English, or indeed the reverse. I'm amazed how much
basic German I can understand based on my knowledge of English and some
creative research with our Einstürzende Naubauten albums. It then becomes
mostly a question of vocabulary (and of course irregular verbs). And I am
still amazed at the percentage of your French I can grasp armed only with my
"distant years in Spanish."
klaatu
>
<snips>
>
> "L'insomnie provoquee par d'angoissantes introspectives. Je deteste."
>
> I think I got stuck on "d'angoissantes." That word I couldn't recognize at
> all. I also got wrong which part of the sentence "provoquee" was referring
> to - I was reading the thing as "Insomnia provokes something-something
> introspective. I hate it." Of course, if I'd read it twice I would have seen
> "par" and then duh, "provoquee par" would have been "provoked by." But I'd
> still be lost on "angoissantes."
Yeah. Well, French apparently has better (or more consistent) rules than has
english, sort of backwards parsing compared to what we're used to...
"the insomnia provoked by the anguishings introspective. I detest [it]."
I think. L'Ange is the heart, I think, maybe heartfelt is closer in some
usages. Ah, whadda I know...
>
> sinister dexter
> --
> Gothae Tersus Novitas
> my hollow hill: http://www.jps.net/insanity/vixen
> "The devil has, like, some serious problems."
--
sinister dexter
> >In this case, though, the guy is saying mostly that he's covered with
> >chemicals, please wash him off.
>
> Any particular less literal meaning to it?
In this case I think the humor entirely resides in that that's sort of a
silly thing, to an English speaker, to say in Spanish. Foreign languages
always tend to make silly phrases actually *funny* for some reason.
> And, actually, I think it's the same for german.
> German involves quite a few words of french origin (and vice-versa)
> and share quite a bit with english, too.
English, in large part, is the love (or hate) child of French and German.
sinister dexter
> >> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
> >> even worse than spanish!
> >
> >Actually, it's not that bad.
>
> Well, you speak for yourself on that one.
Okay, I will sing for myself. Hehe. It just seems to me that it's easier to
emphasize the vowels in Italian without sounding silly at all. When I sing
on vowels in English, it always seems overdone to me, because I'm so used to
spoken English. Maybe if I were used to spoken Italian, classically-sung
Italian would sounds silly.
> That's good. 50% is about what I can understand of spoken english.
> heh.. Well, unless you have a clear and articulate accent, naturally.
> Like a brit.
*smirk* are you kidding? Clear and articulate? IME the people with the
"clear and articulate" accents when speaking English are those who learned
it as a second language, because they have to try harder to pronounce it.
They may get dipthongs (vowel combos) strangely, but all in all, they don't
have the motormouth, slurring American English tendency (I know I have it),
nor the sort of.. hmm.. how to describe a British accent.. well, I don't
know, but though a lot of European and African speakers of English tend to
speak it with a British accent (for obvious reasons), it's not the same
thing, somehow.
> Ahhh! We face the same problem, I see. Well, in different languages,
> naturally. Only practice can help you. Whichs sucks if you don't get
> to meet any hispanophone regularly.
I was never that good even when I practiced hehe. I suppose if I had *had*
to use it, I would have quickly gotten much better. When I stopped taking
courses, I had only just gotten to the point where when I read written
Spanish, I didn't have to translate to English; the words simply expressed
meaning to me just like written English does. I never quite hit that point
speaking, although I did once dream in Spanish.
> Je suis fatigue could be confusing,
> so I'll add an accent at the end of the word.
Would that be "I am fatigue" as opposed to "I am fatigued," which I suppose
is the meaning that's *supposed* to be there?
> I did too with english. But I'm "good" only when I'm motivated by very
> primal needs. What are you into, professionally speaking?
Art, amazingly enough. I like linguistics very much, though; find it
interesting. There are even linguistics courses at the university I go to,
but between the art and photography (I am going to graduate in May), no room
for them.
Alain
>Alain wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 20:41:20 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>> >Alain wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >Um, this friend of mine has a great list of silly things to say in spanish,
>> >such as "mi camisa es de pilo" (my shirt is made of hair)
>>
>> heh... My father, when not wearing anything on his torso, could say
>> the same.
>>
>> >and something one needs everyday, to the effect of
>> >"there's been a chemical spill, please hose me down".
>>
>> I don't understand the meaning of "hose me down" (especially if it's a
>> multiple meaning expression)
>
>A hose is the flexible rubber tube used to put water on the garden,
I knew I was right. heh.
>or for a
>fireman to use to direct a spray at a fire, also useful to deliver water to
>someone who has been drenched with chemicals. Also, to "hose someone" can be
>slang, mostly to indicate disrespect generally of a sleazy nature, as in
>when someone might just take off on their own to go to a movie, when all of
>the friends have been waiting for them in order to all go to a restaurant.
Hey, I know people like that! No, it's not me.
>I'm not sure of the etymology.
>
>In this case, though, the guy is saying mostly that he's covered with
>chemicals, please wash him off.
Any particular less literal meaning to it?
>> Yes, so it is in french. However, it can be dangerous to do so...
>> Sometimes you lose yourself in the meanings and end up with particurly
>> funny things.. heh
>
>Ah, yes. Malaprops. An art form of their own. Need I say, "Jerry Lewis"?
Well, you need, as I don't know much about him and ignored his
affection for that form of humour.
>> Angoissantes introspectives? Hell... It's not common, nor it is
>> special/odd in any way...
>
>Well, I think it's commonly referred to in this NG with the expression "hand
>| staple| forehead"...
Is it? I thought it was more a teenagesque way to show to people that
you give up face to their lack of common sense. A bit like a typical
quebecer teen would do the hand-stappled-to-forehead while exclaiming
"Pas rap[port]!".
>> heh... I was talking about french in general. Someone with strictly no
>> prior training in french, but a few distant years in spanish, able to
>> clearly understand anything I'd write in french would truly be a
>> magician of languages.
>
>Well, it's for sure that both are Latin languages,
Yes, but this fact alone can't explain perfect understanding of a
language that you never tried to learn. There are similarities, sure,
but it's still not enough.
>definitely the
>conjugations of verbs and particular nouns in common usage will be
>different, but many words will have the same Latinate roots. It would be far
>more difficult, for instance for someone with skill in German to try to
>understand either French or Spanish...
Naturally. However, english can be a decent crossroad for latin
languages. It uses certain words from those languages that aren't
automatically used by all the latin languages. So, knowing english AND
a latin language, I believe, makes it easier to understand a third
latin language. And, actually, I think it's the same for german.
German involves quite a few words of french origin (and vice-versa)
and share quite a bit with english, too.
Alain.
Alain
<sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
>
>> Well... It seems rather easy. When I see people using it, they simply
>> pour some of it on the flash thingy and light it up.
>> Laurel and Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, etc.
>
>Oh, sure, it always looks easy in the movies.. :)
Yes, so what? heh
>> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
>> even worse than spanish!
>
>Actually, it's not that bad.
Well, you speak for yourself on that one.
>English is more consonant-y, whereas the
>Latinates seem to emphasize vowel sounds more - Spanish and Italian seem to,
>anyway - so it's a lot easier to sing, since the vowel is where the
>vibration is.
heh In quebec we have both. Really. The rural type of singers have
this thick accent that will emphasize a lot on the vowel, while the
civilized ones will tend to castrate said vowels to the benefit of the
consones.
>> No no... What I meant is that I can barely understand 20-30% of a
>> simple text (ie: newspapers with very international/easy words and
>> expressions) heh...
>
>Ah... I don't do *so* badly reading Spanish... I can probably understand
>about 50% of it and get a decent gist if it's not too complex.
That's good. 50% is about what I can understand of spoken english.
heh.. Well, unless you have a clear and articulate accent, naturally.
Like a brit.
>I can't
>understand spoken Spanish any more, though, and I can't speak it myself.
Ahhh! We face the same problem, I see. Well, in different languages,
naturally. Only practice can help you. Whichs sucks if you don't get
to meet any hispanophone regularly.
>> Oh, insomnia in general. But even more insomnia caused by...
>> ...anguishing introspective.
>
>Ah. "Provoked by." I was reading "provoquee" as an active verb. Am I wrong
>that there should be accent marks there? Provoquée or provoqueé or
>something? I have no idea how to spell French.
Yes, I never use accents. Well, except when I handwrite, but I almost
never handwrite. I will also use accents when it's absolutely required
to avoid terrible confusion. Ie: Je suis fatigue could be confusing,
so I'll add an accent at the end of the word. There are more confusing
examples, but I can't think of any.
>> If you did, you'd be a master of linguistic. I could definitively use
>> such an innate skill, considering the type of study I decided to go
>> for.
>
>I am actually pretty good.. I pick up languages quickly.
I did too with english. But I'm "good" only when I'm motivated by very
primal needs. What are you into, professionally speaking?
>> heh I won't be the guy who'll tell you what's grammatically incorrect
>> on that one as I didn't understood a word of it ;)
>
>They mean "flies do not enter a closed mouth" (I don't know what its
>idiomatic meaning is - probably something about not gossiping or something)
Yeah, prolly that.
>and, surprisingly, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" :)
heh.. I know that there's a similar and more meaningful french saying
: Il ne faut pas regarder la bride d'un cheval donné. Or something
like that. Which basically means "Don't whine if there's a detail that
doesn't please on a great gift you've been given" Hmm... kind of.
Alain.
Rachael
>> Yikes! Try a German opera sometime.
>
> Die (der?) Zauberflaute? yikes.
Die Zauberflöte. :) Like it a lot.
Though it is Austrian. ;)
Rachael
listening to DCD
--
"Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
Follow me... http://redrival.com/quisquilia/initiatio.htm
Rachael...@gmx.net
Alain
>Yeah. Well, French apparently has better (or more consistent) rules than has
>english, sort of backwards parsing compared to what we're used to...
I know one thing for sure, it's easier to use english and, for that
reason, I prefer it.
>"the insomnia provoked by the anguishings introspective. I detest [it]."
Snipe the second "the" and you've got it right..
>I think. L'Ange is the heart, I think, maybe heartfelt is closer in some
>usages. Ah, whadda I know...
L'ange? about what? Hmm... Hmm and heart is "coeur". Yeah, I think I'm
confused and didn't understood what you were talking about in those
two lines.
Alain.
Alain
>> >chemicals, please wash him off.
>>
>> Any particular less literal meaning to it?
>
>silly thing, to an English speaker, to say in Spanish. Foreign languages
>always tend to make silly phrases actually *funny* for some reason.
Well, what's funny? Hmm... When I think of a dude covered with
chemicals requiring washing off I think of an highly distressed dude.
Hmm. Yes, I left my sense of humour on the heater and now it's all
melted.
>> And, actually, I think it's the same for german.
>> German involves quite a few words of french origin (and vice-versa)
>> and share quite a bit with english, too.
>
>English, in large part, is the love (or hate) child of French and German.
I thought it principally originated from some country to the north...
(Sweden or Holland?)
Alain.
klaatu
Well -- there are basically three main language groups native to
northwestern Europe, which were the Germanic tongues, the Celtic tongues,
and the Finno-Ugric, which we will for now ignore since for some bizarre
reason, the only people who are in that group are the Finns, the Laplanders,
and the Koreans (I have no idea).
The Celtic tongues are basically Burgundais (Brugundian, interestingly
spoken by more people in Argentina than anyplace else), Welsh, and Gaelic;
the Germanic tongues are just about everything else. Now enter the Romans,
who basically went everywhere. Gaul was primarily Celtic, and remained a
Roman territory for the longest of anyplace outside of Italy, disregarding
the Eastern Empire (Byzantium/Constantinople). Some say that the Romantic
influence on the language outside of Italy is greatest in French, others
will say that the influence was greatest on Spanish, others will remark that
Spanish was also greatly influenced by Spain's two great post-Roman
invasions, first by the Goths whose language was entirely Germanic (which is
why so many Hispanics have Germanic-derived surnames) and the Moors, whose
language remained an influence long after they were driven from Spain. The
Romans also held the south of the British Isles for some three centuries,
IIRC. They never held Scotland, nor Ireland, which for some reason they
evidently totally ignored.
Anglo-Saxon English was very much Germanic, the Angles and the Saxons and
the Jutes having been invited to England sometime around the 4th through 6th
century C.E., where they drove the Scots and Picts back to Scotland, and
turned on the locals, and also promptly crushed Christianity and eradicated
Latin culture, driving the native Britons westward more-or-less into Wales.
Eventually Christianity returned to England mostly in Kent, which had some
trading connections to Christendom. Eventually Christianity returned to
England, mostly from Ireland, where Latin culture was cherished and literacy
and education were preserved, although outside of Christianity, Ireland was
never Romanized.
Now enter the Danes, Viking or not, who made substantial conquests from
roughly 825 C.E. with the Danish King Canute becoming king of all England in
1016, as well as being king of Danmark by inheritance from his brother
Harold in 1019, eventually going on to conquer Norway as well in roughly
1028.
[Alain, vous etes tres mechant! You've made me wade all through the
encyclopaedia!]
The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
the 800s to the 1300s, in large part being easily seen as one of the
greatest influences on English politics and language in that period, as the
Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was launched from Normandy, France, which
was in fact a Duchy created by king Charles (III) the Simple to acknowledge
the claims of Rollo (Hrolf) the Norse whose people had for years controlled
the mouth of the Seine. The Normans or Normandy developed their own brand of
French, evidently heavily "Danized" and when they invaded and conquered
England after 1066, that brand of French became the official language of
England. Over the next three centuries or so, eventually English returned to
its primacy, or perhaps it's better said that the Norman French of England
and the old Saxon Low-Germanic language "English" had so entertwined as to
be hardly distinguishable. But until probably the tenth century, the Saxon
of England and the Saxon as spoken on the Continent were probably no more
than slightly different regional dialects of the same Germanic tongue.
It's worth noting that much the vocabulary of English prior to Normanization
was essentially identical with that of various Germans, especially Norse,
but Old English had a grammatical inflection system much more complex than
in Modern, and some believe that the Danish and Norse conquests had the
effect of greatly simplifying the grammar of English, particularly in the
spoken forms, with the Danes and English using a simplified bastardization
as a sort of pidgin for intercommunication, and possibly with only the
aristocracies or clerics paying much attention to either pure formal
language.
Under the Normans, most of those who became literate had their instructive
focus on French, the elaborate Germanesque/Danesque adaptations of the Latin
alphabet which had been created for the Germanic Old English were
essentially untaught, which leads to some of the inconsistencies of modern
english spelling, for instance, we no longer differentiate between the
"thorn" (hard "th") and the softer "th" in our character-set, we
differentiate by the addition of the silent "e" to discern the difference
between "breath" and "breathe". Similarly we've modified spellings to cover
the non-differentiated Latin alphabet's non-coverage of four "g"s, two "c"s,
"f"s and "h"s.
Even modern anglophiles and students of the language will admit that
"considered as a representation of the spoken language, the present English
orthography is one of the most unsatisfactory in existence". Also, there is
a great deal of ambiguity in the cases and tenses of verbs.
My own opinion is that "getting overrun and conquered with remarkable
regularity will do that to a language". English is in fact a hugely
bastardized hack, which drives some Asians into a frenzy of bafflement
because it has tenses at all but has no other easy means to indicate time or
case; it drives many Latins into a frenzy of inarticulacy because there are
a dozen ways to express the same thought without any of them being totally
precise and few of them permitting elegance; it drives Germanics into
frenzies of bafflement because it's clearly Germanic but is missing half of
the tenses any decent orderly language would have; it drives Russians into
frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary and the
need for a direct article in order to make any complex sentence
comprehensible; it drives Koreans into a frenzy of bafflement because of the
ridiculous lack of differentiating characters for clearly different sounds
(the Korean orthography is considered probably the world's best phonetic
system). It drives English speakers into a frenzy of bafflement when they
bother to think about it because it's completely overdue for a complete
overhaul; as it is, we're hard put to remember how to spell things the
standardized way, since so many words are in fact (according to the rules)
as easily spelt one way as another. It drives Americans mad because the
English have gotten almost used to it, and it drives the English mad because
the Americans clearly haven't even tried, and have further bastardized the
language by adopting any old word from any old place at the slightest
excuse, and considering it mainstream language and generally adopting it as
such within a decade or less.
Well, I could go on and on but I'll spare y'all.
>
> Alain.
klaatu
Sorry, my mistake, "les mots faux-amis" and all of that -- "angi-" is the
Latin root I believe, as in "angina" "angiography" "angiogram" etc etc.
"Anguish" in english is fairly synonymous with "heartbreak" and I think I
see the association.
Lessee... <hits the stacks>
Ooopsie. I am way wrong here.
Evidently they all originate from the Greek for "container" or "vessel"
("aggeiou") with the exception of "anguish", stemming from the Greek
"throttling" ("aghoun") coming through Latin "angere" ("press together"),
"angustus" ("narrow", "difficult"), "angustia" ("narrowness", "difficulty",
"distress") to the French "angiosse" to English.
Ah well, as difficult as it is for me to say it, "I stand corrected".
>
> Alain.
--
"We look through a glass but darkly:
What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
than what we believe is colored by what we see."
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be
Alain
>> >> even worse than spanish!
>> >
>> >Actually, it's not that bad.
>>
>> Well, you speak for yourself on that one.
>
Nooooo... Once, Quebec was plagued with a certain "Soeur Angele" who
used to sing in Italian while doing her cooking TV show. Most people
who used to watch it more than twice in their life have jelly in lieu
of brains. And there was no warning, you know? She was there,
babblering while stirring her infect food, with a distant look in her
eyes while commenting on what she was doing and, suddendly, her mouth
would widen and... ohh.. I've heard it. My subconscious tried to
erradicate the traumatising memories, but I still remember.
>It just seems to me that it's easier to
>emphasize the vowels in Italian without sounding silly at all. When I sing
>on vowels in English, it always seems overdone to me, because I'm so used to
>spoken English.
Yes, I know what you mean. However, I don't see the point of singing
like that. Nor in french, for that matter. French is the only "latin"
language I know which doesn't normally roll the R's.
>Maybe if I were used to spoken Italian, classically-sung
>Italian would sounds silly.
I don't know, probably would it sound a bit excessive, yet, since it's
a bit part of their everyday language, I guess it wouldn't be that
bad. We have lots of Italians in the family. Seems like every girls on
my mom's family side are doomed to get italian dudes. The only
exception is the dude of the family, my uncle, who used to be in the
Legion. I would tend to think that his military experience in the
desert gave him a weakness for camels and sheep. huhuh.
I wonder if any of'em is on the net, reading that. I hope ;) heheh...
>> That's good. 50% is about what I can understand of spoken english.
>> heh.. Well, unless you have a clear and articulate accent, naturally.
>> Like a brit.
>
>*smirk* are you kidding?
When people ask this question, I tend to variably respond depending my
mood, but it's rarely an honest answer, yet there's always a part of
truth in it. No.
>Clear and articulate? IME the people with the
>"clear and articulate" accents when speaking English are those who learned
>it as a second language, because they have to try harder to pronounce it.
Naturally, except in my case since I'm trying to assimilate, with much
difficulties, most english accents in one handy mix. Simply because
I'm a thight assed perfectionist who can't tolerate the idea of not
speaking perfectly a second language. This will happen, someday.
>They may get dipthongs (vowel combos) strangely, but all in all, they don't
>have the motormouth, slurring American English tendency (I know I have it),
This is the worst. Well, the yankee/northern way that is. I have no
problems with southerners, from Louisiana to TX up to North Carolina,
I'd say. There's also a guy, "Leary" (Tom?), he sings funny tunes and
got just the right accent. I mean that I can understand everrything he
sings. But, when in NYC, I have the impression of being some civilized
adventurer listening to primitive natives. "Hen'eh rah yeh
seeh'reh't?? Ouba!" "Lissen... Me comes from great civilization,
beyond the bald mountains, across The Border! Many Wonders!" Then I
unwrap shiny bits of broken mirror and they gap in awe "Uhhhhh!". Then
they search their hardes to show me their gold. That's where I show'em
a cigarette. They scream of joice and start dancing for me and
suddenly wrap their lips around the cig, to close the ritual. Someday,
I'll bring back pictures and local artifacts.
>nor the sort of.. hmm.. how to describe a British accent.. well, I don't
>know, but though a lot of European and African speakers of English tend to
>speak it with a British accent (for obvious reasons), it's not the same
>thing, somehow.
Well I don't know, but to me most brits I've heard sound like french
speaking well english with an accent. It's clear...
The only stain on that accent is the impression that they're getting
ready to puke.
>> Ahhh! We face the same problem, I see. Well, in different languages,
>> naturally. Only practice can help you. Whichs sucks if you don't get
>> to meet any hispanophone regularly.
>
>I was never that good even when I practiced hehe. I suppose if I had *had*
>to use it, I would have quickly gotten much better.
Certainly. I know I would. For english that is.
>When I stopped taking
>courses, I had only just gotten to the point where when I read written
>Spanish, I didn't have to translate to English; the words simply expressed
>meaning to me just like written English does.
Still, that's cool, eh? I mean, to notice that you can read a language
without translating it.
>I never quite hit that point speaking, although I did once dream in Spanish.
It's only a matter of practice. Like I already said, using a n.g. for
that purpose is definitivey a great way to practice your written
skill.
>> Je suis fatigue could be confusing,
>> so I'll add an accent at the end of the word.
>
>Would that be "I am fatigue" as opposed to "I am fatigued," which I suppose
>is the meaning that's *supposed* to be there?
Yes, exactly, the first just makes no sense. "I'm tire","I'm tired".
[e, ed] But it's not *really* confusing, because it makes no sense to
a point that it can only mean the later. I just couldn't think of a
true confusing example, but they exist and they are relatively
numerous.
>> I did too with english. But I'm "good" only when I'm motivated by very
>> primal needs. What are you into, professionally speaking?
>
>Art, amazingly enough.
It's not amazing. My first idea was to get into visual arts. Then I
went for ELCM, simply because I.. Nah, too long story, but let say it
wasn't because I dreamt of becoming a specialist in ELCM.. heh And,
finally, after many disappointings events in a few months, went for
linguistic/translation. It's not a favorite choice, it's a logical
choice. I have some ease with languages, so why not make some bacon
out of it, eh? If I'm left with time, however, I plan to add a minor
in flick making or visual arts. For the thrill of it. So, yeah, in the
end I think there's a subconscious correlation between arts and
linguistics.
>I like linguistics very much, though; find it
>interesting.
Me too. Without being all excited about it, I like learning language
and I'd like to further to a practical point my notion of language
structure. To a point that I can get a grip of any language with ease
in a record time. It sure is possible, if you manage to understand the
primary essence of structured language.
>There are even linguistics courses at the university I go to,
>but between the art and photography (I am going to graduate in May), no room
>for them.
Maybe can you extend your studies, then? Even while working. You could
do it part time, or take summer classes. Remark, I don't think I
would, too pressed to get a good job and start making money so I can
finance my exciting adventures...heh
Alain.
Alain
>>
>> I thought it principally originated from some country to the north...
>> (Sweden or Holland?)
>
>Well -- there are basically three main language groups native to
>northwestern Europe, which were the Germanic tongues, the Celtic tongues,
>and the Finno-Ugric, which we will for now ignore since for some bizarre
>reason, the only people who are in that group are the Finns, the Laplanders,
>and the Koreans (I have no idea).
>
>The Celtic tongues are basically Burgundais (Brugundian, interestingly
>spoken by more people in Argentina than anyplace else), Welsh, and Gaelic;
>the Germanic tongues are just about everything else.
But I know that there's a Scandinavian language that is much more
close to english than any other language. I know it for having read
some bits of it, in various n.g.'s and having been stunned by the fact
I could almost understand it. With much more ease than I would with
german.
>Now enter the Romans,
>who basically went everywhere. Gaul was primarily Celtic, and remained a
>Roman territory for the longest of anyplace outside of Italy,
The technique they employed in Gaul was rather impressing for the
time. They simply assimilated the savages by "stealing" their women.
The legionnaires came in, took women and the product of such unions
was what we know today as french. The males were enrolled in the
legion and sent in other provinces and conquest campaigns.
>disregarding
>the Eastern Empire (Byzantium/Constantinople). Some say that the Romantic
>influence on the language outside of Italy is greatest in French, others
>will say that the influence was greatest on Spanish,
I don't know... Well, certainly not for the accent. The french accent
is devoid of almost everything that make latin languages so distinct.
Well, except for what concerns south of France. But they have a
"funny" accent.
>others will remark that
>Spanish was also greatly influenced by Spain's two great post-Roman
>invasions, first by the Goths whose language was entirely Germanic (which is
>why so many Hispanics have Germanic-derived surnames) and the Moors, whose
>language remained an influence long after they were driven from Spain.
And certain elements of their accent, too. I always thought that
spanish speaking a good french tend to sound a bit like german.
>The
>Romans also held the south of the British Isles for some three centuries,
>IIRC. They never held Scotland, nor Ireland, which for some reason they
>evidently totally ignored.
>Anglo-Saxon English was very much Germanic, the Angles and the Saxons and
>the Jutes having been invited to England sometime around the 4th through 6th
>century C.E., where they drove the Scots and Picts back to Scotland, and
>turned on the locals, and also promptly crushed Christianity and eradicated
>Latin culture, driving the native Britons westward more-or-less into Wales.
>Eventually Christianity returned to England mostly in Kent, which had some
>trading connections to Christendom. Eventually Christianity returned to
>England, mostly from Ireland, where Latin culture was cherished and literacy
>and education were preserved, although outside of Christianity, Ireland was
>never Romanized.
>
>Now enter the Danes, Viking or not, who made substantial conquests from
>roughly 825 C.E. with the Danish King Canute becoming king of all England in
>1016, as well as being king of Danmark by inheritance from his brother
>Harold in 1019, eventually going on to conquer Norway as well in roughly
>1028.
>
>[Alain, vous etes tres mechant! You've made me wade all through the
>encyclopaedia!]
My pleasure ;) Besides, this adds names, dates and details to my
knowledge of this sector's history.
>The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
>powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
>the 800s to the 1300s, in large part being easily seen as one of the
>greatest influences on English politics and language in that period, as the
>Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was launched from Normandy, France, which
>was in fact a Duchy created by king Charles (III) the Simple to acknowledge
>the claims of Rollo (Hrolf) the Norse whose people had for years controlled
>the mouth of the Seine.
Heh... Normans were particularly lucky, geographically speaking, as
they had a weak and coward southern neighbor to plunder every once in
a while, when they needed stuff and, as far as I know, did it quite
often.
>The Normans or Normandy developed their own brand of
>French,
Which makes me think... Most french canadians are of norman origin,
which explains the strong accent of the rural folks, a new and
"international" accent being born in Mtl only after more than three
centuries of slow evolution.
>evidently heavily "Danized" and when they invaded and conquered
>England after 1066, that brand of French became the official language of
>England.
A type of french which was almost exactly the same that french
canadians spoke since the foundation of nouvelle france.
>Over the next three centuries or so, eventually English returned to
>its primacy,
It's understandable. This horrible language didn't even lasted four
centuries in Quebec. Simply to harsh for delicate ears. heh
>or perhaps it's better said that the Norman French of England
>and the old Saxon Low-Germanic language "English" had so entertwined as to
>be hardly distinguishable. But until probably the tenth century, the Saxon
>of England and the Saxon as spoken on the Continent were probably no more
>than slightly different regional dialects of the same Germanic tongue.
>It's worth noting that much the vocabulary of English prior to Normanization
>was essentially identical with that of various Germans, especially Norse,
>but Old English had a grammatical inflection system much more complex than
>in Modern, and some believe that the Danish and Norse conquests had the
>effect of greatly simplifying the grammar of English, particularly in the
>spoken forms, with the Danes and English using a simplified bastardization
>as a sort of pidgin for intercommunication,
Which is a great thing. Think about it, you've got an easy language,
simple and efficient, yet you still manage to evolve pretty well in
every aspects of a functional society.
>and possibly with only the
>aristocracies or clerics paying much attention to either pure formal
>language.
Yes, same with latin. There seem to be an obsession with dead
languages in the religious spheres.
>Under the Normans, most of those who became literate had their instructive
>focus on French, the elaborate Germanesque/Danesque adaptations of the Latin
>alphabet which had been created for the Germanic Old English were
>essentially untaught, which leads to some of the inconsistencies of modern
>english spelling, for instance, we no longer differentiate between the
>"thorn" (hard "th") and the softer "th" in our character-set, we
>differentiate by the addition of the silent "e" to discern the difference
>between "breath" and "breathe". Similarly we've modified spellings to cover
>the non-differentiated Latin alphabet's non-coverage of four "g"s, two "c"s,
>"f"s and "h"s.
Man, I don't even understand the practical use of it. Personally, I
hate the soft "th". It's only a tongue buster. And there's always the
risk of spitting in people's faces. heh
>Even modern anglophiles and students of the language will admit that
>"considered as a representation of the spoken language, the present English
>orthography is one of the most unsatisfactory in existence". Also, there is
>a great deal of ambiguity in the cases and tenses of verbs.
I would tend to agree, to a certain point, but only from a french
perspective, so it has no point. English sure doesn't sounds like what
you'd expect after having learnt it in the written form, even with
phonetic references.
>My own opinion is that "getting overrun and conquered with remarkable
>regularity will do that to a language". English is in fact a hugely
>bastardized hack, which drives some Asians into a frenzy of bafflement
>because it has tenses at all but has no other easy means to indicate time or
>case;
Actually, I love this particularity. It's so simple. So easy. (so
what? I'm lazy)
Believe me, you don't want of the completely useless notions by which
french is cluttered. Anyway, we're abandoning most of'em. Really.
Especially the superfluous tenses. Might sound elegant and educated,
but, in the end, it's impractical.
>it drives many Latins into a frenzy of inarticulacy because there are
>a dozen ways to express the same thought without any of them being totally
>precise and few of them permitting elegance;
Oh well. Like I said, elegance is overrated. Often, I'll use english
to express an idea that I can't express easily in french. So there for
latin languages... heh Sure, with some effort, I might have managed to
express it in french, but probably in a particularly complex way.
>it drives Germanics into
>frenzies of bafflement because it's clearly Germanic but is missing half of
>the tenses any decent orderly language would have;
When I started learning german (I gave up, as I couldn't find a place
to practice it, being not yet used to Usenet), I was annoyed at this
similarity with french : too many useless tenses and annoying little
details. My first and disappointing surprise was to see ein and eine.
Just like french, I thought. Believe me, the "a" is much better alone
and should stay that way.
>it drives Russians into
>frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary
Large vocabulary? heh... heheh... What are they thinking of french,
then?
>and the
>need for a direct article in order to make any complex sentence
>comprehensible; it drives Koreans into a frenzy of bafflement because of the
>ridiculous lack of differentiating characters for clearly different sounds
>(the Korean orthography is considered probably the world's best phonetic
>system). It drives English speakers into a frenzy of bafflement when they
>bother to think about it because it's completely overdue for a complete
>overhaul; as it is, we're hard put to remember how to spell things the
>standardized way,
Standardized way? Give me an example...
>since so many words are in fact (according to the rules)
>as easily spelt one way as another. It drives Americans mad because the
>English have gotten almost used to it, and it drives the English mad because
>the Americans clearly haven't even tried, and have further bastardized the
>language by adopting any old word from any old place at the slightest
>excuse, and considering it mainstream language and generally adopting it as
>such within a decade or less.
heh I would be tempted to say "Dumb and lazy yanks", for the sheer
pleasure of it, but I have to agree with'em. Why not adopt a word that
fits in right already instead of inventing something new, simply to
contribute maintaining this language's distinction? I'm one of those
people who envisage an universal language as a good thing.
An even mix of germanic, latin and asian sounds with a african beat.
>Well, I could go on and on but I'll spare y'all.
No, no. Develop.
Hmm... Btw, Nair and similar products aren't an alternative to shaving
one's face. It tends to burn the skin to the second degree. Don't do
it. Don't, just trust me.
Alain.
Alain
>>
>> Snipe the second "the" and you've got it right..
>>
>> >I think. L'Ange is the heart, I think, maybe heartfelt is closer in some
>> >usages. Ah, whadda I know...
>>
>> L'ange? about what? Hmm... Hmm and heart is "coeur". Yeah, I think I'm
>> confused and didn't understood what you were talking about in those
>> two lines.
>
>Sorry, my mistake, "les mots faux-amis" and all of that -- "angi-" is the
>Latin root I believe, as in "angina" "angiography" "angiogram" etc etc.
What confused me is the correlation you seen betwen ange and heart and
what all of this had to do with angoisse.
>"Anguish" in english is fairly synonymous with "heartbreak" and I think I
>see the association.
It is?
>Lessee... <hits the stacks>
>
>Ooopsie. I am way wrong here.
heh
>Evidently they all originate from the Greek for "container" or "vessel"
>("aggeiou") with the exception of "anguish", stemming from the Greek
>"throttling" ("aghoun") coming through Latin "angere" ("press together"),
>"angustus" ("narrow", "difficult"), "angustia" ("narrowness", "difficulty",
>"distress") to the French "angiosse" to English.
>
>Ah well, as difficult as it is for me to say it, "I stand corrected".
heh Don't worry, I didn't seen it.
Alain.
klaatu
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:52:47 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >Alain wrote:
> >> >English, in large part, is the love (or hate) child of French and German.
> >>
> >> I thought it principally originated from some country to the north...
> >> (Sweden or Holland?)
> >
> >Well -- there are basically three main language groups native to
> >northwestern Europe, which were the Germanic tongues, the Celtic tongues,
> >and the Finno-Ugric, which we will for now ignore since for some bizarre
> >reason, the only people who are in that group are the Finns, the Laplanders,
> >and the Koreans (I have no idea).
> >
> >The Celtic tongues are basically Burgundais (Brugundian, interestingly
> >spoken by more people in Argentina than anyplace else), Welsh, and Gaelic;
> >the Germanic tongues are just about everything else.
>
> But I know that there's a Scandinavian language that is much more
> close to english than any other language. I know it for having read
> some bits of it, in various n.g.'s and having been stunned by the fact
> I could almost understand it. With much more ease than I would with
> german.
Yeah, that's Icelandic. Which is a sort of generic Norse language. Where you
will assuredly find the greatest similarities between English and the rest
of the Germanic languages is in words which deal with the sea, and with many
of the older words particular to the military. The Norse were great seamen
and almost all of our words such as "port" and "starboard", "stem" and
"stern", "aft", "abaft", "keel", all come from the language that became
Icelandic. For instance, the "starboard" is in fact not only the part of the
ship that is to your right as you face forward, but it is also a clue to the
"westering" or the exploratory migrations to the westward which were a
turning point (or really by default a lack of a turning point); Nouvelle
France of the 1600s was a wild land mostly, but it could as easily have been
Neu Danmark. Had the "little ice age" of the 1300s-1500s not destroyed the
settlements in Greenland, it would have been the perfect steppingstone to
the Americas, and in fact in Newfoundland there are the ruins of a first
Euro colony in the Americas. The Vikings were such powerful seamen and
boatbuilders, but they hadn't the skill of tacking (I think) and thus they
couldn't sail south against the Gulfstream current to the warmer climates
and in any case probably would have been destroyed by the Bay of Fundy had
they followed their pattern of exploring by hugging the coast. But it is a
fact that Leif Ericson and others of his generation would set out westering,
holding a perfect course by running before the easterlies of the high
latitudes, with a "starboard" mounted to the right side of the ship, keeping
the star Polaris centered in a notch as best they might, maintaining their
perfect course to arrive at Iceland or Greenland.
>
> >Now enter the Romans,
> >who basically went everywhere. Gaul was primarily Celtic, and remained a
> >Roman territory for the longest of anyplace outside of Italy,
>
> The technique they employed in Gaul was rather impressing for the
> time. They simply assimilated the savages by "stealing" their women.
> The legionnaires came in, took women and the product of such unions
> was what we know today as french. The males were enrolled in the
> legion and sent in other provinces and conquest campaigns.
And for what it's worth, they earned citizenship thereby.
>
> >disregarding
> >the Eastern Empire (Byzantium/Constantinople). Some say that the Romantic
> >influence on the language outside of Italy is greatest in French, others
> >will say that the influence was greatest on Spanish,
>
> I don't know... Well, certainly not for the accent. The french accent
> is devoid of almost everything that make latin languages so distinct.
> Well, except for what concerns south of France. But they have a
> "funny" accent.
>
> >others will remark that
> >Spanish was also greatly influenced by Spain's two great post-Roman
> >invasions, first by the Goths whose language was entirely Germanic (which is
> >why so many Hispanics have Germanic-derived surnames) and the Moors, whose
> >language remained an influence long after they were driven from Spain.
>
> And certain elements of their accent, too. I always thought that
> spanish speaking a good french tend to sound a bit like german.
Well, for instance -- any time one hears the sound of "J" in English, this
is a clue that a word has come from the French; the Germans don't use it,
and in fact the Spanish "G" is very much the same as the German, where the
French use a "G" much more like the Italians and presumably the Latins.
>
> >The
> >Romans also held the south of the British Isles for some three centuries,
> >IIRC. They never held Scotland, nor Ireland, which for some reason they
> >evidently totally ignored.
> >Anglo-Saxon English was very much Germanic, the Angles and the Saxons and
> >the Jutes having been invited to England sometime around the 4th through 6th
> >century C.E., where they drove the Scots and Picts back to Scotland, and
> >turned on the locals, and also promptly crushed Christianity and eradicated
> >Latin culture, driving the native Britons westward more-or-less into Wales.
> >Eventually Christianity returned to England mostly in Kent, which had some
> >trading connections to Christendom. Eventually Christianity returned to
> >England, mostly from Ireland, where Latin culture was cherished and literacy
> >and education were preserved, although outside of Christianity, Ireland was
> >never Romanized.
> >
> >Now enter the Danes, Viking or not, who made substantial conquests from
> >roughly 825 C.E. with the Danish King Canute becoming king of all England in
> >1016, as well as being king of Danmark by inheritance from his brother
> >Harold in 1019, eventually going on to conquer Norway as well in roughly
> >1028.
> >
> >[Alain, vous etes tres mechant! You've made me wade all through the
> >encyclopaedia!]
>
> My pleasure ;) Besides, this adds names, dates and details to my
> knowledge of this sector's history.
It refreshed mine, I had really forgotten how important the Danes and other
Norsemen were in this period of history.
>
> >The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
> >powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
> >the 800s to the 1300s, in large part being easily seen as one of the
> >greatest influences on English politics and language in that period, as the
> >Norman Conquest of England in 1066 was launched from Normandy, France, which
> >was in fact a Duchy created by king Charles (III) the Simple to acknowledge
> >the claims of Rollo (Hrolf) the Norse whose people had for years controlled
> >the mouth of the Seine.
>
> Heh... Normans were particularly lucky, geographically speaking, as
> they had a weak and coward southern neighbor to plunder every once in
> a while, when they needed stuff and, as far as I know, did it quite
> often.
Well, the Vikings sacked Paris at least three times...
>
> >The Normans or Normandy developed their own brand of
> >French,
>
> Which makes me think... Most french canadians are of norman origin,
> which explains the strong accent of the rural folks, a new and
> "international" accent being born in Mtl only after more than three
> centuries of slow evolution.
>
> >evidently heavily "Danized" and when they invaded and conquered
> >England after 1066, that brand of French became the official language of
> >England.
>
> A type of french which was almost exactly the same that french
> canadians spoke since the foundation of nouvelle france.
>
> >Over the next three centuries or so, eventually English returned to
> >its primacy,
>
> It's understandable. This horrible language didn't even lasted four
> centuries in Quebec. Simply to harsh for delicate ears. heh
Oi, heads up, you silly New Englanders! You've got a country full of French
Vikings to the North!
>
> >or perhaps it's better said that the Norman French of England
> >and the old Saxon Low-Germanic language "English" had so entertwined as to
> >be hardly distinguishable. But until probably the tenth century, the Saxon
> >of England and the Saxon as spoken on the Continent were probably no more
> >than slightly different regional dialects of the same Germanic tongue.
> >It's worth noting that much the vocabulary of English prior to Normanization
> >was essentially identical with that of various Germans, especially Norse,
> >but Old English had a grammatical inflection system much more complex than
> >in Modern, and some believe that the Danish and Norse conquests had the
> >effect of greatly simplifying the grammar of English, particularly in the
> >spoken forms, with the Danes and English using a simplified bastardization
> >as a sort of pidgin for intercommunication,
>
> Which is a great thing. Think about it, you've got an easy language,
> simple and efficient, yet you still manage to evolve pretty well in
> every aspects of a functional society.
Well, as the language becomes less structured, it's easier for newcomers to
learn, but all of the rules that are needed to say anything complex or
"graceful" create problems. For instance, in many languages there is little
or no need for "poetic license" to break the rules; one can say something
with some grace. But in English, sometimes one must break the rules to say a
thing easily.
>
> >and possibly with only the
> >aristocracies or clerics paying much attention to either pure formal
> >language.
>
> Yes, same with latin. There seem to be an obsession with dead
> languages in the religious spheres.
>
> >Under the Normans, most of those who became literate had their instructive
> >focus on French, the elaborate Germanesque/Danesque adaptations of the Latin
> >alphabet which had been created for the Germanic Old English were
> >essentially untaught, which leads to some of the inconsistencies of modern
> >english spelling, for instance, we no longer differentiate between the
> >"thorn" (hard "th") and the softer "th" in our character-set, we
> >differentiate by the addition of the silent "e" to discern the difference
> >between "breath" and "breathe". Similarly we've modified spellings to cover
> >the non-differentiated Latin alphabet's non-coverage of four "g"s, two "c"s,
> >"f"s and "h"s.
>
> Man, I don't even understand the practical use of it. Personally, I
> hate the soft "th". It's only a tongue buster. And there's always the
> risk of spitting in people's faces. heh
Nah, that's the hard "th" that coats folks with saliva. But it is a clue --
as to where people's ancestors came from -- about what people will
substitute for the "thorn", whether they will default to a "Z" or to a "D".
It's really very cruel of English to have the most common sounds be the most
difficult for foreign students. When I am feeling very evil I contemplate
the necessity of assigning pronunciation homework consisting of recitation
of "with which witch was whom, they're not there at their lair, I wonder if
they're whaling, but we would hear the wailing".
>
> >Even modern anglophiles and students of the language will admit that
> >"considered as a representation of the spoken language, the present English
> >orthography is one of the most unsatisfactory in existence". Also, there is
> >a great deal of ambiguity in the cases and tenses of verbs.
>
> I would tend to agree, to a certain point, but only from a french
> perspective, so it has no point. English sure doesn't sounds like what
> you'd expect after having learnt it in the written form, even with
> phonetic references.
Plus there are the irregular retentions of the Old German declensions, as in
"run/ran" and "shit/shat", "speak/spoke", etc etc. Every once in a while I
run across something that is clearly in need of a good declension but I get
baffled as to what it might be. Dealing with remote past tenses of "to get"
is a great case in point, Americans will use "gotten" with ease in almost
any usage, but many British can be seen to visibly wince. The "I've gotten
used to it" versus "I had got used to it" versus "I'm long accustomed to
it", etc.
>
> >My own opinion is that "getting overrun and conquered with remarkable
> >regularity will do that to a language". English is in fact a hugely
> >bastardized hack, which drives some Asians into a frenzy of bafflement
> >because it has tenses at all but has no other easy means to indicate time or
> >case;
>
> Actually, I love this particularity. It's so simple. So easy. (so
> what? I'm lazy)
> Believe me, you don't want of the completely useless notions by which
> french is cluttered. Anyway, we're abandoning most of'em. Really.
> Especially the superfluous tenses. Might sound elegant and educated,
> but, in the end, it's impractical.
>
> >it drives many Latins into a frenzy of inarticulacy because there are
> >a dozen ways to express the same thought without any of them being totally
> >precise and few of them permitting elegance;
>
> Oh well. Like I said, elegance is overrated. Often, I'll use english
> to express an idea that I can't express easily in french. So there for
> latin languages... heh Sure, with some effort, I might have managed to
> express it in french, but probably in a particularly complex way.
It's that poetic license thing again.
>
> >it drives Germanics into
> >frenzies of bafflement because it's clearly Germanic but is missing half of
> >the tenses any decent orderly language would have;
>
> When I started learning german (I gave up, as I couldn't find a place
> to practice it, being not yet used to Usenet), I was annoyed at this
> similarity with french : too many useless tenses and annoying little
> details. My first and disappointing surprise was to see ein and eine.
> Just like french, I thought. Believe me, the "a" is much better alone
> and should stay that way.
Ah, the old gender agreement thing! It is indeed rather relaxing to not need
to remember gender of nouns, except in the odd case such as hurricanes or
ships.
>
> >it drives Russians into
> >frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary
>
> Large vocabulary? heh... heheh... What are they thinking of french,
> then?
Well, they had at one time adopted French as the language of the
intelligentsia and of the aristocracy, not only as a matter of fashion, but
also because it permitted discussions of much greater sophistication. It is
a source of annoyance to many Russians that they cannot begin to counter the
accusations of "nyeh culturya" without resorting mostly to words of French
origin.
>
> >and the
> >need for a direct article in order to make any complex sentence
> >comprehensible; it drives Koreans into a frenzy of bafflement because of the
> >ridiculous lack of differentiating characters for clearly different sounds
> >(the Korean orthography is considered probably the world's best phonetic
> >system). It drives English speakers into a frenzy of bafflement when they
> >bother to think about it because it's completely overdue for a complete
> >overhaul; as it is, we're hard put to remember how to spell things the
> >standardized way,
>
> Standardized way? Give me an example...
Well, "tough", "cough", or the old standard of "eggs", which last word is
unquestionably Danish or Norse. There's a rather famous old discourse from
about the time of Chaucer as to how to spell "eggs", to the effect of "and
would ye wot thy fasten broek, be igges, ygges, ygess, or gseyes"? One
old-timer even said something to the effect of "it's damned poor mind that
can't think of more than one way to spell something". English phonetic
spelling rarely corresponds to the spelling one finds in the dictionary.
>
> >since so many words are in fact (according to the rules)
> >as easily spelt one way as another. It drives Americans mad because the
> >English have gotten almost used to it, and it drives the English mad because
> >the Americans clearly haven't even tried, and have further bastardized the
> >language by adopting any old word from any old place at the slightest
> >excuse, and considering it mainstream language and generally adopting it as
> >such within a decade or less.
>
> heh I would be tempted to say "Dumb and lazy yanks", for the sheer
> pleasure of it, but I have to agree with'em. Why not adopt a word that
> fits in right already instead of inventing something new, simply to
> contribute maintaining this language's distinction? I'm one of those
> people who envisage an universal language as a good thing.
> An even mix of germanic, latin and asian sounds with a african beat.
Yo, pardner, roll up your lariat and let's keep them dogies rollin'.
What drives me mad, personally, is this modern US insistence and in fact
glorification of a dangled participle. But as in the word of Churchill,
"this business of never dangling the participle is something up with which I
will not put".
>
> >Well, I could go on and on but I'll spare y'all.
>
> No, no. Develop.
>
> Hmm... Btw, Nair and similar products aren't an alternative to shaving
> one's face. It tends to burn the skin to the second degree. Don't do
> it. Don't, just trust me.
Yikes!
There's some stuff they make that you can probably find at a store that
caters to black people, who often have a tendency to keloid scarring, which
has the same effect as Nair but isn't quite so industrial-strength.
>
> Alain.
--
"We look through a glass but darkly:
What we see is more colored by our beliefs,
than what we believe is colored by what we see."
klaatu
>
> On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:23:15 -0700, "sinister dexter"
> <sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
> >Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >> *shudders* Singing in Italian. It's worse than french. Actually, it's
> >> >> even worse than spanish!
> >> >
> >> >Actually, it's not that bad.
> >>
> >> Well, you speak for yourself on that one.
> >
> >Okay, I will sing for myself. Hehe.
>
> Nooooo... Once, Quebec was plagued with a certain "Soeur Angele" who
> used to sing in Italian while doing her cooking TV show. Most people
> who used to watch it more than twice in their life have jelly in lieu
> of brains. And there was no warning, you know? She was there,
> babblering while stirring her infect food, with a distant look in her
> eyes while commenting on what she was doing and, suddendly, her mouth
> would widen and... ohh.. I've heard it. My subconscious tried to
> erradicate the traumatising memories, but I still remember.
It could be worse, it could be me trying to sing in French, severely
butchering Bizet.
>
> >It just seems to me that it's easier to
> >emphasize the vowels in Italian without sounding silly at all. When I sing
> >on vowels in English, it always seems overdone to me, because I'm so used to
> >spoken English.
>
> Yes, I know what you mean. However, I don't see the point of singing
> like that. Nor in french, for that matter. French is the only "latin"
> language I know which doesn't normally roll the R's.
Could be worse, some of the South Americans also roll their initial "G". And
BTW, my French teacher (who was admittedly an Englishman raised in Spain)
insisted that everyone roll their Rs... while he himself barely voiced them
at all, relegating them almost to a gutteral.
<snip snip>
>
> >They may get dipthongs (vowel combos) strangely, but all in all, they don't
> >have the motormouth, slurring American English tendency (I know I have it),
>
> This is the worst. Well, the yankee/northern way that is. I have no
> problems with southerners, from Louisiana to TX up to North Carolina,
> I'd say. There's also a guy, "Leary" (Tom?), he sings funny tunes and
> got just the right accent. I mean that I can understand everrything he
> sings. But, when in NYC, I have the impression of being some civilized
> adventurer listening to primitive natives. "Hen'eh rah yeh
> seeh'reh't?? Ouba!" "Lissen... Me comes from great civilization,
> beyond the bald mountains, across The Border! Many Wonders!" Then I
> unwrap shiny bits of broken mirror and they gap in awe "Uhhhhh!". Then
> they search their hardes to show me their gold. That's where I show'em
> a cigarette. They scream of joice and start dancing for me and
> suddenly wrap their lips around the cig, to close the ritual. Someday,
> I'll bring back pictures and local artifacts.
Touche! New Yorkers are in general considered by most non-NY folks to have
the most impenetrable accent, outside of New Jersey, for which I blame an
attempt to be incomprehensible even to New Yorkers. But it's been remarked
by many Brits who've tried to pick up the American accents that it's much
easier for them to do a Southerner than to do a serious Yankee. It's because
so many immigrants arrived and settled in New York across the last century
or so, and many of them learned their English not from immersion, but from
study. The accent that emerged was the product of the children learning to
speak as they heard it from parents to whom English was a second language.
But in the South, English had always been the mainstream language from
perpetuity, except of course in Louisiana.
>
> >nor the sort of.. hmm.. how to describe a British accent.. well, I don't
> >know, but though a lot of European and African speakers of English tend to
> >speak it with a British accent (for obvious reasons), it's not the same
> >thing, somehow.
>
> Well I don't know, but to me most brits I've heard sound like french
> speaking well english with an accent. It's clear...
> The only stain on that accent is the impression that they're getting
> ready to puke.
"Stiff upper lip". The Queen's English is commonly characterized as
"clipped" by comparison with American usages.
I have to admit right here that I can be rather incomprehensible, as
Maryland outside of the District suburbs has one of the most impenetrable
accents around, even the folks from rural Alabama find us to be a bit
daunting. But I have never had any diffuculty in understanding, for
instance, Jim Nabors (aka "Gomer Pyle"). Interestingly, Mr. Nabors had one
of the best singing voices, and when he sang, he was totally devoid of
accent.
And then there is the infamous RF Kennedy gaffe in German, in Berlin he once
announced to a crowd of thousands that he was a breakfast-pastry. ("Ich bin
ein Berlinner".)
He got quite a good cheer from the crowd for that one.
<snip snip>
sinister dexter
int.net might have said:
> babblering while stirring her infect food,
Her..."infect" food?
> Yes, I know what you mean. However, I don't see the point of singing
> like that.
Emphasizing the vowels? You're supposed to, in classical singing. You
can't vibrate on a consonant - consonants are stops. There's no air going
through on them.
> Simply because
> I'm a thight assed perfectionist who can't tolerate the idea of not
> speaking perfectly a second language.
I couldn't either. I'd hate to have it sound like I was obviously a
textbook learner or something. It takes a long time to get to idiomatic
fluency.
> This is the worst. Well, the yankee/northern way that is.
Personally I speak Californian, in which, comparatively, I hear no
accent. We speak a sort of generic-jelly English vs the clear accents I
hear in New York, Jersey, the south, the midwest, Texas, etc.
> There's also a guy, "Leary" (Tom?), he sings funny tunes and
> got just the right accent.
Perhaps Denis Leary?
> Someday,
> I'll bring back pictures and local artifacts.
...from the natives of New York :7 lol...
> The only stain on that accent is the impression that they're getting
> ready to puke.
Oi, I *like* British accents! hehe...
> Still, that's cool, eh? I mean, to notice that you can read a language
> without translating it.
It was actually a little scary the first time I noticed I was doing it. I
was like, hey, wait a minute... It never occurred to me how much thinking
I *don't* do to understand English.
> went for ELCM, simply because I
What's ELCM?
> It sure is possible, if you manage to understand the
> primary essence of structured language.
You read Noam Chomsky, don't you?
> Maybe can you extend your studies, then? Even while working. You could
> do it part time, or take summer classes.
Not really. Once you graduate, they don't want to hear from you unless
you're in a master's program. I'd have to re-apply and re-enroll and all.
Maybe the community colleges.
sinister dexter
kla...@clark.net might have said:
> Touche! New Yorkers are in general considered by most non-NY folks to have
> the most impenetrable accent, outside of New Jersey, for which I blame an
> attempt to be incomprehensible even to New Yorkers.
I went to New York for the first time just this past June. I held out
hope that the accent might be a sort of stereotyped, mythical
exaggeration and that *real* New Yorkers didn't *really* talk like that.
The first thing to greet me upon getting off the plane? A desk person
telling someone bitching at them that they couldn't do anything and
they'd "have to go tawk to so-and-so over dere." To make the analogy to
fog, a pea-soup classic New Yawk accent. *shudder* Fortunately, the
people I was staying with had only the barest hints of accent, mainly
showing in the way they pronounced certain words. One of the people we
went to see, however, is a Manchester import to Pennsylvania, and so has
*that* funny combination of accents...
> And then there is the infamous RF Kennedy gaffe in German, in Berlin he once
> announced to a crowd of thousands that he was a breakfast-pastry. ("Ich bin
> ein Berlinner".)
"Ich bin Frankfurter" is even funnier if you put in the "ein". Gotta be
careful about those indefinite articles :7
sinister dexter
int.net might have said:
> Well, what's funny? Hmm... When I think of a dude covered with
> chemicals requiring washing off I think of an highly distressed dude.
> Hmm.
Perhaps the deadpan mode in which I pictured it being said? "There has
been a chemical spill, please hose me down." I don't know.
> I thought it principally originated from some country to the north...
> (Sweden or Holland?)
Yes, English has a lot of relation to Dutch/Low German as well.
Jennie Kermode
hours of people ranting and making in-jokes about operating systems and
bits of code; so I have to say that it is with a feeling of great relief,
not to mention a slight but delicious inkling of revenge, that I address
this delightful post by klaatu, and take my opportunity to be just as
irritatingly techy and OT. :p ;)
On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:52:47 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>and the Finno-Ugric, which we will for now ignore since for some bizarre
>reason, the only people who are in that group are the Finns, the Laplanders,
>and the Koreans (I have no idea).
Does anyone?
It's always these wierd ones, the onres that don't fit in, which
intrigue me the most, but they're so hard to find out about, and rarely
seem to be taught anywhere.
>The Celtic tongues are basically Burgundais (Brugundian, interestingly
>spoken by more people in Argentina than anyplace else), Welsh, and Gaelic;
Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are more different than their names
would suggest, and can prove to be mutually unintelligable (at least to
non linguists). There are also the (mostly) extinct languages Pictish,
Manx and Cornish; and there's Breton, which is still widely spoken in
Brittany, although there's no longer anyone who speaks it exclusively.
>the Eastern Empire (Byzantium/Constantinople). Some say that the Romantic
>influence on the language outside of Italy is greatest in French, others
>will say that the influence was greatest on Spanish, others will remark that
>Spanish was also greatly influenced by Spain's two great post-Roman
Didn't Spanish, French and Latin all develop from the same roots
anyway - that is, from the same proto-language, after Indo-European? My
specialty is in the Germanic languages, but that's certainly the
impression I had about the Romance ones.
>invasions, first by the Goths whose language was entirely Germanic (which is
>why so many Hispanics have Germanic-derived surnames) and the Moors, whose
Yep - the only East Germanic language (unless one counts the
related Crimean Gothic as being entirely separate), and a fascinating
phenomenon linguistically; it sucks that we have so little of it
preserved.
>IIRC. They never held Scotland, nor Ireland, which for some reason they
>evidently totally ignored.
They didn't like the land much; they preferred flat meadows or
low rolling hills which suited their agricultural style; Scotland's rugged
hills and mountains would have been a lot of hard work. Ireland might have
suited them better that way, but it was aggressively defended, and
considering the extra effort required to mount an invasion across the sea,
I don't think they considered it worthwhile - it was, after all, a fairly
small prize. Their settlements near Scotland were frequently raided, and
they met a lot of armed opposition in those parts, so that they would have
had to make a lot of effort to invade properly here, for a prize which
wasn't very valuable to them. I think they were also wary of the
barbarians living still further north, whose military capability they knew
to be impressive. Scotland made a useful buffer state.
>Anglo-Saxon English was very much Germanic, the Angles and the Saxons and
>the Jutes having been invited to England sometime around the 4th through 6th
Yep; low West Germanic, derived from Old Anglian, most closely
related to Scots and to Dutch, although the differences in pronunciation
between Present Day English and Dutch tend to cause people difficulty in
seeing the similarities.
Scots developed from Old Anglian at about the same time, on
account of the same invasion; it swerved away from English because it was
more heavily (and more immediately) influenced by the scandinavian
languages, while English was exposed to French influences that Scotland
never encountered.
>The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
>powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
Linguistically I would say they were civilising. :) They also
had a marked influence in terms of improved hygeine (any seafaring people
tend to learn this early on), and they exported some valuable farming
techniques useful in hilly areas such as those the Romans had avoided.
>England. Over the next three centuries or so, eventually English returned to
>its primacy, or perhaps it's better said that the Norman French of England
>and the old Saxon Low-Germanic language "English" had so entertwined as to
>be hardly distinguishable. But until probably the tenth century, the Saxon
One does find, however, that in the Middle English period
writers develop an awareness of the differences between words of Latin,
French and Germanic origin, usuing them, respectively, for academic,
courtly and common considerations; for intellectually important, socially
important and vulgar matters. Germanic words were quite stigmatised, and
to an extent this still hold true. I remember a recent thread where people
were asserting that Germanic phonemes were inherently 'uglier' than
Romance ones, and I thought, "Oooh, you victims of fifteenth century
fashion, you!"
>essentially untaught, which leads to some of the inconsistencies of modern
>english spelling, for instance, we no longer differentiate between the
>"thorn" (hard "th") and the softer "th" in our character-set, we
Part of this - and the absense of characters like ash and yog -
can be blamed on the Italian and southern German manufactured printing
presses which didn't include those letters, causing publishers to make
substitutions, as a result of which virtually no-one can now pronounce the
writer Iain Banks' middle name, and little old women in small seaside
towns paint 'Ye Olde Tea-Shoppe' above their cafeterias and proceed to
prnounce it in an embarrassingly ignorant way.
>Even modern anglophiles and students of the language will admit that
>"considered as a representation of the spoken language, the present English
>orthography is one of the most unsatisfactory in existence". Also, there is
It certainly is. It's a complete mess. However, a complete mess
is always a delight to the historian. :) It's neat things which conceal
their secrets best.
>case; it drives many Latins into a frenzy of inarticulacy because there are
>a dozen ways to express the same thought without any of them being totally
>precise and few of them permitting elegance; it drives Germanics into
It's the enormous variety of English which makes it such an
attractive language to me. I like Russian in the same way, but find a lot
of other (European) languages rather limiting.
>the tenses any decent orderly language would have; it drives Russians into
>frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary and the
>need for a direct article in order to make any complex sentence
Oh yes. I thoroughly agree with them on that one. It's silly,
unnecessary and annoying, a total waste of space.
>English have gotten almost used to it, and it drives the English mad because
>the Americans clearly haven't even tried, and have further bastardized the
>language by adopting any old word from any old place at the slightest
>excuse, and considering it mainstream language and generally adopting it as
>such within a decade or less.
What annoys me about American English is more its tendancy to
mess about with morphemes, rather than whole words. I dislike the habit of
taking, say, a Romance morpheme and Germanic one and just stcking them
together to make a word. It defeats the whole point of the logic systems
on which those language groups are based. It does, indeed, bastardise the
language further, such that it will be even harder for future generations
to make sense of.
By the way, Klaatu, I'm currently conducting a small private
investigation into the syllable 'wind'/'wend', and I was advised that you
may be able to help me. There is no consensus, and little theory, as to
where the syllable comes from, but my guess is that it belonged to the
Inuit, as its path through Europe seems to have been from the north, and
then there's the Native American word 'windigo', which has some similar
connotations. Unfortunately I don't know much about Native American
languages and am unable to find much in the way of useful scholarly work
on them with the material I have available to me here. Do you have any
contacts, information or ideas?
Jennie
--
Jennie Kermode http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/jennie jen...@innocent.com
Alain
>Alain wrote:
>> But I know that there's a Scandinavian language that is much more
>> close to english than any other language. I know it for having read
>> some bits of it, in various n.g.'s and having been stunned by the fact
>> I could almost understand it. With much more ease than I would with
>> german.
>
>Yeah, that's Icelandic.
No, I'm sure it's not that.. It's a much older country. Hmm... If only
I could remember. Remark, Icelandic might be pretty close to english,
for what I know, but it's definitively not the language I was talking
about. Which makes me think.... Iceland, what an interesting
mini-country. Their population rappidly reached the 2-250k mark, then
they've been stable for centuries. No significant increases nor
decreases. It's definitively a place I'd like to visit. Not the
widlerness, naturally, their urban life that is. Reyjavick(sp).
>Which is a sort of generic Norse language. Where you
>will assuredly find the greatest similarities between English and the rest
>of the Germanic languages is in words which deal with the sea, and with many
>of the older words particular to the military. The Norse were great seamen
>and almost all of our words such as "port" and "starboard", "stem" and
>"stern", "aft", "abaft", "keel", all come from the language that became
>Icelandic. For instance, the "starboard" is in fact not only the part of the
>ship that is to your right as you face forward, but it is also a clue to the
>"westering" or the exploratory migrations to the westward which were a
>turning point (or really by default a lack of a turning point); Nouvelle
>France of the 1600s was a wild land mostly, but it could as easily have been
>Neu Danmark. Had the "little ice age" of the 1300s-1500s not destroyed the
>settlements in Greenland,
What a shock they had when they found out that this greenland was only
a land of endless rock. heh I don't remember for sure, but I believe
that it almost killed their desire to go forward with their
exploration.
>it would have been the perfect steppingstone to
>the Americas, and in fact in Newfoundland there are the ruins of a first
>Euro colony in the Americas.
Yes and it's believed that they've been attacked by natives and almost
if not completely decimated.
>The Vikings were such powerful seamen and
>boatbuilders, but they hadn't the skill of tacking (I think) and thus they
>couldn't sail south against the Gulfstream current to the warmer climates
>and in any case probably would have been destroyed by the Bay of Fundy had
>they followed their pattern of exploring by hugging the coast. But it is a
>fact that Leif Ericson and others of his generation would set out westering,
I've heard of interesting rumours about viking exploration in south
america, actually. Some people believe so and all I can remember of it
is that they found proofs of nordic type of people in mountainous
areas. Their thoraxic cage have, if I remember well, increased in
size, comparatively to people living on more flat lands, which would
indicate that those people lived for quite a few generations before
extinction, to be able to experience such an adaptive change.
There was something about the boats/rafts used, but I dont' remember
what.
>> The technique they employed in Gaul was rather impressing for the
>> time. They simply assimilated the savages by "stealing" their women.
>> The legionnaires came in, took women and the product of such unions
>> was what we know today as french. The males were enrolled in the
>> legion and sent in other provinces and conquest campaigns.
>
>And for what it's worth, they earned citizenship thereby.
Yes, it definitively was easier to be tolerated by the locals if some
of their were part of the deal and that the local blood was flowing in
such unions' kids'veins.
>> And certain elements of their accent, too. I always thought that
>> spanish speaking a good french tend to sound a bit like german.
>
>Well, for instance -- any time one hears the sound of "J" in English, this
>is a clue that a word has come from the French; the Germans don't use it,
>and in fact the Spanish "G" is very much the same as the German, where the
>French use a "G" much more like the Italians and presumably the Latins.
But the rolling R's are completely absent of french, expect in the
most northern areas. Yet, this R is found as much in the southern
countries as in the north.
>> Heh... Normans were particularly lucky, geographically speaking, as
>> they had a weak and coward southern neighbor to plunder every once in
>> a while, when they needed stuff and, as far as I know, did it quite
>> often.
>
>Well, the Vikings sacked Paris at least three times...
Yeah, with such an ease, such a lack of opposition.
Which makes me think, vikings had such disgusting habits that they
managed to shock even the Parisians who, themselves, never had
particularly honorable hygien habits.
>> It's understandable. This horrible language didn't even lasted four
>> centuries in Quebec. Simply to harsh for delicate ears. heh
>
>Oi, heads up, you silly New Englanders! You've got a country full of French
>Vikings to the North!
Don't worry, their gut if full of poutine and they are content.
But, yeah, the yankees certainly noticed the obnoxious and gross
habits of their french speaking northern neighbors when they come down
for tourism or cheap food.
>> Which is a great thing. Think about it, you've got an easy language,
>> simple and efficient, yet you still manage to evolve pretty well in
>> every aspects of a functional society.
>
>Well, as the language becomes less structured, it's easier for newcomers to
>learn, but all of the rules that are needed to say anything complex or
>"graceful" create problems. For instance, in many languages there is little
>or no need for "poetic license" to break the rules; one can say something
>with some grace. But in English, sometimes one must break the rules to say a
>thing easily.
Give me an example of typical, yet "illegal" bit of "graceful"
english.
>> Man, I don't even understand the practical use of it. Personally, I
>> hate the soft "th". It's only a tongue buster. And there's always the
>> risk of spitting in people's faces. heh
>
>Nah, that's the hard "th" that coats folks with saliva.
Yeah, now I remember.
>But it is a clue --
>as to where people's ancestors came from -- about what people will
>substitute for the "thorn", whether they will default to a "Z" or to a "D".
Yeah, I gave up on that one. In my mouth, it's now a sound that is
somewhere in the middle of D and T.
>It's really very cruel of English to have the most common sounds be the most
>difficult for foreign students.
Yes. But it's not that important. I don't think many people are
obsessing about having it right.
>When I am feeling very evil I contemplate
>the necessity of assigning pronunciation homework consisting of recitation
>of "with which witch was whom, they're not there at their lair, I wonder if
>they're whaling, but we would hear the wailing".
heh... It's not that hard.
>Plus there are the irregular retentions of the Old German declensions, as in
>"run/ran" and "shit/shat", "speak/spoke", etc etc.
Shat? Does it truly exist?
>Every once in a while I
>run across something that is clearly in need of a good declension but I get
>baffled as to what it might be. Dealing with remote past tenses of "to get"
>is a great case in point, Americans will use "gotten" with ease in almost
>any usage, but many British can be seen to visibly wince. The "I've gotten
>used to it" versus "I had got used to it" versus "I'm long accustomed to
>it", etc.
Hmm... What's wrong with "I've got used to it"?
I've seen numerous people using it and therefore adopted it.
Well, exceot for "I had got..." which means something completely
different, naturally.
>> Oh well. Like I said, elegance is overrated. Often, I'll use english
>> to express an idea that I can't express easily in french. So there for
>> latin languages... heh Sure, with some effort, I might have managed to
>> express it in french, but probably in a particularly complex way.
>
>It's that poetic license thing again.
heh But why be elegant if you can express an idea or a concept in a
few efficient words?
>Ah, the old gender agreement thing! It is indeed rather relaxing to not need
>to remember gender of nouns, except in the odd case such as hurricanes or
>ships.
Yes, I remember finding it out about english. Sounded weird to me, for
such a language that is.
>> >it drives Russians into
>> >frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary
>>
>> Large vocabulary? heh... heheh... What are they thinking of french,
>> then?
>
>Well, they had at one time adopted French as the language of the
>intelligentsia and of the aristocracy, not only as a matter of fashion, but
>also because it permitted discussions of much greater sophistication. It is
>a source of annoyance to many Russians that they cannot begin to counter the
>accusations of "nyeh culturya" without resorting mostly to words of French
>origin.
Well, why are they whining about english vocabulary, if they managed
to get used to french? Lots of english words have an almost identical
french counterpart, with only the ending, or very minor details being
different.
>> Standardized way? Give me an example...
>
>Well, "tough", "cough", or the old standard of "eggs", which last word is
>unquestionably Danish or Norse. There's a rather famous old discourse from
>about the time of Chaucer as to how to spell "eggs", to the effect of "and
>would ye wot thy fasten broek, be igges, ygges, ygess, or gseyes"? One
>old-timer even said something to the effect of "it's damned poor mind that
>can't think of more than one way to spell something". English phonetic
>spelling rarely corresponds to the spelling one finds in the dictionary.
Ahh that's what you meant by standardized spelling. I thought you were
talking about some new reform in the spelling rules. Hell,
standardization was definitively a good thing. heh
>> heh I would be tempted to say "Dumb and lazy yanks", for the sheer
>> pleasure of it, but I have to agree with'em. Why not adopt a word that
>> fits in right already instead of inventing something new, simply to
>> contribute maintaining this language's distinction? I'm one of those
>> people who envisage an universal language as a good thing.
>> An even mix of germanic, latin and asian sounds with a african beat.
>
>Yo, pardner, roll up your lariat and let's keep them dogies rollin'.
Ahem... By beat, I wasn't talking about style but more rythm in
pronunciation. heh
The german are barking, the french are bitting, the english
yawning/puking, the chinese are mewing, the african sing, etc.
>What drives me mad, personally, is this modern US insistence and in fact
>glorification of a dangled participle. But as in the word of Churchill,
>"this business of never dangling the participle is something up with which I
>will not put".
heh It's the second time (but I give you that : it occured about a
year ago) that you use that quote on me ;)
>> >Well, I could go on and on but I'll spare y'all.
>>
>> No, no. Develop.
>>
>> Hmm... Btw, Nair and similar products aren't an alternative to shaving
>> one's face. It tends to burn the skin to the second degree. Don't do
>> it. Don't, just trust me.
>
>Yikes!
I'm one of those adventurous people who like to try by themselves
rather than follow blindly the warning notices... heh I'm not reckless
for that. I had tried a bit on my cheek and it worked fine. I didn't
knew that the mustach area was made of a different type of skin than
the rest of the face. Which sucked. Man, it was really burnt. To a
point that water was coming out of the pores exactly like when you get
burnt.
>There's some stuff they make that you can probably find at a store that
>caters to black people, who often have a tendency to keloid scarring, which
>has the same effect as Nair but isn't quite so industrial-strength.
Well, if it doesn't have the strenght of nair, it can't be used for
the face. Nair is already a bit weak for beard, only massacring the
skin. However, it's definitively a great product for everywhere else,
except, I guess, the genital area. No, I never tried the scrotum, I
merely guess. Not that I intend to ever try, mind you.
Alain.
Alain
>butchering Bizet.
Bizet? If it's classical, it certainly would sound horrible. Classical
singing, not matter what language, grind my nerves.
>> Yes, I know what you mean. However, I don't see the point of singing
>> like that. Nor in french, for that matter. French is the only "latin"
>> language I know which doesn't normally roll the R's.
>
>Could be worse, some of the South Americans also roll their initial "G". And
>BTW, my French teacher (who was admittedly an Englishman raised in Spain)
>insisted that everyone roll their Rs... while he himself barely voiced them
>at all, relegating them almost to a gutteral.
Yes, it could be. Hearing it everyday in the street would be one more
reason for me to become an hermit.
>Touche! New Yorkers are in general considered by most non-NY folks to have
>the most impenetrable accent, outside of New Jersey, for which I blame an
>attempt to be incomprehensible even to New Yorkers. But it's been remarked
>by many Brits who've tried to pick up the American accents that it's much
>easier for them to do a Southerner than to do a serious Yankee. It's because
>so many immigrants arrived and settled in New York across the last century
>or so, and many of them learned their English not from immersion, but from
>study. The accent that emerged was the product of the children learning to
>speak as they heard it from parents to whom English was a second language.
I'm willing to believe that. It's apparently the only logical
explanation. Well, that and stuff in the water supply.
>But in the South, English had always been the mainstream language from
>perpetuity, except of course in Louisiana.
Yes, that might explain lots of things, even that little detail about
Louisiana. The texan folks, with whom I travelled to Nola twice, had
quite a few problems understanding the local accent, especially from
the older generation of black folks. I was a bit surprised because I
had no problems at all with'em, which have me wondering how they would
manage to survive in NYC or even To.
>> Well I don't know, but to me most brits I've heard sound like french
>> speaking well english with an accent. It's clear...
>> The only stain on that accent is the impression that they're getting
>> ready to puke.
>
>"Stiff upper lip". The Queen's English is commonly characterized as
>"clipped" by comparison with American usages.
Yes, pretty possible. The brits nearly have the bouche-en-cul-de-poule
french have when talking.
>I have to admit right here that I can be rather incomprehensible, as
>Maryland outside of the District suburbs has one of the most impenetrable
>accents around, even the folks from rural Alabama find us to be a bit
>daunting. But I have never had any diffuculty in understanding, for
>instance, Jim Nabors (aka "Gomer Pyle"). Interestingly, Mr. Nabors had one
>of the best singing voices, and when he sang, he was totally devoid of
>accent.
Jim Nabors?
Well, lots of singers learn and practice their accent to sing,
strictly for the purpose of comprehension, but won't make the
un-natural thing of speaking in any different way than they would
normally.
>And then there is the infamous RF Kennedy gaffe in German, in Berlin he once
>announced to a crowd of thousands that he was a breakfast-pastry. ("Ich bin
>ein Berlinner".)
>
>He got quite a good cheer from the crowd for that one.
heh Humoristic gaffes are an art "mastered" by most political
leaders.. heh
But, in the political scene, my fave stand up comic remains
J.Chretien. He's so prolific in minor and humoristic diplomatic
gaffes.
Alain.
Alain
<sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>It's been rumored that on Sat, 02 Oct 1999 15:41:28 GMT, alainc@planet-
>int.net might have said:
>
>> babblering while stirring her infect food,
>
>Her..."infect" food?
Hmm Indigest? Non comestible?
>> Yes, I know what you mean. However, I don't see the point of singing
>> like that.
>
>Emphasizing the vowels? You're supposed to, in classical singing. You
>can't vibrate on a consonant - consonants are stops. There's no air going
>through on them.
Yes, I don't see the point of classical singing. heh.
>> Simply because
>> I'm a thight assed perfectionist who can't tolerate the idea of not
>> speaking perfectly a second language.
>
>I couldn't either. I'd hate to have it sound like I was obviously a
>textbook learner or something.
Ah, if only. Even that would be decent. No, I'm talking about trying
to eradicate completely an accent that is completely foreign to the
language I practice.
>It takes a long time to get to idiomatic fluency.
Definitively.
>> This is the worst. Well, the yankee/northern way that is.
>
>Personally I speak Californian, in which, comparatively, I hear no
>accent. We speak a sort of generic-jelly English vs the clear accents I
>hear in New York, Jersey, the south, the midwest, Texas, etc.
I believe, yet I can't say for sure because I never went in Ca, that
you have the most comprehensible accent on this continent.
>> There's also a guy, "Leary" (Tom?), he sings funny tunes and
>> got just the right accent.
>
>Perhaps Denis Leary?
Yes. How would you call his accent? Californian?
>> Someday,
>> I'll bring back pictures and local artifacts.
>
>...from the natives of New York :7 lol...
Yes. I found really odd things in this land, but all were of
corruptible nature, so I couldn't bring'em back home. If I could find
fossilized ones.
>> The only stain on that accent is the impression that they're getting
>> ready to puke.
>
>Oi, I *like* British accents! hehe...
I kind of like it, too. It's an amusing accent. And, as I said, easy
to understand.
>> Still, that's cool, eh? I mean, to notice that you can read a language
>> without translating it.
>
>It was actually a little scary the first time I noticed I was doing it. I
>was like, hey, wait a minute... It never occurred to me how much thinking
>I *don't* do to understand English.
heh Well, I guess that when you're really used to a language, the
"interpreter" is stored as an instinct machine and do all the job for
you.
>> went for ELCM, simply because I
>
>What's ELCM?
Electronic Commerce. I hoped this specific program, shaped in a rather
unique way comparatively to other US ELCM progs would represent a
sufficiently unique program to justify a grant from my provincial
govt. It wasn't the case and everything crashed.
>> It sure is possible, if you manage to understand the
>> primary essence of structured language.
>
>You read Noam Chomsky, don't you?
No. Actually, I ignored who was this guy until I saw him invoked in
several discussion in this n.g. and I still have to read something he
wrote.
>> Maybe can you extend your studies, then? Even while working. You could
>> do it part time, or take summer classes.
>
>Not really. Once you graduate, they don't want to hear from you unless
>you're in a master's program. I'd have to re-apply and re-enroll and all.
>Maybe the community colleges.
How lame. I hope it won't be the case with our govt sponsored system.
But I don't think so, as I know of people who change a often of study
programs.
Alain.
Alain
<sac4...@saclink.csus.edu> wrote:
>It's been rumored that on Fri, 01 Oct 1999 04:39:54 GMT, alainc@planet-
>int.net might have said:
>
>> Well, what's funny? Hmm... When I think of a dude covered with
>> chemicals requiring washing off I think of an highly distressed dude.
>> Hmm.
>
>Perhaps the deadpan mode in which I pictured it being said? "There has
>been a chemical spill, please hose me down." I don't know.
Yep, deadpan type of humour is definitively something I enjoy.
>> I thought it principally originated from some country to the north...
>> (Sweden or Holland?)
>
>Yes, English has a lot of relation to Dutch/Low German as well.
Dutch? Yes, it might be that language I'm talking about.
Alain.
klaatu
>
> Every time I read a.g. there are more and more computer threads,
> hours of people ranting and making in-jokes about operating systems and
> bits of code; so I have to say that it is with a feeling of great relief,
> not to mention a slight but delicious inkling of revenge, that I address
> this delightful post by klaatu, and take my opportunity to be just as
> irritatingly techy and OT. :p ;)
>
> On Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:52:47 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >and the Finno-Ugric, which we will for now ignore since for some bizarre
> >reason, the only people who are in that group are the Finns, the Laplanders,
> >and the Koreans (I have no idea).
>
> Does anyone?
> It's always these wierd ones, the onres that don't fit in, which
> intrigue me the most, but they're so hard to find out about, and rarely
> seem to be taught anywhere.
Heh heh. If I really wanted to learn Korean, I would only have to ask any
local shopkeeper; my neighborhood as one of the higher concentrations. I'm
not entirely sure but I think that just about every Christian church I've
driven past has at least one sign announcing services in the Hangul.
>
> >The Celtic tongues are basically Burgundais (Brugundian, interestingly
> >spoken by more people in Argentina than anyplace else), Welsh, and Gaelic;
>
> Scots Gaelic and Irish Gaelic are more different than their names
> would suggest, and can prove to be mutually unintelligable (at least to
> non linguists). There are also the (mostly) extinct languages Pictish,
> Manx and Cornish; and there's Breton, which is still widely spoken in
> Brittany, although there's no longer anyone who speaks it exclusively.
I've been meaning to ask, what ever _did_ happen to the Picts? I mean, would
you know one if you saw one? without the woad, I mean <grin>.
>
> >the Eastern Empire (Byzantium/Constantinople). Some say that the Romantic
> >influence on the language outside of Italy is greatest in French, others
> >will say that the influence was greatest on Spanish, others will remark that
> >Spanish was also greatly influenced by Spain's two great post-Roman
>
> Didn't Spanish, French and Latin all develop from the same roots
> anyway - that is, from the same proto-language, after Indo-European? My
> specialty is in the Germanic languages, but that's certainly the
> impression I had about the Romance ones.
Well, Latin IIRC was essentially whatever they were speaking in Latium;
originally the Romans were apparently Greeks who had settled in after the
Trojan War, or so the legend has it. Evidently someone recalled that the
Greeks had been literate but evidently nobody in Latium was literate, and
someone cooked up the Latin alphabet from scraps and eventually it became
standardized. The Latin was the local trade language, I gather, originally
not that many were native speakers. I'm a bit confused by the records (Livy
seems himself to be a bit imprecise about it and he's about the earliest
source) and there's that matter of "erasing the Etruscans". But the Gauls
evidently spoke something that might have been not far removed from Gaelic
or Breton or Basque or more-northerly, West German; the Latinization came as
a result of the Roman conquests and subsequent near-universal service in the
mercenaries which conferred citizenship rather than status as a subject.
Since a service leading to heritable citizenship was for (IIRC) some 20
years, those who survived to return home probably spoke Latin better than
they spoke their native tongues. After the Romans basically removed
themselves from the Western Empire, largely the Latin or a bastardized mix
of the local native speech and Latin, remained, as did many of the customs
and certainly the laws (however spottily observed).
>
> >invasions, first by the Goths whose language was entirely Germanic (which is
> >why so many Hispanics have Germanic-derived surnames) and the Moors, whose
>
> Yep - the only East Germanic language (unless one counts the
> related Crimean Gothic as being entirely separate), and a fascinating
> phenomenon linguistically; it sucks that we have so little of it
> preserved.
One Bible, right? Or am I thinking of the other Goths?
>
> >IIRC. They never held Scotland, nor Ireland, which for some reason they
> >evidently totally ignored.
>
> They didn't like the land much; they preferred flat meadows or
> low rolling hills which suited their agricultural style; Scotland's rugged
> hills and mountains would have been a lot of hard work. Ireland might have
> suited them better that way, but it was aggressively defended, and
> considering the extra effort required to mount an invasion across the sea,
> I don't think they considered it worthwhile - it was, after all, a fairly
> small prize. Their settlements near Scotland were frequently raided, and
> they met a lot of armed opposition in those parts, so that they would have
> had to make a lot of effort to invade properly here, for a prize which
> wasn't very valuable to them. I think they were also wary of the
> barbarians living still further north, whose military capability they knew
> to be impressive. Scotland made a useful buffer state.
Plus the Scots themselves were not all that easy to beat, I believe the
Romans referred to them as "demons in skirts". Plus I've got my own
unprovable belief that the Romans, who liked to march in close order with
occasional artillery, might have been rather annoyed to encounter Scots
popping up over the ridge of a hill, placing small stones on little stilts,
and using stick to lob off a volley of holes-in-one.
>
> >Anglo-Saxon English was very much Germanic, the Angles and the Saxons and
> >the Jutes having been invited to England sometime around the 4th through 6th
>
> Yep; low West Germanic, derived from Old Anglian, most closely
> related to Scots and to Dutch, although the differences in pronunciation
> between Present Day English and Dutch tend to cause people difficulty in
> seeing the similarities.
> Scots developed from Old Anglian at about the same time, on
> account of the same invasion; it swerved away from English because it was
> more heavily (and more immediately) influenced by the scandinavian
> languages, while English was exposed to French influences that Scotland
> never encountered.
Which would be probably why it's got so much more of that generic German
gutterality, especially with the preservation of the "ough" type thingy.
>
> >The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
> >powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
>
> Linguistically I would say they were civilising. :) They also
> had a marked influence in terms of improved hygeine (any seafaring people
> tend to learn this early on), and they exported some valuable farming
> techniques useful in hilly areas such as those the Romans had avoided.
Right, I guess the Romans themselves, who were known for their Baths, hadn't
gotten the message across...
>
> >England. Over the next three centuries or so, eventually English returned to
> >its primacy, or perhaps it's better said that the Norman French of England
> >and the old Saxon Low-Germanic language "English" had so entertwined as to
> >be hardly distinguishable. But until probably the tenth century, the Saxon
>
> One does find, however, that in the Middle English period
> writers develop an awareness of the differences between words of Latin,
> French and Germanic origin, usuing them, respectively, for academic,
> courtly and common considerations; for intellectually important, socially
> important and vulgar matters.
That is in fact an important distinction.
> Germanic words were quite stigmatised, and
> to an extent this still hold true. I remember a recent thread where people
> were asserting that Germanic phonemes were inherently 'uglier' than
> Romance ones, and I thought, "Oooh, you victims of fifteenth century
> fashion, you!"
>
> >essentially untaught, which leads to some of the inconsistencies of modern
> >english spelling, for instance, we no longer differentiate between the
> >"thorn" (hard "th") and the softer "th" in our character-set, we
>
> Part of this - and the absense of characters like ash and yog -
> can be blamed on the Italian and southern German manufactured printing
> presses which didn't include those letters, causing publishers to make
> substitutions, as a result of which virtually no-one can now pronounce the
> writer Iain Banks' middle name, and little old women in small seaside
> towns paint 'Ye Olde Tea-Shoppe' above their cafeterias and proceed to
> prnounce it in an embarrassingly ignorant way.
What _is_ Iain Banks middle name?
>
> >Even modern anglophiles and students of the language will admit that
> >"considered as a representation of the spoken language, the present English
> >orthography is one of the most unsatisfactory in existence". Also, there is
>
> It certainly is. It's a complete mess. However, a complete mess
> is always a delight to the historian. :) It's neat things which conceal
> their secrets best.
>
> >case; it drives many Latins into a frenzy of inarticulacy because there are
> >a dozen ways to express the same thought without any of them being totally
> >precise and few of them permitting elegance; it drives Germanics into
>
> It's the enormous variety of English which makes it such an
> attractive language to me. I like Russian in the same way, but find a lot
> of other (European) languages rather limiting.
>
> >the tenses any decent orderly language would have; it drives Russians into
> >frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary and the
> >need for a direct article in order to make any complex sentence
>
> Oh yes. I thoroughly agree with them on that one. It's silly,
> unnecessary and annoying, a total waste of space.
Is not having good sense, dahlingk.
>
> >English have gotten almost used to it, and it drives the English mad because
> >the Americans clearly haven't even tried, and have further bastardized the
> >language by adopting any old word from any old place at the slightest
> >excuse, and considering it mainstream language and generally adopting it as
> >such within a decade or less.
>
> What annoys me about American English is more its tendancy to
> mess about with morphemes, rather than whole words. I dislike the habit of
> taking, say, a Romance morpheme and Germanic one and just stcking them
> together to make a word. It defeats the whole point of the logic systems
> on which those language groups are based. It does, indeed, bastardise the
> language further, such that it will be even harder for future generations
> to make sense of.
Heh heh heh. That is rather evil innit! Then again, if you want to toss out
a truly lovely example of how to baffle future historians, we could bring up
Cockney Rhyming Slang...
> By the way, Klaatu, I'm currently conducting a small private
> investigation into the syllable 'wind'/'wend', and I was advised that you
> may be able to help me. There is no consensus, and little theory, as to
> where the syllable comes from, but my guess is that it belonged to the
> Inuit, as its path through Europe seems to have been from the north, and
> then there's the Native American word 'windigo', which has some similar
> connotations. Unfortunately I don't know much about Native American
> languages and am unable to find much in the way of useful scholarly work
> on them with the material I have available to me here. Do you have any
> contacts, information or ideas?
Well, here's someone who might be able to direct you best, see
http://web.anthro.ufl.edu/profhardman.html
Right up your alley, I'd guess, in general -- though her linguistic
concentration appears to be more on the natives of the American Southwest
(Yaqui, etc) she could probably direct you quickly to whoever is expert on
the northern language groups.
>
> Jennie
>
> --
> Jennie Kermode http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/jennie jen...@innocent.com
--
klaatu
>
> On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 14:03:59 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >Alain wrote:
> >> But I know that there's a Scandinavian language that is much more
> >> close to english than any other language. I know it for having read
> >> some bits of it, in various n.g.'s and having been stunned by the fact
> >> I could almost understand it. With much more ease than I would with
> >> german.
> >
> >Yeah, that's Icelandic.
>
> No, I'm sure it's not that.. It's a much older country. Hmm... If only
> I could remember. Remark, Icelandic might be pretty close to english,
> for what I know, but it's definitively not the language I was talking
> about. Which makes me think.... Iceland, what an interesting
> mini-country. Their population rappidly reached the 2-250k mark, then
> they've been stable for centuries. No significant increases nor
> decreases. It's definitively a place I'd like to visit. Not the
> widlerness, naturally, their urban life that is. Reyjavick(sp).
I _was_ going to say something like "well, I hope you like the cold" but
then I remembered, hey, he's Canadian... Also very interesting, Iceland has
always kept these extremely meticuous family records, probably necessary
when you're on such a small island so far away from anyoen else.
<snips>
> > Nouvelle
> >France of the 1600s was a wild land mostly, but it could as easily have been
> >Neu Danmark. Had the "little ice age" of the 1300s-1500s not destroyed the
> >settlements in Greenland,
>
> What a shock they had when they found out that this greenland was only
> a land of endless rock. heh I don't remember for sure, but I believe
> that it almost killed their desire to go forward with their
> exploration.
Nah, as I understand it, Greenland was in fact green with vegetation at the
time, but the combination of thin soil, poor soil-husbandry, and the "little
ice age" did them in, they lost most of the topsoil pretty quickly I think.
>
> >it would have been the perfect steppingstone to
> >the Americas, and in fact in Newfoundland there are the ruins of a first
> >Euro colony in the Americas.
>
> Yes and it's believed that they've been attacked by natives and almost
> if not completely decimated.
>
> >The Vikings were such powerful seamen and
> >boatbuilders, but they hadn't the skill of tacking (I think) and thus they
> >couldn't sail south against the Gulfstream current to the warmer climates
> >and in any case probably would have been destroyed by the Bay of Fundy had
> >they followed their pattern of exploring by hugging the coast. But it is a
> >fact that Leif Ericson and others of his generation would set out westering,
>
> I've heard of interesting rumours about viking exploration in south
> america, actually. Some people believe so and all I can remember of it
> is that they found proofs of nordic type of people in mountainous
> areas. Their thoraxic cage have, if I remember well, increased in
> size, comparatively to people living on more flat lands, which would
> indicate that those people lived for quite a few generations before
> extinction, to be able to experience such an adaptive change.
> There was something about the boats/rafts used, but I dont' remember
> what.
Um, "Kennewick Man", found in BC I think, has very european features but
isn't at all any "pure type".
There are also some weirdnesses in the northeastern US, in Connecticut or
some place, basically the old Ogham Script used by the Druids and other
literate Celts has been found on megaliths of the same age as Stonehenge.
>
> >> The technique they employed in Gaul was rather impressing for the
> >> time. They simply assimilated the savages by "stealing" their women.
> >> The legionnaires came in, took women and the product of such unions
> >> was what we know today as french. The males were enrolled in the
> >> legion and sent in other provinces and conquest campaigns.
> >
> >And for what it's worth, they earned citizenship thereby.
>
> Yes, it definitively was easier to be tolerated by the locals if some
> of their were part of the deal and that the local blood was flowing in
> such unions' kids'veins.
Sure. Well, it's sort of like why you can't conquer China, even if you take
over some way, in three generations the invaders have been absorbed into the
population.
>
> >> And certain elements of their accent, too. I always thought that
> >> spanish speaking a good french tend to sound a bit like german.
> >
> >Well, for instance -- any time one hears the sound of "J" in English, this
> >is a clue that a word has come from the French; the Germans don't use it,
> >and in fact the Spanish "G" is very much the same as the German, where the
> >French use a "G" much more like the Italians and presumably the Latins.
>
> But the rolling R's are completely absent of french, expect in the
> most northern areas. Yet, this R is found as much in the southern
> countries as in the north.
Actually, some of the upper-class Brits are fond of trilling the R also.
>
> >> Heh... Normans were particularly lucky, geographically speaking, as
> >> they had a weak and coward southern neighbor to plunder every once in
> >> a while, when they needed stuff and, as far as I know, did it quite
> >> often.
> >
> >Well, the Vikings sacked Paris at least three times...
>
> Yeah, with such an ease, such a lack of opposition.
> Which makes me think, vikings had such disgusting habits that they
> managed to shock even the Parisians who, themselves, never had
> particularly honorable hygien habits.
Actually, those Vikings might also have been Berserkers as well, basically
the Berserkers were a cult who would dress up in bearskins and get really
trashed on some sort of plant potion, they would be totally fearless and
believe that they had actually been transformed into bears.
>
> >> It's understandable. This horrible language didn't even lasted four
> >> centuries in Quebec. Simply to harsh for delicate ears. heh
> >
> >Oi, heads up, you silly New Englanders! You've got a country full of French
> >Vikings to the North!
>
> Don't worry, their gut if full of poutine and they are content.
> But, yeah, the yankees certainly noticed the obnoxious and gross
> habits of their french speaking northern neighbors when they come down
> for tourism or cheap food.
Well, if you eat too much poutine, I hear you have to be careful with
sources of flame and sparks, or you will have an explosion. So maybe the
yankees will just keep a candle burning in case of invasion. </sarky>
>
> >> Which is a great thing. Think about it, you've got an easy language,
> >> simple and efficient, yet you still manage to evolve pretty well in
> >> every aspects of a functional society.
> >
> >Well, as the language becomes less structured, it's easier for newcomers to
> >learn, but all of the rules that are needed to say anything complex or
> >"graceful" create problems. For instance, in many languages there is little
> >or no need for "poetic license" to break the rules; one can say something
> >with some grace. But in English, sometimes one must break the rules to say a
> >thing easily.
>
> Give me an example of typical, yet "illegal" bit of "graceful"
> english.
"Gimme that sixpack, willya?"
"Get it yer own damn self!"
>
> >> Man, I don't even understand the practical use of it. Personally, I
> >> hate the soft "th". It's only a tongue buster. And there's always the
> >> risk of spitting in people's faces. heh
> >
> >Nah, that's the hard "th" that coats folks with saliva.
>
> Yeah, now I remember.
>
> >But it is a clue --
> >as to where people's ancestors came from -- about what people will
> >substitute for the "thorn", whether they will default to a "Z" or to a "D".
>
> Yeah, I gave up on that one. In my mouth, it's now a sound that is
> somewhere in the middle of D and T.
>
> >It's really very cruel of English to have the most common sounds be the most
> >difficult for foreign students.
>
> Yes. But it's not that important. I don't think many people are
> obsessing about having it right.
You can say that again!
>
> >When I am feeling very evil I contemplate
> >the necessity of assigning pronunciation homework consisting of recitation
> >of "with which witch was whom, they're not there at their lair, I wonder if
> >they're whaling, but we would hear the wailing".
>
> heh... It's not that hard.
>
> >Plus there are the irregular retentions of the Old German declensions, as in
> >"run/ran" and "shit/shat", "speak/spoke", etc etc.
>
> Shat? Does it truly exist?
Yup. "Ew, yuck, the damn cat shat on the rug again, Mildred!"
>
> >Every once in a while I
> >run across something that is clearly in need of a good declension but I get
> >baffled as to what it might be. Dealing with remote past tenses of "to get"
> >is a great case in point, Americans will use "gotten" with ease in almost
> >any usage, but many British can be seen to visibly wince. The "I've gotten
> >used to it" versus "I had got used to it" versus "I'm long accustomed to
> >it", etc.
>
> Hmm... What's wrong with "I've got used to it"?
Nothing, it's actually probably as correct as can be in most cases, but
sometimes it seems to have more particularity with the "gotten" usage.
> I've seen numerous people using it and therefore adopted it.
> Well, exceot for "I had got..." which means something completely
> different, naturally.
>
> >> Oh well. Like I said, elegance is overrated. Often, I'll use english
> >> to express an idea that I can't express easily in french. So there for
> >> latin languages... heh Sure, with some effort, I might have managed to
> >> express it in french, but probably in a particularly complex way.
> >
> >It's that poetic license thing again.
>
> heh But why be elegant if you can express an idea or a concept in a
> few efficient words?
Why indeed? But you have to remember, we're Goths and elegance is just what
we live for.
>
> >Ah, the old gender agreement thing! It is indeed rather relaxing to not need
> >to remember gender of nouns, except in the odd case such as hurricanes or
> >ships.
>
> Yes, I remember finding it out about english. Sounded weird to me, for
> such a language that is.
I thought it was even weirder to find that in French "moustache" is
feminine.
>
> >> >it drives Russians into
> >> >frenzies of bafflement because of the ridiculously large vocabulary
> >>
> >> Large vocabulary? heh... heheh... What are they thinking of french,
> >> then?
> >
> >Well, they had at one time adopted French as the language of the
> >intelligentsia and of the aristocracy, not only as a matter of fashion, but
> >also because it permitted discussions of much greater sophistication. It is
> >a source of annoyance to many Russians that they cannot begin to counter the
> >accusations of "nyeh culturya" without resorting mostly to words of French
> >origin.
>
> Well, why are they whining about english vocabulary, if they managed
> to get used to french? Lots of english words have an almost identical
> french counterpart, with only the ending, or very minor details being
> different.
Right, once again, the Norman invasion. I think what would annoy the
Russians is that if it's an embarassment to have to import words from
French, it's worse to import from English what English imported partially
from French.
>
> >> Standardized way? Give me an example...
> >
> >Well, "tough", "cough", or the old standard of "eggs", which last word is
> >unquestionably Danish or Norse. There's a rather famous old discourse from
> >about the time of Chaucer as to how to spell "eggs", to the effect of "and
> >would ye wot thy fasten broek, be igges, ygges, ygess, or gseyes"? One
> >old-timer even said something to the effect of "it's damned poor mind that
> >can't think of more than one way to spell something". English phonetic
> >spelling rarely corresponds to the spelling one finds in the dictionary.
>
> Ahh that's what you meant by standardized spelling. I thought you were
> talking about some new reform in the spelling rules. Hell,
> standardization was definitively a good thing. heh
>
> >> heh I would be tempted to say "Dumb and lazy yanks", for the sheer
> >> pleasure of it, but I have to agree with'em. Why not adopt a word that
> >> fits in right already instead of inventing something new, simply to
> >> contribute maintaining this language's distinction? I'm one of those
> >> people who envisage an universal language as a good thing.
> >> An even mix of germanic, latin and asian sounds with a african beat.
> >
> >Yo, pardner, roll up your lariat and let's keep them dogies rollin'.
>
> Ahem... By beat, I wasn't talking about style but more rythm in
> pronunciation. heh
> The german are barking, the french are bitting, the english
> yawning/puking, the chinese are mewing, the african sing, etc.
Hey, what I think is funny is that most Rap is rhymed in the iambic
pentameter, which is what Shakespeare wrote most of his play in .....
>
> >What drives me mad, personally, is this modern US insistence and in fact
> >glorification of a dangled participle. But as in the word of Churchill,
> >"this business of never dangling the participle is something up with which I
> >will not put".
>
> heh It's the second time (but I give you that : it occured about a
> year ago) that you use that quote on me ;)
Well, it's _the_ classic of how to speak properly while making no sense.
<snips>
Pax
> Jennie Kermode wrote:
>>
<SNIP-o-mania>
> I've been meaning to ask, what ever _did_ happen to the Picts? I mean, would
> you know one if you saw one? without the woad, I mean <grin>.
You know, that's a damn good question. As best I could ever find out,
the answer would be "we're not sure". Best theory I've seen is basically:
Scots on one side, Irish on the other, Norse raiding from the top, and
Romans advancing from the bottom- and a seeming inability to ally with
any of the above. So in essence it seems to have been "pig pile on the
Picts". The bits left over got absorbed by the Irish and the Scots.
Although, oddly enough, Robert E. Howard decided all the Picts were
little, stocky brown people. Never quite figured that one out.
Of course, we might've known more if the bastards had bothered to keep
written histories, but oh no, spent too much time painting themselves
funny colors (apparently, black and red sometimes as well as blue) and
fighting with everyone who wasn't a Pict.
~Pax
Who was rather ticked, when researching Picts, to find most of the
source material saying "We don't know jack, but dig these nifty
designs we found!"
Alain
>Alain wrote:
>> No, I'm sure it's not that.. It's a much older country. Hmm... If only
>> I could remember. Remark, Icelandic might be pretty close to english,
>> for what I know, but it's definitively not the language I was talking
>> about. Which makes me think.... Iceland, what an interesting
>> mini-country. Their population rappidly reached the 2-250k mark, then
>> they've been stable for centuries. No significant increases nor
>> decreases. It's definitively a place I'd like to visit. Not the
>> widlerness, naturally, their urban life that is. Reyjavick(sp).
>
>I _was_ going to say something like "well, I hope you like the cold" but
>then I remembered, hey, he's Canadian...
I hate cold. When it gets under 80F I shiver and I get depressed.
I'm now shivering and depressed and it will be like that all the
winter. Occasionally, I'll be surprised by a short lived happiness
crisis, but I'll mostly be "tolerably" down till april/may.
>Also very interesting, Iceland has
>always kept these extremely meticuous family records, probably necessary
>when you're on such a small island so far away from anyoen else.
surprisingly the island isn't that tiny, which is why I always
wondered why the population is so small. Which makes me think, my
memory was flawed when I said that their current population had been
constant since centuries, as it appears that
"The population of Iceland is supposed to have been around 60-70 000
at around 930 (at the formation of the Althingi) and declined to about
40 000 around 1700. It recovered slowly to ca 50 000 around 1850, 70
000 in 1900 and some 120 000 in 1940 and has more than doubled since
then to some 275 000 to day.", to quote an e-mail I received from the
area.
>> What a shock they had when they found out that this greenland was only
>> a land of endless rock. heh I don't remember for sure, but I believe
>> that it almost killed their desire to go forward with their
>> exploration.
>
>Nah, as I understand it, Greenland was in fact green with vegetation at the
>time, but the combination of thin soil, poor soil-husbandry, and the "little
>ice age" did them in, they lost most of the topsoil pretty quickly I think.
Now, I'm almost sure I've read something else in that book about Leif
Erikson and ancestors written by a Mtler. Naturally, I was wrong about
the population, as I've read it years ago and don't have it anymore...
But I know that there was something about a very disappointing
discover. There was a land promised to be almost an Eden, yet ended up
being a big pile of rock. They left only a few people behind'em, on
their way to another destination, which, I don't remember, either was
already known and settled land, either new land, yet to be
explored/found. Maybe was it Iceland and maybe the new land to be
discovered was it Groenland, then you'd be right. Ah well, my problem
is that my memories about it are old and confuse and concern quite a
few generations of people.
>> I've heard of interesting rumours about viking exploration in south
>> america, actually. Some people believe so and all I can remember of it
>> is that they found proofs of nordic type of people in mountainous
>> areas. Their thoraxic cage have, if I remember well, increased in
>> size, comparatively to people living on more flat lands, which would
>> indicate that those people lived for quite a few generations before
>> extinction, to be able to experience such an adaptive change.
>> There was something about the boats/rafts used, but I dont' remember
>> what.
>
>Um, "Kennewick Man", found in BC I think, has very european features but
>isn't at all any "pure type".
But I'm talking about south america! *That* is exotic. We're talking
about nordic type of folks, there, blond hair and blue eyes. Which
makes me think, if the people who related those stories were not
lying/fabulating, such south american "natives" had to be alive when
they visited the place. Unless, naturally, they merely "heard" of it
from other native tribes.
>There are also some weirdnesses in the northeastern US, in Connecticut or
>some place, basically the old Ogham Script used by the Druids and other
>literate Celts has been found on megaliths of the same age as Stonehenge.
That kind of surprising singularities are interesting. Such things
seem to indicate that folks have travelled over the north and south
atlantic way before even the vikings. There's something about the
Egyptians, too, but I don't remember if it's only vague rumours or
truly stuff found off real documents. Maybe have you heard of this :
Settlers coming from the atlantic ocean, in north africa, becoming
eventually, or integrating themselves into the Egyptians.
A sure thing, the Egyptians had a very special way, like the
Sumerians, to conceive and treat their gods. I mean that mere human
beings, and we're not talking about the more recent Pharaons, were
elevated to this rank after proving themselves worth this standing by
great feats. And I've read things that tend to indicate that their
theology goes pretty far in their past.
>Sure. Well, it's sort of like why you can't conquer China, even if you take
>over some way, in three generations the invaders have been absorbed into the
>population.
Yeah, China, I think, is one of those rare countries, if not the only
one, that could simply not be invaded an controlled for a long time.
Either you integrate yourself and become "them", either you opress and
regulate them till they anhilate you.
>> But the rolling R's are completely absent of french, expect in the
>> most northern areas. Yet, this R is found as much in the southern
>> countries as in the north.
>
>Actually, some of the upper-class Brits are fond of trilling the R also.
Well, it depends of the way they do it. The scot way is strangely
amusing and pleasant. To my french ears, at least. Same for the
Russian accent.
>> Yeah, with such an ease, such a lack of opposition.
>> Which makes me think, vikings had such disgusting habits that they
>> managed to shock even the Parisians who, themselves, never had
>> particularly honorable hygien habits.
>
>Actually, those Vikings might also have been Berserkers as well, basically
>the Berserkers were a cult who would dress up in bearskins and get really
>trashed on some sort of plant potion, they would be totally fearless and
>believe that they had actually been transformed into bears.
Whoever they were, the vikings I'm talking about had very curious
habits. Such as using the same bac of water to wash themselves and
piss (eventually shit, too, if I remember well). This bac was used by
everybody, naturally. Starting with the big boss, descending to the
least of the least who certainly ended bathing in a semi-liquid bath
of disgusting nature. Parisians were horrified, probably more by that
than by the bloodthirsty barbary.
>> Don't worry, their gut if full of poutine and they are content.
>> But, yeah, the yankees certainly noticed the obnoxious and gross
>> habits of their french speaking northern neighbors when they come down
>> for tourism or cheap food.
>
>Well, if you eat too much poutine, I hear you have to be careful with
>sources of flame and sparks, or you will have an explosion. So maybe the
>yankees will just keep a candle burning in case of invasion. </sarky>
Well, it would be merely changing the bad of place. The threat of
asphixy would be eliminated, but then they would end up burnt to a
crisp.
>> Give me an example of typical, yet "illegal" bit of "graceful"
>> english.
>
>"Gimme that sixpack, willya?"
>"Get it yer own damn self!"
Graceful?
>> Yes. But it's not that important. I don't think many people are
>> obsessing about having it right.
>
>You can say that again!
Yes. But it's not that important. I don't think many people are
obsessing about having it right.
heh.
>> Hmm... What's wrong with "I've got used to it"?
>
>Nothing, it's actually probably as correct as can be in most cases, but
>sometimes it seems to have more particularity with the "gotten" usage.
Whaddya mean by "it seems to have more parituclarity with the "gotten"
usage"? Not sure, not at all in fact, that I understand...
Besides, I have to admit that I get kind of confused when I'm faced
with apparently more than one way to say something in english. Simply
because I've got used to it's otherwise general simplicity.
>> heh But why be elegant if you can express an idea or a concept in a
>> few efficient words?
>
>Why indeed? But you have to remember, we're Goths and elegance is just what
>we live for.
I'm not. Fer real.
>> Yes, I remember finding it out about english. Sounded weird to me, for
>> such a language that is.
>
>I thought it was even weirder to find that in French "moustache" is
>feminine.
Yeah, naturally, it can be weirding... But, at least, you're used to
the fact that everything, in french, has a gender... What is weird, in
english, is that is has only a few words with a gender, exceptions, in
a sea of genderless words.
>> Well, why are they whining about english vocabulary, if they managed
>> to get used to french? Lots of english words have an almost identical
>> french counterpart, with only the ending, or very minor details being
>> different.
>
>Right, once again, the Norman invasion. I think what would annoy the
>Russians is that if it's an embarassment to have to import words from
>French, it's worse to import from English what English imported partially
>from French.
Ah, I see... Hmm petty worries, if you want my advice. heh.
France is soon to be an english speaking country, anyway.
>Hey, what I think is funny is that most Rap is rhymed in the iambic
>pentameter, which is what Shakespeare wrote most of his play in .....
Iambic pentameter?
>> heh It's the second time (but I give you that : it occured about a
>> year ago) that you use that quote on me ;)
>
>Well, it's _the_ classic of how to speak properly while making no sense.
Oh, but of course! I knew that it could only be for that very reason
and not merely due to senility! heh...
Alain.
Endymion
> > I've been meaning to ask, what ever _did_ happen to the Picts? I mean,
would
> > you know one if you saw one? without the woad, I mean <grin>.
>
> the answer would be "we're not sure". Best theory I've seen is
basically:
> Scots on one side, Irish on the other, Norse raiding from the top, and
> Romans advancing from the bottom-
The Picts were around long after the Romans left. It was more like Scots
(who were Irish) on one side, Angles on the other, and Norse coming in
later from all directions to finish things off.
> and a seeming inability to ally with
> any of the above. So in essence it seems to have been "pig pile on the
> Picts". The bits left over got absorbed by the Irish and the Scots.
Nothing happened to them physically, they just gradually lost their
language and some of their culture. Jennie & Aidan & our other Scottish
friends probably have as much Pict blood as Irish, Angle, Scandinavian, and
Norman put together (unless their ancestors are from the Isles or the
Border) - the actual number of individuals of each of those groups who
settled in what is now Scotland was never large. The early Scottish kings
married into the Pictish royalty and were styled kings of the Picts and the
Scots for ages, and I suppose finally dropped the "Picts" mainly because of
the language thing.
(Same thing happened in much of England with the Anglo-Saxons - modern
archaeology suggests that the local Britons did not all die or flee to
Wales; the language and culture died out or fled, but the actual people
stayed on and were largely assimilated.)
> Although, oddly enough, Robert E. Howard decided all the Picts were
> little, stocky brown people. Never quite figured that one out.
There have always been odd ideas floating around about the Picts; there's
still some controversy as to whether the language was partly
non-Indo-European, although my impression is that that theory has largely
lost credence.
--
Endymion Bruce.Tuc...@lexis-nexis.com
Defensor Vini et Tabaci et Vitae Nimii
"Here lies one whose name was writ in water."
Endymion
> > Yep - the only East Germanic language (unless one counts the
> > related Crimean Gothic as being entirely separate), and a fascinating
> > phenomenon linguistically; it sucks that we have so little of it
> > preserved.
>
> One Bible, right? Or am I thinking of the other Goths?
That's the one - I believe it was Bishop Ulfilas who translated it. He
essentially had to invent the written language. Shortly after that the
Gothic state moved into the Empire and entered a series of
political/military relationships with the Emperors which resulted in their
switching to Latin for official use, which meant the written Gothic
language never went anywhere.
> > >IIRC. They never held Scotland, nor Ireland, which for some reason
they
> > >evidently totally ignored.
> >
> > They didn't like the land much; they preferred flat meadows or
> > low rolling hills which suited their agricultural style;
This depends on where you're talking about. In England the fertile river
valleys were not heavily farmed during the Roman period, because
Mediterranean tilling methods were better suited to thinner, rocky soils
than to the heavy soils of the valley floors - so the Romans and Celts (who
never developed their own advanced agriculture and used Roman methods)
stuck to the uplands and the river valleys went largely unused until the
Anglo-Saxons brought heavy plows and other techniques recently developed in
their homelands.
> > Scotland's rugged
> > hills and mountains would have been a lot of hard work. Ireland might
have
> > suited them better that way, but it was aggressively defended, and
> > considering the extra effort required to mount an invasion across the
sea,
> > I don't think they considered it worthwhile - it was, after all, a
fairly
> > small prize.Their settlements near Scotland were frequently raided, and
> > they met a lot of armed opposition in those parts, so that they would
have
> > had to make a lot of effort to invade properly here, for a prize which
> > wasn't very valuable to them. I think they were also wary of the
> > barbarians living still further north, whose military capability they
knew
> > to be impressive. Scotland made a useful buffer state.
The fierceness of the opposition was a factor - it meant a huge, expensive
campaign would have been required to conquer the inhabitants - but I think
the lack of anything worth conquering was more of a factor.
After all, there were no natural resources worth taking in Scotland or
Ireland, and no wealthy cities to provide taxes or large populations to
provide mercenaries. And a major difference between Ireland & Scotland and
the Celtic nations which Rome did conquer was that the former were much
more primitive in their food production, living in a dispersed, pastoral
culture which was entirely unsuited for Roman occupation. In short, the
Romans couldn't plop down a colony of retired legionaries to settle and
pacify the place like they could and did everywhere from Gaul to Syria,
because there was no local economy capable of supporting them. Britain and
Gaul had become agricultural to the point where they were suitable for
assimilation; Ireland and Scotland had not.
They also have what can only be the most abominable climate imaginable to
someone from the sunny Mediterranean.
> Plus the Scots themselves were not all that easy to beat, I believe the
> Romans referred to them as "demons in skirts".
I think that's more of a WW1 German reference. The Scots as such did not
exist in Roman times and came in later as raiders from Ireland ("Scoti"
simply means freebooters and is derived from a Gaelic word for plunder); no
one back then wore kilts as we know them, and in fact a Roman military
tunic would probably look more like a dress to us than anything the Celts
wore.
> Plus I've got my own
> unprovable belief that the Romans, who liked to march in close order with
> occasional artillery, might have been rather annoyed to encounter Scots
> popping up over the ridge of a hill, placing small stones on little
stilts,
> and using stick to lob off a volley of holes-in-one.
:-)
Actually the Romans were well used to skirmisher tactics and quite able to
counter them; don't think of the flexible and efficient Roman war machine -
which in its prime was a match for any army anywhere in the world probably
up to the time of Maurice of Nassau and linear musketry tactics - for
something as immobile as a Greek phalanx. The Romans were more than capable
of beating any army the Picts could put in the field, and the campaigned
successfully north of the Firth of Forth on a couple of occasions. The
Picts were fierce but no more so than any number of other barbarians the
Romans subjugated, and they were nowhere near as organized as the Gauls,
who went down in ten years.
> > Scots developed from Old Anglian at about the same time, on
> > account of the same invasion; it swerved away from English because it
was
> > more heavily (and more immediately) influenced by the scandinavian
> > languages,
Of course "English" was never a unified language either before the printing
press and modern communications; a 13th century Yorkshire peasant probably
couldn't understand a Londoner any better than he could a lowland Scot.
> > while English was exposed to French influences that Scotland
> > never encountered.
IIRC by 1200 most of the lowland nobility were Norman, though I imagine
being impossibly far from the London court they probably went native much
quicker than the English nobility.
> > Linguistically I would say they were civilising. :) They
also
> > had a marked influence in terms of improved hygeine (any seafaring
people
> > tend to learn this early on), and they exported some valuable farming
> > techniques useful in hilly areas such as those the Romans had avoided.
>
> Right, I guess the Romans themselves, who were known for their Baths,
hadn't
> gotten the message across...
They did, but it was lost in the 5th and 6th centuries in several waves of
chaos (plague, civil war, resurgence of Briton culture, invasion), and the
Anglo-Saxons either weren't exposed to it or were not inclined to learn
anything from people they were conquering and enslaving.
> > Germanic words were quite stigmatised, and
> > to an extent this still hold true. I remember a recent thread where
people
> > were asserting that Germanic phonemes were inherently 'uglier' than
> > Romance ones, and I thought, "Oooh, you victims of fifteenth century
> > fashion, you!"
To the extent this stigma is still present, it is probably appropriate to a
degree - not so much because French is inherently a more civilized or
refined language, but because the centuries of usage in this pattern mean
two things: one, that we are used to thinking of the different roots this
way, rightly or wrongly, and two, that the incomplete portions of the
languages that have been passed down are the portions which fit the
stereotype - i.e., words that are used for refined intellectual debate in
German probably haven't survived in English.
I don't think it's all stigma either. I have read that in Churchill's most
famous speech - "We shall fight them in the streets, we shall fight them in
the fields... we shall never surrender" - the only word of non-Germanic
origin in that key passage was "surrender". Churchill was using the
stereotype of German words not to indicate crudeness, coarseness, or
vulgarity, but strength, resolve, and stubborn single-mindedness.
I think we're going back over old ground here, because I recall giving this
example before.
> > It certainly is. It's a complete mess. However, a complete
mess
> > is always a delight to the historian. :) It's neat things which
conceal
> > their secrets best.
Exactly! And I delight in the diversity of the language. So many choices
for everything!
> > By the way, Klaatu, I'm currently conducting a small private
> > investigation into the syllable 'wind'/'wend', and I was advised that
you
> > may be able to help me. There is no consensus, and little theory, as to
> > where the syllable comes from, but my guess is that it belonged to the
> > Inuit, as its path through Europe seems to have been from the north,
and
From where in the north though? Are you thinking Inuit - Greenland -
Iceland - Europe or the other way, through Lapland (was there any contact
between there and northeastern Siberia? It's a part of the world whose
history I know nothing about)?
If the former, you'd have to be very careful about dates, as Greenland
wasn't settled by the Norse until around the 12th or 13th century, and
there's no evidence of any contact with Inuit until after that (they were
newcomers to eastern N. America around 1300, having taken that long to
cross the continent, and one theory, in addition to climate changes, for
the failure of the Norse settlement of N. America is that the Norse were
able to compete successfully against American Indians moving north but were
no match for the arctic skills of the encroaching Inuit), and by that time
any new Scandinavian influence on European languages was minimal or
nonexistent. When and where did "wend" first start to appear?
> > then there's the Native American word 'windigo', which has some similar
> > connotations.
Again, I don't think the languages of the Pacific northwest (isn't that
where "windigo" comes from?) are in any way related to Inuit; they diverged
something like 15,000 to 20,000 years ago and only came into contact again
in the last 1,500 years or so. The "Inuit" (IIRC the word really isn't any
more accurate than "Eskimo", since it only applies to certain groups of
this culture) are native to North America, but are otherwise only distantly
related culturally, genetically, and linguistically to "Native Americans"
as they came over from Asia in a much later and separate wave of migration.
Of course it could have been a borrowing for the natives here as well.
> > Unfortunately I don't know much about Native American
> > languages and am unable to find much in the way of useful scholarly
work
> > on them with the material I have available to me here.
My understanding is that linguists hate them because they don't fit neatly
into any organizational scheme - there is only one generally recognized
language family (Na-Dene, in the northwest); the remaining languages can't
be fit into any groupings that someone else can't find major exceptions to,
so the only consensus is that they make up one enormous family whose
languages are as diverse as those of any other continent.
klaatu
>
> klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote
>
<much enlightenment logged but snipped>
>
> Exactly! And I delight in the diversity of the language. So many choices
> for everything!
>
> > > By the way, Klaatu, I'm currently conducting a small private
> > > investigation into the syllable 'wind'/'wend', and I was advised that
> you
> > > may be able to help me. There is no consensus, and little theory, as to
> > > where the syllable comes from, but my guess is that it belonged to the
> > > Inuit, as its path through Europe seems to have been from the north,
> and
>
> From where in the north though? Are you thinking Inuit - Greenland -
> Iceland - Europe or the other way, through Lapland (was there any contact
> between there and northeastern Siberia? It's a part of the world whose
> history I know nothing about)?
Um. "Wendigo" is, IIRC, a legend common to the nations of the Iroquois
Confederacy, the tribes of the western Great Lakes area, I am fairly sure.
BTW -- I seem to recall that "window" comes from something like "vindragr"
(spelling wrong no doubt) meaning "eye of the wind". Now glass evidently
wasn't much in use in the Norse civilization, I suspect, but it may well be
that when it got cold enough so that you had damned-well better block up the
breezeways, one could probably trot out to the lake and hack a nice piece of
clear ice to fit. This is definitely something the Inuit do, but whether
they've always done it (wouldn't surprise me) or learned it from the
"civilized" peoples, I can't say.
>
> If the former, you'd have to be very careful about dates, as Greenland
> wasn't settled by the Norse until around the 12th or 13th century, and
> there's no evidence of any contact with Inuit until after that (they were
> newcomers to eastern N. America around 1300, having taken that long to
> cross the continent, and one theory, in addition to climate changes, for
> the failure of the Norse settlement of N. America is that the Norse were
> able to compete successfully against American Indians moving north but were
> no match for the arctic skills of the encroaching Inuit), and by that time
> any new Scandinavian influence on European languages was minimal or
> nonexistent. When and where did "wend" first start to appear?
>
> > > then there's the Native American word 'windigo', which has some similar
> > > connotations.
>
> Again, I don't think the languages of the Pacific northwest (isn't that
> where "windigo" comes from?) are in any way related to Inuit; they diverged
> something like 15,000 to 20,000 years ago and only came into contact again
> in the last 1,500 years or so. The "Inuit" (IIRC the word really isn't any
> more accurate than "Eskimo",
"esquimaux" is considered distasteful, it means "eaters of raw meat" and
apparently had some connotations of cannibalism, exceptionally insulting to
North American natives.
> since it only applies to certain groups of
> this culture) are native to North America, but are otherwise only distantly
> related culturally, genetically, and linguistically to "Native Americans"
> as they came over from Asia in a much later and separate wave of migration.
> Of course it could have been a borrowing for the natives here as well.
>
> > > Unfortunately I don't know much about Native American
> > > languages and am unable to find much in the way of useful scholarly
> work
> > > on them with the material I have available to me here.
>
> My understanding is that linguists hate them because they don't fit neatly
> into any organizational scheme - there is only one generally recognized
> language family (Na-Dene, in the northwest); the remaining languages can't
> be fit into any groupings that someone else can't find major exceptions to,
> so the only consensus is that they make up one enormous family whose
> languages are as diverse as those of any other continent.
Um. Na-Dine also includes the Apache and the Navajo[1] languages. Many
believe that the Athabascan/Na-Dine speakers were some of the last to
arrive. Possibly there is much greater consistency within the Na-Dine group
of languages due to less time passing in which the languages would fragment
and drift.
Here's something interesting, from
http://native-america.com/models/shannonlynn/ - by Shannonlyn Chester :
"There are over 5,000 languages spoken today, the remnants of an indefinable
number, being related to one another. If one were to travel North, they
would find People who speak in the same dialect as the Navajo and Apache in
the South. These groups comprise the Athapaskan branch of the Na-Dene
language family. The Athapaskan People are scattered from the Arctic Circle
to Mexico, and from the Great Plains to the Pacific. It is from these People
my lineage originates.
"The Navajo, or Diné, have stories about the "other People" in the North.
Navajo elders speak of them as speaking a similar language, having had
apprehensible conversations with them.
"In Canada, there are elders who shared a story with me, a story of a great
separation that occurred thousands of years ago. Long ago, there were a
People who were strong, proud, and numbered many. This group became so
numerous, that one day, it was decided amongst themselves that if they
continued to live together, eventually the natural resources would cease to
provide. There was a meeting held and they pondered for days, while the Sun
traveled from East to West, about what they should do. Finally, they came to
the conclusion that if they were to survive, they must separate, and one
group must venture to the South. It is said that this day was one of immense
sadness. Many tears watered their faces as they knew that some of their
People were traveling to an unknown land, unseen and mysterious. They
thought they would never see one another again, and they reluctantly rent
asunder.
"Those who were strong survived the southern journey, and are now known as
the proud Navajo and Apache Nations, and what is happening now is a
reunification between the Northern and Southern Athapaskan People. Being a
Southern Athapaskan Navajo woman, I find strength and determination in this
story, to know that my ancestors are survivors."
Note that the native nations which surround the Diné or Navajo people speak
very dissimilar languages. In particular, as one moves to the South from the
Navajo country, the languages change very radically the farther one moves
into the territories of the old Native Empires... sometimes I suspect that
maybe the Athapaskans just never quite had their empire yet, their turn may
someday come.
Athapaskan languages are considered by man to be descended from some very
old High Tibetan dialects a very very long time ago. A tonal language, with
rising, descending, nasalized and combination accents with full stops and
clicked stops, Diné language is not something you learn easily. It sure
baffled the Japanese in WWII... Say thank you to the Diné next time you see
them, their Codetalkers probably saved years of effort in the Pacific
Theater.
>
> --
> Endymion Bruce.Tuc...@lexis-nexis.com
Footnote:
1. See also http://www.navajoland.com/ (where Alvino Sam does a fantastic
job as cultural emissary to the internet) and also see other links off of
http://www.clark/.net/pub/klaatu/native.html
klaatu
http://www.iaiancad.org/students/dale/ramblings.html
and
http://www.iaiancad.org/students/dale/deforestation.html
????
Especially see the drawings, I think the "inner torment/self infliction
series" speaks for itself. c'mon, we need votes on this one. GAF or GAF?
Rachael
> France is soon to be an english speaking country, anyway.
Didn't the French assemblée nationale pass laws requiring of the media,
companies and advertisers to use French only in order to prevent further
speaking of Franglais?
Rachael
thinking of e-mél for instance
& listening to Wumpscut
--
"Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
Follow me... http://redrival.com/quisquilia/initiatio.htm
Rachael...@gmx.net
Jennie Kermode
response to my post:
>Heh heh. If I really wanted to learn Korean, I would only have to ask any
>local shopkeeper; my neighborhood as one of the higher concentrations. I'm
That's pretty cool. :) I picked up bits of Arabic and Urdu
that way in my youth. I really should get round to taking one of the
courses in Urdu which are run by local libraries from time to time, or
even, if they want me, helping out with teaching English to Urdu speakers
and trying to pick up some of their language in the process.
I love learning new languages. The more I study, the less
overall vocabulary seems to remain in my head (at least easily accessible
stuff) from each, but the structures and the patterns stay with me, which
also tends to make each new language easier to learn. It's like
understanding the maths behind them.
>I've been meaning to ask, what ever _did_ happen to the Picts? I mean, would
>you know one if you saw one? without the woad, I mean <grin>.
There are certain facial characteristics (a wider than average
mouth, a wideness to the cheeks) which seem more common in people of
Pictish descent. I know a small number of people who believe they are
descended from comparatively pure Pictish lines. They are a tiny minority,
however; I guess that, of those Picts who were not simply wiped out, most
interbred to the point where their distinctive features disappeared.
>Well, Latin IIRC was essentially whatever they were speaking in Latium;
>originally the Romans were apparently Greeks who had settled in after the
>Trojan War, or so the legend has it. Evidently someone recalled that the
That would make sense, considering what I know of Hellenic and
Romance languages; it also fits nicely when one considers the mythological
traditions of the two. Of course, Snorri Sturlusson believed that many of
our northern gods and heroic stories have their origins with the Greeks,
but I guess that those Greeks would have travelled so far to get here that
they'd have had considerably less impact in terms of population and wider
culture when they arrived.
>Greeks had been literate but evidently nobody in Latium was literate, and
>someone cooked up the Latin alphabet from scraps and eventually it became
>standardized. The Latin was the local trade language, I gather, originally
Ah; something like the way that Cyrillic was constructed, then?
I must say that, of the alphabets I know, I do tend to prefer
Cyrillic; some of the letters seem unnecessary (where those sounds could
easily be expressed in other ways), but in general I appreciate the wider
range of vowel characters (one or two of which work rather better with
celtic sounds than do their Latin equivalents), and I like the greater
expression offered by the modifying soft and hard signs.
>Since a service leading to heritable citizenship was for (IIRC) some 20
>years, those who survived to return home probably spoke Latin better than
>they spoke their native tongues. After the Romans basically removed
Kind of like the way that English became important among
plantation slaves in the Americas, who were often deliberately selected
from different linguistic backgrounds so as to hamper their ability to
communicate, I suppose.
>> Yep - the only East Germanic language (unless one counts the
>> related Crimean Gothic as being entirely separate), and a fascinating
>> phenomenon linguistically; it sucks that we have so little of it
>> preserved.
>
>One Bible, right? Or am I thinking of the other Goths?
Most of a Bible (it would appear to have been somewhat
selectively translated), and a few religious writings, all by the one guy.
The goths are difficult to research archeologically because they
spent an awful lot of time on the move, so if there are any other
surviving manuscripts, they could be in any number of far flung places.
The frequently nomadic lifestyle also means they were probably less likely
to bother writing things down. It's much harder to keep useful records
like that.
Gothic was spoken by all of the Gothic people, before they
diverged into Ostrogoths and Visigoths, and the remnant which settled in
the Crimea. It would appear that the language too diverged quite a bit
later on, but of course it's hard to find much direct evidence for that.
>unprovable belief that the Romans, who liked to march in close order with
>occasional artillery, might have been rather annoyed to encounter Scots
>popping up over the ridge of a hill, placing small stones on little stilts,
>and using stick to lob off a volley of holes-in-one.
Flat Roman roads and direct marching routes just wouldn't have
been possible in Scotland's landscape, that's for sure.
The Scots also had a tendancy to let armies pursue them into
their lands, then hole up in a fortress somewhere, letting the would-be
invaders struggle outside with the harshness of winter and sometimes with
plagues; a lot of English invaders, for instance, died when they were left
with anthrax-infected cattle as their only available food source, the
healthy cattle having been shut away elsewhere.
>> Scots developed from Old Anglian at about the same time, on
>> account of the same invasion; it swerved away from English because it was
>> more heavily (and more immediately) influenced by the scandinavian
>> languages, while English was exposed to French influences that Scotland
>> never encountered.
>
>Which would be probably why it's got so much more of that generic German
>gutterality, especially with the preservation of the "ough" type thingy.
Scots didn't undergo the same vowel shift as English; that is, I
think, partly explained by fashion; the English thought it socially more
impressive to sound like the French, while the Scots still had strong
influence from Scandinavia and Germany communicating that there was
nothing wrong with using the old vowels. Even the Scottish Standard
English which is the most widely spoken language here today (though not
necessarily the first language of most people) tends to involve a lowering
of the vowels two stages back from their RP English equivalents.
>> >The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
>> >powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
>>
>> Linguistically I would say they were civilising. :) They also
>> had a marked influence in terms of improved hygeine (any seafaring people
>> tend to learn this early on), and they exported some valuable farming
>> techniques useful in hilly areas such as those the Romans had avoided.
>
>Right, I guess the Romans themselves, who were known for their Baths, hadn't
>gotten the message across...
Not in the long term, they hadn't. It was well 'known' in
medieval English society, for instance, that one was safer from disease if
one's skin was covered by a protective layer of dirt. Most invaders
referred to the English as 'smelly'. In Scotland, by contrast, Edinburgh
is still affectionately known as 'Auld Reekie', because the rural
lowlanders kept themselves pretty clean, sufficiently that they noticed
the city folk smelled awful. ;)
>> Part of this - and the absense of characters like ash and yog -
>> can be blamed on the Italian and southern German manufactured printing
>> presses which didn't include those letters, causing publishers to make
>> substitutions, as a result of which virtually no-one can now pronounce the
>> writer Iain Banks' middle name, and little old women in small seaside
>> towns paint 'Ye Olde Tea-Shoppe' above their cafeterias and proceed to
>> prnounce it in an embarrassingly ignorant way.
>
>What _is_ Iain Banks middle name?
Menzies. He doesn't use it all the time though. He says that
while at school he developed a habit of writing sometimes just two names,
sometimes three and sometimes two with an initial on exam papers and work
that he handed in, so it would be easier to pretend it belonged to someone
else if he did badly. :)
>Heh heh heh. That is rather evil innit! Then again, if you want to toss out
>a truly lovely example of how to baffle future historians, we could bring up
>Cockney Rhyming Slang...
I have tried for many years to get the hang of that, but it
still baffles me on occasion. I guess I ought to start watching awful
London soap operas. ;)
>> By the way, Klaatu, I'm currently conducting a small private
>> investigation into the syllable 'wind'/'wend', and I was advised that you
>> may be able to help me. There is no consensus, and little theory, as to
>
>Well, here's someone who might be able to direct you best, see
>http://web.anthro.ufl.edu/profhardman.html
Thankyou. :) That looks extremely useful; I'll check it out
as soon as I can get back on the web. It's much appreciated.
Darkamber
>Actually, those Vikings might also have been Berserkers as well, basically
>the Berserkers were a cult who would dress up in bearskins and get really
>trashed on some sort of plant potion, they would be totally fearless and
>believe that they had actually been transformed into bears.
>
It's believed the Berserkers ate a poisonous toadstool (fly amaniya or
fly agaric). I'm not really sure that they were a cult, though, and
there wasn't raiding parties consisting only of Berserkers. AFAIK a
few Berserkers could be in a raiding party - but soemone eventually
had to restrain them - think I read somewhere that if those they
raided were all killed before the effect of the toadstool wore of, the
Berserkers could turn on their own.
--Darkamber
----------------------------------------
"He questioned softly why I failed,
'For beauty' I replied."
-Emily Dickinson
To e-mail, remove the obvious part...
URL: http://www.uio.no/~elinbs/darkamber
----------------------------------------
Darkamber
>Whoever they were, the vikings I'm talking about had very curious
>habits. Such as using the same bac of water to wash themselves and
>piss (eventually shit, too, if I remember well). This bac was used by
>everybody, naturally. Starting with the big boss, descending to the
>least of the least who certainly ended bathing in a semi-liquid bath
>of disgusting nature. Parisians were horrified, probably more by that
>than by the bloodthirsty barbary.
>
This goes against anything I've ever read about the Vikings! Sure, in
winter they would bath in the same tub, using the same water, but they
did not pee or crap in it. Most of the year they bathed in the nearest
river or lake.
Endymion
> >Parisians were horrified, probably more by that
> >than by the bloodthirsty barbary.
> >
> This goes against anything I've ever read about the Vikings! Sure, in
> winter they would bath in the same tub, using the same water, but they
> did not pee or crap in it. Most of the year they bathed in the nearest
> river or lake.
If anything the 9th century Parisians were probably just horrified by the
idea of bathing. Some things never change.
Alain
wrote:
>Alain scripsit:
>
>> France is soon to be an english speaking country, anyway.
>
>companies and advertisers to use French only in order to prevent further
>speaking of Franglais?
Frenglish, in english, franglais, en francais and franglish pour the
biligual (or would it be frenglais?)... heh
Yeah. Do you think it worked? I bet that when you watch TF1 you still
hear lots of english words. But, nah, I wasn't even talking about this
use of english words but more about the why of it.
There's, in France, be it from provincials or supposedly proud and
arrogant Parisians this fascination for everything that is American
and, in a lesser way, English. And, unfortunately (for them, as I
enjoy this decrepitude like I would enjoy a good humour show), the
tackiest, the crappiest part of it is what seem to catch their
attention the most.
The same thing almost happened with Quebec, in the 70-80s ("Les
Amaricains! Eux-aut'ils l'ont l'affaire!" heh) but, apparently, this
exacerbated [fanatic] Quebec "nationalism" that I grown to loathe, for
other reasons, did something good in this regard.
Personally, I think french will die, sooner or later, just like the
rigid latin did, and I don't have a problem with it, even if it was to
happen as I'm still alive, but I hope that this change wouldn't come
from a cultural surrender but more from a need for efficiency.
Alain.
klaatu
> >habits. Such as using the same bac of water to wash themselves and
> >piss (eventually shit, too, if I remember well). This bac was used by
> >everybody, naturally. Starting with the big boss, descending to the
> >least of the least who certainly ended bathing in a semi-liquid bath
> >of disgusting nature. Parisians were horrified, probably more by that
> >than by the bloodthirsty barbary.
> >
> winter they would bath in the same tub, using the same water, but they
> did not pee or crap in it. Most of the year they bathed in the nearest
> river or lake.
Actually, I think it was the Huns or perhaps the Mongols who did the icky
thing.
>
> --Darkamber
klaatu
>
> On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 16:10:34 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote in
> response to my post:
> >Heh heh. If I really wanted to learn Korean, I would only have to ask any
> >local shopkeeper; my neighborhood as one of the higher concentrations. I'm
>
> That's pretty cool. :) I picked up bits of Arabic and Urdu
> that way in my youth. I really should get round to taking one of the
> courses in Urdu which are run by local libraries from time to time, or
> even, if they want me, helping out with teaching English to Urdu speakers
> and trying to pick up some of their language in the process.
Eh, you don't just "pick up" the Korean language; for one, the rules are far
more different from western languages than western languages differ from
most african languages. What korean I know dates back more than 20 years
from when I was studying Tang Su Do -- basically I can count from one to ten
and know the names of some body parts in various configurations. HArdly the
basis for conversation, though I do occasionally have words pop out at me...
> I love learning new languages. The more I study, the less
> overall vocabulary seems to remain in my head (at least easily accessible
> stuff) from each, but the structures and the patterns stay with me, which
> also tends to make each new language easier to learn. It's like
> understanding the maths behind them.
Lucky you, I _still_ can't make neads nor tails of spoken French, Spanish
still baffles me though less so than French when it comes to understanding
it as spoken -- but I can at least read some French but no Spanish. Even
more bizarre, due to having had a Navajo nanny when I was a wee tyke, I can
sort of understand spoken Navajo... when it's baby-talk. Not very useful.
But what's really odd is that I have no problem hearing every syllable, and
can repeat stuff fairly accurately without too much trouble. But I dispair
of ever really "getting it" even were I to study it.
>
> >I've been meaning to ask, what ever _did_ happen to the Picts? I mean, would
> >you know one if you saw one? without the woad, I mean <grin>.
>
> There are certain facial characteristics (a wider than average
> mouth, a wideness to the cheeks) which seem more common in people of
> Pictish descent. I know a small number of people who believe they are
> descended from comparatively pure Pictish lines. They are a tiny minority,
> however; I guess that, of those Picts who were not simply wiped out, most
> interbred to the point where their distinctive features disappeared.
>
> >Well, Latin IIRC was essentially whatever they were speaking in Latium;
> >originally the Romans were apparently Greeks who had settled in after the
> >Trojan War, or so the legend has it. Evidently someone recalled that the
>
> That would make sense, considering what I know of Hellenic and
> Romance languages; it also fits nicely when one considers the mythological
> traditions of the two. Of course, Snorri Sturlusson believed that many of
> our northern gods and heroic stories have their origins with the Greeks,
> but I guess that those Greeks would have travelled so far to get here that
> they'd have had considerably less impact in terms of population and wider
> culture when they arrived.
Hrm -- Gibbons has some fairly fascinating ruminations on the religions of
the non-Romans at the time of the Empire, most of it comes from Tacitus
though, and while he's said to be a good source he's also clearly not
impartial, and evidently found many of the non-hellenoroman pagan practices
abominable, especially their system of (essentially) Druidic justice. BTW --
I don't see a whole lot of similarity between Odin and Zeus, but the bit
with the Fates (or Norns, or"weird sisters") I would agree is suspiciously
similar.
>
> >Greeks had been literate but evidently nobody in Latium was literate, and
> >someone cooked up the Latin alphabet from scraps and eventually it became
> >standardized. The Latin was the local trade language, I gather, originally
>
> Ah; something like the way that Cyrillic was constructed, then?
> I must say that, of the alphabets I know, I do tend to prefer
> Cyrillic; some of the letters seem unnecessary (where those sounds could
> easily be expressed in other ways), but in general I appreciate the wider
> range of vowel characters (one or two of which work rather better with
> celtic sounds than do their Latin equivalents), and I like the greater
> expression offered by the modifying soft and hard signs.
I'd sort of love to re-do the English symbology, but that would make
researching older stuff even more of a chore than it already is, and imagine
the annoyance of learning a totally new system, for all of the worldwide
anglophones! Besides, nobody would ever agree on which system to use.
>
> >Since a service leading to heritable citizenship was for (IIRC) some 20
> >years, those who survived to return home probably spoke Latin better than
> >they spoke their native tongues. After the Romans basically removed
>
> Kind of like the way that English became important among
> plantation slaves in the Americas, who were often deliberately selected
> from different linguistic backgrounds so as to hamper their ability to
> communicate, I suppose.
>
> >> Yep - the only East Germanic language (unless one counts the
> >> related Crimean Gothic as being entirely separate), and a fascinating
> >> phenomenon linguistically; it sucks that we have so little of it
> >> preserved.
> >
> >One Bible, right? Or am I thinking of the other Goths?
>
> Most of a Bible (it would appear to have been somewhat
> selectively translated), and a few religious writings, all by the one guy.
> The goths are difficult to research archeologically because they
> spent an awful lot of time on the move, so if there are any other
> surviving manuscripts, they could be in any number of far flung places.
> The frequently nomadic lifestyle also means they were probably less likely
> to bother writing things down. It's much harder to keep useful records
> like that.
> Gothic was spoken by all of the Gothic people, before they
> diverged into Ostrogoths and Visigoths, and the remnant which settled in
> the Crimea. It would appear that the language too diverged quite a bit
> later on, but of course it's hard to find much direct evidence for that.
Well, by the time any were literate, they'd probably learned to speak Latin.
So by default, I would expect that they might simply fake it out in Latinate
characters. And as you say, they would be on the move commonly, and there'd
be no need for writing, as initially writing is mainly to provide records of
sales and deeds...
>
> >unprovable belief that the Romans, who liked to march in close order with
> >occasional artillery, might have been rather annoyed to encounter Scots
> >popping up over the ridge of a hill, placing small stones on little stilts,
> >and using stick to lob off a volley of holes-in-one.
>
> Flat Roman roads and direct marching routes just wouldn't have
> been possible in Scotland's landscape, that's for sure.
> The Scots also had a tendancy to let armies pursue them into
> their lands, then hole up in a fortress somewhere, letting the would-be
> invaders struggle outside with the harshness of winter and sometimes with
> plagues; a lot of English invaders, for instance, died when they were left
> with anthrax-infected cattle as their only available food source, the
> healthy cattle having been shut away elsewhere.
Ah, yes, I don't think Scotland is someplace I'd try to invade during
winter.
>
> >> Scots developed from Old Anglian at about the same time, on
> >> account of the same invasion; it swerved away from English because it was
> >> more heavily (and more immediately) influenced by the scandinavian
> >> languages, while English was exposed to French influences that Scotland
> >> never encountered.
> >
> >Which would be probably why it's got so much more of that generic German
> >gutterality, especially with the preservation of the "ough" type thingy.
>
> Scots didn't undergo the same vowel shift as English; that is, I
> think, partly explained by fashion; the English thought it socially more
> impressive to sound like the French, while the Scots still had strong
> influence from Scandinavia and Germany communicating that there was
> nothing wrong with using the old vowels. Even the Scottish Standard
> English which is the most widely spoken language here today (though not
> necessarily the first language of most people) tends to involve a lowering
> of the vowels two stages back from their RP English equivalents.
Um, which Scottish is it that has the infamously cryptic:
"oo?" "aye, oo." "a oo?" "aye, a oo". ??
>
> >> >The Norsemen ("northmen"), largely driven to Viking or to conquest, were a
> >> >powerful if not exactly civilizing influence on all of Europe from roughly
> >>
> >> Linguistically I would say they were civilising. :) They also
> >> had a marked influence in terms of improved hygeine (any seafaring people
> >> tend to learn this early on), and they exported some valuable farming
> >> techniques useful in hilly areas such as those the Romans had avoided.
> >
> >Right, I guess the Romans themselves, who were known for their Baths, hadn't
> >gotten the message across...
>
> Not in the long term, they hadn't. It was well 'known' in
> medieval English society, for instance, that one was safer from disease if
> one's skin was covered by a protective layer of dirt. Most invaders
> referred to the English as 'smelly'. In Scotland, by contrast, Edinburgh
> is still affectionately known as 'Auld Reekie', because the rural
> lowlanders kept themselves pretty clean, sufficiently that they noticed
> the city folk smelled awful. ;)
And en-masse, I expect they smelled considerably icky from quite a ways
away...
<ye snippyes>
>
> Jennie
>
> --
> Jennie Kermode http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/jennie jen...@innocent.com
--
Rachael
> On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 17:55:57 +0100, Rachael wrote:
>
>> Alain scripsit:
>>
>>> France is soon to be an english speaking country, anyway.
>>
>> dia, companies and advertisers to use French only in order to prevent
>> further speaking of Franglais?
>
> Frenglish, in english, franglais, en francais and franglish pour the
> biligual (or would it be frenglais?)... heh
Is cuma liom. [1]
> Yeah. Do you think it worked? I bet that when you watch TF1 you still
> hear lots of english words. But, nah, I wasn't even talking about this
> use of english words but more about the why of it.
I doubt that laws and regulations are able to make people aware of
their loss of their *own* culture and language. It is more a matter
of education to give them not only cultural identy but also a way
to relate to it without nationalism.
> There's, in France, be it from provincials or supposedly proud and
> arrogant Parisians this fascination for everything that is American
> and, in a lesser way, English. And, unfortunately (for them, as I
> enjoy this decrepitude like I would enjoy a good humour show), the
> tackiest, the crappiest part of it is what seem to catch their
> attention the most.
Many Europeans think of English not only as lingua franca, as a language
to be used in international trade/politics/cooperation, many think of it
as being young and modern, as a proof for being cosmopolitan. It is this
way of thinking that ought to be changed. JMO.
> The same thing almost happened with Quebec, in the 70-80s ("Les
> Amaricains! Eux-aut'ils l'ont l'affaire!" heh) but, apparently, this
> exacerbated [fanatic] Quebec "nationalism" that I grown to loathe, for
> other reasons, did something good in this regard.
While I am convinced that everyone should be able to speak at least two
foreign laguages besides one's own mother tongue, and that English is
certainly designated to be used on international level, it really makes
me sad to watch the beauty and diversity of European languages decline.
I'm not in favour of nationalism (which I in fact consider a concept
of the late 19th century), but I like cultural diversity and competition
to remain a spring of new ideas and concepts (may it be in politics,
literature etc). Every European tongue reflects a cultural tradition,
a whole complex of history, society, politics that should not be washed
away by adopting *unneccessary* anglicisms.
> Personally, I think french will die, sooner or later, just like the
> rigid latin did, and I don't have a problem with it, even if it was to
> happen as I'm still alive, but I hope that this change wouldn't come
> from a cultural surrender but more from a need for efficiency.
I don't agree. Take a look at France & Germany. Both countries and
cultures have been intertwined for centuries and have benefited from
the differences in between. Both the languages included words that
described objects/entities/concepts that were not known in the respec-
tive culture. Filling up gaps in one's native language is a wonderful
way to broaden its cultural background. But the American English being
adopted without any reflection on one's own language's variability makes
its users unaware of its beauty and possibilities. It is in fact cultu-
ral surrender. Just think of Germans and French again. They often nowa-
days need English to interact, which I consider a very sad fact.
Rachael
Ní furus do Ghadhil an Béarla labhairt go ceart.
& listening to Schostakowitsch
[1] It's all the same to me. ;)
Alain
>Darkamber wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 04 Oct 1999 13:19:12 GMT, ala...@planet-int.net (Alain) wrote:
>>
>> >Whoever they were, the vikings I'm talking about had very curious
>> >habits. Such as using the same bac of water to wash themselves and
>> >piss (eventually shit, too, if I remember well). This bac was used by
>> >everybody, naturally. Starting with the big boss, descending to the
>> >least of the least who certainly ended bathing in a semi-liquid bath
>> >of disgusting nature. Parisians were horrified, probably more by that
>> >than by the bloodthirsty barbary.
>> >
>> This goes against anything I've ever read about the Vikings! Sure, in
>> winter they would bath in the same tub, using the same water, but they
>> did not pee or crap in it. Most of the year they bathed in the nearest
>> river or lake.
>
>Actually, I think it was the Huns or perhaps the Mongols who did the icky
>thing.
Noooooo! Seriously, stop making me feel senile. I'm sure I've read it
about the vikings, not the huns. Oh hell, from now my eyes are closed,
I shall not tolerate anymore this seed of doubt about my memory that
you're trying to implant in my brain.
Aside this, I wonder what a meeting between the huns and the vikings
would have looked like. Now that would have been something to watch
from an observatory tower.
Alain.
Alain
wrote:
>Alain scripsit:
>> Frenglish, in english, franglais, en francais and franglish pour the
>> biligual (or would it be frenglais?)... heh
>
>Is cuma liom. [1]
Bah. I'm much more picky.
>> Yeah. Do you think it worked? I bet that when you watch TF1 you still
>> hear lots of english words. But, nah, I wasn't even talking about this
>> use of english words but more about the why of it.
>
>I doubt that laws and regulations are able to make people aware of
>their loss of their *own* culture and language.
Naturally not. If the audimat wanna hear english stuff, then they will
get to hear english stuff. The broadcasting medias will simply find
their way around the regulations.
>It is more a matter
>of education to give them not only cultural identy but also a way
>to relate to it without nationalism.
Which is a pretty hard thing to achieve. But, basically, give'em
"good" stuff and they'll go for it. Well, except a certain layer of
society that is conditioned to merely react in a sheepish way to some
icons.
>> There's, in France, be it from provincials or supposedly proud and
>> arrogant Parisians this fascination for everything that is American
>> and, in a lesser way, English. And, unfortunately (for them, as I
>> enjoy this decrepitude like I would enjoy a good humour show), the
>> tackiest, the crappiest part of it is what seem to catch their
>> attention the most.
>
>Many Europeans think of English not only as lingua franca, as a language
>to be used in international trade/politics/cooperation, many think of it
>as being young and modern, as a proof for being cosmopolitan. It is this
>way of thinking that ought to be changed. JMO.
Not only the language, alas. The products, the image carried by the
nationality of said products. Don't tell me you didn't witnessed this
french frenesy for stereotypically merkin stuff. The more sterotypical
it is, the more it'll be successful. I seen some of it in german
flicks too, so I guess germans are in the same trap aswell, yet maybe
not as baddly as the french.
>> The same thing almost happened with Quebec, in the 70-80s ("Les
>> Amaricains! Eux-aut'ils l'ont l'affaire!" heh) but, apparently, this
>> exacerbated [fanatic] Quebec "nationalism" that I grown to loathe, for
>> other reasons, did something good in this regard.
>
>While I am convinced that everyone should be able to speak at least two
>foreign laguages besides one's own mother tongue,
That's not that easy. I mean even practically, that is. Lots of
allophones in Mtl who are trying to master both official languages of
the country get rather confused, linguistically speaking, especially
in their childhood.
>and that English is
>certainly designated to be used on international level, it really makes
>me sad to watch the beauty and diversity of European languages decline.
>
>I'm not in favour of nationalism (which I in fact consider a concept
>of the late 19th century), but I like cultural diversity and competition
>to remain a spring of new ideas and concepts (may it be in politics,
>literature etc).
Cultural competion is basically similar to nationalism as much as
competion between two cities on the ground of some sport is.
>Every European tongue reflects a cultural tradition,
>a whole complex of history, society, politics that should not be washed
>away by adopting *unneccessary* anglicisms.
Bah, our opinions diverge radically here. In fact, I'm not even for
adoption of anglicisms but radical conversion to the whole language..
heh
>> Personally, I think french will die, sooner or later, just like the
>> rigid latin did, and I don't have a problem with it, even if it was to
>> happen as I'm still alive, but I hope that this change wouldn't come
>> from a cultural surrender but more from a need for efficiency.
>
>I don't agree. Take a look at France & Germany. Both countries and
>cultures have been intertwined for centuries and have benefited from
>the differences in between. Both the languages included words that
>described objects/entities/concepts that were not known in the respec-
>tive culture. Filling up gaps in one's native language is a wonderful
>way to broaden its cultural background. But the American English being
>adopted without any reflection on one's own language's variability makes
>its users unaware of its beauty and possibilities. It is in fact cultu-
>ral surrender. Just think of Germans and French again. They often nowa-
>days need English to interact, which I consider a very sad fact.
I don't see it as sad, nor do I see it as a cultural surrender. In
fact, I see this adoption of english as a misguided one, misguided by
some sick obsession for the products of another culture. Not the
opposite. The cultural surrender isn't happening because of the
adoption of english, the english is being so easily adopted because of
a cultural surrender. That's where I feel irritated. I've got nothing
about deciding to go for a more efficient and simple language, but
hell, as long as it's truly the reason.
Alain.
Rachael
> On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:05:27 +0100, Rachael wrote:
>
>> It is more a matter of education to give them not only cultural
>> identity but also a way to relate to it without nationalism.
>
> Which is a pretty hard thing to achieve. But, basically, give'em
> "good" stuff and they'll go for it. Well, except a certain layer of
> society that is conditioned to merely react in a sheepish way to some
> icons.
Well, unfortunately it's not that easy. Since cultural goods (books,
movies etc.) are nowadays regarded as market goods the cultural identity
suffers immensely. If a (mercantile) super power the like of the US is
able to compete by offering "packages" of series, films and other pro-
ducts much cheaper than any other nation it effects their norm context,
id est culture. Germany, for instance, is the second largest music and
film market of the Western world but incapable of competing due to the
language barrier. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but even
"Lola rennt (Run, Lola, run)" is only available in small cinemas.)
>> Many Europeans think of English not only as lingua franca, as a
>> language to be used in international trade/politics/cooperation, many
>> think of it as being young and modern, as a proof for being cosmopo-
>> litan. It is this way of thinking that ought to be changed. JMO.
>
> Not only the language, alas. The products, the image carried by the
> nationality of said products. Don't tell me you didn't witnessed this
> french frenesy for stereotypically merkin stuff. The more sterotypical
> it is, the more it'll be successful. I seen some of it in german
> flicks too, so I guess germans are in the same trap aswell, yet maybe
> not as baddly as the french.
Methinks, it's worse in Germany. Most American tv shows are broadcasted
with their original titles, even German series & films get English ori-
ginal titles, everything regarding IT, science, media, *"modern"* is
refered to not in German but in English. The motives are hilarious.
Frankfurt decided to put "City of the Euro" on all official documents,
not in German ("Stadt des Euros"), nope, they're cosmopolitans. Bleh.
Even French and British newspapers commented on this über-European
drive with sarcasm.
>> While I am convinced that everyone should be able to speak at least
>> two foreign laguages besides one's own mother tongue,
>
> That's not that easy. I mean even practically, that is. Lots of
> allophones in Mtl who are trying to master both official languages of
> the country get rather confused, linguistically speaking, especially
> in their childhood.
I know it's not easy. There are always people that have their difficul-
ties mastering their own language. But being capable of English is re-
quired nowadays almost in the entire working field, and learning one
more foreign language (French, Chinese, Spanish, ...) is very often not
only a good qualification but also a way to learn of other cultures and
mentalities.
>> I'm not in favour of nationalism (which I in fact consider a concept
>> of the late 19th century), but I like cultural diversity and compe-
>> tition to remain a spring of new ideas and concepts (may it be in
>> politics, literature etc).
>
> Cultural competion is basically similar to nationalism as much as
> competion between two cities on the ground of some sport is.
I beg to differ. It was cultural competition (in a nationalistic context
as I have to admit) that made cultural diversity, counter-cultural move-
ments and vivid exchange of ideas possible at the turn of of century.
French fauvism & German expressionism for instance inspired one another
and co-existed peacefully in an generally peaceless national context.
>> Every European tongue reflects a cultural tradition, a whole complex
>> of history, society, politics that should not be washed away by
>> adopting *unneccessary* anglicisms.
>
> Bah, our opinions diverge radically here. In fact, I'm not even for
> adoption of anglicisms but radical conversion to the whole language..
> heh
<Rachael turning awfully gothically pale and experiencing *angst*>
Alain, tu fais peur à moi. Silence, s'il-te plaît.
I'd like to keep as many idioms alive as possible. Even Gaelic. ;P
<snip>
>> Just think of Germans and French again. They often nowadays need
>> English to interact, which I consider a very sad fact.
>
> I don't see it as sad, nor do I see it as a cultural surrender. In
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> fact, I see this adoption of english as a misguided one, misguided by
> some sick obsession for the products of another culture. Not the
> opposite. The cultural surrender isn't happening because of the
> adoption of english, the english is being so easily adopted because
> of a cultural surrender. ^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So you agree that both cultures/countries already seem to have surren-
dered? If so, than it is a sad fact for Europe's diversity and profound
tradition since the inspiring French-German contrast is getting lost.
> That's where I feel irritated. I've got nothing about deciding to go
> for a more efficient and simple language, but hell, as long as it's
> truly the reason.
I've heard this argument so often. Isn't language much more than a means
of communication, much more than a tool? It consists of historical and
social moments, it conserves social changes, it makes a people's culture
available. It is the spring of society, the spring of art and thought,
the expression of individualism and diversity, it is in itself the most
complex and beautiful art of humankind. There is no reason to sacrifice
"summa natura divina" (Hobbes). It'd be all our loss if we forgot about
all its facets beyond communication.
Rachael
Tá slaghdán orm. :(
& listening to Borodin
Alain
wrote:
>Alain scripsit:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 20:05:27 +0100, Rachael wrote:
>>
>>> It is more a matter of education to give them not only cultural
>>> identity but also a way to relate to it without nationalism.
>>
>> Which is a pretty hard thing to achieve. But, basically, give'em
>> "good" stuff and they'll go for it. Well, except a certain layer of
>> society that is conditioned to merely react in a sheepish way to some
>> icons.
>
>Well, unfortunately it's not that easy. Since cultural goods (books,
>movies etc.) are nowadays regarded as market goods the cultural identity
>suffers immensely. If a (mercantile) super power the like of the US is
>able to compete by offering "packages" of series, films and other pro-
>ducts much cheaper than any other nation it effects their norm context,
>id est culture.
Yes, it *tends* to be somewhat true... But the problem is at the
populace level, too. The govt can limit the income of US stuff, that
is simply overwhelming, but the real problem will always be the
populace that goes to the theaters, rent the flicks, buy the
magazines, etc.
>Germany, for instance, is the second largest music and
>film market of the Western world but incapable of competing due to the
>language barrier. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but even
>"Lola rennt (Run, Lola, run)" is only available in small cinemas.)
In Quebec, the flick had basically the same treatment a commercial US
flick gets. On different levels, it's true, but the diffusion medias
were all there : it was reviewed on TV shows, in newspapers, etc.
Most major flicks from most countries in the world get the same
treatment, here. There's simply much more US flicks and their candy
bright colours and packaging is just more attractive for the simple
mind. Remark, the *other* flick scene in the US also suffers from that
phenomenon as they often can't even manage to be played in major local
theaters and hardly make their way out of the borders, in a few
foreign videoclubs and cable channels.
>> Not only the language, alas. The products, the image carried by the
>> nationality of said products. Don't tell me you didn't witnessed this
>> french frenesy for stereotypically merkin stuff. The more sterotypical
>> it is, the more it'll be successful. I seen some of it in german
>> flicks too, so I guess germans are in the same trap aswell, yet maybe
>> not as baddly as the french.
>
>Methinks, it's worse in Germany. Most American tv shows are broadcasted
>with their original titles
Yeah, but maintaining the original title is merely an obsolete and
pretentious pseudo intellectual trend. It's not anglicization. We all
know, from the french perspective at least, the typical intello, black
and white scandinavian flicks that are subtitled, cos purist can't
stand an audio translation as they wanna "hear" the original actors
say their text, and which titles are maintained, with a tight assed
translation between parenthesis.
>, even German series & films get English ori-
>ginal titles, everything regarding IT, science, media, *"modern"* is
>refered to not in German but in English. The motives are hilarious.
>Frankfurt decided to put "City of the Euro" on all official documents,
>not in German ("Stadt des Euros"), nope, they're cosmopolitans. Bleh.
>Even French and British newspapers commented on this über-European
>drive with sarcasm.
Now, I have to agree, with surprise and disappointment, on that one.
But the french should be a bit quieter, as they tend to do the same
with the companies that are intended to be international.
>> That's not that easy. I mean even practically, that is. Lots of
>> allophones in Mtl who are trying to master both official languages of
>> the country get rather confused, linguistically speaking, especially
>> in their childhood.
>
>I know it's not easy. There are always people that have their difficul-
>ties mastering their own language.
Oh no... That's pushing the bar very low, now.. heh
I know it's true, but it's not a general situation.
>But being capable of English is re-
>quired nowadays almost in the entire working field, and learning one
>more foreign language (French, Chinese, Spanish, ...) is very often not
>only a good qualification but also a way to learn of other cultures and
>mentalities.
I guess, however there are quite easier methods to do it, if learning
other cultures is the primary interest.
>> Cultural competion is basically similar to nationalism as much as
>> competion between two cities on the ground of some sport is.
>
>I beg to differ. It was cultural competition (in a nationalistic context
>as I have to admit) that made cultural diversity, counter-cultural move-
>ments and vivid exchange of ideas possible at the turn of of century.
>
>French fauvism & German expressionism for instance inspired one another
>and co-existed peacefully in an generally peaceless national context.
Yes, but around the same era, french chauvinism and german
expansionism clashed... I wonder if there's any correlation between
culture, arts and war.. heh However, I wouldn't have called those
different schools of art as being in competition. I'm sure that an
expressionist artist wasn't looking over his shoulder to see if the
fauvist wasn't gaining more popularity among the mecenes.
>>> Every European tongue reflects a cultural tradition, a whole complex
>>> of history, society, politics that should not be washed away by
>>> adopting *unneccessary* anglicisms.
>>
>> Bah, our opinions diverge radically here. In fact, I'm not even for
>> adoption of anglicisms but radical conversion to the whole language..
>> heh
>
><Rachael turning awfully gothically pale and experiencing *angst*>
heh Wow, cool, I work better than the best of the ivory makeups.
>Alain, tu fais peur à moi. Silence, s'il-te plaît.
Ne t'inquietes pas, tu sera probablement trepasse depuis quelques
generations d'ici-la.
>I'd like to keep as many idioms alive as possible. Even Gaelic. ;P
Yeah, I must admit that I tend to look at other languages with a
certain interest, not really wanting to see'em disappear, but in such
a way that I still conceive efficiency as being the primary goal
before what anything should be mercilessly leveled to the ground.
Muahah <--- expression of barbarism.
><snip>
>>> Just think of Germans and French again. They often nowadays need
>>> English to interact, which I consider a very sad fact.
>>
>> I don't see it as sad, nor do I see it as a cultural surrender. In
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> fact, I see this adoption of english as a misguided one, misguided by
>> some sick obsession for the products of another culture. Not the
>> opposite. The cultural surrender isn't happening because of the
>> adoption of english, the english is being so easily adopted because
>> of a cultural surrender. ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>So you agree that both cultures/countries already seem to have surren-
>dered?
Speaking about France? Almost. They're almost ready to sign the
reddition and adopt their new way of life.. heh
>If so, than it is a sad fact for Europe's diversity and profound
>tradition since the inspiring French-German contrast is getting lost.
Yeah, it would have been much more intelligent to make the transition
to a common language without automatically adopting, craving, begging
for the set of social and cultural values from which it comes.
>> That's where I feel irritated. I've got nothing about deciding to go
>> for a more efficient and simple language, but hell, as long as it's
>> truly the reason.
>
>I've heard this argument so often. Isn't language much more than a means
>of communication, much more than a tool?
To me, there are only two levels and uses for a language.
Communication and "sounds". Sounds as in "arts". However,
communication is the primary element and every languages have their
advantages and disadvantages. Some are better than others.
>It consists of historical and
>social moments, it conserves social changes, it makes a people's culture
>available.
Explain me that, by examples if possible.
>It is the spring of society, the spring of art and thought,
No way, it's only an element with not major role, except in the oral
and written mediums, naturally. Painting, instrumental music and other
forms of art have no need for an other language than their own, which
is often erratic, dynamic and completely detached from any
communication language.
>the expression of individualism and diversity,
In a language? I would tend to think that it's the expression of
regional comunity, not individuality. Diversity can be broken down to
its smallest elements, so there's no way that losing a language will
depreciate much diversity.
>it is in itself the most
>complex and beautiful art of humankind.
It's the natural evolution of animals. It's a really primal elements
of a sentient specie. I like to think that there's an "human" language
and that it's different variants are nothing but that : variants.
You can say the same things in possibly every languages.
Sometimes you feel limited in your vocabulary, in a certain language,
to express a thought that could be delivered much more quickly and
nicely in another, but you still have the ability to express it in the
current one.
>There is no reason to sacrifice
>"summa natura divina" (Hobbes). It'd be all our loss if we forgot about
>all its facets beyond communication.
Bah. Someday, we'll speak an organic equivalent of machine's language.
heh!
Alain.
Rachael
> On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:56:31 +0100, Rachael wrote:
>
>>>> It is more a matter of education to give them not only cultural
>>>> identity but also a way to relate to it without nationalism.
>>>
>>> Which is a pretty hard thing to achieve. But, basically, give'em
>>> "good" stuff and they'll go for it.
>
<snip>
>> If a (mercantile) superpower the like of the US is able to compete
>> by offering "packages" of series, films and other products much chea-
>> per than any other nation it effects their norm context, id est
>> culture.
>
<snip>
> But the problem is at the populace level, too. The govt can limit the
> income of US stuff, that is simply overwhelming, but the real problem
> will always be the populace that goes to the theaters,rent the flicks,
> buy the magazines, etc.
Well, you're speaking with a free trader (or yuppie scum as Goblin put
it so nicely). I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism". Interchan-
ge is necessary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there
needs to be an education for all people aiming at their cultural identi-
ty and (more important) their relation to it. They need to feel genuine
in themselves in order to handle another (overwhelming) culture (like
the US American) reasonably. In former times nationalism provided this
frame. Nowadays we're looking for "understanding (tolerance) and self-
esteem (traditionalism)".
<snip "Lola rennt">
Yes, the US economy is able to package its products candy-like and to
offer them at dumping prices. Then we stoopid kids grab'em and notice
(cultural) caries much later. :( "Ich hasse Zahnfäulnis."
<re: frenesity for US products>
>
>>> I seen some of it in german flicks too,so I guess germans are in the
>>> same trap aswell, yet maybe not as baddly as the french.
>>
>> Methinks, it's worse in Germany. Most American tv shows are broad-
>> casted with their original titles,
>
> Yeah, but maintaining the original title is merely an obsolete and
> pretentious pseudo intellectual trend. It's not anglicization.
I disagree. It started with film titles, but continues within dubbing
as well. Due to the excessive use of "kontakten" instead of the right
form ("kontaktieren") the English stem of the verb has been adopted.
Such selfmade gaps in a language are refilled with anglicisms. Unneces-
sary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
>> But being capable of English is required nowadays almost in the en-
>> tire working field, and learning one more foreign language (French,
>> Chinese, Spanish, ...) is very often not only a good qualification
>> but also a way to learn of other cultures and mentalities.
>
> I guess, however there are quite easier methods to do it, if learning
> other cultures is the primary interest.
You'll never get to know a culture as good by reading about it in your
native language as by learning its mother tongue. This makes primary
literature available to you, it enables you to interact and communicate
with native speakers, it is invaluable during a trip/visit to this land
of your interest. Any attempt in understanding the Chinese is in vain,
if you are incapable of at least Mandarin. Believe me. I know.
>> French fauvism & German expressionism for instance inspired one an-
>> other and co-existed peacefully in an generally peaceless national
>> context.
>
> Yes, but around the same era, french chauvinism and german
> expansionism clashed... I wonder if there's any correlation between
> culture, arts and war.. heh
Quoting the pre-Socratic Herakleitos:
"Polemos panton men pates esti panton de basileus kai tous men
theous edeixe tous de anthropous, tous men doulous epoiese tous
de eleutherous."
id est
"War is the father of everything, the king of everything, because
of some it made gods, of others men, of whom some are slaves, the
other ones free."
> However, I wouldn't have called those different schools of art as
> being in competition. I'm sure that an expressionist artist wasn't
> looking over his shoulder to see if the fauvist wasn't gaining more
> popularity among the mecenes.
Artist schools (as a specific group with influence on a culture) do not
compete for monetary reasons (the individual does), they compete with
other schools i.e. perspectives, means & ideas in order to develop their
specific point of view, to question their traditions and (if necessary)
break with their predecessors. Therefore (inter)cultural competition
is one of many drives to foster a society's progress.
>> <Rachael turning awfully gothically pale and experiencing *angst*>
>
> heh Wow, cool, I work better than the best of the ivory makeups.
Do you mind if I recommend you to the special forces of a.g.f ? ;)
>> Alain, tu fais peur à moi. Silence, s'il-te plaît.
>
> Ne t'inquietes pas, tu sera probablement trepasse depuis quelques
> generations d'ici-la.
Moi? Jamais! Je suis goth, i.e. immortel. :P
Où sinon serait le plaisir?
<snip>
<re: France et Allemagne>
>
>> So you agree that both cultures/countries already seem to have sur-
>> rendered?
>
> Speaking about France? Almost. They're almost ready to sign the
> reddition and adopt their new way of life.. heh
I'll be in mourning the day they name la Place de la Concorde
Independence Day Square. It will be like Versailles then. ;)
>> If so, than it is a sad fact for Europe's diversity and profound
>> tradition since the inspiring French-German contrast is getting lost.
>
> Yeah, it would have been much more intelligent to make the transition
> to a common language without automatically adopting, craving, begging
> for the set of social and cultural values from which it comes.
I don't mind the natural evolution of languages. It proves a culture's
liveliness and vitality, it documents cultural interchange, it makes the
language itself vivid. (There is a reason for Latin being called a dead
language despite the Vatican's "apparatus frigorificus (refrigerator)".)
Should an European language develop sometime (kind of an equivalent
to the original language we know as Indo-Germanic) - I don't mind. It'd
prove a cultural European unity at that time.
I dislike and regret the Americanisation of a former culturally high-
lighted continent.
>> I've heard this argument so often. Isn't language much more than a
>> means of communication, much more than a tool?
>
> To me, there are only two levels and uses for a language.
> Communication and "sounds". Sounds as in "arts".
<grin>
"Sounds" makes me think of something entirely uncultivated.
Not necessarily a language.
<re: language>
>
>> It consists of historical and social moments, it conserves social
>> changes, it makes a people's culture available.
>
> Explain me that, by examples if possible.
Take the example "to kotow to someone". It names a characteristic of
the traditional Chinese society, it has been adopted to name a certain
kind of attitude of mind.
Take the example "Versailles" which has become much more than a
historic reference. It has become a metaphor, a warning, a remembrance
of both the French (1870/71) and the German (1919/20) people.
Same applies to "Weimarer Republik". Generally metaphors, historic and
social references keep a people's memory of the past alive and shape its
view on the future.
>> It is the spring of society, the spring of art and thought,
>
> No way, it's only an element with not major role, except in the oral
> and written mediums, naturally. Painting, instrumental music and other
> forms of art have no need for an other language than their own, which
> is often erratic, dynamic and completely detached from any
> communication language.
Again, I disagree. Language prefigurates your thinking; language
names the colours you use, the tones you play, the materials you
work on. Moreover, language gives content and form to the thought,
it makes it available, questionable, changeable. Take a look at
Hobbes' "Leviathan" for further notes on the nature of language.
>> the expression of individualism and diversity,
>
> In a language? I would tend to think that it's the expression of
> regional comunity, not individuality. Diversity can be broken down to
> its smallest elements, so there's no way that losing a language will
> depreciate much diversity.
The individual's thought is free. It refers to the language, the
meaning of words, the relations in between words and structures.
A people's language consists of the ideas of all its individuals,
past, present, future. If the language gets lost, not only specific
unifying thoughts and memories get lost, moreover the individual's
references and orientations get lost.
>> it is in itself the most complex and beautiful art of humankind.
>
> It's the natural evolution of animals. It's a really primal elements
> of a sentient specie. I like to think that there's an "human" language
> and that it's different variants are nothing but that : variants.
> You can say the same things in possibly every languages.
Basic statements without doubt, yes. Complex patterns of references,
no. Think of the fact that we *still* need to read original Greek texts
by Aristoteles et alii in order to be able to *understand* their ideas
and concepts since those get lost in their entirety even in the best
translation possible. One cannot project every facet of meaning from
one language onto another one.
> Sometimes you feel limited in your vocabulary, in a certain language,
> to express a thought that could be delivered much more quickly and
> nicely in another, but you still have the ability to express it in the
> current one.
Not entirely, no. Try to translate a sentence including "e arete" from
Greek into English without limiting the scale of thoughts.
>> There is no reason to sacrifice "summa natura divina" (Hobbes).
>> It'd be all our loss if we forgot about all its facets beyond
>> communication.
>
> Bah. Someday, we'll speak an organic equivalent of machine's language.
> heh!
I'm still working on that. Thus far it has taken me:
asm
mov al, 01h
xor dh, dh
mov dl, 01h
out dx, al
End
I'll now continue working on my binary code. :P
Rachael
Is beag a bhrígh é.
& listening to Sibelius
benton
>Alain scripsit:
>
>> On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:56:31 +0100, Rachael wrote:
>>
>>>>> It is more a matter of education to give them not only cultural
>>>>> identity but also a way to relate to it without nationalism.
>>>>
>>>> Which is a pretty hard thing to achieve. But, basically, give'em
>>>> "good" stuff and they'll go for it.
>>
><snip>
>>> If a (mercantile) superpower the like of the US is able to compete
>>> by offering "packages" of series, films and other products much chea-
>>> per than any other nation it effects their norm context, id est
>>> culture.
>>
><snip>
>> But the problem is at the populace level, too. The govt can limit the
>> income of US stuff, that is simply overwhelming, but the real problem
>> will always be the populace that goes to the theaters,rent the flicks,
>> buy the magazines, etc.
>
>Well, you're speaking with a free trader (or yuppie scum as Goblin put
>it so nicely).
Yay yuppie scum!
I enjoy being able to eat.
> I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism". Interchan-
>ge is necessary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there
>needs to be an education for all people aiming at their cultural identi-
>ty and (more important) their relation to it.
America is the home of the melting pot. Europe is the home of the salad
bowl.
Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only dragged
out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated into the
general American meme.
Economically, it makes/made sense for immigrants to join the US mainstream
culture. We are generally tolerate of differences, but most people don't
like them. The first generation keeps on with the traditions of the home
country, but all the second generation wants to do is leave it all behind
them.
OTOH, there are strong movements back towards traditional culture for many
groups. On the gripping hand, most people don't know their roots at all. The
only reason I know where I came from is that I had a grandparent who had a
minor obsession for geneology. Most Americans can tell you that they are a
bit of this, and a bit of that, or have a particularly prominent ancestor,
but for the most part one's ancestors past is not an object of great
interest.
> They need to feel genuine
>in themselves in order to handle another (overwhelming) culture (like
>the US American) reasonably.
I don't think you'll get a great response from the americans present on the
virtues of American pop culture. I tend to ignore popular culture wilfully.
I don't know the popular television programs or the songs of the moment. I
haven't 'kept up' with what has been going on on telly for about three
years, and music for about a year and a half.
>In former times nationalism provided this
>frame.
Nationalism is a charming fragment fresh from the 19th century. J. Random
American is only vaguely proud or even aware of their nation. There are so
many differences and divisions from place to place. The dialect changes,
sometime dramtically, from state to state and from region to region. The
vocabulary is different, and the customs are certainly different.
For a small, stupid example, people from the Northeast usually say strings
of numbers (( like a phone number or whatnot )) like this:
nine seven eight, five four five, nine seven four zero.
Many other regions (( there are some exceptions )) would say it like this:
nine seven eight, fifty-four five, ninety-seven, fourty.
I've worked on phones for quite a while. At my old job, I took calls from
every state, and usually from rural areas, so I have good knowledge of the
differences in vowels, and expressions across the US.
Now that I only take calls from a very small area in comparison, it gives me
pause when I hear someone say their phone number in the second way. I
usually ask them where they are from and file it away for later reference.
> Nowadays we're looking for "understanding (tolerance) and self-
>esteem (traditionalism)".
You mention elsewhere that there isn't a sense of nationalism in Germany due
to the world war II. But what about traditional activities and festivals?
Are those not an expression of pride in one's region, cultural group, or
nation?
I know that Octoberfest as of late has become a very popular thing to
celebrate with great vigor in the US. There has been a resurgance in the
appreciation of non-US beers and non-US styles of beers.
<supposition>
I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (( and especially where I live )) is
a great holiday of pride in one's heritage. Even people not of Irish decent
enjoy and appreciate the festivities. Do you think that that an Octoberfest
held in the US would be similar? I can't say myself. I'm still too young to
attend such an event, so can't give first hand knowledge.
</supposition>
><snip "Lola rennt">
>
>Yes, the US economy is able to package its products candy-like and to
>offer them at dumping prices. Then we stoopid kids grab'em and notice
>(cultural) caries much later. :( "Ich hasse Zahnfäulnis."
^^^^^^
Oh, cavities. ;)
I don't think that appreciation for alien cultures automagically results in
one becoming less pure and staunch in one's own knowledge and pride in one's
own culture.
><re: frenesity for US products>
>>
>>>> I seen some of it in german flicks too,so I guess germans are in the
>>>> same trap aswell, yet maybe not as baddly as the french.
>>>
>>> Methinks, it's worse in Germany. Most American tv shows are broad-
>>> casted with their original titles,
>>
>> Yeah, but maintaining the original title is merely an obsolete and
>> pretentious pseudo intellectual trend. It's not anglicization.
>
>I disagree. It started with film titles, but continues within dubbing
>as well. Due to the excessive use of "kontakten" instead of the right
>form ("kontaktieren") the English stem of the verb has been adopted.
>Such selfmade gaps in a language are refilled with anglicisms.
English incorparates and absorbs vocabulary and ideas from every culture
that it comes across. Where there is not a word or a term, one is created or
adopted. Becuase English is a creole with armies (( grin )) the fixing and
annealing of additional words and ideas is very easy. The grammar and
syntax, while complex, is extremely flexable and can wrap it's way around
almost any idea or word.
Neoligms, which steal from every language on the planet, are coined daily in
rediculous numbers. Is it not the same with German? Or do we just think of
the words first? ;)
>Unneces-
>sary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking a word
from another language and have it express the idea more clearly than a
sentence of the home language?
~* snip visiting other countries *~
~* snip arts and war *~
>> However, I wouldn't have called those different schools of art as
>> being in competition. I'm sure that an expressionist artist wasn't
>> looking over his shoulder to see if the fauvist wasn't gaining more
>> popularity among the mecenes.
>
>Artist schools (as a specific group with influence on a culture) do not
>compete for monetary reasons (the individual does), they compete with
>other schools i.e. perspectives, means & ideas in order to develop their
>specific point of view, to question their traditions and (if necessary)
>break with their predecessors.
Unfortunatly, art is in a sad state right now. Everything I come across that
artists I know make seems to have to include a bit of pop culture from a
previous era.
I'm guilty of it myself. The last thing I did was an old computer with
cheap glossy pornographic pictures pasted over all exposed and unexposed
surfaces.
> Therefore (inter)cultural competition
>is one of many drives to foster a society's progress.
I don't think that art moving onto another school automagically results in a
fostering of society's progress. Indeed, the school of the day may be quite
garish and backward.
~* snip *~
>>> If so, than it is a sad fact for Europe's diversity and profound
>>> tradition since the inspiring French-German contrast is getting lost.
>>
>> Yeah, it would have been much more intelligent to make the transition
>> to a common language without automatically adopting, craving, begging
>> for the set of social and cultural values from which it comes.
>
>I don't mind the natural evolution of languages.
How can the movement be anything than natural in this case? We are not
instatuting a program of suppressionm against the german language. If a
foriegn word comes into parlance in an discussion, I don't think that too
many English-speakers care much. They express concrete ideas or concepts
that are not represented in English. I can think of ten german words and
hundreds of other words from other languages that get print in major
newspapers, magazines, and fiction regularly off the top of my head.
But I don't think that many English speakser even notice or care. They have
become part of the language, and if they have been around long enough they
are even in a good dictonary.
> It proves a culture's
>liveliness and vitality, it documents cultural interchange, it makes the
>language itself vivid.
Exactly. I don't understand how you protest an expansion of the vocabulary
and hence the number of ideas that can be expressed in German and on the
other hand praise the 'natural' exchange of ideas.
Are they not the same thing?
> (There is a reason for Latin being called a dead
>language despite the Vatican's "apparatus frigorificus (refrigerator)".)
The reason that Latin is dead is that no one can be bothered to use nine
hundred cases. ;)
At least English had the good sense to jettison them, although it would be
easier for us to understand other languages if we still had them. They only
one expressed by verb change anymore is [will/shall]. We still have
objective and subjective pronouns, though.
>Should an European language develop sometime (kind of an equivalent
>to the original language we know as Indo-Germanic) - I don't mind. It'd
>prove a cultural European unity at that time.
English is/will be the lingua franca. An extant language will beat a conlang
any day of the week.
>I dislike and regret the Americanisation of a former culturally high-
>lighted continent.
I think that most Europeans are too stubborn to give up so easily. Just
becuase tweens adore the backstree boys now, doesn't mean that they turn
into lapping hogs of the American Cultural Troth as adults.
~* snip *~
>>> It consists of historical and social moments, it conserves social
>>> changes, it makes a people's culture available.
>>
>> Explain me that, by examples if possible.
>
>Take the example "to kotow to someone". It names a characteristic of
>the traditional Chinese society, it has been adopted to name a certain
>kind of attitude of mind.
Or 'counting coup', to use an french description for a native american
behavior.
Isn't absorbing different words fun?
~* snip *~
>> No way, it's only an element with not major role, except in the oral
>> and written mediums, naturally. Painting, instrumental music and other
>> forms of art have no need for an other language than their own, which
>> is often erratic, dynamic and completely detached from any
>> communication language.
>
>Again, I disagree. Language prefigurates your thinking; language
>names the colours you use,
We've invented technical names for exact shades of color to avoid that.
> the tones you play, the materials you
>work on. Moreover, language gives content and form to the thought,
>it makes it available, questionable, changeable. Take a look at
>Hobbes' "Leviathan" for further notes on the nature of language.
~* scribble *~
>The individual's thought is free. It refers to the language, the
>meaning of words, the relations in between words and structures.
>A people's language consists of the ideas of all its individuals,
>past, present, future.
Not so much the spoken language itself, but the writings of that language.
Oral history only gets you so far.
~* snip *~
May the One shine on us all, even if it is now naptime.
--
benton -- bento...@mediaone.net -- ot...@mediaone.net
"Slumped by the courthouse with windburnt skin
That man could give a fuck about the grin
On your face as you walk by, randy as a goat
He's sleepin' on papers but he'd be warm in your coat"
klaatu
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:58:20 +0100, Rachael <Rachael...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> >Alain scripsit:
> >
> >> On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:56:31 +0100, Rachael wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> It is more a matter of education to give them not only cultural
> >>>>> identity but also a way to relate to it without nationalism.
> >>>>
<munch>
> > I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism". Interchan-
> >ge is necessary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there
> >needs to be an education for all people aiming at their cultural identi-
> >ty and (more important) their relation to it.
>
> America is the home of the melting pot. Europe is the home of the salad
> bowl.
>
> Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only dragged
> out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated into the
> general American meme.
>
> Economically, it makes/made sense for immigrants to join the US mainstream
> culture. We are generally tolerate of differences, but most people don't
> like them. The first generation keeps on with the traditions of the home
> country, but all the second generation wants to do is leave it all behind
> them.
It used to be that way. However, it's less true today, and wasn't always the
case anyway. Some groups, predominantly religious, still maintain a great
deal of the parent culture's specific traits. Also, there were some language
groups which were here in sufficient force so that it was easier to maintain
the parent cultural identity than to adapt to a new culture. Tendencies to
enclave only exascerbate this.
>
> OTOH, there are strong movements back towards traditional culture for many
> groups.
Plus there's also the fact that modern communications and mobility make it
very easy to maintain a culture despite geographic scattering. For instance,
not that there are that many ethnic Chinese in the DC area, still we get
Chinese National TV on cable.
> On the gripping hand, most people don't know their roots at all. The
> only reason I know where I came from is that I had a grandparent who had a
> minor obsession for geneology. Most Americans can tell you that they are a
> bit of this, and a bit of that, or have a particularly prominent ancestor,
> but for the most part one's ancestors past is not an object of great
> interest.
Well, IMHO that used to be overwhelmingly the case, but lots of folks coming
here don't seem to be doing anything other than simply re-establishing their
culture, or an enclave of it, here in the US. But then again, that doesn't
seem to be the case of the Euros who immigrate.
>
> > They need to feel genuine
> >in themselves in order to handle another (overwhelming) culture (like
> >the US American) reasonably.
>
> I don't think you'll get a great response from the americans present on the
> virtues of American pop culture. I tend to ignore popular culture wilfully.
> I don't know the popular television programs or the songs of the moment. I
> haven't 'kept up' with what has been going on on telly for about three
> years, and music for about a year and a half.
That may be why you're fairly intelligent and reasonably sane.
>
> >In former times nationalism provided this
> >frame.
>
> Nationalism is a charming fragment fresh from the 19th century. J. Random
> American is only vaguely proud or even aware of their nation. There are so
> many differences and divisions from place to place. The dialect changes,
> sometime dramtically, from state to state and from region to region. The
> vocabulary is different, and the customs are certainly different.
>
And interestingly enough, I note that the various major TV stations in all
of those varying Major Regions are doing their best to promote a sort of
regionism, often at the expense of nationalism. Fairly balkanizing, I'd say.
>
> > Nowadays we're looking for "understanding (tolerance) and self-
> >esteem (traditionalism)".
>
> You mention elsewhere that there isn't a sense of nationalism in Germany due
> to the world war II. But what about traditional activities and festivals?
> Are those not an expression of pride in one's region, cultural group, or
> nation?
>
> I know that Octoberfest as of late has become a very popular thing to
> celebrate with great vigor in the US. There has been a resurgance in the
> appreciation of non-US beers and non-US styles of beers.
>
> <supposition>
>
> I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (( and especially where I live )) is
> a great holiday of pride in one's heritage. Even people not of Irish decent
> enjoy and appreciate the festivities. Do you think that that an Octoberfest
> held in the US would be similar? I can't say myself. I'm still too young to
> attend such an event, so can't give first hand knowledge.
>
> </supposition>
Egads, are you still in HS or something, Benton?
Octoberfest is generally in my experience as flocked-to by non-germanics as
St. Paddy's Day is...
I gather that German as a language will tend to simply take a phrase
defining the object in question and string it all together, sort of like
NotAGoth. Now, what was that word for "airsickness" again?
<snips>
The Man-Like Madness
>>Germany, for instance, is the second largest music and
>>film market of the Western world but incapable of competing due to the
>>language barrier. (Of course there are exceptions to the rule, but even
>>"Lola rennt (Run, Lola, run)" is only available in small cinemas.)
Um, actually, Germany is fourth, or third, depending on wheter you count
India as part of the Western World or not. But at any rate, Australia
produces more film and music than Germany.
GOBLIN
==================================
If your children speak to you in Latin or any other language which they
should not know, or if they speak to you using a voice which is other than
their own, shoot them immediately. It will save you a lot of grief in the
long run. NOTE: It will probably take several rounds to kill them, so be
prepared.
Rachael
> I gather that German as a language will tend to simply take a phrase
> defining the object in question and string it all together, sort of
> like NotAGoth.
Which is the less elegant way of speaking German and usually reminds
one of dusty bureaucrats.
> Now, what was that word for "airsickness" again?
Luftkrankheit? :P
Rachael
Cuir fios ar dhochtúir!
& listening to Dvorák
Rachael
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:58:20 +0100, Rachael wrote:
>
<snip>
>> I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism". Interchange is neces-
>> sary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there needs to
>> (more important) their relation to it.
>
> America is the home of the melting pot. Europe is the home of the
> salad bowl.
True. Europe's diversity has been its strength and weakeness so far. But
I'm in fear that the Europeans might adopt the melting pot idea rather
than benefit from their differences.
The problem is - however- the current lack of European identity that
strengthens nationalisms OTOH and proves OTOH European institutions
defunct due to a deficit of legitimacy.
Since only a united Europe is able to compete with the US there has to
be a unifying identity. It is absurd to adopt the US American patterns
in order to reflect non-US societies.
> Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only
> dragged out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated
> into the general American meme.
>
> Economically, it makes/made sense for immigrants to join the US main-
> stream culture. We are generally tolerate of differences, but most
> people don't like them. The first generation keeps on with the tradi-
> tions of the home country, but all the second generation wants to do
> is leave it all behind them.
I remember an article about Vietnamese immigrants somewhere in the
Southern states that apparently do not assimilate as quick as has been
hoped for. Any details available?
> OTOH, there are strong movements back towards traditional culture for
> many groups.
But the image of the American dream is part of this return of traditio-
nal virtues, isn't it? Therefore US citizens have *one* common denomina-
tor as base for the US society and its norm/cultural context.
In Europe, on the contrary, ppl are much more aware of differences than
of similarities as far as European societies/cultures are involved. The
adaption of US standards will not create the feeling of unity, it only
covers underlying tensions.
>> They need to feel genuine in themselves in order to handle another
>> (overwhelming) culture (like the US American) reasonably.
>
> I don't think you'll get a great response from the americans present
> on the virtues of American pop culture.
I'm not only refering to pop culture, I'm refering to the whole context
of values, traditions and norms that make up a society's experience and
history. This patterns are usually codified in the people's language,
therefore neglectance of language does harm to a people's memory fundus.
It devalues this fundus and substitutes specific characteristics by un-
natural (i.e. not grown from experience) ones. "Alien" ones.
>> In former times nationalism provided this frame.
>
> Nationalism is a charming fragment fresh from the 19th century.
Certainly. As we Europeans have had to learn painfully in this ending
century nationalisms turn their cultural shelter against themselves by
causing unpeaceful and disastrous encounters. Therefore, as I said be-
fore in this thread, there is need for another frame instead of natio-
nalism.
Compare my statement below regarding "tolerance" and "traditionalism".
> J. Random American is only vaguely proud or even aware of their nation.
> There are so many differences and divisions from place to place. The
> dialect changes, sometime dramtically, from state to state and from
> region to region. The vocabulary is different, and the customs are
> certainly different.
This applies to Germany as well as to Italy, France, the UK, in fact to
any country. Neither the US nor any European state is a homogenic block,
but nations consist of "identifying specifics" that make their people
aware of their belonging/origin.
Northern Germany is unlike Southern Germany concerning dialects, menta-
lities and customs, the political likes diverge as well as social pat-
terns of acceptance and tolerance. But still all Germans (apart from the
Bavarians maybe, ahem, Markus) identify as *one* people.
>> Nowadays we're looking for "understanding (tolerance) and self-
>> esteem (traditionalism)".
>
> You mention elsewhere that there isn't a sense of nationalism in
> Germany due to the world war II. But what about traditional activities
> and festivals? Are those not an expression of pride in one's region,
> cultural group, or nation?
Of course there are regional and local feasts and festivals refering to
specific moments of the respective community, often combined with a cer-
tain attitude or pride. There are references to Germany's historical and
cultural context, too, of course - But most of those bank holidays and
celebrations do not mirror real national conscience or pride. In fact
they often seem pretty shallow and sans attachment to the people's mind.
I consider this lack of "genuine patriotism" dangerous due to its am-
biguous nature.
> I know that Octoberfest as of late has become a very popular thing to
> celebrate with great vigor in the US. There has been a resurgance in
> the appreciation of non-US beers and non-US styles of beers.
>
> <supposition>
>
> I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (and especially where I live)
> is a great holiday of pride in one's heritage. Even people not of
> Irish decent enjoy and appreciate the festivities.
Paddy's Day, heh? We are simply everywhere. :)
> Do you think that that an Octoberfest held in the US would be similar?
What I've read about Oktoberfeste in the US/Canada seemed pretty much
attached to German stereotypes and clichés. People attending such festi-
vities are often either more German than the Germans themselves (über-G)
or feel just entertained according to their expectations. Moreover, one
should keep in mind that the One and Real Oktoberfest only mirrors Ba-
varian customs in a very one-dimensional way - it's not typical German.
> I can't say myself. I'm still too young to attend such an event, so
> can't give first hand knowledge.
Huh?! Isn't 21 the drinking age?
> </supposition>
>
<snip>
> I don't think that appreciation for alien cultures automagically re-
> sults in one becoming less pure and staunch in one's own knowledge and
> pride in one's own culture.
Of course not. Appreciation, respect and tolerance are mutually
advantagous and provide rich cultural interchange. Adoption doesn't.
<snip>
> English incorparates and absorbs vocabulary and ideas from every cul-
> ture that it comes across. Where there is not a word or a term, one is
> created or adopted.
Same applies to any language and enrichens it.
> Neoligms, which steal from every language on the planet, are coined
> daily in rediculous numbers. Is it not the same with German?
Certainly it is. Neologisms appear, compete with other words and disap-
pear if they don't find general acceptance and usage. Which is the eva-
luation and evolution process that I refer to as "natural".
> Or do we just think of the words first? ;)
Partim. See below.
>> Unnecessary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
>
> If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking a
> word from another language and have it express the idea more clearly
> than a sentence of the home language?
Well, I'm speaking of cases in which *existing* native words are
unnecessarily replaced by anglicisms. To give you two examples:
Despite the fact that the German language offers three words covering
all meanings of the word "news", it has replaced "Nachrichten", "Neuig-
keiten" und "Mitteilungen" almost entirely lately. Unfortunately other
meanings than "news" get lost with the words as well.
The English word "hearing" has become pretty popular although it does
not differenciate in between a "Besprechung", "Anhörung", "Versammlung"
etc. These nuances may become unknown to new speakers of German.
Both the cases show linguistic adoptions that are unnecessary and
harmful to the corpus of the German language. Moreover, excessive use
of anglicisms effects speaking habits/regulata as well since phonema
changes are fostered.
The long history of German-French history includes chapters over chap-
ters of "reasonable linguistic exchange". Whenever one people's language
lacked a term to name an entity/concept/object the other culture had
developed, it simply adopted that term to fill an *existing gap*.
Examples: restaurant, fauvism, ...
Same applies to any cultural encounter until the late 80s when US Ame-
rican paradigmata and the lack of European identity swept away any idea
of cultural interchange.
>> Therefore (inter)cultural competition is one of many drives to foster
>> a society's progress.
>
> I don't think that art moving onto another school automagically re-
> sults in a fostering of society's progress. Indeed, the school of the
> day may be quite garish and backward.
I'm not speaking of prêt-à-porter art. A variety and diversity of art
schools extends a culture's sphere and ability to transform. Thereby
a society benefits from domestic cultural competition as well as from
diverging international artist movements. Thus development is fostered.
The school of the day proves garish in comparison and competition to
other artistical paradigmata if it lacks "genuinety"
>> I don't mind the natural evolution of languages.
>
> How can the movement be anything than natural in this case?
See my definition of evolution above. It consists of evaluation by na-
tive speakers and their acceptance of neologisms. Unnatural processes
are the constant use of words/ideas/images via media which by themselves
are regarded as progressive & modern without evaluating their necessity
and acceptance. One could speak of "unnatural adoption" as well.
<snip>
>> It proves a culture's liveliness and vitality, it documents cultural
>> interchange, it makes the language itself vivid.
>
> Exactly. I don't understand how you protest an expansion of the voca-
> bulary and hence the number of ideas that can be expressed in German
> and on the other hand praise the 'natural' exchange of ideas.
>
> Are they not the same thing?
Nay. See above. Not the vocabulary (and thereby field of meanings) is
expanded. In most cases of "unnatural" adoption the new (English) words
are prefered due to their simplicity.
<snip>
>> Should an European language develop sometime (kind of an equivalent
>> to the original language we know as Indo-Germanic) - I don't mind.
>> It'd prove a cultural European unity at that time.
>
> English is/will be the lingua franca. An extant language will beat a
> conlang any day of the week.
Yes, I do agree - English is our modern lingua franca. As I said in this
thread before, it *should* be on international level for mutual exchange
of scientific research, politics and economic relations. But it should
not level down cultural differences and diversions of which we all may
benefit a lot.
>> I dislike and regret the Americanisation of a former culturally high-
>> lighted continent.
>
> I think that most Europeans are too stubborn to give up so easily.
> Just becuase tweens adore the backstree boys now, doesn't mean that
> they turn into lapping hogs of the American Cultural Troth as adults.
Alas, were I that young with that much faith. ;)
>> Again, I disagree. Language prefigurates your thinking; language
>> names the colours you use,
>
> We've invented technical names for exact shades of color to avoid that
^^^^^
<snip>
>> A people's language consists of the ideas of all its individuals,
>> past, present, future.
>
> Not so much the spoken language itself, but the writings of that
> language. Oral history only gets you so far.
True. But - as you point out yourself - language in its written form
preserves a people's memory, perspective, context.
Rachael
Trí spúnóga gach lá tar éis bídh. :P
& listening to Bartók
klaatu
>
> klaatu scripsit:
>
> > I gather that German as a language will tend to simply take a phrase
> > defining the object in question and string it all together, sort of
> > like NotAGoth.
>
> one of dusty bureaucrats.
>
>
Um, Dang it, I had seen some translatin somewhere, it was like 33 syllables,
all one word, supposedly it translated to something like:
"that feeling you get when you take a plane ride and hit turbulence and need
to use the little bag" or something...
>
> Rachael
> Cuir fios ar dhochtúir!
> & listening to Dvorák
>
> --
> "Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
> Follow me... http://redrival.com/quisquilia/initiatio.htm
> Rachael...@gmx.net
--
klaatu
>
> benton scripsit:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:58:20 +0100, Rachael wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> >> I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism". Interchange is neces-
> >> sary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there needs to
> >> be an education for all people aiming at their cultural identity and
> >> (more important) their relation to it.
> >
> > America is the home of the melting pot. Europe is the home of the
> > salad bowl.
>
> True. Europe's diversity has been its strength and weakeness so far. But
> I'm in fear that the Europeans might adopt the melting pot idea rather
> than benefit from their differences.
>
> The problem is - however- the current lack of European identity that
> strengthens nationalisms OTOH and proves OTOH European institutions
> defunct due to a deficit of legitimacy.
>
> Since only a united Europe is able to compete with the US there has to
> be a unifying identity. It is absurd to adopt the US American patterns
> in order to reflect non-US societies.
Definitely. But it appears that Common Europe will be doing something
similar to what the US might have done, had there been much less Federalist
sentiment; it seems that Europe will have most States/Nations retain their
sovereignity, whereas our Civil war demonstrated pretty handily what the
limits of State's Rights are to be.
>
> > Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only
> > dragged out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated
> > into the general American meme.
> >
> > Economically, it makes/made sense for immigrants to join the US main-
> > stream culture. We are generally tolerate of differences, but most
> > people don't like them. The first generation keeps on with the tradi-
> > tions of the home country, but all the second generation wants to do
> > is leave it all behind them.
>
> I remember an article about Vietnamese immigrants somewhere in the
> Southern states that apparently do not assimilate as quick as has been
> hoped for. Any details available?
Well, the Asian communities appear to be less willing/able to assimilate.
The kids do go to public schools and learn to speak English just like
everyone, but some aspects of culture and subculture appear to transmit well
across multiple generations. I cannot say whether this will turn out to be a
strength or weakness, as viewed by the mainstream. Well, some people have a
heritage, some accentuate that heritage, some wish to downplay the heritage
and the presumption of alignment with others of that heritage. Many of the
Asian cultures place a great deal of emphasis on lineage, Filial Duty, and
of course impart that to the kids, which probably tends to strengthen family
and subculture to the detriment of the ability to fully incorporate into the
mainstream. But hey, it's a free country.
>
> > OTOH, there are strong movements back towards traditional culture for
> > many groups.
>
> But the image of the American dream is part of this return of traditio-
> nal virtues, isn't it?
Not really. Or perhaps we're using different definitions of "virtue" here. I
don't think that anyone is really going to sit still and watch the place
turn into a theocracy, for instance; there are too many differing sects. But
certainly people are unhappy with the state of modern society, and the need
for more virtue is apparent. But I think that the virtues that we will
strive for will be classic virtues (civility, diligence, independence, etc)
as opposed to traditional, or religious, virtues.
> Therefore US citizens have *one* common denomina-
> tor as base for the US society and its norm/cultural context.
That's the problem, lots of folks believe that there should be one common
denominator, but there are too many interpretations and little sects and
subcultures, etc -- so almost by default, such reverence as is given to any
virtue whatsoever, it given to the Constitution or to Law in general.
>
> In Europe, on the contrary, ppl are much more aware of differences than
> of similarities as far as European societies/cultures are involved. The
> adaption of US standards will not create the feeling of unity, it only
> covers underlying tensions.
That's pretty much what's happened here. But it seems to all even out by the
third generation.
>
> >> They need to feel genuine in themselves in order to handle another
> >> (overwhelming) culture (like the US American) reasonably.
> >
> > I don't think you'll get a great response from the americans present
> > on the virtues of American pop culture.
>
> I'm not only refering to pop culture, I'm refering to the whole context
> of values, traditions and norms that make up a society's experience and
> history. This patterns are usually codified in the people's language,
> therefore neglectance of language does harm to a people's memory fundus.
> It devalues this fundus and substitutes specific characteristics by un-
> natural (i.e. not grown from experience) ones. "Alien" ones.
Ah -- you're saying that as the language drifts, colloquilisms and homilies
which express and transmit cultural norms beome lost, and without these
important sayings, the culture drifts as well. I would tend to agree, and
Benjamin Franklin seems to have anticipated you by several hundred years,
with his "Poor Richard's Almanac", which was full of such homilies/truisms
as "a stitch in time saves nine" ("ounce of prevention worth a pound of
cure") and "early to bed early to wise, makes a man healthy wealthy and
wise").
I will note that Poor Richard's Almanac is sadly out of circulation. And in
fact, you have a point that in the absence of remedial homilies, there is a
gap in the language where any cliche can come to be accepted as a short
homily.
>
> >> In former times nationalism provided this frame.
> >
> > Nationalism is a charming fragment fresh from the 19th century.
>
> Certainly. As we Europeans have had to learn painfully in this ending
> century nationalisms turn their cultural shelter against themselves by
> causing unpeaceful and disastrous encounters. Therefore, as I said be-
> fore in this thread, there is need for another frame instead of natio-
> nalism.
>
> Compare my statement below regarding "tolerance" and "traditionalism".
>
> > J. Random American is only vaguely proud or even aware of their nation.
> > There are so many differences and divisions from place to place. The
> > dialect changes, sometime dramtically, from state to state and from
> > region to region. The vocabulary is different, and the customs are
> > certainly different.
>
> This applies to Germany as well as to Italy, France, the UK, in fact to
> any country. Neither the US nor any European state is a homogenic block,
> but nations consist of "identifying specifics" that make their people
> aware of their belonging/origin.
>
> Northern Germany is unlike Southern Germany concerning dialects, menta-
> lities and customs, the political likes diverge as well as social pat-
> terns of acceptance and tolerance. But still all Germans (apart from the
> Bavarians maybe, ahem, Markus) identify as *one* people.
See, that is the major difference. Nationally, we're not a nation. We're a
country. About the only nations one sees in America are the Native Nations;
they have their own languages, customs and "identifying specifics". The
closest thing to a nation that one sees amongst US whites, for instance,
usually would come under the heading of "regionalism" and the closest thing
to "an ethnic American" one ordinarily sees would be the "ubiquitous mutt".
There are in fact some people who "keep the lines pure" and remain
unabashedly Italian or German or English, but probably most people who have
been here for more than two generations are of mixed ethnicity; for instance
Irish-German mixed ancestry is extremely common, generally with some
English/Scots and/or some French, Spanish or Italian thrown in.
This is why many moderns get annoyed with people that are
Hyphenated-Americans; for instance I would feel silly calling myself an
Alsatian-American. I just call myself American, I don't think there's much
cultural carry-over from Alsace, since that line of family arrived here in
the mid-1700s, though curiously, my dad did speak German as a child,
probably due to the remote rural area where he was born. But in the cities,
everyone learned English, and with some notable exceptions, few beyond the
second generation learned to speak the language of their parents. In the
second generation, there was something of a childhood ritual, which involved
inviting one's friends over and trying to explain why one's parents were "so
weird".
>
> >> Nowadays we're looking for "understanding (tolerance) and self-
> >> esteem (traditionalism)".
> >
> > You mention elsewhere that there isn't a sense of nationalism in
> > Germany due to the world war II. But what about traditional activities
> > and festivals? Are those not an expression of pride in one's region,
> > cultural group, or nation?
>
> Of course there are regional and local feasts and festivals refering to
> specific moments of the respective community, often combined with a cer-
> tain attitude or pride. There are references to Germany's historical and
> cultural context, too, of course - But most of those bank holidays and
> celebrations do not mirror real national conscience or pride. In fact
> they often seem pretty shallow and sans attachment to the people's mind.
> I consider this lack of "genuine patriotism" dangerous due to its am-
> biguous nature.
Ah -- could it be that it's cultural relics, and that the culture has faded,
or simply modernized to where the relics are no longer relvant?
A case in point, probably the most important holidays we have here, outside
of the purely patriotic, are Hallowe'en and Thanksgiving! Hallowe'en is
generally accepted as purely-American weirdness. Of course it's a harvest
festival, as one can see by the pumpkins, a late-season crop, but I think
that many of the people coming from Asia, for instance, are still wondering
what is happening with dressing the children as scary monsters and escorting
them around to demand sweets as bribes for good behaviour. In many ways, one
may see this as a "normatizing" influence; one cannot see who is behind the
mask and even though the masks of others are scary, so is one's own mask. So
a thoughful child will see that it's not the appearance that counts; if
you're polite you'll get a treat, but you should trick someone who's not
polite to the scary thing begging at the door. Also it's a great excuse to
party for the adults, everyone likes a masquerade ball.
Thanksgiving is of course the final harvest festival, when winter finally
arrives. Originally it was Christian, but it's celebrated nationally so that
all of us are reminded that no matter what we are or where we come from,
there's that cycle of a higher power to which we should give acknowledgement
and thanks for the year past. It's the weekend where the most people travel
to be with family, unfortunately also when the greatest number falls victim
to traffic accidents.
Now these are celebrations of American popular culture, and I think they're
totally entrenched -- recently various States and municipalities have
attempted to shut down or drastically-limit Hallowe'en and have seen more
(and more widespread) opposition than if they had tried to ban Christmas or
Passover.
But many of the Patriotic holidays have tended to become just an excuse to
go to the beach with the family. Exceptions to this tend to be military
holidays, such as Veteran's Day, and Memorial Day. Most people seem to
ignore Flag Day, and Labor Day is just the last weekend of official Summer.
>
> > I know that Octoberfest as of late has become a very popular thing to
> > celebrate with great vigor in the US. There has been a resurgance in
> > the appreciation of non-US beers and non-US styles of beers.
> >
> > <supposition>
> >
> > I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (and especially where I live)
> > is a great holiday of pride in one's heritage. Even people not of
> > Irish decent enjoy and appreciate the festivities.
>
> Paddy's Day, heh? We are simply everywhere. :)
And drunk in the streets everywhere, if it's done properly. Everyone's an
irishman on St. Paddy's day.
>
> > Do you think that that an Octoberfest held in the US would be similar?
>
> What I've read about Oktoberfeste in the US/Canada seemed pretty much
> attached to German stereotypes and clichés. People attending such festi-
> vities are often either more German than the Germans themselves (über-G)
> or feel just entertained according to their expectations. Moreover, one
> should keep in mind that the One and Real Oktoberfest only mirrors Ba-
> varian customs in a very one-dimensional way - it's not typical German.
>
> > I can't say myself. I'm still too young to attend such an event, so
> > can't give first hand knowledge.
>
> Huh?! Isn't 21 the drinking age?
>
> > </supposition>
> >
> <snip>
> > I don't think that appreciation for alien cultures automagically re-
> > sults in one becoming less pure and staunch in one's own knowledge and
> > pride in one's own culture.
>
> Of course not. Appreciation, respect and tolerance are mutually
> advantagous and provide rich cultural interchange. Adoption doesn't.
Well, if one understands what one's adopting, and has a good rationale,
adoption _can_ enrich one's own culture.
>
> <snip>
> > English incorparates and absorbs vocabulary and ideas from every cul-
> > ture that it comes across. Where there is not a word or a term, one is
> > created or adopted.
>
> Same applies to any language and enrichens it.
>
<snips worthy discussion>
> > English is/will be the lingua franca. An extant language will beat a
> > conlang any day of the week.
>
> Yes, I do agree - English is our modern lingua franca. As I said in this
> thread before, it *should* be on international level for mutual exchange
> of scientific research, politics and economic relations. But it should
> not level down cultural differences and diversions of which we all may
> benefit a lot.
Exactly. Even us "Yanks" don't want English to take over the world! We just
want everyone else to be able to speak enough of it so that we don't get
lost when we visit!
>
> >> I dislike and regret the Americanisation of a former culturally high-
> >> lighted continent.
> >
> > I think that most Europeans are too stubborn to give up so easily.
> > Just becuase tweens adore the backstree boys now, doesn't mean that
> > they turn into lapping hogs of the American Cultural Troth as adults.
>
> Alas, were I that young with that much faith. ;)
*chortle*
>
> >> Again, I disagree. Language prefigurates your thinking; language
> >> names the colours you use,
> >
> > We've invented technical names for exact shades of color to avoid that
> ^^^^^
>
> <snip>
> >> A people's language consists of the ideas of all its individuals,
> >> past, present, future.
> >
> > Not so much the spoken language itself, but the writings of that
> > language. Oral history only gets you so far.
>
> True. But - as you point out yourself - language in its written form
> preserves a people's memory, perspective, context.
Ah, but rarely does writing preserve the "hoary chestnuts" or the
colloquialisms which summarize so very well those little truths of our lives
and our cultures.
>
> Rachael
> Trí spúnóga gach lá tar éis bídh. :P
> & listening to Bartók
>
> --
> "Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
> Follow me... http://redrival.com/quisquilia/initiatio.htm
> Rachael...@gmx.net
--
Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow. http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/
Jennie Kermode
there are so many interesting threads here that I can't stay away. :)
On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:28:10 GMT, Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 14:03:59 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
>>> But I know that there's a Scandinavian language that is much more
>>> close to english than any other language. I know it for having read
>>
>>Yeah, that's Icelandic.
>
>No, I'm sure it's not that.. It's a much older country. Hmm... If only
It's the Netherlands, or 'Holland' as the English call it. The
Dutch language is the closest thing to English apart from Scots (which has
less speakers), and it's even closer than that in some respects (mostly
syntactitcal).
>about. Which makes me think.... Iceland, what an interesting
>mini-country. Their population rappidly reached the 2-250k mark, then
>they've been stable for centuries. No significant increases nor
>decreases. It's definitively a place I'd like to visit. Not the
>widlerness, naturally, their urban life that is. Reyjavick(sp).
I'd love to visit the wilderness, myself - to see volcanoes and
glaciers and geysers - but Iceland is _so_ expensive. One day I will go.
>>Which is a sort of generic Norse language. Where you
It derived principally from Old Norse, with some influence from
Old Swedish.
>>France of the 1600s was a wild land mostly, but it could as easily have been
>>Neu Danmark. Had the "little ice age" of the 1300s-1500s not destroyed the
>>settlements in Greenland,
Ach, yes; and had it not driven south the indigenous population
who lacked their usual good supply of fish and seals but found 'fat white
seals' to eat instead. :\
>What a shock they had when they found out that this greenland was only
>a land of endless rock. heh I don't remember for sure, but I believe
>that it almost killed their desire to go forward with their
>exploration.
Much of the desire for exploration was actually more about
desire to escape the political climate of Norway and (to a lesser extent)
Sweden. Political dissidents tended to be at the forefront of each new
attempt at settlement. When word finally reached home about the lies
they'd told to sell their new countries, people were certainly put off
joining them; but that was nothing to how pissed off the people who had
already followed them were. "Every blade of grass drips with honey"
indeed!
>>it would have been the perfect steppingstone to
>>the Americas, and in fact in Newfoundland there are the ruins of a first
>>Euro colony in the Americas.
>
>Yes and it's believed that they've been attacked by natives and almost
>if not completely decimated.
Heh. They attacked the ruins, but not the first colonists,
according to the reports from those expeditions - and the reports are
sufficiently unflattering to their 'heroes' also that there is probably
some truth in them. The Skraelings, whom the Vikings described as being
grey in colour, were considered insignificant men, but would have beaten
up the Viking men had not a certain Viking woman scared the shit out of
them by taking off her clothes and running after them shouting furiously.
I'm not sure what their own domestic experience was like. ;)
>>The Vikings were such powerful seamen and
>>boatbuilders, but they hadn't the skill of tacking (I think) and thus they
>>couldn't sail south against the Gulfstream current to the warmer climates
I'm not sure how that would work - I don't know enough about
sea conditions - but I know the Vikings sailed south around Europe, down
to the Mediterranean and Africa.
>>Well, the Vikings sacked Paris at least three times...
>
>Yeah, with such an ease, such a lack of opposition.
They wrote very nice things about it, you know. :) They
distributed their praise widely in the guidebooks fashionable at the time.
They were fond of France because they could get wine there, which was hard
for them to produce at home, and they could also get all kinds of
peculiar, colourful fruits, which they thought were really cool.
>Which makes me think, vikings had such disgusting habits that they
>managed to shock even the Parisians who, themselves, never had
>particularly honorable hygien habits.
The Vikings were clean! <pout> They were a seafaring people;
seafaring peoples are almost always clean. Take modern crusties, who
refuse to wash - when they get rained on, even they become aware of their
disgusting stench. Now imagine doing the same thing and spending much of
your life in a boat getting constantly soaked by spray. Ick, no! They
learned to wash pretty early on.
>>> Man, I don't even understand the practical use of it. Personally, I
>>> hate the soft "th". It's only a tongue buster. And there's always the
>>> risk of spitting in people's faces. heh
>>
>>Nah, that's the hard "th" that coats folks with saliva.
>
>Yeah, now I remember.
So just drop it, and replace it with the soft 'th'. You'll
sound like you're from Aberdeen, but as long as you're not standing near
sheep at the time that shouldn't cause you any social problems. ;)
Doric has no hard 'th'.
>>When I am feeling very evil I contemplate
>>the necessity of assigning pronunciation homework consisting of recitation
>>of "with which witch was whom, they're not there at their lair, I wonder if
>>they're whaling, but we would hear the wailing".
>
>heh... It's not that hard.
Depends on where you're from. It's easy for a Scot. Somebody
from England's 'home counties', however, would have great difficulty
distinguishing many of those sounds.
>>Plus there are the irregular retentions of the Old German declensions, as in
>>"run/ran" and "shit/shat", "speak/spoke", etc etc.
>
>Shat? Does it truly exist?
It does indeed. It's an example of a strong verb. :)
The Americans, interestingly, continued the practice of
declining verbs according to the strong pattern after it had ceased to be
preferred in the UK; so, they have 'dive/dove' where we have 'dive/dived',
for instance.
benton
klaatu wrote:
>
> benton wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:58:20 +0100, Rachael <Rachael...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Alain scripsit:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:56:31 +0100, Rachael wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>>> It is more a matter of education to give them not only cultural
> > >>>>> identity but also a way to relate to it without nationalism.
> > >>>>
>
> <munch>
>
> > > I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism". Interchan-
> > >ge is necessary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there
> > >needs to be an education for all people aiming at their cultural identi-
> > >ty and (more important) their relation to it.
> >
> > America is the home of the melting pot. Europe is the home of the salad
> > bowl.
> >
> > Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only dragged
> > out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated into the
> > general American meme.
> >
> > Economically, it makes/made sense for immigrants to join the US mainstream
> > culture. We are generally tolerate of differences, but most people don't
> > like them. The first generation keeps on with the traditions of the home
> > country, but all the second generation wants to do is leave it all behind
> > them.
>
> It used to be that way.
Very much so. Festivals and cultural events were a way to keep in touch
with one's ethnic identity.
> However, it's less true today, and wasn't always the
> case anyway. Some groups, predominantly religious, still maintain a great
> deal of the parent culture's specific traits.
Yes. Hasidic Jews come to mind.
> Also, there were some language
> groups which were here in sufficient force so that it was easier to maintain
> the parent cultural identity than to adapt to a new culture. Tendencies to
> enclave only exascerbate this.
Well, I think it is great. I can get spanish fruits and vegatables at
the corner market. I can get fresh rice noodles at the cambodian market,
and lush silks and colorful embroderies if I so desired. If I was a
small woman, I should delight in the choices of fabrics and varity of
garments. If I had a desire for Brazilian sweets and cakes, there is a
shop on my block. These enclanves are a good thing, because they promote
cultural differences which are open for enjoyment.
Think what a dull world it would be if I could on eat at resturants that
sold classically 'American' or even 'Yankee' dishes.
<aside>
Although, when I worked at the cafe, we sold New England Boiled Dinner
as a special on wensdays. We would get the same people back every week
who wanted it and we would always sell out. Kind of a comfort thing.
<further aside>
New England Boiled Dinner, for those not familiar with it is:
3 lb Corned beef
6 Carrots, cut in half,
Lengthwise
6 Potatoes, cut in half,
Lengthwise
1 md Size head of cabbage
3 c Water
6 Turnips, cut in quarters
We added a bottle of guiness as well. Boil all well until oblivion and
beyond.
</further aside>
<aside>
> > OTOH, there are strong movements back towards traditional culture for many
> > groups.
>
> Plus there's also the fact that modern communications and mobility make it
> very easy to maintain a culture despite geographic scattering.
It also has an opposite effect. Modern communications help blend
cultures as well.
> For instance,
> not that there are that many ethnic Chinese in the DC area, still we get
> Chinese National TV on cable.
Hm. Don't have that, but I have TV Italia, a portugese languge channel,
and an International channel which shows programs from all about the
world on set times. Korean music videos are quite interesting. I had a
melody line from one of them in my head for a week or more.
I'll watch japanese soap operas subtitled, becuase the bad acting
doesn't show as much. ;)
> > On the gripping hand, most people don't know their roots at all. The
> > only reason I know where I came from is that I had a grandparent who had a
> > minor obsession for geneology. Most Americans can tell you that they are a
> > bit of this, and a bit of that, or have a particularly prominent ancestor,
> > but for the most part one's ancestors past is not an object of great
> > interest.
>
> Well, IMHO that used to be overwhelmingly the case, but lots of folks coming
> here don't seem to be doing anything other than simply re-establishing their
> culture, or an enclave of it, here in the US.
I was speaking of the past, but you make a valid point here as well.
> But then again, that doesn't
> seem to be the case of the Euros who immigrate.
That too. The german that I work with is pretty much indistinguishable
from anyone else. A little more staid, but that could be attributed to
anyone.
> > > They need to feel genuine
> > >in themselves in order to handle another (overwhelming) culture (like
> > >the US American) reasonably.
> >
> > I don't think you'll get a great response from the americans present on the
> > virtues of American pop culture. I tend to ignore popular culture wilfully.
> > I don't know the popular television programs or the songs of the moment. I
> > haven't 'kept up' with what has been going on on telly for about three
> > years, and music for about a year and a half.
>
> That may be why you're fairly intelligent and reasonably sane.
I'm working on my old movie knowledge. For instance, I knew the plots
and bits of "The Stepford Wives" and "Carrie", but I had never seen
them.
> > >In former times nationalism provided this
> > >frame.
> >
> > Nationalism is a charming fragment fresh from the 19th century. J. Random
> > American is only vaguely proud or even aware of their nation. There are so
> > many differences and divisions from place to place. The dialect changes,
> > sometime dramtically, from state to state and from region to region. The
> > vocabulary is different, and the customs are certainly different.
> >
>
> And interestingly enough, I note that the various major TV stations in all
> of those varying Major Regions are doing their best to promote a sort of
> regionism, often at the expense of nationalism. Fairly balkanizing, I'd say.
Hm. I can only think of one program in particular on channel 5 (( our
boston ABC affiliate )) which might be promoting the kind of regionalism
that you describe. It is "Chronicle" which is a local interest and
travel program. Quite popular, and has been running for a long time.
Basically it boils down into a bunch of reporters visiting charming and
quaint places in the backwoods of New England.
There is a program on PBS, which is a discussion show called Boston
Common, where important political and cultural figures as well as
commentators discuss issues. It has a certain provincionality.
~* snip 8~
> > <supposition>
> >
> > I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (( and especially where I live )) is
> > a great holiday of pride in one's heritage. Even people not of Irish decent
> > enjoy and appreciate the festivities. Do you think that that an Octoberfest
> > held in the US would be similar? I can't say myself. I'm still too young to
> > attend such an event, so can't give first hand knowledge.
> >
> > </supposition>
>
> Egads, are you still in HS or something, Benton?
No. I graduated in `97. Barely.
I turn in my babygoth card on January 7.
> Octoberfest is generally in my experience as flocked-to by non-germanics as
> St. Paddy's Day is...
That was my impression.
~* snip *~
> > >Unneces-
> > >sary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
> >
> > If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking a word
> > from another language and have it express the idea more clearly than a
> > sentence of the home language?
>
> I gather that German as a language will tend to simply take a phrase
> defining the object in question and string it all together, sort of like
> NotAGoth. Now, what was that word for "airsickness" again?
Of what I've seen, it has a certian affection for the polysyllabics. ;)
May the One shine on us all, even if we wonder how dislexics manage with
convoluted German spellings.
benton.
NP: Sebedoh|Harmacy
"they are nothing like you."
klaatu
>
> Sorry to get back to this one late. I'm far too busy atm, but
> there are so many interesting threads here that I can't stay away. :)
>
> On Sun, 03 Oct 1999 12:28:10 GMT, Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote:
> >On Sat, 02 Oct 1999 14:03:59 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
<snippies>
> >>When I am feeling very evil I contemplate
> >>the necessity of assigning pronunciation homework consisting of recitation
> >>of "with which witch was whom, they're not there at their lair, I wonder if
> >>they're whaling, but we would hear the wailing".
> >
> >heh... It's not that hard.
>
> Depends on where you're from. It's easy for a Scot. Somebody
> from England's 'home counties', however, would have great difficulty
> distinguishing many of those sounds.
so I'm being truly evil even to anglophones! such cruelty. <sniff>
>
> >>Plus there are the irregular retentions of the Old German declensions, as in
> >>"run/ran" and "shit/shat", "speak/spoke", etc etc.
> >
> >Shat? Does it truly exist?
>
> It does indeed. It's an example of a strong verb. :)
> The Americans, interestingly, continued the practice of
> declining verbs according to the strong pattern after it had ceased to be
> preferred in the UK; so, they have 'dive/dove' where we have 'dive/dived',
> for instance.
Don't you rather suspect that might be due to having, especially in the
early post-Revolutionary years, such a very large population of native
German speakers? For instance, that "get/got/gotten" thingy seems to be
mostly coming from the Scot/Anglo/Germanic folks, one hardly ever hears that
"gotten" usage from the people whose English was secondhand coming from a
non-germanic background. For someone quite bilingual in
increasingly-archaized English and German, it might just seem essential to
preserve formally whatever strength a verb had.
And ahem, I do quite prefer the "dove" over the "dived", sounds just so much
more spiffy and pretentious. Not to mention seriously affected.
And here's a silly linguist question, could it be properly said that when
one speaks of shoddy goods, one's in fact declining the adjective after the
manner of the strong verb? As in, crappy quality...
>
> Jennie
>
> --
> Jennie Kermode http://www.skinner.demon.co.uk/jennie jen...@innocent.com
--
Alain
wrote:
>Alain scripsit:
>> But the problem is at the populace level, too. The govt can limit the
>> income of US stuff, that is simply overwhelming, but the real problem
>> will always be the populace that goes to the theaters,rent the flicks,
>> buy the magazines, etc.
>
>Well, you're speaking with a free trader (or yuppie scum as Goblin put
>it so nicely). I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism".
With certain players, you have to play that card.. It's a matter of
common sense.
>Interchan-
>ge is necessary for cultural evolvement. But - as I said before - there
>needs to be an education for all people aiming at their cultural identi-
>ty and (more important) their relation to it.
The problem is that there aren't many people who give a crap about
their cultural identity.
>Yes, the US economy is able to package its products candy-like and to
>offer them at dumping prices. Then we stoopid kids grab'em and notice
>(cultural) caries much later. :( "Ich hasse Zahnfäulnis."
heh See? Only way to do something about it is to tell the stoopid kids
when it's time to stop stuffing themselves with all that stuff. They
can't limit themselves, they therefore have to be limited by others.
>> Yeah, but maintaining the original title is merely an obsolete and
>> pretentious pseudo intellectual trend. It's not anglicization.
>
>I disagree. It started with film titles, but continues within dubbing
>as well. Due to the excessive use of "kontakten" instead of the right
>form ("kontaktieren") the English stem of the verb has been adopted.
>Such selfmade gaps in a language are refilled with anglicisms. Unneces-
>sary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
Is that official stuff or just street talking? I've heard that German
is a language that changes really fast, but I would be surprised to
learn that they officially adopt slangish anglicisms.
>> I guess, however there are quite easier methods to do it, if learning
>> other cultures is the primary interest.
>
>You'll never get to know a culture as good by reading about it in your
>native language as by learning its mother tongue. This makes primary
>literature available to you, it enables you to interact and communicate
>with native speakers, it is invaluable during a trip/visit to this land
>of your interest.
Naturally, it's a good thing to know a bit of the local language when
you visit another country. However, being able to read the local
literature in the original format, rather than translated isn't that
much better. Personally, I already knew much of what I know about
anglo-saxon societies before I could even greet someone in english.
>Any attempt in understanding the Chinese is in vain,
>if you are incapable of at least Mandarin. Believe me. I know.
The only "chinese" people I ever knew were from HK and, well, I never
had any problem to understand'em, their motivation, process of
thought, etc. Well, as much as I can understand people in general,
that is.
>"War is the father of everything, the king of everything, because
> of some it made gods, of others men, of whom some are slaves, the
> other ones free."
What a strange idea.
>Artist schools (as a specific group with influence on a culture) do not
>compete for monetary reasons (the individual does), they compete with
>other schools i.e. perspectives, means & ideas in order to develop their
>specific point of view, to question their traditions and (if necessary)
>break with their predecessors. Therefore (inter)cultural competition
>is one of many drives to foster a society's progress.
But isn't an artist an individualistic person who will generally not
feel associated to any "school" in particular? I mean that they might
consider their style to be more in the x or y genre, but are they
feeling associated to a school for that? Like a club, an association?
>>> <Rachael turning awfully gothically pale and experiencing *angst*>
>>
>> heh Wow, cool, I work better than the best of the ivory makeups.
>
>Do you mind if I recommend you to the special forces of a.g.f ? ;)
Oh no... I'm an artist.. heh I don't work on orders.
>>> Alain, tu fais peur à moi. Silence, s'il-te plaît.
>>
>> Ne t'inquietes pas, tu sera probablement trepasse depuis quelques
>> generations d'ici-la.
>
>Moi? Jamais! Je suis goth, i.e. immortel. :P
Oh, veinard... Donne-moi ton secret.
>Où sinon serait le plaisir?
J'ai trouve mon plaisir dans l'art de ne pas etre un goth... heh
>> Speaking about France? Almost. They're almost ready to sign the
>> reddition and adopt their new way of life.. heh
>
>I'll be in mourning the day they name la Place de la Concorde
>Independence Day Square. It will be like Versailles then. ;)
Wow... I think I'll rejoice, this day. I'll take the next plane for
Paris and I'll get drunk on he IDS.. heh And I'll sing barbarous songs
in english!
>> Yeah, it would have been much more intelligent to make the transition
>> to a common language without automatically adopting, craving, begging
>> for the set of social and cultural values from which it comes.
>
>I don't mind the natural evolution of languages. It proves a culture's
>liveliness and vitality, it documents cultural interchange, it makes the
>language itself vivid. (There is a reason for Latin being called a dead
>language despite the Vatican's "apparatus frigorificus (refrigerator)".)
And french is headed straight in that direction!
>Should an European language develop sometime (kind of an equivalent
>to the original language we know as Indo-Germanic) - I don't mind. It'd
>prove a cultural European unity at that time.
Cultural european unity? Never! Ha! That kind of utopian declarations
will have you hung short and high on the public place! heh
>I dislike and regret the Americanisation of a former culturally high-
>lighted continent.
WWII played a big role in it, don't you think? Man, Europe was such a
"New World" full of opportunities for the investors in '45.
The simple fact merkins managed to make french eat peanut butter is an
eloquent proof of my statement. (Remark, french had been used to eat
rats during the hardest periods of war, so it kind of helped)
>>> I've heard this argument so often. Isn't language much more than a
>>> means of communication, much more than a tool?
>>
>> To me, there are only two levels and uses for a language.
>> Communication and "sounds". Sounds as in "arts".
>
><grin>
>
>"Sounds" makes me think of something entirely uncultivated.
>Not necessarily a language.
Music : It's just sounds arranged together, so is language.
Eliminate the coherence of communicative language, only to retain the
musicality of it and you have music. Ie.: When I listen a tune in
english and that I can't understand most of it, the voice(s) become(s)
just one more musical instrument.
>> Explain me that, by examples if possible.
>
>Take the example "to kotow to someone". It names a characteristic of
>the traditional Chinese society, it has been adopted to name a certain
>kind of attitude of mind.
What is that "kotow", exactly? How would you describe, in english,
this characteristic?
>Take the example "Versailles" which has become much more than a
>historic reference. It has become a metaphor, a warning, a remembrance
>of both the French (1870/71) and the German (1919/20) people.
>Same applies to "Weimarer Republik". Generally metaphors, historic and
>social references keep a people's memory of the past alive and shape its
>view on the future.
Yeah, but be it in french, chinese or german, using the name would
have the exact same signification in our minds. C'mon, swap versailles
with any other words, imagining it's the name of that place. It's not
language related... Just historical. It's a word to put on an
historical fact.
>>> It is the spring of society, the spring of art and thought,
>>
>> No way, it's only an element with not major role, except in the oral
>> and written mediums, naturally. Painting, instrumental music and other
>> forms of art have no need for an other language than their own, which
>> is often erratic, dynamic and completely detached from any
>> communication language.
>
>Again, I disagree. Language prefigurates your thinking; language
>names the colours you use, the tones you play, the materials you
>work on.
Well... I usually think both in french and english and, seriously, I
feel no difference. Sometimes, I have more ease to express a thought,
even for myself, in a language than another, but it's only because the
words/concepts don't come to my mind immediately in the other one.
>Moreover, language gives content and form to the thought,
>it makes it available, questionable, changeable. Take a look at
>Hobbes' "Leviathan" for further notes on the nature of language.
Hmm What is it about? The book that is.. What's the main plot? (I get
so many reading suggestions that I tend to become extremely picky to
not be overwhelmed... heh)
>> In a language? I would tend to think that it's the expression of
>> regional comunity, not individuality. Diversity can be broken down to
>> its smallest elements, so there's no way that losing a language will
>> depreciate much diversity.
>
>The individual's thought is free.
Well, mostly, but yeah, that's what guarantee a perpetual diversity.
>It refers to the language, the
>meaning of words, the relations in between words and structures.
>A people's language consists of the ideas of all its individuals,
>past, present, future. If the language gets lost, not only specific
>unifying thoughts and memories get lost, moreover the individual's
>references and orientations get lost.
I don't really follow you when you say that the nature of a language
is the ides it carries.. While, in fact, I don't even see it as even
carrying any idea, merely being a tool to express, translate ideas.
Give me a stunning example that will make realize that "unity" and
cultural thoughts are tributary of a specific language to a point that
they couldn't even exist without it.
>>> it is in itself the most complex and beautiful art of humankind.
>>
>> It's the natural evolution of animals. It's a really primal elements
>> of a sentient specie. I like to think that there's an "human" language
>> and that it's different variants are nothing but that : variants.
>> You can say the same things in possibly every languages.
>
>Basic statements without doubt, yes. Complex patterns of references,
>no.
Such as?
>Think of the fact that we *still* need to read original Greek texts
>by Aristoteles et alii in order to be able to *understand* their ideas
>and concepts since those get lost in their entirety even in the best
>translation possible. One cannot project every facet of meaning from
>one language onto another one.
I have difficulties to conceive that we can't express a "complex
pattern of reference" written in a language in another one, such as
french or english or.. you name it.
>> Sometimes you feel limited in your vocabulary, in a certain language,
>> to express a thought that could be delivered much more quickly and
>> nicely in another, but you still have the ability to express it in the
>> current one.
>
>Not entirely, no. Try to translate a sentence including "e arete" from
>Greek into English without limiting the scale of thoughts.
Well, I have no idea of what "e arete" means...
>>> There is no reason to sacrifice "summa natura divina" (Hobbes).
>>> It'd be all our loss if we forgot about all its facets beyond
>>> communication.
>>
>> Bah. Someday, we'll speak an organic equivalent of machine's language.
>> heh!
>
>I'm still working on that. Thus far it has taken me:
>
>asm
> mov al, 01h
> xor dh, dh
> mov dl, 01h
> out dx, al
>End
That's way too much machine.. heh
>I'll now continue working on my binary code. :P
Now we're making sense here! We all should bow down before the mighty
and imperialistic machines. <alarmist>Anyway, they'll dictate us our
lives in the future </alarmist>
Besides, that would finally give me a motivating reason to learn
coding.
Alain.
klaatu
>
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:45:41 -0400, benton <bento...@mediaone.net>
> wrote:
> >On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:58:20 +0100, Rachael <Rachael...@gmx.net> wrote:
<snipee>
> >Or 'counting coup', to use an french description for a native american
> >behavior.
>
> Counting coup?
Yes. Many of the Plains natives thought it was much more honorable to touch
a person of the enemy with a special staff, called the "coup stick".
Basically, it meant that you could have killed them but chose to not do so.
I think you had to disarm the enemy and then pull out this special stick and
bonk them with it leaving a little cut, hence "coup".
>
> >Isn't absorbing different words fun?
>
> Yes. If it was to be added as an official event for C6, then maybe I'd
> go.
Ah, we would all become evil and teach you ghetto slang.
>
> Alain.
Alain
Ahh yuppies.
>I enjoy being able to eat.
Yeah, such misunderstood people only aspiring to live better. heh.
I mean, why would they drive ugly third rate cars worth barely 15k,
like all those greasy and uneducated peons of which is composed the
filthy populace when they can afford decent vehicles? It's already a
big concession to accept driving among "them", on these dirty streets
filled of their smelly and loud presence. Isn't it true?
*sigh* But that's a fact, bourgeois, like aristocrats in the past, are
automatically segregated, ostracized in the public tribunes by envious
and primitive animals, those same creatures that grunt of bovine
pleasure when you turn on a tv, from which comes insults to the human
intellect, in front of them.
>America is the home of the melting pot. Europe is the home of the salad
>bowl.
That pot smells funny, tho. Especially in the big urban centres. It's
even worse than the country side, where farmers are living of those
stinky pigs and other cattles.
>Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only dragged
>out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated into the
>general American meme.
In Canada, we're excessively proud, especially when political
campaigns are raging, to say that we don't have such a melting pot
[Assimilator] but a "Cultural Mosaic"[Integrator].
>Economically, it makes/made sense for immigrants to join the US mainstream
>culture. We are generally tolerate of differences, but most people don't
>like them. The first generation keeps on with the traditions of the home
>country, but all the second generation wants to do is leave it all behind
>them.
Yeah, it's a weird thing.. "Hey, he doesn't look like us! Huh-huh..
It's funny! Let's make fun of him!"
Here, in Great Canada, other kids wont make fun of you because you
wear "ethnic" stuff or because you fall on your knees to pray your
god(s) at noon. They might try to kill you, discretely, but it's all
in good camaraderie.
>> Nowadays we're looking for "understanding (tolerance) and self-
>>esteem (traditionalism)".
>
>You mention elsewhere that there isn't a sense of nationalism in Germany due
>to the world war II. But what about traditional activities and festivals?
>Are those not an expression of pride in one's region, cultural group, or
>nation?
>
>I know that Octoberfest as of late has become a very popular thing to
>celebrate with great vigor in the US. There has been a resurgance in the
>appreciation of non-US beers and non-US styles of beers.
I doubt, sincerely doubt that it's a show of national pride.. I don't
know about'em, but here, most festivals are just to have fun and, not
as instant, do we feel patriotic when we watch a parade/feed our faces
of traditional stuff/get drunk on traditional stuff/etc. It's just
festivals to have fun at a given time of the year...
On the other hand, I'm positively convinced that there's nationalism
in Germany as we speak and a very unrestrained one, too. Just look at
that event that was held in Paris, a few years ago : German went there
with armored vehicles for the parade! heh... I don't know what was the
show about, but it's definitively not a country with a timid sense of
nationalism that would parade with guns in a city they once invaded.
><supposition>
>
>I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (( and especially where I live )) is
>a great holiday of pride in one's heritage.
Ah yeah, that's true... Same for Mtl and the rest of the country. But
it's "ethnic", it's not "nationalistic". Its pride about one's
origins, not nationality.
>Even people not of Irish decent
>enjoy and appreciate the festivities.
An excellent proof that this thing isn't really a matter of
nationalism, but simply one more festival to have fun for a while.
>I don't think that appreciation for alien cultures automagically results in
>one becoming less pure and staunch in one's own knowledge and pride in one's
>own culture.
It's different... Fer real. Most of the US exported stuff isn't
distinctive material from some defined country, that can enrich one's
cultural spectrum.. It's the world standard in popular
entertainment... Too much of it tends to deviate people a bit too much
from other cultural stuff. Just like too much sweet stuff and not
enough of the rest will lead to carences. You've got good cultural
stuff, but these elements seem rather lost among all the
"entertainment" that is shipped along with it. I'm not saying some
entertainment's not good.. Just that too much is too much.
Anyway, it's not the same thing, so my ears and my eyes are obturated
and I'm singing loudly, now.
>>Unneces-
>>sary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
>
>If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking a word
>from another language and have it express the idea more clearly than a
>sentence of the home language?
Well, R seems to be a purist, a pro-integrity of languages. heh.
He's a complete opposite of what I am in this regard. Radically. Now,
all we need is one in the middle to make it equilibrated.
>>Take the example "to kotow to someone". It names a characteristic of
>>the traditional Chinese society, it has been adopted to name a certain
>>kind of attitude of mind.
>
>Or 'counting coup', to use an french description for a native american
>behavior.
Counting coup?
>Isn't absorbing different words fun?
Yes. If it was to be added as an official event for C6, then maybe I'd
go.
Alain.
Alain
Kermode) wrote:
> Sorry to get back to this one late. I'm far too busy atm, but
>there are so many interesting threads here that I can't stay away. :)
You're better to be sorry, as we all felt pretty insulted and
neglected. I'll let the politely anglo-saxon Klaatu deny this.
>>No, I'm sure it's not that.. It's a much older country. Hmm... If only
>
> It's the Netherlands, or 'Holland' as the English call it. The
>Dutch language is the closest thing to English apart from Scots (which has
>less speakers), and it's even closer than that in some respects (mostly
>syntactitcal).
Ha! I knew I was right. But since my geographic knowlege of northern
europe is about as bad as your average american's knowledge of the
US(1), I didn't wanted to take anymore risks until someone would come
up with names.
>>about. Which makes me think.... Iceland, what an interesting
>>mini-country. Their population rappidly reached the 2-250k mark, then
>>they've been stable for centuries. No significant increases nor
>>decreases. It's definitively a place I'd like to visit. Not the
>>widlerness, naturally, their urban life that is. Reyjavick(sp).
>
> I'd love to visit the wilderness, myself - to see volcanoes and
>glaciers and geysers - but Iceland is _so_ expensive. One day I will go.
heh I have something against northern wilderness. Maybe because I live
at less than 30 mins, by car, of it. And we have a volcano straight in
the middle of the city. Ok, it's an oooold volcano that is covered
with tons of soil and green, but nonelessly a volcano.
I didn't knew Iceland was expensive, tho. I only seen that it was
close and that it couldn't be very expensive concerning the plane
tickets. Hmm...
> Much of the desire for exploration was actually more about
>desire to escape the political climate of Norway and (to a lesser extent)
>Sweden.
Oh? What kind of political climate?
>Political dissidents tended to be at the forefront of each new
>attempt at settlement. When word finally reached home about the lies
>they'd told to sell their new countries, people were certainly put off
>joining them; but that was nothing to how pissed off the people who had
>already followed them were. "Every blade of grass drips with honey"
>indeed!
heheh Colonisation has always been sold that way and certainly was
still done that way in the '40s when Quebec wanted to populate the
north.
>>>it would have been the perfect steppingstone to
>>>the Americas, and in fact in Newfoundland there are the ruins of a first
>>>Euro colony in the Americas.
>>
>>Yes and it's believed that they've been attacked by natives and almost
>>if not completely decimated.
>
> Heh. They attacked the ruins, but not the first colonists,
>according to the reports from those expeditions - and the reports are
>sufficiently unflattering to their 'heroes' also that there is probably
>some truth in them. The Skraelings, whom the Vikings described as being
>grey in colour, were considered insignificant men, but would have beaten
>up the Viking men had not a certain Viking woman scared the shit out of
>them by taking off her clothes and running after them shouting furiously.
>I'm not sure what their own domestic experience was like. ;)
"O Chief White-Turttle-Who-Walks-On-Three-Feets, I come back with bad
news."
"Which news, Rabbit-Who-Runs-Fast?"
"Our raid on the Yellow-Hair-People couldn't be carried out
completely..."
"Wtf? I thought they were just a bunch of pussies!"
"The males were, White-Turttle-Who-Walks-On-Thee-Feets... But we were
chased off by Tall-Woman-Who-Is-Hungry-For-Love."
>>>Well, the Vikings sacked Paris at least three times...
>>
>>Yeah, with such an ease, such a lack of opposition.
>
> They wrote very nice things about it, you know. :) They
>distributed their praise widely in the guidebooks fashionable at the time.
>They were fond of France because they could get wine there, which was hard
>for them to produce at home, and they could also get all kinds of
>peculiar, colourful fruits, which they thought were really cool.
German too had a faible for french wine and similar techniques to get
it.. heh.
>>Which makes me think, vikings had such disgusting habits that they
>>managed to shock even the Parisians who, themselves, never had
>>particularly honorable hygien habits.
>
> The Vikings were clean! <pout>
No, no! They were dirty! And they never changed their socks! Nyah-ha!
heheh... Actually, someone supposed it might have been the Huns who
were doing it. The dirty bathing, that is. Look, I'll give it the
benefit of the doubt, as my memory has been often proven to be messed
up.
>They were a seafaring people;
>seafaring peoples are almost always clean. Take modern crusties, who
>refuse to wash - when they get rained on
>, even they become aware of their disgusting stench.
Don't you see the true logic? It's the gods'answer to these dirty
folks! For those filthy people despising bathes, the gods invented
shower! heh!
>>>Nah, that's the hard "th" that coats folks with saliva.
>>
>>Yeah, now I remember.
>
> So just drop it, and replace it with the soft 'th'. You'll
>sound like you're from Aberdeen, but as long as you're not standing near
>sheep at the time that shouldn't cause you any social problems. ;)
> Doric has no hard 'th'.
The soft th makes me look and sound silly. Quite a few people tried to
make me do it... *shudders*
>>>When I am feeling very evil I contemplate
>>>the necessity of assigning pronunciation homework consisting of recitation
>>>of "with which witch was whom, they're not there at their lair, I wonder if
>>>they're whaling, but we would hear the wailing".
>>
>>heh... It's not that hard.
>
> Depends on where you're from. It's easy for a Scot. Somebody
>from England's 'home counties', however, would have great difficulty
>distinguishing many of those sounds.
Of course, when I said "it's not that hard", I should have added "The
way I pronounce it, ignoring completely the "correct" form".
"Witt whish/witch (I pick one, variably and nobody ever had the good
sense to correct me) witch was whoom, dair not dair at dear lair, I
wonder if dair wall'ng, but we would hair the way-ling"
>>>Plus there are the irregular retentions of the Old German declensions, as in
>>>"run/ran" and "shit/shat", "speak/spoke", etc etc.
>>
>>Shat? Does it truly exist?
>
> It does indeed. It's an example of a strong verb. :)
> The Americans, interestingly, continued the practice of
>declining verbs according to the strong pattern after it had ceased to be
>preferred in the UK; so, they have 'dive/dove' where we have 'dive/dived',
>for instance.
I think it's a "new world" phenomenon. Quebecers maintained lots of
old stuff that died in France, since.
> Jennie
(1) C'mon American friends... I'm just teasing. Sort of like poking a
friend in the ribs with a pointy stick. In fact, I love my merkins.
It's another thing concerning the others, tho.. heh.
Alain.
Darkamber
>Noooooo! Seriously, stop making me feel senile. I'm sure I've read it
>about the vikings, not the huns.
I'm sure you didn't (read that about vikings, and if you did, it
wasn't true).
Being a descendant of said vikings, I have read a bit about them.
They may have burnt and raped and pillaged, but taking a crap in the
bathwater? Nope, that wasn't usual. (Of course someone might've had an
accident, but that's something different...:-)
--Darkamber
-----------------------------------------------------
E-mail: darkamber AT goth DOT net
URL: http://www.uio.no/~elinbs/darkamber
Alain
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:10:04 GMT, ala...@planet-int.net (Alain) wrote:
>
>>Noooooo! Seriously, stop making me feel senile. I'm sure I've read it
>>about the vikings, not the huns.
>
>I'm sure you didn't (read that about vikings, and if you did, it
>wasn't true).
Well... Maybe.. maybe.
>Being a descendant of said vikings, I have read a bit about them.
>They may have burnt and raped and pillaged, but taking a crap in the
>bathwater?
Just to annoy you all, I hope they'll find some bathing tub with
fossilized turds in it.. heh With a "Bath" rune carved on it. (On the
tub, that is)
>Nope, that wasn't usual. (Of course someone might've had an
>accident, but that's something different...:-)
Tsk,tsk. Such an excuse isn't acceptable. The last time I had such an
"accident", I was 4.
Alain.
Alain
>Alain wrote:
>> Counting coup?
>
>Yes. Many of the Plains natives thought it was much more honorable to touch
>a person of the enemy with a special staff, called the "coup stick".
>Basically, it meant that you could have killed them but chose to not do so.
>I think you had to disarm the enemy and then pull out this special stick and
>bonk them with it leaving a little cut, hence "coup".
Cool. I'm gonna give counting coups to everybody with my staff from
now. Naturally, this means that they should feel grateful that I
resist to my murderous envy, nope?
>> >Isn't absorbing different words fun?
>>
>> Yes. If it was to be added as an official event for C6, then maybe I'd
>> go.
>
>Ah, we would all become evil and teach you ghetto slang.
Hmm It's an idea. However, I was contemplating "absorbing" in a more
general way.
Which leads me to the question : You plan to go to C6?
If financial circumstances had not made it impossible, that would have
been one more reason to go.(1)
I remember this brief moment when I thought I was meeting you, at C5.
But I was wrong. Interesting critter, however, and you should be
flattered that I thought it was you.. heh
(1) This summer will be spent (Think in kbucks, even if they are CDN)
showing to my best friend why Canada is the <stream of flattering
superlatives> place to have fun.
Alain.
klaatu
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 20:35:59 +0000, klaatu <kla...@clark.net> wrote:
> >Alain wrote:
> >> Counting coup?
> >
> >Yes. Many of the Plains natives thought it was much more honorable to touch
> >a person of the enemy with a special staff, called the "coup stick".
> >Basically, it meant that you could have killed them but chose to not do so.
> >I think you had to disarm the enemy and then pull out this special stick and
> >bonk them with it leaving a little cut, hence "coup".
>
> Cool. I'm gonna give counting coups to everybody with my staff from
> now. Naturally, this means that they should feel grateful that I
> resist to my murderous envy, nope?
>
> >>
> >> Yes. If it was to be added as an official event for C6, then maybe I'd
> >> go.
> >
>
> Hmm It's an idea. However, I was contemplating "absorbing" in a more
> general way.
>
> Which leads me to the question : You plan to go to C6?
> If financial circumstances had not made it impossible, that would have
> been one more reason to go.(1)
In Seattle? No way. Been there, done that, wasn't happy and in fact was real
unhappy, though actually that was more Tacoma than Seattle.
>
> I remember this brief moment when I thought I was meeting you, at C5.
> But I was wrong. Interesting critter, however, and you should be
> flattered that I thought it was you.. heh
>
> (1) This summer will be spent (Think in kbucks, even if they are CDN)
> showing to my best friend why Canada is the <stream of flattering
> superlatives> place to have fun.
There ya go! Hey, especially if you like the great outdoors, Canada rocks. I
couldn't say anything about the cities, it's been so long since I was there
that they've unquestionably changed.
Alain
Neeeh! I'm an urbanite. If we ever leave the comfort and thrilling
pace of urbanity, it'll be only because I wanna try those
parachute-planes... (A chute instead of wings) Not that I come with
the urbanite handicaps, mind you.... I can camp in the middle of the
winter, in the wood, with only a summer tent, a blanket and feel great
the next morning... heh I just don't like that kind of leisure.
As for Canadian urban life... Mtl can be thrilling, especially for the
visitors who still have to discover everything (and believe me, Mtl is
full of things you don't see elsewhere on this continent) and Toronto
can be a really pleasant city to visit and got a good nightlife, too.
That's about it for my knowledge about major urban centres in Canada
(I automatically nevermind Quebec city, even if it's fun to visit for
tourists). I know, I've not travelled a lot in my own country.
Alain.
Rachael
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:45:41 -0400, benton wrote:
>>
<snip>
>> Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only
>> dragged out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated
>> into the general American meme.
>
> In Canada, we're excessively proud, especially when political
> campaigns are raging, to say that we don't have such a melting pot
> [Assimilator] but a "Cultural Mosaic"[Integrator].
The melting pot is a genuine concept for the New World and cannot be
implemented in a historic & cultural context like Europe. Therefore its
realisation (or the attempt thereof) in the US (as a relatively young
nation) could only work in combination with its colonising movement.
The dangers of a cultural mosaic are obvious: If certain minorities (be
it religious or ethnic groups) are reluctant to integrate, that is to
relate to an already existing cultural context, then tensions in bet-
ween the different groups arise and endanger the essential state task
of implementing a (codified) framework in order to allow peaceful and
civil coexistence.
<snip>
> On the other hand, I'm positively convinced that there's nationalism
> in Germany as we speak and a very unrestrained one, too. Just look at
> that event that was held in Paris, a few years ago : German went there
> with armored vehicles for the parade! heh... I don't know what was the
> show about, but it's definitively not a country with a timid sense of
> nationalism that would parade with guns in a city they once invaded.
Look up other posts of mine & Markus regarding the extent and nature of
nationalism in today's Germany. As far as I can tell you refer to a pa-
rade on the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe, and German
troops were in fact invited by the French government in order to stress
the peaceful coexistence of Germany and France. BICBW.
<snip>
>> I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (and especially where I live)
>> is a great holiday of pride in one's heritage.
>
> Ah yeah, that's true... Same for Mtl and the rest of the country. But
> it's "ethnic", it's not "nationalistic". Its pride about one's
> origins, not nationality.
Well, in the US/Canada it is. (Compare klaatu's post about the reluctan-
ce to hyphienated Americans.) In Eire St. Patrick's Day is definitely
nationalistic as well as taking pride in the Irish heritage.
>>Even people not of Irish decent enjoy and appreciate the festivities.
>
> An excellent proof that this thing isn't really a matter of
> nationalism, but simply one more festival to have fun for a while.
Of course a bank holiday like St. Patrick's turns into a festival in the
US since all Irish descendents have (according to the idea of the mel-
ting pot) adopted US citizenship and been formed by the American cultu-
ral context. Yet it keeps in Eire its nationalistic character.
<snip>
>>> Unnecessary anglicisms due to a careless use of language.Ad nauseam.
>>
>> If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking
>> a word from another language and have it express the idea more clear-
>> ly than a sentence of the home language?
As I said before - nothing. My critique is concerning unnecessary new
words replacing existing ones. German has adopted Latin, Greek & French
words for centuries in order to name new concepts/entities/objects. That
is how a language evolves.
> Well, R seems to be a purist, a pro-integrity of languages. heh.
> He's a complete opposite of what I am in this regard. Radically. Now,
> all we need is one in the middle to make it equilibrated.
That is no compliment, is it? ;P
<snip>
>> Isn't absorbing different words fun?
>
> Yes. If it was to be added as an official event for C6, then maybe
> I'd go.
I wished it was affordable for me. I think I'd like to get to know the
flesh and blood behind some of the ASCII signatures. But I have doubts
it is meant to be.
Rachael
Is mór an truagh é!
& listening to Grieg
Rachael
> On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 03:58:20 +0100, Rachael <me> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not thinking of "cultural protectionism".
>
> With certain players, you have to play that card.. It's a matter of
> common sense.
As I have indicated before it is debatable whether cultural goods should
be treated as normal market goods or should be protected. Methinks, they
should be given preferential treatment without limiting the access of
alien cultural goods.
One way to favour one's own cultural heritage is to educate one's ppl
in order to make them aware of language, art and culture.
On the other hand instruments like fixing the book prices have proven
their advantages and are probably justifyable state interventions into
the mechanism of free market. But such interventions have to be as few
as possible - just providing a framework.
<snip>
>> Yes, the US economy is able to package its products candy-like and to
>> offer them at dumping prices. Then we stoopid kids grab'em and notice
>> (cultural) caries much later. :( "Ich hasse Zahnfäulnis."
>
> heh See? Only way to do something about it is to tell the stoopid kids
> when it's time to stop stuffing themselves with all that stuff. They
> can't limit themselves, they therefore have to be limited by others.
That's your French heritage speaking, might I assume? ;)
<snip>
>> I disagree. It started with film titles, but continues within dubbing
>> as well. Due to the excessive use of "kontakten" instead of the right
>> form ("kontaktieren") the English stem of the verb has been adopted.
>> Such selfmade gaps in a language are refilled with anglicisms.
>> Unnecessary anglicisms due to a careless use of language. Ad nauseam.
>
> Is that official stuff or just street talking? I've heard that German
> is a language that changes really fast, but I would be surprised to
> learn that they officially adopt slangish anglicisms.
Unlike in France there is no official institution that regulates the de-
velopment of the German language. It changes by evaluation of its users.
Therefore the adoption of anglicisms in the media and colloquial langu-
age constitutes the "official" acceptance of such words.
<snip>
>> Any attempt in understanding the Chinese is in vain,
>> if you are incapable of at least Mandarin. Believe me. I know.
>
> The only "chinese" people I ever knew were from HK and, well, I never
> had any problem to understand'em, their motivation, process of
> thought, etc. Well, as much as I can understand people in general,
> that is.
Obviously our experiences differ. When I was in Bejing and Nanking in
1996 I was fortunate enough to be accompanied by native speakers. I'd
have been at a loss and would have learnt very little about China if
anything. Honkkong is a special case due to its former colonial state.
<re: Herakleitos>
>> "War is the father of everything, the king of everything, because
>> of some it made gods, of others men, of whom some are slaves, the
>> other ones free."
>
> What a strange idea.
But it is intriguing, isn't it? There are many ways to make Heraklit's
words intelligible & many interpretations possible.
>> Artist schools (as a specific group with influence on a culture) do
>> not compete for monetary reasons (the individual does), they compete
>> with other schools i.e. perspectives, means & ideas in order to deve-
>> lop their specific point of view, to question their traditions and
>> (if necessary) break with their predecessors. Therefore (inter)cultu-
>> ral competition is one of many drives to foster a society's progress.
>
> But isn't an artist an individualistic person who will generally not
> feel associated to any "school" in particular? I mean that they might
> consider their style to be more in the x or y genre, but are they
> feeling associated to a school for that? Like a club, an association?
You have to take "school" in the sense "line of thought, interpretation
of old masters, common denominators like teachers and scholars..." Of
course an artist works individually if not individualistically, but he
is dependent on the masters he studied, the techniques he learned and
adopted, the context/milieu in which he works. Thus schools form. Some-
times a group of artists refers and relates to a common theory of arts
and therefore is a school of thought. Kandinsky's theory and the pain-
ters of the Berliner Brücke are one example, the Dadaists another one.
<snip>
>>>> Alain, tu fais peur à moi. Silence, s'il-te plaît.
>>>
>>> Ne t'inquietes pas, tu sera probablement trepasse depuis quelques
>>> generations d'ici-la.
>>
>>Moi? Jamais! Je suis goth, i.e. immortel. :P
>
> Oh, veinard... Donne-moi ton secret.
Pas ici. Usenet est une place trop publice.
On ne veut pas avoir des trolls immortels, n'est-ce pas?
>> Où sinon serait le plaisir?
>
> J'ai trouve mon plaisir dans l'art de ne pas etre un goth... heh
Je suis ambigue. L'art se constitute en être et pas être en même temps.
<snip Parisian Republican Plaza & ISD>
>
>> Should an European language develop sometime (kind of an equivalent
>> to the original language we know as Indo-Germanic) - I don't mind.
>> It'd prove a cultural European unity at that time.
>
> Cultural european unity? Never! Ha! That kind of utopian declarations
> will have you hung short and high on the public place! heh
All the different European cultures are certain manifestations of one
common context. This occidental background of Christianity and Enlight-
ment constitutes the European community, therefore countries like Turkey
cannot be considered European, they are only closely associated with the
European context.
>> I dislike and regret the Americanisation of a former culturally high-
>> lighted continent.
>
> WWII played a big role in it, don't you think? Man, Europe was such a
> "New World" full of opportunities for the investors in '45.
I remember my history teacher's saying that Europe lost much of its
global significance with that desastrous Great War of 1914-1918. Before
WWI all European powers were global players, afterwards the rise of the
United States began.
<snip>
>>> To me, there are only two levels and uses for a language.
>>> Communication and "sounds". Sounds as in "arts".
>>
>> <grin>
>>
>> "Sounds" makes me think of something entirely uncultivated.
>> Not necessarily a language.
>
> Music : It's just sounds arranged together, so is language.
> Eliminate the coherence of communicative language, only to retain the
> musicality of it and you have music. Ie.: When I listen a tune in
> english and that I can't understand most of it, the voice(s) become(s)
> just one more musical instrument.
I know this from my time in Norway, where I enjoyed listening to people
speaking despite being incapable of understanding one single word. But
you apparently neglect the semantic facet of language that makes it
different to mere music.
<snip>
> What is that "kotow", exactly? How would you describe, in english,
> this characteristic?
To kotow means to accept humbly the honour of a person and to show
this respect in public by bowing down etc.
<snip Versailles example>
> be it in french, chinese or german, using the name would have the
> exact same signification in our minds. C'mon, swap versailles with any
> other words, imagining it's the name of that place. It's not language
> related... Just historical. It's a word to put on an historical fact.
My point is proven that (any) language preserves social & historic
events and changes. That's what you asked for. What I said about V.
applies to the Holocaust, the crusades and the fall of the Berlin wall
as well. They all have become rather chiffres, synonyms than mere words.
<snip>
<re: Hobbes' "Leviathan">
> Hmm What is it about? The book that is.. What's the main plot? (I get
> so many reading suggestions that I tend to become extremely picky to
> not be overwhelmed... heh)
The "Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Eccle-
siasticall and Civil" is Thomas Hobbes' main philosophical work reflec-
ting on the nature of man, the nature of state and the nature of faith.
It is contemplating on the theory of war and peace and offers the very
first realpolitical attempt of Empirism. Its truths are as genuine now-
adays as they were in 1651 when the first edition was published.
<snipping too many worthy discussions for the matter of time>
<re: the human asm project>
>
> That's way too much machine.. heh
>
<snip>
> We all should bow down before the mighty and imperialistic machines.
> <alarmist> Anyway, they'll dictate us our lives in the future.
> </alarmist>
<conspiracy>
They are already among us. They are evil. They are the yuppie scum.
</conspiracy>
> Besides, that would finally give me a motivating reason to learn
> coding.
You should.
But I'm afraid: With asm you'll just look as oldfashioned as I do.
Same applies to Basic, Pascal, C++...
I've wasted my youth, it seems. <pout>
Rachael
Ba nár leis a rún do nochtadh. ;)
& listening to Mussorgsky
klaatu
>
> Alain scripsit:
>
> > On Sun, 10 Oct 1999 02:45:41 -0400, benton wrote:
> >>
> <snip>
> >> Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only
> >> dragged out for special occasions, unless they are full incorperated
> >> into the general American meme.
> >
> > In Canada, we're excessively proud, especially when political
> > campaigns are raging, to say that we don't have such a melting pot
> > [Assimilator] but a "Cultural Mosaic"[Integrator].
>
> implemented in a historic & cultural context like Europe. Therefore its
> realisation (or the attempt thereof) in the US (as a relatively young
> nation) could only work in combination with its colonising movement.
>
> The dangers of a cultural mosaic are obvious: If certain minorities (be
> it religious or ethnic groups) are reluctant to integrate, that is to
> relate to an already existing cultural context, then tensions in bet-
> ween the different groups arise and endanger the essential state task
> of implementing a (codified) framework in order to allow peaceful and
> civil coexistence.
I couldn't agree more.
At present, there's increasing tension between the US and Canada for this
very reason. For instance, in the US, the groups least likely to attempt to
assimilate (at least in the "North") are various Asian groups, especially
the Chinese. In Canada, they apparently don't mind if the Chinese simply
import China and live China in a new country. Insularity is evidently
coddled. This leads to Canadians who have little allegiance to Canada and to
Canadians, Canada simply becomes a flag-of-convenience. The reason for the
increasing tensions is that the so-called "Snakeheads" or human-importers
take advantage of this, and rapidly move large numbers of illegal immigrants
through the Canadian ethnic-Chinese enclaves, and then they permeate across
the exceptionally porous US/Canada border. Once they reach the US, since
they're illegal, they immediately head for enclaves which have been
established here, and in the US we really don't like ethnic enclaves, for
the reasons you state above. Basically, ethnic enclaves inevitably become
dens of iniquity and bases for organized crime preying within the enclaves,
and agitators inevitably promote cultural enmity against us, and we
Americans may be tolerant about people's right to be different, but we truly
hate active enemies within our borders. We particularly hate active enemies
who are organized to defeat the law. There will be a backlash.
Integration, if not assimilation, is our cultural model. We maintain the
"salad bowl" or "mosaic" model regarding religion and in fact that's part of
the Constitution. However, outside of religious or political belief, there
are intentionally no protections for alien culture. This is particularly
important for new arrivals to realize, especially when they come from
cultures such as China where one has only whatever rights as one's
affiliate-group can enforce through superior numbers or superior force and
otherwise one has no rights. In our culture, rights are inherent in each
individual, and do not directly proceed from any group affiliation and in
fact, we culturally perceive that any attempts to demand rights devolving
solely from membership in a group are inherently anti-american, and such
affiliations demanding group rights at the detriment of individual rights
for all citizens tend to come under powerful scrutiny (at least). The
closest thing to an exception to this is that an affiliate group can of
course vote en-bloc.
>
> <snip>
> > On the other hand, I'm positively convinced that there's nationalism
> > in Germany as we speak and a very unrestrained one, too. Just look at
> > that event that was held in Paris, a few years ago : German went there
> > with armored vehicles for the parade! heh... I don't know what was the
> > show about, but it's definitively not a country with a timid sense of
> > nationalism that would parade with guns in a city they once invaded.
>
> Look up other posts of mine & Markus regarding the extent and nature of
> nationalism in today's Germany. As far as I can tell you refer to a pa-
> rade on the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe, and German
> troops were in fact invited by the French government in order to stress
> the peaceful coexistence of Germany and France. BICBW.
>
> <snip>
> >> I know that St. Patrick's Day in the US (and especially where I live)
> >> is a great holiday of pride in one's heritage.
> >
> > Ah yeah, that's true... Same for Mtl and the rest of the country. But
> > it's "ethnic", it's not "nationalistic". Its pride about one's
> > origins, not nationality.
>
> Well, in the US/Canada it is. (Compare klaatu's post about the reluctan-
> ce to hyphienated Americans.) In Eire St. Patrick's Day is definitely
> nationalistic as well as taking pride in the Irish heritage.
>
> >>Even people not of Irish decent enjoy and appreciate the festivities.
> >
> > An excellent proof that this thing isn't really a matter of
> > nationalism, but simply one more festival to have fun for a while.
>
> Of course a bank holiday like St. Patrick's turns into a festival in the
> US since all Irish descendents have (according to the idea of the mel-
> ting pot) adopted US citizenship and been formed by the American cultu-
> ral context. Yet it keeps in Eire its nationalistic character.
As do many of the Irish-Americans of pure lineage. This is something which
rather annoys me. Pride in one's heritage is of course forgiveable, though
speaking as a very hybridized "mutt" I can't really claim to experience it.
But I would feel like a meddler if I were to support a revolutionary
movement to, for example, "free Alsace from those horrible French
overlords". And yes, I realize that it's hardly analogous. I'd feel
perfectly "alright" with doing Octoberfest, simply because I happen to like
drinking beer and partying. But that's hardly an excuse for funding the
Baader-Meinhoff revolutionaries. For many Irish-Americans, supporting the
IRA appears to have the intensity of a religious crusade.
<snip snip>
> Rachael
> Is mór an truagh é!
> & listening to Grieg
>
--
Narnia
wrote:
>J. Random American is only vaguely proud or even aware of their nation.
I haven't found that to be true. J. Random American is very proud of
their nation and blindly patriotic, without the added safety of being
aware of it. They get their news from 30 second soundbites between
prime-time programming and athletic recap shows, and take whatever is
said as truth.
This scares me.
>Many other regions (( there are some exceptions )) would say it like this:
>
>nine seven eight, fifty-four five, ninety-seven, fourty.
Where have you heard people do that from a specific region? I have
found that difference such as that are on a much more individual basis
than a regional one.
>I know that Octoberfest as of late has become a very popular thing to
>celebrate with great vigor in the US.
Anything with booze is something to celebrate in the US. The vast
majority of Americans don't know what Octoberfest or St. Patrick's Day
is for, just that there will be free-flowing booze.
Viva la alcohol.
>If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking a word
>from another language and have it express the idea more clearly than a
>sentence of the home language?
You have just pinpointed the reason why I add bits of Yiddish to my
daily conversations.
There is no good English word for 'finagle' or 'tchochtke.'
=Narnia=
http://www.velvet.net/
Rachael
> Rachael wrote:
>>>> Cultural differences of immagrants are mostly obliterated and only
>>>> dragged out for special occasions, unless they are full incorpera-
>>>> ted into the general American meme.
>>>
>>> In Canada, we're excessively proud, especially when political
>>> campaigns are raging, to say that we don't have such a melting pot
>>> [Assimilator] but a "Cultural Mosaic"[Integrator].
>>
>> The melting pot is a genuine concept for the New World and cannot be
>> implemented in a historic & cultural context like Europe. Therefore
>> its realisation (or the attempt thereof) in the US (as a relatively
>> young nation) could only work in combination with its colonising
>> movement.
>>
>> The dangers of a cultural mosaic are obvious: If certain minorities
>> (be it religious or ethnic groups) are reluctant to integrate, that
>> is to relate to an already existing cultural context, then tensions
>> in between the different groups arise and endanger the essential
>> state task of implementing a (codified) framework in order to allow
>> peaceful and civil coexistence.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
My paragraph refered mainly to problems we face in Europe, but there
are apparently similarities to the US American cultural context of
today. Maybe the US have formed that much an own inherent culture that
they do not aim at the melting pot anymore, but at integration as we
know it in Europe.
> At present, there's increasing tension between the US and Canada for
> this very reason. For instance, in the US, the groups least likely to
> attempt to assimilate (at least in the "North") are various Asian
> groups, especially the Chinese. In Canada, they apparently don't mind
> if the Chinese simply import China and live China in a new country.
> Insularity is evidently coddled.
<snip>
There are such problems in Germany as well, especially concerning the
largest ethnic minority which are Turkish immigrants. Currently there
live more than 2.5 mio. in Germany (that is about 3-4% of the popula-
tion) who unfortunately do not entirely integrate into German society.
There are districts in Berlin where more than 60% of the children atten-
ding school are not only non-German, many of them are incapable of the
language and often show no interest in integrating. Of course this cau-
ses lots of problems and tensions. Many German families tend to leave
such districts which become ghettos and foreign isles. This is an
aspect one should consider before claiming Turkey to be an European
country that should become member of the EU.
> Integration, if not assimilation, is our cultural model. We maintain
> the "salad bowl" or "mosaic" model regarding religion and in fact
> that's part of the Constitution. However, outside of religious or
> political belief, there are intentionally no protections for alien
> culture. This is particularly important for new arrivals to realize,
<snip>
And this is the main difference in between Europe and the US. We want
every people to preserve its culture, we don't want *one* European
culture, we want *many* manifestations of the European context to exist
peacefully next to one another or even integrating *without* assimila-
tion. That's an European characteristic we need to preserve. That there
is need of at least integration within the different cultures/nations
should be evident.
> we culturally perceive that any attempts to demand rights devolving
> solely from membership in a group are inherently anti-american
I don't mind minorities claiming rights as long as they pay attention
to their surrounding context, id est are willing to integrate while
preserving their heritage. It is inacceptable to me to not learn the
language and then complain about being discriminated against.
My! I learned Norwegian and German in order to comprehend, to communi-
cate and to participate in my surrounding. Yet I often refer to my Irish
heritage. It's not that difficult to integrate and to remain oneself.
<snip>
>> Of course a bank holiday like St. Patrick's turns into a festival in
>> the US since all Irish descendents have (according to the idea of the
>> melting pot) adopted US citizenship and been formed by the American
>> cultural context. Yet it keeps in Eire its nationalistic character.
>
> As do many of the Irish-Americans of pure lineage. This is something
> which rather annoys me. Pride in one's heritage is of course forgive-
> able, though speaking as a very hybridized "mutt" I can't really claim
> to experience it.
For me it's not really pride. I'm aware of being connected to my home
land and I try to participate as much as possible. It's rather an active
interest in Irish issues than pride. But that's just me.
> But I would feel like a meddler if I were to support a revolutionary
> movement to, for example, "free Alsace from those horrible French
> overlords". And yes, I realize that it's hardly analogous. I'd feel
> perfectly "alright" with doing Octoberfest, simply because I happen to
> like drinking beer and partying. But that's hardly an excuse for fun-
> ding the Baader-Meinhoff revolutionaries. For many Irish-Americans,
> supporting the IRA appears to have the intensity of a religious
> crusade.
Well, this paragraph is made for an Irish in Germany, isn't it?
NOTE: The following may be contradictious in part due to the fact that
I have not made up my mind on these issues entirely. Reply, but please
keep your flames low.
I think I see your point regarding the US, but I cannot agree with your
conclusion. First of all the analogy is wrong. The RAF (Rote Armee Frak-
tion) that is responsible for countless murders, bombings and crimes in
Germany in the 70s and 80s aimed at a communistic revolution in Germany
with means of violence. It opposed the so-called "imperialistic capital"
and (according to its own statutes/beliefs) would never had tried to ma-
ke the Alsace German again. The RAF hoped for a worldwide proletarian
revolution and therefore supported the Palestinian terrorism as well as
South American revolutionaries. In my point of view the members of the
RAF did not fight for the German people in order to establish a society
the Germans wanted, no, they fought against their own fellow citizens.
Therefore not only the RAF's beliefs are dubious and its means at least
questionable, their essential *cause* was wrong.
The Irish Republican Army on the other hand has fought for at least its
communities, if not for its people. British occupation has not only har-
med the Irish people's right on self-determination and autonomy, it has
in fact at least helped to establish an apartheid system in the West of
Europe. The Irish community has been discriminated against for centuries
and could not achieve change peacefully. (Just think of the attacks on
the Civil Rights marches in the 60s. Think of "Bogside".)
There was never any protection for Irish from the RUC. The British army
was welcomed by the Irish community in the beginning, but it had to
learn very soon that British soldiers were not defending its rights and
equality. Think of Bloody Sunday which the UK government never has even
tried to investigate properly. Think of the death swadrons used by the
British government to fight its enemies. The recent attempts of change
in Northern Ireland have failed mostly because of unionistic demands.
The British government fails to recognise the breach of cease-fire des-
pite unionistic murders of Catholics, despite bombings and despite
continued ethnic cleansing. Even terms of the Good Friday Agreement
have become debatable just for the fact that those unionistic leaders
that signed it now have decided these terms are too pro-Catholic and in-
acceptable.
Does continued discrimination justify terror? I really don't know. But
I do believe in any people's right of self-determination. I do believe
that the British politicians should at least admit and regret crimes
against humanity which have been committed against the Irish people. I
believe in the right of resistance, and I know the division of one isle,
one people and one culture is wrong. Therefore I can justify for myself
sympathising with Sinn Fein, therefore I can even justify the fight
against British rule. I'm not sure whether I can approve the means of
terrorism. But I do feel that Ireland is not part of Great Britain and
that it in fact never has been. Thus I understand those Irish-Americans
that (partly actively) support the Irish Republican Army.
Rachael
Saoirse na h'Eireann.
& listening to Dvorák
Aleister Crowley's Cat
wrote:
<snip>
>
>The Irish Republican Army on the other hand has fought for at least its
>communities, if not for its people.
That's bollocks. The IRA have killed more Catholics than the British
Army and the RUC combined, in fact, over 30% of their targets have
been civilians...
> British occupation has not only har-
>med the Irish people's right on self-determination and autonomy, it has
>in fact at least helped to establish an apartheid system in the West of
>Europe.
That's bollocks as well. The laws in NI after partition did not
discriminate officially against any one religion. An apartheid state
is where the laws are specifically set up to discriminate against one
section of the community.
What happened in NI was wrong, but what happened in the Republic
wasn't right either...
> The Irish community has been discriminated against for centuries
>and could not achieve change peacefully. (Just think of the attacks on
>the Civil Rights marches in the 60s. Think of "Bogside".)
>
>There was never any protection for Irish from the RUC.
Please tell me then why the arrest rate by the RUC for Loyalist
Paramilitaries during the troubles was some 4 times the arrest rate of
Republican paramilitaries?
> The British army
>was welcomed by the Irish community in the beginning, but it had to
>learn very soon that British soldiers were not defending its rights and
>equality. Think of Bloody Sunday which the UK government never has even
>tried to investigate properly. Think of the death swadrons used by the
>British government to fight its enemies. The recent attempts of change
>in Northern Ireland have failed mostly because of unionistic demands.
That's crap as well. Who's holding the illegal weapons? It's certainly
not the UUP, DUP or even the SDLP?
>The British government fails to recognise the breach of cease-fire des-
>pite unionistic murders of Catholics, despite bombings and despite
>continued ethnic cleansing.
Most if not all Unionists would condemn utterly the murders of
catholics by loyalist paramilitaries. Please do not use the word
'Unionistic'.
> Even terms of the Good Friday Agreement
>have become debatable just for the fact that those unionistic leaders
>that signed it now have decided these terms are too pro-Catholic and in-
>acceptable.
>
That's crap as well. The problem is that SF/IRA are not committed to
the Mitchell Principles which require parties to commit to exclusively
peaceful means. Importing guns from the US, murdering people just
because they don't like them (Andrew Kearney, Eamon Collins), and
holding onto tonnes and tonnes of semtex are hardly the actions of a
political party devoted to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
>Does continued discrimination justify terror? I really don't know. But
>I do believe in any people's right of self-determination. I do believe
>that the British politicians should at least admit and regret crimes
>against humanity which have been committed against the Irish people. I
>believe in the right of resistance, and I know the division of one isle,
>one people and one culture is wrong.
It never was one culture, one people or even one political entity. The
only time Ireland was united in one political entity was when it was
part of the UK...I suggest you go and read a few history books before
posting your nonsense here.
>. Therefore I can justify for myself
>sympathising with Sinn Fein, therefore I can even justify the fight
>against British rule. I'm not sure whether I can approve the means of
>terrorism. But I do feel that Ireland is not part of Great Britain and
>that it in fact never has been.
No one is saying that Ireland is part of GB. Northern Ireland is part
of the UK because a majority of people in NI wish it to be, and
something like 90% OF THE WHOLE POPULATION OF IRELAND NORTH AND SOUTH
have decided that it is for the people of Northern Ireland and
Northern Ireland alone to decide.
> Thus I understand those Irish-Americans
>that (partly actively) support the Irish Republican Army.
>
Well then, you'll support children and babies being blown up, because
that is what the IRA (and other terrorists in NI) have done over the
last thirty years...
Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
Regards,
Dave
WWW:http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/5885/index.html
(The Legions of the Black Moon - the unofficial Bal-Sagoth homepage)
====================================================================
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" - Aleister Crowley
klaatu
Well, what passes for "culture" in the US is very arguable, depending on who
you are and where you are. Mainly, it's intended to be "if it's not hurting
anyone and you're not evading your taxes, do whatever you want". The
original general ideal was maximization of personal liberties for anyone and
everyone. As for inherent culture particular to the US, I am ashamed to say
it's probably pretty close to what you would see on commercial US
television. This is a cause of existential terror to me. Our ideals and our
practices have yet to come even close to being identical.
>
> > At present, there's increasing tension between the US and Canada for
> > this very reason. For instance, in the US, the groups least likely to
> > attempt to assimilate (at least in the "North") are various Asian
> > groups, especially the Chinese. In Canada, they apparently don't mind
> > if the Chinese simply import China and live China in a new country.
> > Insularity is evidently coddled.
> <snip>
>
> There are such problems in Germany as well, especially concerning the
> largest ethnic minority which are Turkish immigrants. Currently there
> live more than 2.5 mio. in Germany (that is about 3-4% of the popula-
> tion) who unfortunately do not entirely integrate into German society.
> There are districts in Berlin where more than 60% of the children atten-
> ding school are not only non-German, many of them are incapable of the
> language and often show no interest in integrating. Of course this cau-
> ses lots of problems and tensions. Many German families tend to leave
> such districts which become ghettos and foreign isles. This is an
> aspect one should consider before claiming Turkey to be an European
> country that should become member of the EU.
This is entirely common in the US. with every mass-wave of immigration there
have been the creation of "foreign isles" (I would use the word enclave
instead, myself). There are neighborhoods right across the Potomac River
from Washington DC, where children born in this country enter public school
at age seven completely unable to speak English. This happens because entire
neighborhoods and sometimes towns have become ghettos, in the sense that
they are populated entirely by the same ethnic group.
But multiply Germany's experience with the Turks by 140; that's how many
languages are represented in my county alone. And each has its own little
enclave, or seeks to create one.
I think it's sad and a shame when they do that, since we were kind enough to
admit most of these people under refugee status. But one of the aspects of
the formation of enclaves is that once a home territory is acquired, it
becomes rigorously defended, and with our very lax immigration laws
combining with equal-rights protection, such offenses are not easily
remedied and often the people who form the enclaves believe themselves to
have acquired power. what they lose are neighbors willing to tolerate them.
It's sad. It usually works out in a generation or two. Usually.
>
> > Integration, if not assimilation, is our cultural model. We maintain
> > the "salad bowl" or "mosaic" model regarding religion and in fact
> > that's part of the Constitution. However, outside of religious or
> > political belief, there are intentionally no protections for alien
> > culture. This is particularly important for new arrivals to realize,
> <snip>
>
> And this is the main difference in between Europe and the US. We want
> every people to preserve its culture, we don't want *one* European
> culture, we want *many* manifestations of the European context to exist
> peacefully next to one another or even integrating *without* assimila-
> tion. That's an European characteristic we need to preserve. That there
> is need of at least integration within the different cultures/nations
> should be evident.
Well, Europe at least has the historic context; a German is generally a
German and a Frenchman is generally a Frenchman. They have their histories
which go back a very long way. Each culture has its own reasons for being,
and part of that is because they are in their native land.
Hopefully the US isn't searching for one unified culture, or perhaps it is
better to say that we wish for one unified "americanism" which should be a
basic understanding of rights and responsibilities, but with most of an
individual's culture lying alongside the "core americanism". The core values
would essentially be knowledge of the basic laws such as the Constitution,
local laws and so-forth -- but that's a fairly small set of knowledge, I
don't see any reason why very different people couldn't live next-door to
each other and get along just fine, the point being that in the exercise of
one person's rights they should not infringe upon the rights of another.
>
> > we culturally perceive that any attempts to demand rights devolving
> > solely from membership in a group are inherently anti-american
>
> I don't mind minorities claiming rights as long as they pay attention
> to their surrounding context, id est are willing to integrate while
> preserving their heritage. It is inacceptable to me to not learn the
> language and then complain about being discriminated against.
Thank you. If I was in France I'd at least _try_ to learn French.
Right, I said that it's not really at all analogous. It was "off the cuff".
> The RAF (Rote Armee Frak-
> tion) that is responsible for countless murders, bombings and crimes in
> Germany in the 70s and 80s aimed at a communistic revolution in Germany
> with means of violence. It opposed the so-called "imperialistic capital"
> and (according to its own statutes/beliefs) would never had tried to ma-
> ke the Alsace German again. The RAF hoped for a worldwide proletarian
> revolution and therefore supported the Palestinian terrorism as well as
> South American revolutionaries. In my point of view the members of the
> RAF did not fight for the German people in order to establish a society
> the Germans wanted, no, they fought against their own fellow citizens.
> Therefore not only the RAF's beliefs are dubious and its means at least
> questionable, their essential *cause* was wrong.
>
> The Irish Republican Army on the other hand has fought for at least its
> communities, if not for its people. British occupation has not only har-
> med the Irish people's right on self-determination and autonomy, it has
> in fact at least helped to establish an apartheid system in the West of
> Europe. The Irish community has been discriminated against for centuries
> and could not achieve change peacefully. (Just think of the attacks on
> the Civil Rights marches in the 60s. Think of "Bogside".)
Oh, I don't argue there, the IRA is fighting against a lot of historic
injustice. It's a damned shame how Ireland has been treated over these long
years.
>
> There was never any protection for Irish from the RUC. The British army
> was welcomed by the Irish community in the beginning, but it had to
> learn very soon that British soldiers were not defending its rights and
> equality. Think of Bloody Sunday which the UK government never has even
> tried to investigate properly. Think of the death swadrons used by the
> British government to fight its enemies. The recent attempts of change
> in Northern Ireland have failed mostly because of unionistic demands.
> The British government fails to recognise the breach of cease-fire des-
> pite unionistic murders of Catholics, despite bombings and despite
> continued ethnic cleansing. Even terms of the Good Friday Agreement
> have become debatable just for the fact that those unionistic leaders
> that signed it now have decided these terms are too pro-Catholic and in-
> acceptable.
More politics for the sake of politicians, I would guess. And what happens
to the people in the meantime...
>
> Does continued discrimination justify terror? I really don't know. But
> I do believe in any people's right of self-determination. I do believe
> that the British politicians should at least admit and regret crimes
> against humanity which have been committed against the Irish people. I
> believe in the right of resistance, and I know the division of one isle,
> one people and one culture is wrong. Therefore I can justify for myself
> sympathising with Sinn Fein, therefore I can even justify the fight
> against British rule. I'm not sure whether I can approve the means of
> terrorism. But I do feel that Ireland is not part of Great Britain and
> that it in fact never has been. Thus I understand those Irish-Americans
> that (partly actively) support the Irish Republican Army.
Heh heh. Well, they might easily see historical parallels between a
resistance in Ireland and the original Revolution in America... it's just
that Ireland is sooo much closer to Britain... they hadn't the logistical
backlog which many said was the reason the US were able to break free from
Britain the first time.
>
> Rachael
> Saoirse na h'Eireann.
> & listening to Dvorák
>
> --
> "Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
> Follow me... http://redrival.com/quisquilia/initiatio.htm
> Rachael...@gmx.net
--
Aleister Crowley's Cat
kla...@clark.net wrote:
> Oh, I don't argue there, the IRA is fighting against a lot of historic
> injustice. It's a damned shame how Ireland has been treated over these
long
> years.
>
Whatever happened doesn't make the blowing up of shopping centres of
women and children right. 90% of the people of Ireland North and South
utterly reject the terrorists and their methods.
> Heh heh. Well, they might easily see historical parallels between a
> resistance in Ireland and the original Revolution in America... it's
just
> that Ireland is sooo much closer to Britain... they hadn't the
logistical
> backlog which many said was the reason the US were able to break free
from
> Britain the first time.
>
I think that analysis is incorrect mind you.
Regards,
Dave
--
The Legions of the Black Moon - the unofficial Bal-Sagoth homepage
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Alley/5885/index.html
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rachael
> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999 23:11:29 +0100, Rachael <me> wrote:
>
>> The Irish Republican Army on the other hand has fought for at least
>> its communities, if not for its people.
>
> That's bollocks. The IRA have killed more Catholics than the British
> Army and the RUC combined, in fact, over 30% of their targets have
> been civilians...
Both sides have attacked civilians. I never said and never implied the
IRA was free of crimes against its own community. In fact the IRA used
violence in order to finance its fight and in order to enforce law in
the Catholic communities. That the IRA was able to define a law on its
own is not least because of the continued discrimination of the RUC
against Catholics arousing reluctance to cooperate with British law
enforcement. Let me quote the NIO regarding attacks on civilians:
"In the early 1970s 'Loyalist' paramilitary groups were formed from
within the Protestant community. The Ulster defence Association was
created from a merger of various vigilante groups in 1971. Two extre-
mist groups, the Ulster Volunteer Force and the Ulster Freedom Figh-
ters, murdered Roman Catholics and, like the IRA, financed their
activities by racketeering. The threat from Loyalist terrorists was
a major one; in 1993 they murdered 48 civilians while Republican
terrorists killed 22 civilians and 14 members of the security forces."
( http://www.nio.gov.uk/p_history.htm )
>> British occupation has not only harmed the Irish people's right on
>> self-determination and autonomy, it has in fact at least helped to
>> establish an apartheid system in the West of Europe.
>
> That's bollocks as well. The laws in NI after partition did not
> discriminate officially against any one religion. An apartheid state
> is where the laws are specifically set up to discriminate against one
> section of the community.
Well, I guess you're right then. If Catholics are not given the same
election, working and education rights, if they are paid less and less
often employed, if they are refused to access certain districts, parks,
swimming-baths or clubs, well, then that is in no way apartheid. It is,
as you say yourself, inofficial, thus nonexisting.
> What happened in NI was wrong, but what happened in the Republic
> wasn't right either...
>
>> The Irish community has been discriminated against for centuries and
>> could not achieve change peacefully. (Just think of the attacks on
>> the Civil Rights marches in the 60s. Think of "Bogside".)
>>
>> There was never any protection for Irish from the RUC.
>
> Please tell me then why the arrest rate by the RUC for Loyalist
> Paramilitaries during the troubles was some 4 times the arrest rate of
> Republican paramilitaries?
According to the RUC (figures of 1998 and 1999 available) the total of
persons charged with terrorist type offences are:
YEAR 1998 (03 Oct) 1999 (03 Oct )
GROUPING Loyalist Republician Loyalist Republician
MURDER 8 4 1 1
ATT. MURDER 2 3 1 0
FIREARMS 29 10 31 24
EXPLOSIVES 9 3 7 3
ARMED ROBBERY 16 11 12 10
OTHER 248 66 112 53
Total 312 97 164 91
Granted, more loyalists were arrested. But will you please refer to
the amounts of complaints against RUC discrimination? Will you please
take SAS and special forces into consideration? Then tell me again
that the RUC, SAS and other British forces were present to protect
both the communities equally.
>> The British army was welcomed by the Irish community in the begin
>> ning, but it had to learn very soon that British soldiers were not
>> defending its rights and equality. Think of Bloody Sunday which the
>> UK government never has even tried to investigate properly. Think of
>> the death swadrons used by the British government to fight its ene-
>> mies. The recent attempts of change in Northern Ireland have failed
>> mostly because of unionistic demands.
>
> That's crap as well. Who's holding the illegal weapons? It's certainly
> not the UUP, DUP or even the SDLP?
Well, I'd like to name the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), the Ulster
Volunteer Force (UVF), the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) and in parti-
cular the political representatives of the Loyalists - the Ulster Demo-
cratic Party (UDP) and the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP). Enough?
>> The British government fails to recognise the breach of cease-fire
>> despite unionistic murders of Catholics, despite bombings and despite
>> continued ethnic cleansing.
>
> Most if not all Unionists would condemn utterly the murders of
> catholics by loyalist paramilitaries. Please do not use the word
> 'Unionistic'.
>
>> Even terms of the Good Friday Agreement have become debatable just
>> for the fact that those unionistic leaders that signed it now have
>> decided these terms are too pro-Catholic and inacceptable.
>
> That's crap as well. The problem is that SF/IRA are not committed to
> the Mitchell Principles which require parties to commit to exclusively
> peaceful means. Importing guns from the US, murdering people just
> because they don't like them (Andrew Kearney, Eamon Collins), and
> holding onto tonnes and tonnes of semtex are hardly the actions of a
> political party devoted to exclusively peaceful and democratic means.
Let me please quote the NIO once again:
"the British Government undertook to bring forward legislation for the
elective process based on a judgement of what seemed broadly accept-
able. The two Governments agreed that, in light of the ending of the
IRA cease-fire with the Docklands bombing on 9 February, Sinn Féin’s
participation would depend on an unequivocal restoration of the IRA
cease-fire. They also agreed that, at the beginning of the negotia-
tions, *all parties* would need to make a clear commitment to the
Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence which were:
~ to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political
issues;
~ to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations;
~ to agree that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfac-
tion of an independent commission;
~ to renounce for themselves and to oppose any effort by others, to
use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the
outcome of all-party negotiations;
~ to agree to abide by the terms of any agreement reached in all-party
negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful
methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which
they may disagree; and
~ to urge that "punishment" killings and beatings stop and to take
effective steps to prevent such actions."
( http://www.nio.gov.uk/p_devsince1987.htm )
And let's see what the loyalist and unionist sides have done so far:
~ They have continued using violence as punishment measures.
(Same applies to the Republicans.)
~ They have not "abide[d] by the terms of any agreement reached in all-
party negotiations and to resort to democratic and exclusively peace-
ful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which
they may disagree" by questioning the participation of Sinn Fein in
a Northern Ireland executive organ and parliament.
~ They have continued using violence against the Catholic community. It
suffices to name THE MURDER OF ROSEMARY NELSON.
As Gerry Adam MP said it: "If the Good Friday Agreement is to be salva-
ged it is critical that the institutions which are the cornerstone of
that agreement are put in place. That is the criteria against which the
success or failure of this review will be judged."
Or let me finally quote a more independent comment:
"June 1999. Significant setbacks occur this month for implementing the
peace agreement.The main Protestant politicians, the Ulster Unionists,
announce they won't share power with Sinn Fein in a Protestant-Catho-
lic coalition Cabinet, as envisioned in the peace accord, so long as
the IRA refuses to begin disarming. And Sinn Fein rules out IRA dis-
armament by May 2000 which is the deadline set by the peace accords
for the IRA and pro-British Protestant paramilitary groups to surren-
der all weapons."
( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/etc/cron.html )
>> Does continued discrimination justify terror? I really don't know.
>> But I do believe in any people's right of self-determination. I do
>> believe that the British politicians should at least admit and regret
>> crimes against humanity which have been committed against the Irish
>> people. I believe in the right of resistance, and I know the division
>> of one isle, one people and one culture is wrong.
>
> It never was one culture, one people or even one political entity. The
> only time Ireland was united in one political entity was when it was
> part of the UK...I suggest you go and read a few history books before
> posting your nonsense here.
As far as I re-read my post I did not speak of one political entity.
Since Ireland was under British rule from the 13th century on until
1921, there could not establish an independent political unity and
entity the like we know from mainland Europe. But let's check the Irish
unity of culture: Until the 17th century when Cromwell's troops and ve-
terans mainly settled in Ulster, Roman Catholicism was a main characte-
ristic throughout Ireland. In particular, there was no difference in
between the North and the South until then. One people: Yep, again un-
til the 17th century when Cromwell allowed Scottish followers to settle
down in the North of Ireland. One isle: Well, I need not discuss that
one, need I?
>> Therefore I can justify for myself sympathising with Sinn Fein,
>> therefore I can even justify the fight against British rule. I'm not
>> sure whether I can approve the means of terrorism. But I do feel that
>> Ireland is not part of Great Britain and that it in fact never has
>> been.
>
> No one is saying that Ireland is part of GB.
Go to the NIO page I quoted from. Take a look at the history of the
Northern Ireland conflict. Read what they say about Ireland being con-
sidered part of Great Britain. <I refrain from flames now.>
> Northern Ireland is part of the UK because a majority of people in NI
> wish it to be,
When was there a poll in Ulster? In 1922, right, but afterwards?
> and something like 90% OF THE WHOLE POPULATION OF IRELAND NORTH AND
> SOUTH have decided that it is for the people of Northern Ireland and
> Northern Ireland alone to decide.
They have decided for peace. That does not equal approving British rule
over the North of Ireland.
>> Thus I understand those Irish-Americans that (partly actively)
>> support the Irish Republican Army.
>
> Well then, you'll support children and babies being blown up, because
> that is what the IRA (and other terrorists in NI) have done over the
> last thirty years...
No. I said I am able to understand why others of Irish heritage may feel
that they should support all forces striving for an independent and free
Ireland. Btw, what's about loyalists burning (three) little boys in
Portadown? (And absurdely not breaking ceasefire by that according to
the British government.)
> Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
Nay. I'm already yuppie scum, thanks a lot. Would you like me to leave
my armchair and *engage*?
Rachael
Cad is dóich leat ba cheart a dhéanamh?
& listening to Bartók
Aleister Crowley's Cat
Catholic applications to the RUC doubled after the first ceasefire. The
major reason for catholic relutcance to join and cooperate with the RUC
was IRA intimidation. Even Patten's own figures show that only 1/3 of
Catholics have an idelogical problem with the RUC.
Of course, you don't mention republican atrocities like Darkley,
Kingsmill, Teebane, Enniskillen - they simply killed people because they
were protestant.
Any attempt to seperate the motivations and actions of republicans from
loyalist terrorists is doomed to failure - they're all scum and
murdering bastards...
> >> British occupation has not only harmed the Irish people's right on
> >> self-determination and autonomy, it has in fact at least helped to
> >> establish an apartheid system in the West of Europe.
> >
> > That's bollocks as well. The laws in NI after partition did not
> > discriminate officially against any one religion. An apartheid state
> > is where the laws are specifically set up to discriminate against
one
> > section of the community.
>
> Well, I guess you're right then. If Catholics are not given the same
> election, working and education rights, if they are paid less and less
> often employed, if they are refused to access certain districts,
parks,
> swimming-baths or clubs, well, then that is in no way apartheid. It
is,
> as you say yourself, inofficial, thus nonexisting.
>
"The Unionist regime was neither as vindictive nor as oppressive as
regimes elsewhere in the world with problems of compact or irredentist
minorities. The fact remains that, owing to local conditions, the power
of the government was used in the interests of Unionists and
Protestants, with scant regard for the interests of the region as a
whole or for the claims and susceptibilities of the substantial
minority."
Buckland, 1981 - quoted from
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm
Bear in mid of course as well, what happened to protestants in the irish
Republic after partition.
Again, I quote from John Whyte's article:
"The fairest summary of police behaviour in Northern Ireland appears to
be as follows. The police force could not be seen as consistently
impartial, applying the law evenly to everyone, unionist and
anti-unionist alike. On the other hand, they could not be seen as purely
partisan, designed to perpetuate unionist ascendancy and batter into the
ground all political opponents. The reality was somewhere in between,
with the police forces teetering uncertainly between impartiality and
partisanship. In so far as there was change over time, the trend seemed
to be towards greater impartiality. In 1963 a nationalist senator,
Patrick O'Hare, could describe the RUC as 'a fine body of men who are
doing a good job' (quoted in McCann, 1974: 213). The increase in
hostility towards the police after 1968 meant the reversal of a trend."
The facts of the matter are, as found by Patten, are thaosdt t most of
the people of NI, protestant and catholic alike, think the RUC are doing
a good job.
> >> The British army was welcomed by the Irish community in the begin
> >> ning, but it had to learn very soon that British soldiers were not
> >> defending its rights and equality. Think of Bloody Sunday which the
> >> UK government never has even tried to investigate properly. Think
of
> >> the death swadrons used by the British government to fight its ene-
> >> mies. The recent attempts of change in Northern Ireland have failed
> >> mostly because of unionistic demands.
> >
> > That's crap as well. Who's holding the illegal weapons? It's
certainly
> > not the UUP, DUP or even the SDLP?
>
> Well, I'd like to name the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), the
Ulster
> Volunteer Force (UVF), the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) and in
parti-
> cular the political representatives of the Loyalists - the Ulster
Demo-
> cratic Party (UDP) and the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP). Enough?
>
You're ducking the question. Those parties BTW receive something like
10% of the Unionist Vote - not even enough to join the executive. I
certainly would be against them joining the executive until they give up
their weapons - the same problem I have with SF.
> >> The British government fails to recognise the breach of cease-fire
> >> despite unionistic murders of Catholics, despite bombings and
despite
> >> continued ethnic cleansing.
> >
> > Most if not all Unionists would condemn utterly the murders of
> > catholics by loyalist paramilitaries. Please do not use the word
> > 'Unionistic'.
> >
> >> Even terms of the Good Friday Agreement have become debatable just
> >> for the fact that those unionistic leaders that signed it now have
> >> decided these terms are too pro-Catholic and inacceptable.
> >
> > That's crap as well. The problem is that SF/IRA are not committed to
> > the Mitchell Principles which require parties to commit to
exclusively
> > peaceful means. Importing guns from the US, murdering people just
> > because they don't like them (Andrew Kearney, Eamon Collins), and
> > holding onto tonnes and tonnes of semtex are hardly the actions of a
> > political party devoted to exclusively peaceful and democratic
means.
>
> Let me please quote the NIO once again:
>
> "the British Government undertook to bring forward legislation for
the
> elective process based on a judgement of what seemed broadly accept-
> able. The two Governments agreed that, in light of the ending of the
> IRA cease-fire with the Docklands bombing on 9 February, Sinn Féin?s
Oh yawn. Rosemary Nelson. There have been other people murdered as well.
Andrew Kearney? Charles Bennett? I don't hear you mention them now do I?
> As Gerry Adam MP said it: "If the Good Friday Agreement is to be
salva-
> ged it is critical that the institutions which are the cornerstone of
> that agreement are put in place. That is the criteria against which
the
> success or failure of this review will be judged."
>
> Or let me finally quote a more independent comment:
>
> "June 1999. Significant setbacks occur this month for implementing
the
> peace agreement.The main Protestant politicians, the Ulster
Unionists,
> announce they won't share power with Sinn Fein in a
Protestant-Catho-
> lic coalition Cabinet, as envisioned in the peace accord, so long as
> the IRA refuses to begin disarming. And Sinn Fein rules out IRA dis-
> armament by May 2000 which is the deadline set by the peace accords
> for the IRA and pro-British Protestant paramilitary groups to
surren-
> der all weapons."
>
> ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/etc/cron.html )
>
Why do SF/IRA need weapons if they are a democratic party? Why have they
even refused to collabrate with General de Chasterlain's disarmament
commision?
Erm, no. The kingdom of Ulster was always a seperate kingdom from the
rest of Ireland, with it's own characteristics. Sure even the original
Scotti (from where Scotland gets its name) originated from the north of
Ireland.
What your aguments sound like are the old republican racism against
anyone not 'gaelic and catholic'. It's the same type of argument put
forward by the 'learn to swim' brigade...
And as for the one island argument - that's totally pathetic. I'm sure
the Portugese will take you up on on that...
> >> Therefore I can justify for myself sympathising with Sinn Fein,
> >> therefore I can even justify the fight against British rule. I'm
not
> >> sure whether I can approve the means of terrorism. But I do feel
that
> >> Ireland is not part of Great Britain and that it in fact never has
> >> been.
> >
> > No one is saying that Ireland is part of GB.
>
> Go to the NIO page I quoted from. Take a look at the history of the
> Northern Ireland conflict. Read what they say about Ireland being con-
> sidered part of Great Britain. <I refrain from flames now.>
>
> > Northern Ireland is part of the UK because a majority of people in
NI
> > wish it to be,
>
> When was there a poll in Ulster? In 1922, right, but afterwards?
>
> > and something like 90% OF THE WHOLE POPULATION OF IRELAND NORTH AND
> > SOUTH have decided that it is for the people of Northern Ireland and
> > Northern Ireland alone to decide.
>
> They have decided for peace. That does not equal approving British
rule
> over the North of Ireland.
>
No. the GFA states that it is for the people of NI alone to decide where
their future is. The GFA was approved by 71% of people in the north, and
over 90% of people in the south. Seems like a pretty clear mandate to
me.
> >> Thus I understand those Irish-Americans that (partly actively)
> >> support the Irish Republican Army.
> >
> > Well then, you'll support children and babies being blown up,
because
> > that is what the IRA (and other terrorists in NI) have done over the
> > last thirty years...
>
> No. I said I am able to understand why others of Irish heritage may
feel
> that they should support all forces striving for an independent and
free
> Ireland.
If they want an 'independant and free' Ireland then they should do it by
exclusively peaceful means. It's called demcracy.
> Btw, what's about loyalists burning (three) little boys in
> Portadown? (And absurdely not breaking ceasefire by that according to
> the British government.)
>
It was Ballymoney BTW
You seem to think that all because you seem to have an emotional
attachmenbt to republican terrorists I should have a similoar one to
loyalist terorrists. Well, I don't. They're fucking scum.
> > Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
>
> Nay. I'm already yuppie scum, thanks a lot. Would you like me to leave
> my armchair and *engage*?
>
> Rachael
> Cad is dóich leat ba cheart a dhéanamh?
> & listening to Bartók
>
Well, you could start by stopping try to justify support for terrorist
murderers, whatever religion they may be.
Regards,
Dave
> --
> "Suavia musae... me delectant, me deiciunt, me consolantur."
> Follow me... http://redrival.com/quisquilia/initiatio.htm
> Rachael...@gmx.net
>
--
rad...@nospam.org
<mango...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<S>
>
> Catholic applications to the RUC doubled after the first ceasefire.
Bringing the figure to what? Doubling a miniscule amount does not
provide for even remote pairity. Moreover it does nothing to alter the
fact that since the partition the RUC and its forebears have been drawn
from a homogenous and partisan population.
> The
> major reason for catholic relutcance to join and cooperate with the RUC
> was IRA intimidation.
This is conclusory.
> Even Patten's own figures show that only 1/3 of
> Catholics have an idelogical problem with the RUC.
A highly suspect figure, and still an enormous number of people.
> Of course, you don't mention republican atrocities like Darkley,
> Kingsmill, Teebane, Enniskillen - they simply killed people because they
> were protestant.
Playing the parade of attrocities does not support your argument.
> Any attempt to seperate the motivations and actions of republicans from
> loyalist terrorists is doomed to failure - they're all scum and
> murdering bastards...
And the fact that one side is fighting for equality and the other is
supporting opression doesn't bother you at all? United Ireland is a
red herring for both sides. The troubles started as a civil rights
struggle, and when you strip away the ideology the fact is that
catholics in NI come in a distant second in everything from employment
to infant mortality to fundamental civil liberties. Murderous or
otherwise violence on behalf of the ruling class is far less morally
tenable.
>
> > >> British occupation has not only harmed the Irish people's right on
> > >> self-determination and autonomy, it has in fact at least helped to
> > >> establish an apartheid system in the West of Europe.
> > >
> > > That's bollocks as well. The laws in NI after partition did not
> > > discriminate officially against any one religion. An apartheid state
> > > is where the laws are specifically set up to discriminate against
> one
> > > section of the community.
> >
> > Well, I guess you're right then. If Catholics are not given the same
> > election, working and education rights, if they are paid less and less
> > often employed, if they are refused to access certain districts,
> parks,
> > swimming-baths or clubs, well, then that is in no way apartheid. It
> is,
> > as you say yourself, inofficial, thus nonexisting.
> >
>
> "The Unionist regime was neither as vindictive nor as oppressive as
> regimes elsewhere in the world with problems of compact or irredentist
> minorities. The fact remains that, owing to local conditions, the power
> of the government was used in the interests of Unionists and
> Protestants, with scant regard for the interests of the region as a
> whole or for the claims and susceptibilities of the substantial
> minority."
>
> Buckland, 1981 - quoted from
> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm
This quotatation is taken vastly out of context and does not rebut the
statement. You cannot take a specific and particluarized statement
about repression and deny the fact that public and private
discrimintation against catholics in NI was, and is, beyond rampant.
The fact that you might not be subject to the genocide of Rwanda or
Timor is cold comfort when you can't get a job because the union hall
and the Masonic lodge are one and the same.
> Bear in mid of course as well, what happened to protestants in the irish
> Republic after partition.
Again, parade of attrocities. Shall I trot out the Tan war, internment
and the Birmingham 6? The fact remains that you were still better off
in the Free State or the Republic as a Protestant than you are in
Ulster in 1999 as a catholic.
<S>
>
> Again, I quote from John Whyte's article:
>
> "The fairest summary of police behaviour in Northern Ireland appears to
> be as follows. The police force could not be seen as consistently
> impartial, applying the law evenly to everyone, unionist and
> anti-unionist alike. On the other hand, they could not be seen as purely
> partisan, designed to perpetuate unionist ascendancy and batter into the
> ground all political opponents. The reality was somewhere in between,
> with the police forces teetering uncertainly between impartiality and
> partisanship. In so far as there was change over time, the trend seemed
> to be towards greater impartiality. In 1963 a nationalist senator,
> Patrick O'Hare, could describe the RUC as 'a fine body of men who are
> doing a good job' (quoted in McCann, 1974: 213). The increase in
> hostility towards the police after 1968 meant the reversal of a trend."
Once again, your quotation does not support your assertion.
> The facts of the matter are, as found by Patten, are thaosdt t most of
> the people of NI, protestant and catholic alike, think the RUC are doing
> a good job.
Before you said that on 30% of catholics have an ideological problem
with the RUC. This is not remotrely the same as the majority believing
that theyre doing a good job.
> > >> The British army was welcomed by the Irish community in the begin
> > >> ning, but it had to learn very soon that British soldiers were not
> > >> defending its rights and equality. Think of Bloody Sunday which the
> > >> UK government never has even tried to investigate properly. Think
> of
> > >> the death swadrons used by the British government to fight its ene-
> > >> mies. The recent attempts of change in Northern Ireland have failed
> > >> mostly because of unionistic demands.
> > >
> > > That's crap as well. Who's holding the illegal weapons? It's
> certainly
> > > not the UUP, DUP or even the SDLP?
> >
> > Well, I'd like to name the Ulster Defence Association (UDA), the
> Ulster
> > Volunteer Force (UVF), the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) and in
> parti-
> > cular the political representatives of the Loyalists - the Ulster
> Demo-
> > cratic Party (UDP) and the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP). Enough?
> >
>
> You're ducking the question. Those parties BTW receive something like
> 10% of the Unionist Vote - not even enough to join the executive. I
> certainly would be against them joining the executive until they give up
> their weapons - the same problem I have with SF.
No, youre inverting the issue. The armament issue is about *arms*.
The fact remains that the Unionists, have *more* of them than the
Republicans. Essentially you are arguing that such a stockpile is OK
because of the factional separation within Unionist ranks. The only
difference is that SF and the IRA don't maintain the fiction of
separation.
<S>
> >
>
> Oh yawn. Rosemary Nelson. There have been other people murdered as well.
> Andrew Kearney? Charles Bennett? I don't hear you mention them now do I?
Just as you neglected to respond to 40 lines of salient criticism, and
instead focused on a single example. Ironic that you chose to trot out
almost exclusively emotional appeals, and yet accuse others of
partiality.
>
> > As Gerry Adam MP said it: "If the Good Friday Agreement is to be
> salva-
> > ged it is critical that the institutions which are the cornerstone of
> > that agreement are put in place. That is the criteria against which
> the
> > success or failure of this review will be judged."
> >
> > Or let me finally quote a more independent comment:
> >
> > "June 1999. Significant setbacks occur this month for implementing
> the
> > peace agreement.The main Protestant politicians, the Ulster
> Unionists,
> > announce they won't share power with Sinn Fein in a
> Protestant-Catho-
> > lic coalition Cabinet, as envisioned in the peace accord, so long as
> > the IRA refuses to begin disarming. And Sinn Fein rules out IRA dis-
> > armament by May 2000 which is the deadline set by the peace accords
> > for the IRA and pro-British Protestant paramilitary groups to
> surren-
> > der all weapons."
> >
> > ( http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ira/etc/cron.html )
> >
>
> Why do SF/IRA need weapons if they are a democratic party? Why have they
> even refused to collabrate with General de Chasterlain's disarmament
> commision?
Ummm, 100 years of British and unionist bad faith? Do you think it was
democracy that brought the issue to the table?
Sure thats social anthropological speculation. Moreover thousand year
old tribal affiliations have little to do with the fact that the
partition of Ireland had everything to do Imperial power and mantaining
an industrial stronghold and has continued largely do to the partisan
needs of the Tory party.
> What your aguments sound like are the old republican racism against
> anyone not 'gaelic and catholic'. It's the same type of argument put
> forward by the 'learn to swim' brigade...
No, it was an assertion of the fact that Ireland had an homogenous
population.
> And as for the one island argument - that's totally pathetic. I'm sure
> the Portugese will take you up on on that...
Again tribal affliations of a millenia ago have nothing whatsoever to
do with Imperialism and fundamental human rights. Moreover *you*
raised the issue.
Yes, a mandate for self determination, not a mandate for British rule.
You have not rebutted the argument.
> > >> Thus I understand those Irish-Americans that (partly actively)
> > >> support the Irish Republican Army.
> > >
> > > Well then, you'll support children and babies being blown up,
> because
> > > that is what the IRA (and other terrorists in NI) have done over the
> > > last thirty years...
> >
> > No. I said I am able to understand why others of Irish heritage may
> feel
> > that they should support all forces striving for an independent and
> free
> > Ireland.
>
> If they want an 'independant and free' Ireland then they should do it by
> exclusively peaceful means. It's called demcracy.
How charmingly naieve. In 1922 the majority of Ireland voted for
independance. So tell me what happened?
> > Btw, what's about loyalists burning (three) little boys in
> > Portadown? (And absurdely not breaking ceasefire by that according to
> > the British government.)
> >
>
> It was Ballymoney BTW
>
> You seem to think that all because you seem to have an emotional
> attachmenbt to republican terrorists I should have a similoar one to
> loyalist terorrists. Well, I don't. They're fucking scum.
Then stop playing the apologist.
> > > Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
And despite your professed rejection of the protestant paras, you are
rather the same.
> > Nay. I'm already yuppie scum, thanks a lot. Would you like me to leave
> > my armchair and *engage*?
> >
> > Rachael
> > Cad is dóich leat ba cheart a dhéanamh?
> > & listening to Bartók
> >
>
> Well, you could start by stopping try to justify support for terrorist
> murderers, whatever religion they may be.
Right after you stop supporting institutionalized opression.
Jim Dugan
Aleister Crowley's Cat
>In article <7u4d1q$co7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Aleister Crowley's Cat
><mango...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
><S>
>
>>
>> Catholic applications to the RUC doubled after the first ceasefire.
>
>Bringing the figure to what? Doubling a miniscule amount does not
>provide for even remote pairity. Moreover it does nothing to alter the
>fact that since the partition the RUC and its forebears have been drawn
>from a homogenous and partisan population.
>
Close to 30%.
Bear in mind that originally, 1/3 of places in the RUC were set aside
for Catholics...
>> The
>> major reason for catholic relutcance to join and cooperate with the RUC
>> was IRA intimidation.
>
>This is conclusory.
>
It's obvious.
>> Even Patten's own figures show that only 1/3 of
>> Catholics have an idelogical problem with the RUC.
>
>A highly suspect figure, and still an enormous number of people.
>
It's not suspect. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean
you can cast them as suspect.
>> Of course, you don't mention republican atrocities like Darkley,
>> Kingsmill, Teebane, Enniskillen - they simply killed people because they
>> were protestant.
>
>Playing the parade of attrocities does not support your argument.
>
The original poster was attempting to potray the IRA as paragons of
virtue...
>> Any attempt to seperate the motivations and actions of republicans from
>> loyalist terrorists is doomed to failure - they're all scum and
>> murdering bastards...
>
>And the fact that one side is fighting for equality and the other is
>supporting opression doesn't bother you at all?
Escuse me? NI has the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the western
world. How blowing up a chip shop full of shoppers is striking a blow
for equality is beyoind me.
Terrorists in NI are simply gangsters, who want to maintain their
trade in drugs, and their grip of fear over parts of NI.
>>
>> "The Unionist regime was neither as vindictive nor as oppressive as
>> regimes elsewhere in the world with problems of compact or irredentist
>> minorities. The fact remains that, owing to local conditions, the power
>> of the government was used in the interests of Unionists and
>> Protestants, with scant regard for the interests of the region as a
>> whole or for the claims and susceptibilities of the substantial
>> minority."
>>
>> Buckland, 1981 - quoted from
>> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm
>
>This quotatation is taken vastly out of context and does not rebut the
>statement. You cannot take a specific and particluarized statement
>about repression and deny the fact that public and private
>discrimintation against catholics in NI was, and is, beyond rampant.
Erm no. There is much less, hardly any discrimination against people
in NI on the basis of their religion.
>The fact that you might not be subject to the genocide of Rwanda or
>Timor is cold comfort when you can't get a job because the union hall
>and the Masonic lodge are one and the same.
>
What century are you living in? Have you been to NI recently? I
suspect not. You probably get your information from republican
hate-sheets like An Probacht.
>> Bear in mid of course as well, what happened to protestants in the irish
>> Republic after partition.
>
>Again, parade of attrocities. Shall I trot out the Tan war, internment
>and the Birmingham 6? The fact remains that you were still better off
>in the Free State or the Republic as a Protestant than you are in
>Ulster in 1999 as a catholic.
>
Again, I repeat the question. Your preceptions are so obviously out of
date and are incorrect.
><S>
>
>>
>> Again, I quote from John Whyte's article:
>>
>> "The fairest summary of police behaviour in Northern Ireland appears to
>> be as follows. The police force could not be seen as consistently
>> impartial, applying the law evenly to everyone, unionist and
>> anti-unionist alike. On the other hand, they could not be seen as purely
>> partisan, designed to perpetuate unionist ascendancy and batter into the
>> ground all political opponents. The reality was somewhere in between,
>> with the police forces teetering uncertainly between impartiality and
>> partisanship. In so far as there was change over time, the trend seemed
>> to be towards greater impartiality. In 1963 a nationalist senator,
>> Patrick O'Hare, could describe the RUC as 'a fine body of men who are
>> doing a good job' (quoted in McCann, 1974: 213). The increase in
>> hostility towards the police after 1968 meant the reversal of a trend."
>
>Once again, your quotation does not support your assertion.
>
>> The facts of the matter are, as found by Patten, are thaosdt t most of
>> the people of NI, protestant and catholic alike, think the RUC are doing
>> a good job.
>
>Before you said that on 30% of catholics have an ideological problem
>with the RUC. This is not remotrely the same as the majority believing
>that theyre doing a good job.
>
It was in the same survey. Other surveys have come back with the same
results.
Excuse me. How many illegal arms do Unionists have? As in the UUP or
even the DUP? I don not accuse the SDLP of holding stockpiles of
illegal weaponry simply because they share *some* of the aims of
SF/IRA.
> Essentially you are arguing that such a stockpile is OK
>because of the factional separation within Unionist ranks.
It's not a fictional situation. Please tell me then how many senior
members of the UUP are currenty in the loyalist paramilataries?
> The only
>difference is that SF and the IRA don't maintain the fiction of
>separation.
>
>
><S>
>
>> >
>>
>> Oh yawn. Rosemary Nelson. There have been other people murdered as well.
>> Andrew Kearney? Charles Bennett? I don't hear you mention them now do I?
>
>Just as you neglected to respond to 40 lines of salient criticism, and
>instead focused on a single example. Ironic that you chose to trot out
>almost exclusively emotional appeals, and yet accuse others of
>partiality.
>
The Rosemary Nelson murder was a vile and disgusting act, carried out
by a bunch of murdering fuckers. Yet do I hear the same outcry against
murders committed by republicans? Where's the campaign for justice for
Andrew Kearney?
Incorrect. They (SF/IRA) won't even give a firm committment to get rid
of their weapons. If they are democrats then why do they need weapons?
The SDLP don't have any weapons. Alliance don't. The UUP don't. The
DUP don't. Why do SF/IRA and the UDP/PUP lot need weapons?
>> No. the GFA states that it is for the people of NI alone to decide where
>> their future is. The GFA was approved by 71% of people in the north, and
>> over 90% of people in the south. Seems like a pretty clear mandate to
>> me.
>
>Yes, a mandate for self determination, not a mandate for British rule.
>You have not rebutted the argument.
>
It is a mandate for British Rule. The majority (up to 70% in fact)
wish to remain British. The GFA has recognized this.
>> > Btw, what's about loyalists burning (three) little boys in
>> > Portadown? (And absurdely not breaking ceasefire by that according to
>> > the British government.)
>> >
>>
>> It was Ballymoney BTW
>>
>> You seem to think that all because you seem to have an emotional
>> attachmenbt to republican terrorists I should have a similoar one to
>> loyalist terorrists. Well, I don't. They're fucking scum.
>
>Then stop playing the apologist.
>
Where have I ever apologised for loyalist atrocities or actions?
Please tell me. Put up or shut up, as the phrase goes.
>> > > Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
>
>And despite your professed rejection of the protestant paras, you are
>rather the same.
>
Am I? Where have I ever advocated actions by any terrorist groupings?
>> > Nay. I'm already yuppie scum, thanks a lot. Would you like me to leave
>> > my armchair and *engage*?
>> >
>> > Rachael
>> > Cad is dóich leat ba cheart a dhéanamh?
>> > & listening to Bartók
>> >
>>
>> Well, you could start by stopping try to justify support for terrorist
>> murderers, whatever religion they may be.
>
>Right after you stop supporting institutionalized opression.
>
>Jim Dugan
>
What institutionalised oppression?
rad...@nospam.org
Cat <mango...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:42:46 -0500, <rad...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> >In article <7u4d1q$co7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Aleister Crowley's Cat
> ><mango...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> ><S>
> >
> >>
> >> Catholic applications to the RUC doubled after the first ceasefire.
> >
> >Bringing the figure to what? Doubling a miniscule amount does not
> >provide for even remote pairity. Moreover it does nothing to alter the
> >fact that since the partition the RUC and its forebears have been drawn
> >from a homogenous and partisan population.
> >
>
> Close to 30%.
Try 21%, up from 12%
>
> Bear in mind that originally, 1/3 of places in the RUC were set aside
> for Catholics...
Originally when? The Patten report recommends equal hiring, but notes
that it is currently *illegal* to do so.
> >> The
> >> major reason for catholic relutcance to join and cooperate with the RUC
> >> was IRA intimidation.
> >
> >This is conclusory.
> >
>
> It's obvious.
The only thing obvious is your blinding bias. The facts you cite do
not support your conclusions. You have no idea why there were so few
Catholic applications; it could very well be corrolated to the civil
rights employment initiatives or the fact that with a ceasefire on the
job suddenly become much less hazardous and far more desirable.
Strangely enough, these are the precise findings of the Patten
comission which I note you fail to cite here.
> >> Even Patten's own figures show that only 1/3 of
> >> Catholics have an idelogical problem with the RUC.
> >
> >A highly suspect figure, and still an enormous number of people.
> >
>
> It's not suspect. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean
> you can cast them as suspect.
I said highly suspect, because I suspected your assertion but didn't
feel like looking up the report. Now I have. For all your moralizing
and sneering, youre either a liar, or should be better informed before
you deride others.
"There is however, a significant difference between the approval rating
among protestant respondants to the Omnibus surveys (over 80%) and that
among Catholics (less than 50%)."
"The Omnibus Surveys have also found a large difference between
Protestant and Catholic views of whther the police treat their two
communities equally. Consistantly areound 70% of Protestant
respondants thought they did, against only around one quarter to one
third of Catholics."
The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern
Ireland.
The 30% figure refers only to why people *believed* Catholics didn't
join the RUC, not the actual number of respondants who do not support
the system of government.
> >> Of course, you don't mention republican atrocities like Darkley,
> >> Kingsmill, Teebane, Enniskillen - they simply killed people because they
> >> were protestant.
> >
> >Playing the parade of attrocities does not support your argument.
> >
>
> The original poster was attempting to potray the IRA as paragons of
> virtue...
No, the original poster was discussing the fact that the IRA are
advancing the ideology of their own communities in contrast with German
communist radicals perpetrating violence ideologically abstracted form
any democratic will of the people they profess to promote. You then
hijacked the thread for your own personal soapbox.
> >> Any attempt to seperate the motivations and actions of republicans from
> >> loyalist terrorists is doomed to failure - they're all scum and
> >> murdering bastards...
> >
> >And the fact that one side is fighting for equality and the other is
> >supporting opression doesn't bother you at all?
>
> Escuse me? NI has the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the western
> world.
More bombast. Laws with no effective civil redress and a Human Rights
Comission less than a year old with no actual power are hardly anything
to sing about.
> How blowing up a chip shop full of shoppers is striking a blow
> for equality is beyoind me.
I'm sure it is.
> Terrorists in NI are simply gangsters, who want to maintain their
> trade in drugs, and their grip of fear over parts of NI.
Gee, what a cogent and well resoned statement.
> >>
> >> "The Unionist regime was neither as vindictive nor as oppressive as
> >> regimes elsewhere in the world with problems of compact or irredentist
> >> minorities. The fact remains that, owing to local conditions, the power
> >> of the government was used in the interests of Unionists and
> >> Protestants, with scant regard for the interests of the region as a
> >> whole or for the claims and susceptibilities of the substantial
> >> minority."
> >>
> >> Buckland, 1981 - quoted from
> >> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm
> >
> >This quotatation is taken vastly out of context and does not rebut the
> >statement. You cannot take a specific and particluarized statement
> >about repression and deny the fact that public and private
> >discrimintation against catholics in NI was, and is, beyond rampant.
>
> Erm no. There is much less, hardly any discrimination against people
> in NI on the basis of their religion.
You are deluded. There are no fewer than 6 AI reports on
discrimination and human rights abuse in Northern Ireland in 1999
alone.
> >The fact that you might not be subject to the genocide of Rwanda or
> >Timor is cold comfort when you can't get a job because the union hall
> >and the Masonic lodge are one and the same.
> >
>
> What century are you living in? Have you been to NI recently? I
> suspect not. You probably get your information from republican
> hate-sheets like An Probacht.
At least I don't distort them beyond all recognition. Nor do I insult
and deride people when I run out of arguments. In case you hadn't
notice the only information I've cited are from your own sources.
Moreover in this very century, in this very year catholic unemployment
is still double that of protestants and even in government employment
where numbers are more proportional protestants occupy five times more
senior positions. These figures BTW are from the SACHR, not Sinn Fein.
> >> Bear in mid of course as well, what happened to protestants in the irish
> >> Republic after partition.
> >
> >Again, parade of attrocities. Shall I trot out the Tan war, internment
> >and the Birmingham 6? The fact remains that you were still better off
> >in the Free State or the Republic as a Protestant than you are in
> >Ulster in 1999 as a catholic.
> >
>
> Again, I repeat the question. Your preceptions are so obviously out of
> date and are incorrect.
Sure whatever you say. I'm sure its whole new world over there and IA
and the UN are just mistaken as well. Moreover there is no question
here to repeat or respond to.
> >> The facts of the matter are, as found by Patten, are thaosdt t most of
> >> the people of NI, protestant and catholic alike, think the RUC are doing
> >> a good job.
> >
> >Before you said that on 30% of catholics have an ideological problem
> >with the RUC. This is not remotrely the same as the majority believing
> >that theyre doing a good job.
> >
>
> It was in the same survey. Other surveys have come back with the same
> results.
You missed my point entirely. Moreover the fact remains that the
Patten report *does not say what you claim*.
> >> You're ducking the question. Those parties BTW receive something like
> >> 10% of the Unionist Vote - not even enough to join the executive. I
> >> certainly would be against them joining the executive until they give up
> >> their weapons - the same problem I have with SF.
> >
> >No, youre inverting the issue. The armament issue is about *arms*.
> >The fact remains that the Unionists, have *more* of them than the
> >Republicans.
>
> Excuse me. How many illegal arms do Unionists have? As in the UUP or
> even the DUP?
Sorry you don't get to pick and chose among your loyalists. The UDA
the UDF and the LVF have arms equal to the IRA,and refuse to
decomission. For the IRA to do so while these groups remain under arms
would be suicide.
> I don not accuse the SDLP of holding stockpiles of
> illegal weaponry simply because they share *some* of the aims of
> SF/IRA.
Thats becase they don't have any. The groups I've listed do.
>
> > Essentially you are arguing that such a stockpile is OK
> >because of the factional separation within Unionist ranks.
>
> It's not a fictional situation. Please tell me then how many senior
> members of the UUP are currenty in the loyalist paramilataries?
Thats factional. With an "a". As in differing factions of the
loyalist cause.
>
> > The only
> >difference is that SF and the IRA don't maintain the fiction of
> >separation.
> >
> >
> ><S>
> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Oh yawn. Rosemary Nelson. There have been other people murdered as well.
> >> Andrew Kearney? Charles Bennett? I don't hear you mention them now do I?
> >
> >Just as you neglected to respond to 40 lines of salient criticism, and
> >instead focused on a single example. Ironic that you chose to trot out
> >almost exclusively emotional appeals, and yet accuse others of
> >partiality.
> >
>
> The Rosemary Nelson murder was a vile and disgusting act, carried out
> by a bunch of murdering fuckers. Yet do I hear the same outcry against
> murders committed by republicans? Where's the campaign for justice for
> Andrew Kearney?
Ok, let me get this straight. I point out that you focused on 1/2 line
out of 40 and ignored all the rest in favor of inflamatory rhetoric.
You reply by repeating inflamatory rhetoric. Cogent. Moreover last I
checked, there was no evidence that Andrew Kearney was murdered with
the collusion of the police.
<S>
> >Ummm, 100 years of British and unionist bad faith? Do you think it was
> >democracy that brought the issue to the table?
> >
>
> Incorrect.
I asked a question. I can't be incorrect.
> They (SF/IRA) won't even give a firm committment to get rid
> of their weapons. If they are democrats then why do they need weapons?
Because it is weapons and only weapons that brought the process this
far, and the fact remains that there is utterly no legitimate effort to
disarm the loyalists.
> The SDLP don't have any weapons. Alliance don't. The UUP don't. The
> DUP don't. Why do SF/IRA and the UDP/PUP lot need weapons?
Because the other organizations you ignore have them.
>
> >> No. the GFA states that it is for the people of NI alone to decide where
> >> their future is. The GFA was approved by 71% of people in the north, and
> >> over 90% of people in the south. Seems like a pretty clear mandate to
> >> me.
> >
> >Yes, a mandate for self determination, not a mandate for British rule.
> >You have not rebutted the argument.
> >
>
> It is a mandate for British Rule. The majority (up to 70% in fact)
> wish to remain British. The GFA has recognized this.
Again you are talking out of your ass. The GFA says no such thing,
there has not been a referendum since 1922 and in fact the GFA
precludes such a referendum prior to 2005
>
> >> > Btw, what's about loyalists burning (three) little boys in
> >> > Portadown? (And absurdely not breaking ceasefire by that according to
> >> > the British government.)
> >> >
> >>
> >> It was Ballymoney BTW
> >>
> >> You seem to think that all because you seem to have an emotional
> >> attachmenbt to republican terrorists I should have a similoar one to
> >> loyalist terorrists. Well, I don't. They're fucking scum.
> >
> >Then stop playing the apologist.
> >
>
> Where have I ever apologised for loyalist atrocities or actions?
> Please tell me. Put up or shut up, as the phrase goes.
Thats not what apologist means.
>
> >> > > Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
> >
> >And despite your professed rejection of the protestant paras, you are
> >rather the same.
> >
>
> Am I? Where have I ever advocated actions by any terrorist groupings?
I didn't think that was required, since the original poster never
advocated terrorism either and yet you launched your tirade.
Regardless, youve done nothing but assert false facts, split hairs, and
distort and denigrate the positions of others in an aparent effort to
paint some utopian picture of a Northern Ireland that exists only in
your imagination. You could write UUP press releases.
> >> > Nay. I'm already yuppie scum, thanks a lot. Would you like me to leave
> >> > my armchair and *engage*?
> >> >
> >> > Rachael
> >> > Cad is dóich leat ba cheart a dhéanamh?
> >> > & listening to Bartók
> >> >
> >>
> >> Well, you could start by stopping try to justify support for terrorist
> >> murderers, whatever religion they may be.
> >
> >Right after you stop supporting institutionalized opression.
> >
> >Jim Dugan
> >
>
> What institutionalised oppression?
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/bnotes/param.htm
http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports98/nireland/
http://www.amnesty.org/news/1998/44500798.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1997/EUR/44500697.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1997/EUR/44500897.htm
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Comm_Admin_Justice/CAT.htm
Jim Dugan
Alain
wrote:
>Alain scripsit:
>The dangers of a cultural mosaic are obvious: If certain minorities (be
>it religious or ethnic groups) are reluctant to integrate, that is to
>ween the different groups arise and endanger the essential state task
>of implementing a (codified) framework in order to allow peaceful and
>civil coexistence.
Bah, the worse we ever had were FLQists blowing up big bangers in
mailboxes.. heh Oh, and they killed some dude.
>Look up other posts of mine & Markus regarding the extent and nature of
>nationalism in today's Germany.
I'm in a warez leeching period, not much time to look up after
posts... Should be back to normal in a few days, tho ;)
>As far as I can tell you refer to a pa-
>rade on the 50th anniversary of the end of WWII in Europe, and German
>troops were in fact invited by the French government in order to stress
>the peaceful coexistence of Germany and France. BICBW.
I don't know about the govt, but the french populace didn't
appreciated the idea ;)
>> An excellent proof that this thing isn't really a matter of
>> nationalism, but simply one more festival to have fun for a while.
>
>Of course a bank holiday like St. Patrick's turns into a festival in the
>US since all Irish descendents have (according to the idea of the mel-
>ting pot) adopted US citizenship and been formed by the American cultu-
>ral context. Yet it keeps in Eire its nationalistic character.
Is Eire in Ireland? Irish, in a generalized way, always seemed to me
to be a bunch of nationalistic extremists making independantist
quebecers look like conservative federalists ;)
>>> If you don't have a word for something, what is so wrong with taking
>>> a word from another language and have it express the idea more clear-
>>> ly than a sentence of the home language?
>
>As I said before - nothing. My critique is concerning unnecessary new
>words replacing existing ones. German has adopted Latin, Greek & French
>words for centuries in order to name new concepts/entities/objects. That
>is how a language evolves.
What about aesthetic efficiency, as a reason?
>> Well, R seems to be a purist, a pro-integrity of languages. heh.
>> He's a complete opposite of what I am in this regard. Radically. Now,
>> all we need is one in the middle to make it equilibrated.
>
>That is no compliment, is it? ;P
Hmm... Not at all. Remark, it's not a negative critique neither.
><snip>
>>> Isn't absorbing different words fun?
>>
>> Yes. If it was to be added as an official event for C6, then maybe
>> I'd go.
>
>I wished it was affordable for me.
I won't go, this year, so there's absolutely no reason for anybody to
go..heh...
>I think I'd like to get to know the
>flesh and blood behind some of the ASCII signatures.
I can send you bits, if you want.
>But I have doubts
>it is meant to be.
Well, all you need is money for plane tickets. And about 30-40 bucks
for the events. And maybe a hundred or two for the booze and the
smokes. No the cheapest thing, but very feasible if you plan in
advance.
Alain.
Alain
wrote:
>Alain scripsit:
>As I have indicated before it is debatable whether cultural goods should
>be treated as normal market goods or should be protected. Methinks, they
>should be given preferential treatment without limiting the access of
>alien cultural goods.
Oh, I'm not talking in a general way. Strictly about US commercial
products. They are unique, in the world, in their ability to produce
huge quantities of commercial flicks and tv shows... We therefore have
to use exceptional measures for this exceptional problem.
>One way to favour one's own cultural heritage is to educate one's ppl
>in order to make them aware of language, art and culture.
Such a level of education can't be envisaged in the way our society is
built. It's evident, I think.
>On the other hand instruments like fixing the book prices have proven
>their advantages and are probably justifyable state interventions into
>the mechanism of free market. But such interventions have to be as few
>as possible - just providing a framework.
That's rather timid.
>> heh See? Only way to do something about it is to tell the stoopid kids
>> when it's time to stop stuffing themselves with all that stuff. They
>> can't limit themselves, they therefore have to be limited by others.
>
>That's your French heritage speaking, might I assume? ;)
I have no french heritage but my genetic. Intellectually, I'm kind of
self-made, with a good base initiated by experimental parental units..
heh I was just being a bit fascistic.
>> The only "chinese" people I ever knew were from HK and, well, I never
>> had any problem to understand'em, their motivation, process of
>> thought, etc. Well, as much as I can understand people in general,
>> that is.
>
>Obviously our experiences differ. When I was in Bejing and Nanking in
>1996 I was fortunate enough to be accompanied by native speakers. I'd
>have been at a loss and would have learnt very little about China if
>anything.
Why? Because you couldn't understand the expressions used by the
people or because "they don't think like us"?
>Honkkong is a special case due to its former colonial state.
I guess, that's why I've put "chinese" between "'s.
><re: Herakleitos>
>>> "War is the father of everything, the king of everything, because
>>> of some it made gods, of others men, of whom some are slaves, the
>>> other ones free."
>>
>> What a strange idea.
>
>But it is intriguing, isn't it? There are many ways to make Heraklit's
>words intelligible & many interpretations possible.
I don't know... No, not intriguing. If I'm intrigued it's only because
I'm wondering if there's something I should have understood that
wouldn't make me consider it as completely erroneous.
>> But isn't an artist an individualistic person who will generally not
>> feel associated to any "school" in particular? I mean that they might
>> consider their style to be more in the x or y genre, but are they
>> feeling associated to a school for that? Like a club, an association?
>
>You have to take "school" in the sense "line of thought, interpretation
>of old masters, common denominators like teachers and scholars..."
Same thing, in a less concrete way.
>Of
>course an artist works individually if not individualistically, but he
>is dependent on the masters he studied, the techniques he learned and
>adopted, the context/milieu in which he works. Thus schools form. Some-
>times a group of artists refers and relates to a common theory of arts
>and therefore is a school of thought. Kandinsky's theory and the pain-
>ters of the Berliner Brücke are one example, the Dadaists another one.
It's strange to imagine a bunch of painters, true individual artists,
all abiding to the same concepts and rules. Freakish. For some reason,
I can't look at this idea without dumping'em all in the category of
the many postcard painters.
>> Oh, veinard... Donne-moi ton secret.
>
>Pas ici. Usenet est une place trop publice.
>On ne veut pas avoir des trolls immortels, n'est-ce pas?
Hmm Veux-tu bien me dire pourquoi pas? Il me semble que si nous
pouvions ramener a la vie l'un de nos trolls favoris et le rendre
immortel, la vie serait plus gaie.
>>> Où sinon serait le plaisir?
>>
>> J'ai trouve mon plaisir dans l'art de ne pas etre un goth... heh
>
>Je suis ambigue. L'art se constitute en être et pas être en même temps.
Moi, je n'admettrai jamais l'etre, quand bien meme me menacerait on de
m'attacher des electrodes aux couilles ou de m'enfoncer des clous dans
les lobes temporaux. Je suis un pur, un dur non-goth.
>> Cultural european unity? Never! Ha! That kind of utopian declarations
>> will have you hung short and high on the public place! heh
>
>All the different European cultures are certain manifestations of one
>common context. This occidental background of Christianity and Enlight-
>ment constitutes the European community,
Too horribly true (how badly tributary of Christianity Europe's
culture and society can be), but still, modern ideologies are so
different from a country to another.
>> WWII played a big role in it, don't you think? Man, Europe was such a
>> "New World" full of opportunities for the investors in '45.
>
>I remember my history teacher's saying that Europe lost much of its
>global significance with that desastrous Great War of 1914-1918. Before
>WWI all European powers were global players, afterwards the rise of the
>United States began.
Yeah, it goes pretty well with considering the arrival of the US, in
WWII, as the final assault. The official land claim, commercially and
even politically speaking.
>> Music : It's just sounds arranged together, so is language.
>> Eliminate the coherence of communicative language, only to retain the
>> musicality of it and you have music. Ie.: When I listen a tune in
>> english and that I can't understand most of it, the voice(s) become(s)
>> just one more musical instrument.
>
>I know this from my time in Norway, where I enjoyed listening to people
>speaking despite being incapable of understanding one single word. But
>you apparently neglect the semantic facet of language that makes it
>different to mere music.
No, as I said, language , in my mind, is composed of two elements.
It's musicality and it's communicative use.
I was simply speaking about what remains of a language when you can't
understand it, for any reason.
><snip Versailles example>
>> be it in french, chinese or german, using the name would have the
>> exact same signification in our minds. C'mon, swap versailles with any
>> other words, imagining it's the name of that place. It's not language
>> related... Just historical. It's a word to put on an historical fact.
>
>My point is proven that (any) language preserves social & historic
>events and changes. That's what you asked for. What I said about V.
>applies to the Holocaust, the crusades and the fall of the Berlin wall
>as well. They all have become rather chiffres, synonyms than mere words.
But that's not a precise language in any way... It's merely a word, a
name. Could have been any word, in any language, it would have beared
the same signification, in the same context. So, in this regard, it's
not in any way a reason to justify the existence of a language.
><snip>
><re: Hobbes' "Leviathan">
>> Hmm What is it about? The book that is.. What's the main plot? (I get
>> so many reading suggestions that I tend to become extremely picky to
>> not be overwhelmed... heh)
>
>The "Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Eccle-
>siasticall and Civil" is Thomas Hobbes' main philosophical work reflec-
>ting on the nature of man, the nature of state and the nature of faith.
>It is contemplating on the theory of war and peace and offers the very
>first realpolitical attempt of Empirism. Its truths are as genuine now-
>adays as they were in 1651 when the first edition was published.
Hmmm So it's not a story? Blergh, I bet there are no images at all,
eh? heheh... Almost j/k.
><snipping too many worthy discussions for the matter of time>
Good thing, my mind gets tired at long, when you force it to work,
anyway.
><snip>
>> We all should bow down before the mighty and imperialistic machines.
>> <alarmist> Anyway, they'll dictate us our lives in the future.
>> </alarmist>
>
><conspiracy>
>They are already among us. They are evil. They are the yuppie scum.
></conspiracy>
I was more thinking about the true machines... Not their servants.
>> Besides, that would finally give me a motivating reason to learn
>> coding.
>
>You should.
Yes, I should. But I probably won't, until a true need ever arise. I
simply don't have the ability to decide to learn a language for the
thrill of it. And certainly not the academical way.
>But I'm afraid: With asm you'll just look as oldfashioned as I do.
>Same applies to Basic, Pascal, C++...
The mere word, asm, reminds me of the BBSes and the fact that it was
already old in that time... heh.
>I've wasted my youth, it seems. <pout>
At least you didn't devoted your existence to cobol. Oh no.. did you?
Alain.
Alain
Kermode) wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Oct 1999 00:48:53 GMT, Alain <ala...@planet-int.net> wrote in
>response to my post:
>>You're better to be sorry, as we all felt pretty insulted and
>>neglected. I'll let the politely anglo-saxon Klaatu deny this.
>
> Then come to Whitby sometime and I'll buy you a drink to make
>it up to you. :)
Hmm... Planes tickets are damn expensive, lately. Even Mtl/UK flights.
Ahh, only a few years ago it was still 450Cdn for a short trip!
Besides, Europe's hostelry industry practices prices that are simply
scandalous.
>>heh I have something against northern wilderness. Maybe because I live
>>at less than 30 mins, by car, of it.
>
> I remember when there were those big ice storms and we were all
>worried about you.
While, in fact, there was nothing to worry about. Except for the fact
that I screamed and talked to myself for hours because I had no net
access. Well, until I found this net.cafe that was running on... AOL!
heh
>It didn't sound like much fun being close to the
>wilderness then.
heh No need to be close of the wilderness to not have fun, that year.
Houses and even flats got half crushed by the weight of the ice!
Enormous block of ice would fall from the skyscraper, at vertiginous
speed, damaging cars and, alas, missing people who were almost all
staying out of downtown.
Anyway, that's not the reason of my dislike of northern wilderness.
It's "northern" that I don't like. It got cold winters and rainy
autumns.
> Scotland has a lot of wilderness areas, some quite close to me,
>but although there are beautiful mountains and glacier-carved lochs we
>don't have cool stuff like active volcanoes or geysers.
Be glad... Active volcanoes! Who want of it? Hmm.. You, I guess? heh
Geysers, on the other hand, must be pretty cool.
>>And we have a volcano straight in
>>the middle of the city. Ok, it's an oooold volcano that is covered
>>with tons of soil and green, but nonelessly a volcano.
>
> There is one of those in Edinburgh, but it is believed to be
>very, very dead. It's this huge big hulking mass which the city spreads
>around in a kind of doughnut shape; it's called Arthur's seat.
heh Edina folks seem to have something for seats.
>Scary
>spirits and the ghosts of dead kings are supposed to haunt it. It's the
>centre of Scotland's Beltane celebrations. On April Fool's day this year,
>the BBC screened a 'documentary' warning that it was about to erupt. ;)
heh What would have been fun is if the thing actually had erupted!
Yeah, I know, I don't give much value to human life.
>>I didn't knew Iceland was expensive, tho. I only seen that it was
>>close and that it couldn't be very expensive concerning the plane
>
> It's mostly because so little can be grown there, food has to be
>imported and costs about six times as much as it does here.
Hmm Terrible.
>Alcohol is
>also extremely expensive, but one comes to expect that of any Scandinavian
>country - it's like they're trying to make up for something. ;)
>Accommodation is expensive because it's such a tourist trap.
Shame, shame, shame. Ah well, there's still the wild camping
alternative. Unless they also tax you for the 2 square metres you use?
hmm.
>>Oh? What kind of political climate?
>
> Mostly, over the period in which the migrations took place, a
>lot of bickering between princes and jarls about who should really be king
>and who was more important than the king. There were frequent attempted
>coups which usually resulted in the unsuccessful challengers decamping to
>northern Scotland for a bit to set up thei own little rival kingdoms while
>the locals talked them into spending all their money there. During the
>first settlement of Iceland, if I remember rightly, there was significant
>discontent among freeholders as well as jarls on account of King Harald's
>new tax system.
Wow, such a perfect scenario for a good game or flick! heh... And
that's true history ;)
>>"Witt whish/witch (I pick one, variably and nobody ever had the good
>>sense to correct me) witch was whoom, dair not dair at dear lair, I
>>wonder if dair wall'ng, but we would hair the way-ling"
>
> This kind of thing is really difficult to explain over a
>newsgroup, without the benefit of a phonetic alphabet!
I often noticed that. Written medium isn't good to learn
pronunciation, which is why I don't "speak" nor understand english
well at all.
> A speaker of Received Pronunciation English (Queen's English,
>the official version, even though only six percent of the population of
>_England_ speak it, never mind anywhere else) would pronounce 'which' and
>'witch' the same way. A Scot would use a different phoneme for 'wh' than
>for 'w', which involves exhaling while forming the 'w' sound with the
>lips.
So it sounds a bit like a v or a f?
>In old manuscripts, when English orthography had less of an
>influence on Scots, it used to be written 'qhu'. A Scot would also
>pronounce the 't' in 'witch' quite distinctly, while an RP speaker would
>swallow it. However, a Scot would not recognise the 'wh' at the start of
>'whom' as being distinct, and would pronounce it the same way as the RP
>speaker, that is, 'h'.
I noticed that with most english speakers I met. They almost eliminate
W's and K's in front of certain words.
> 'They're', 'there' and 'their' are all distinct in Scottish
>pronunciation, and all identical in RP pronunciation. A scot would clearly
>diphthongise
Diphthongise?
>the vowel sounds in the former and latter words. The 'i'
>would be pronounced with the tongue higher up in the mouth than would the
>'y'.
Hmm I *think* I understand.
>>I think it's a "new world" phenomenon. Quebecers maintained lots of
>>old stuff that died in France, since.
>
> Well, when languages split between two distinct groups of
>speakers, each of which has only limited contact with the other, they
>almost always take different directions - it just goes to show that the
>'hard and fast rules of grammar' are something of a myth, and that
>grammar, syntax, spelling etc. are really the result of consensus, subject
>to a number of different arguments.
I agree. I guess that's how folks managed to end up with hundreds of
different languages all around this planter.
> In other words, if somebody tells you that you made a mistake,
>all you have to do is to convince them (and their army) that it makes more
>sense to do it your way.
heh I used to do that a lot. I don't it much anymore, but I don't see
why. No more occasions? Laziness? That must be that. Laziness. I'm
getting old, you know? heh.
Yay! I did only one "true" spelling mistake in that post! Well, that
my spellchecker found, at least. Skycraper instead of skyscraper.
heh.
Alain.
Aleister Crowley's Cat
>> On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 08:42:46 -0500, <rad...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <7u4d1q$co7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Aleister Crowley's Cat
>> ><mango...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> ><S>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Catholic applications to the RUC doubled after the first
ceasefire.
>> >
>> >Bringing the figure to what? Doubling a miniscule amount does not
>> >provide for even remote pairity. Moreover it does nothing to alter
the
>> >fact that since the partition the RUC and its forebears have been
drawn
>> >from a homogenous and partisan population.
>> > >
>> Close to 30%.
>
>Try 21%, up from 12%
My mistake. I read somewhere it was 28%.
It's still a huge increae though. It would be preferrable if it was 42%
mind you.
>>
>> Bear in mind that originally, 1/3 of places in the RUC were set aside
>> for Catholics...
>
>Originally when?
At partition.
>The Patten report recommends equal hiring, but notes that it is
currently *illegal* to do so.
Agreed. Question: how would you increase the number of catholics in the
RUC?
>> >> The
> > >> major reason for catholic relutcance to join and cooperate with
the RUC
>> >> was IRA intimidation.
>> >
>> >This is conclusory.
>> >
> >
>> It's obvious.
>
>The only thing obvious is your blinding bias. The facts you cite do
not support your conclusions.
See Patten Chapter3, section 3.11 - "70% of catholic respondants to the
latest community attitudes survey cited intimidation or fear of attack
as the main reason why Catholics were deterred from entering the police,
and around 30% said it was because they did not support the system of
government".
Section 3.14 states that according to Patten's own survey, 69% of
catholics who had contact with the Police in the last two years were
satisfied with the way they had been treated.
>You have no idea why there were so few Catholic applications; it could
very well be corrolated to the civil rights employment initiatives or
the fact that with a ceasefire on the job suddenly become much less
hazardous and far more desirable.
Who were the main attackers of the RUC? Republican Paramilitaries. Thus
you yourself admit that one of the prime causes (as Patten shows,
probably the prime cause) was fear of attack or intimidation by
republicans.
>Strangely enough, these are the precise findings of the Patten
comission which I note you fail to cite here.
Patten Chapter 3, Section 3.15 shows us a 43/37 split amongst catholics
in favour of the view of "overall satisfaction" with the RUC. The rest
are obviously undecided or in the middle.
>> >> Even Patten's own figures show that only 1/3 of
>> >> Catholics have an idelogical problem with the RUC.
> > >
>> >A highly suspect figure, and still an enormous number of people.
>> >
>>
>> It's not suspect. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean
>> you can cast them as suspect.
> I said highly suspect, because I suspected your assertion but didn't
feel like looking up the report. Now I have. For all your moralizing
and sneering, youre either a liar, or should be better informed before
you deride others.
Look at the paragraphs above. Look at the Patten report You'll see that
Patten backs me up on this.
>"There is however, a significant difference between the approval rating
among protestant respondants to the Omnibus surveys (over 80%) and that
among Catholics (less than 50%)."
>
> "The Omnibus Surveys have also found a large difference between
Protestant and Catholic views of whther the police treat their two
communities equally. Consistantly areound 70% of Protestant respondants
thought they did, against only around one quarter to one third of
Catholics."
>
>The Report of the Independent Commission on Policing for Northern
Ireland.
>The 30% figure refers only to why people *believed* Catholics didn't
join the RUC, not the actual number of respondants who do not support
the system of government.
Erm, no. You're getting very semantic. If you have an idelogical problem
with the RUC you're not going to say that the main reason for not
joining is due to fear of attack now are you?
>> >> Of course, you don't mention republican atrocities like Darkley,
>> >> Kingsmill, Teebane, Enniskillen - they simply killed people
because they
>> >> were protestant.
>> >
>> >Playing the parade of attrocities does not support your argument.
>> >
>>
>> The original poster was attempting to potray the IRA as paragons of
>> virtue...
> No, the original poster was discussing the fact that the IRA are
advancing th>e ideology of their own communities in contrast with German
communist radicals perpetrating violence ideologically abstracted form
any democratic will of the people they profess to promote. You then
hijacked the thread for your own personal soapbox.
Since when do the IRA(or any other terrorist grouping in NI) have any
form of democratic mandate to use violence?
SF get about 4% support in the South, and 17% support in the North.
UDP/PUP get about 5% or so support in the North.
Overall that means that about 7% or so of the people of Ireland (north
and south) support parties that advocate violence. What about the rest
of us (93%) who don't?
>> >> Any attempt to seperate the motivations and actions of republicans
from
>> >> loyalist terrorists is doomed to failure - they're all scum and
>> >> murdering bastards...
>> >
>> >And the fact that one side is fighting for equality and the other is
>> >supporting opression doesn't bother you at all?
>>
>> Escuse me? NI has the toughest anti-discrimination laws in the
western
>> world.
> More bombast. Laws with no effective civil redress and a Human Rights
Comission less than a year old with no actual power are hardly anything
to sing about
Erm, it shows that you have no idea what you're talking about. I've
lived in Northern Ireland - I've seen the ubitious anti-discrimination
forms attached to *every* job application. I've seen the dozens of
cases of firms brought up on discrimination against both protestants and
catholics.
The FEC themselves stated in their 1998 report that 39% of the workforce
were catholics (the percentage of the potential workforce that was
catholic was 42%).
.
>> How blowing up a chip shop full of shoppers is striking a blow
>> for equality is beyoind me.
>I'm sure it is.
Let me see, blowing up civilians deliberately somehow advances equality?
>> Terrorists in NI are simply gangsters, who want to maintain their
>> trade in drugs, and their grip of fear over parts of NI.
> Gee, what a cogent and well resoned statement.
Excuse me, come here and see what the situation is like. This is an
accurate description of terrorists in NI today. Both sides are up to
their necks in racketering, smuggling, drug-running and other criminal
activity. Just yesterday there was a major article in one of the
newspapers here about. Searching the archives of local publications
brings up time and time again of instances where terrorists have been
involved in drugs.
>> >>
>> >> "The Unionist regime was neither as vindictive nor as oppressive
as
>> >> regimes elsewhere in the world with problems of compact or
irredentist
>> >> minorities. The fact remains that, owing to local conditions, the
power
>> >> of the government was used in the interests of Unionists and
>> >> Protestants, with scant regard for the interests of the region as
a
>> >> whole or for the claims and susceptibilities of the substantial
>> >> minority."
>> >>
>> >> Buckland, 1981 - quoted from
>> >> http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/discrimination/whyte.htm
>> >
>> >This quotatation is taken vastly out of context and does not rebut
the
>> >statement. You cannot take a specific and particluarized statement
>> >about repression and deny the fact that public and private
>> >discrimintation against catholics in NI was, and is, beyond rampant.
>>
>> Erm no. There is much less, hardly any discrimination against people
>> in NI on the basis of their religion.
> You are deluded. There are no fewer than 6 AI reports on
>discrimination and human rights abuse in Northern Ireland in 1999
alone.
You have said that it was 'beyond rampant'. Yet the AI reports have
focused on a small number of incidents, mainly by the RUC.
Please tell me about the 'beyond rampant 'public discrimination against
catholics in Northern Ireland. If you were to mention 'beyond rampant'
to people in NI, they would laugh at you.
However, there certainly is some discrimination, against catholics and
against protestants, but overall it is mainly isolated cases, and not
the systematic type that you think it to be...there is not some grand
conspiracy against cartholics.
>>> >The fact that you might not be subject to the genocide of Rwanda or
>>> >Timor is cold comfort when you can't get a job because the union
hall
>>> >and the Masonic lodge are one and the same.
>>> >
>>>
>>> What century are you living in? Have you been to NI recently? I
>>> suspect not. You probably get your information from republican
>> > hate-sheets like An Probacht.
>>
>>At least I don't distort them beyond all recognition. Nor do I insult
and deride people when I run out of arguments.
You're posting selective facts and intrepretations from probably 3000
miles away on the other side of the Atlantic. I, on the other hand, was
born in and lived in NI until very recently.
>> In case you hadn't notice the only information I've cited are from
your own sources. Moreover in this very century, in this very year
catholic unemployment is still double that of protestants and even in
government employment where numbers are more proportional protestants
occupy five times more senior positions. These figures BTW are from the
SACHR, not Sinn Fein.
As I've said before, a some of the difference in the unemployment rate
can be attributed to the difference in emplyoment rates generally
between the west of the province and the east. For instance, Strabane,
in the extreme west, has one of the highest adult unemployment rates
(IIRC it's somewhere around 30%) in the UK. This, when coupled with the
catholic majority in the west, will mean that a some of the difference
in the rate of unemployment can be attributed to this.
Gallagher argues (quite logically as it happens) that factos such as
Demographics and Education also play a part.
As I've mentioned before, the catholic proportion of the workforce is
39%, compared to the overall proportion of 42% in the population.
http://cain.ulster.ac.uk/csc/reports/mm29.htm
>> >> You're ducking the question. Those parties BTW receive something
like
>> >> 10% of the Unionist Vote - not even enough to join the executive.
I
>> >> certainly would be against them joining the executive until they
give up
>> >> their weapons - the same problem I have with SF.
>> >
>> >No, youre inverting the issue. The armament issue is about *arms*.
>> >The fact remains that the Unionists, have *more* of them than the
>> >Republicans.
>>
>> Excuse me. How many illegal arms do Unionists have? As in the UUP or
>> even the DUP?
> Sorry you don't get to pick and chose among your loyalists. The UDA
the UDF and the LVF have arms equal to the IRA,and refuse to
decomission. For the IRA to do so while these groups remain under arms
would be suicide.
You seem to display a basic lack of understanding of the situation in
NI, not surprising for one on the other side of the Atlantic.
The UUP and the SDLP are totally democratic and non-violent political
parties.
Surely the IRA could say that it would disarm if the loyalists did so as
well? This wouldn't be too much to ask. Yet we have not heard anything
from SF/IRA indicating that they would disarm. They have refused to
cooperate with General De Chasterain's commision. On the front page of
the Times of London this morning the IRA have been found to have tried
to recruit students at Queen's University in Belfast to act as sleeper
agents. One of them (from Sligo) refused and was subsequently beaten up
by an IRA gang
>> I don not accuse the SDLP of holding stockpiles of
>> illegal weaponry simply because they share *some* of the aims of
>> SF/IRA.
>Thats becase they don't have any. The groups I've listed do.
You implied that the UUP did. They don't. Political Parties linked to
Loyalist Paramilitaries get less than 10% or so of the Unionist Vote.
>>
>> > Essentially you are arguing that such a stockpile is OK
>> >because of the factional separation within Unionist ranks.
>>
>> It's not a fictional situation. Please tell me then how many senior
>> members of the UUP are currenty in the loyalist paramilataries?
>Thats factional. With an "a". As in differing factions of the
loyalist cause.
Again, you seem to display a basic lack of understanding of politics in
NI. There are four main political camps in NI. Republican, Nationalist,
Unionist, Loyalist. Republicans and Loyalists espouse violence. The
other two don't.
>>> >> Oh yawn. Rosemary Nelson. There have been other people murdered
as well.
>>> >> Andrew Kearney? Charles Bennett? I don't hear you mention them
now do I?
>>> >
>>> >Just as you neglected to respond to 40 lines of salient criticism,
and
>>> >instead focused on a single example. Ironic that you chose to trot
out
>>> >almost exclusively emotional appeals, and yet accuse others of
>>> >partiality.
>> >
>>
>> The Rosemary Nelson murder was a vile and disgusting act, carried out
>> by a bunch of murdering fuckers. Yet do I hear the same outcry
against
>> murders committed by republicans? Where's the campaign for justice
for
>> Andrew Kearney?
>Ok, let me get this straight. I point out that you focused on 1/2 line
out of 40 and ignored all the rest in favor of inflamatory rhetoric. You
reply by repeating inflamatory rhetoric. Cogent. Moreover last I
checked, there was no evidence that Andrew Kearney was murdered with the
collusion of the police.
I'm not aware of any evidence that implicates the police in Rosemary
Nelson's murder. If you do have any evidence to ther contrary, then I
suggest you contact the inquiry and pass it on.
>> >Ummm, 100 years of British and unionist bad faith? Do you think it
was
>> >democracy that brought the issue to the table?
>> >
>>
>> Incorrect.
> I asked a question. I can't be incorrect.
Okay. You're wrong.
>> They (SF/IRA) won't even give a firm committment to get rid
>> of their weapons. If they are democrats then why do they need
weapons?
> Because it is weapons and only weapons that brought the process this
far, and the fact remains that there is utterly no legitimate effort to
disarm the loyalists.
Oh, if the loyalists were to take up seats in the executive, there would
be asw much pressure on them.
In fact, there is as much pressure on them to disarm.
>> The SDLP don't have any weapons. Alliance don't. The UUP don't. The
>> DUP don't. Why do SF/IRA and the UDP/PUP lot need weapons?
>Because the other organizations you ignore have them.
So the IRA needs surface-to-air missiles to blow up all those loyalist
helicopters? And RPGs and self-propelled grenades to blow up the
loyalist armoured cars?
>>
>> >> No. the GFA states that it is for the people of NI alone to decide
where
>> >> their future is. The GFA was approved by 71% of people in the
north, and
>> >> over 90% of people in the south. Seems like a pretty clear mandate
to
>> >> me.
>> >
>> >Yes, a mandate for self determination, not a mandate for British
rule.
>> >You have not rebutted the argument.
>> >
>>
>> It is a mandate for British Rule. The majority (up to 70% in fact)
>> wish to remain British. The GFA has recognized this.
>Again you are talking out of your ass. The GFA says no such thing,
there has not been a referendum since 1922 and in fact the GFA precludes
such a referendum prior to 2005
And chances are they're wont be such a referendum as two-thirds (or
more) of the people of NI either want to, or are content to remain part
of the United Kingdom. The GFA is primarily about sorting out the
internal arrangements of Northern Ireland.
>>
>> >> > Btw, what's about loyalists burning (three) little boys in
>> >> > Portadown? (And absurdely not breaking ceasefire by that
according to
>> >> > the British government.)
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> It was Ballymoney BTW
>> >>
>> >> You seem to think that all because you seem to have an emotional
>> >> attachmenbt to republican terrorists I should have a similoar one
to
>> >> loyalist terorrists. Well, I don't. They're fucking scum.
>> >
>> >Then stop playing the apologist.
>> >
>>
>> Where have I ever apologised for loyalist atrocities or actions?
>> Please tell me. Put up or shut up, as the phrase goes.
>
>Thats not what apologist means.
From www.dictionary.com:
"apologist \A*pol"o*gist\, n. [Cf. F. apologiste.] One who makes an
apology; one who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an
institution; especially, one who argues in defense of Christianity."
You could call me accurately an apologist for Unionism, just as you
would be an apologist for Nationalism, but I am not an apologist for
Loyalist Terrorism.
>>
>> >> > > Sounds like you're nothing but an Armchair Chuckie...
>> >
>> >And despite your professed rejection of the protestant paras, you
are
>> >rather the same.
>> >
>>
>> Am I? Where have I ever advocated actions by any terrorist groupings?
>I didn't think that was required, since the original poster never
advocated terrorism either and yet you launched your tirade.
She went on about how she understood IRA actions. There is no
justification for armed terrorism in any democracy. The rest of us, if
we want something changed, have to form a political party and campaign
for votes. Why should SF/IRA and the loyalist parties be any different?
What gives them the right to blow, kill and main people just because
they disagree with them?
>Regardless, youve done nothing but assert false facts, split hairs, and
distort and denigrate the positions of others in an aparent effort to
paint some utopian picture of a Northern Ireland that exists only in
your imagination. You could write UUP press releases.
Au contarire, you're the one who's posting misinformation and replying
on outdated perceptions, all the while being nice and safe whilst the
bombs and bullets are going off. I've had close relatives killed by
terrorists you know.
>> >> Well, you could start by stopping try to justify support for
terrorist
>> >> murderers, whatever religion they may be.
>> >
>> >Right after you stop supporting institutionalized opression.
>> >
>> >Jim Dugan
>> >
>>
>> What institutionalised oppression?
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/bnotes/param.htm
Chumbrasamay (sp?) never found any hard evidence to back up his
allegations. That's all they are, allegations. Unlike for instance, the
treatment of women in the rape camps that you call prisons in the US.
> http://www.hrw.org/hrw/reports98/nireland/
The Colin Duffy situation is similar to what any police force anywhere
in the world would do, when faced with the same situation. They picked
him up repeatedly because they kept trying to get a conviction on him,
but couldn't.
The same thing happened with Billy Wright. Yet I don't hear republicans
complain about the treatment that he got.
>http://www.amnesty.org/news/1998/44500798.htm
>http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1997/EUR/44500697.htm
>http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aipub/1997/EUR/44500897.htm
>http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Comm_Admin_Justice/CAT.htm
I'm still waiting for evidence which will backup your claim of
'institutionalised' oppression on behalf of government agencies, not
just reports on individual (and overall, quite rare) cases. You seem not
to know what the word 'institutionalised' means. Certainly there is some
discrimination, but not to the extent to which you make it out to be.
Regards,
Dave
Rachael
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 06:47:57 +0100, Rachael <me> wrote:
>
<snip>
<re: evolvement of languages>
>
>>> What about aesthetic efficiency, as a reason?
>>
>> "Aesthetic efficiency" looks like an oxymoron at first sight, but it
>> is contradictory in fact.
>
> Not at all. There is aesthetism in efficient designs. Generally a
> slick and smooth aesthetism.
Of course simplicity often enhances aesthetics and elegance of a design,
but language is *no* design. Language is a construct evaluated by its
users and thereby evolved, and language is used poetically designed in
literature, but we are talking about its development and change, not abt
its different uses. Therefore "aesthetic efficiency" applied to lingui-
stic evolution remains contradictory.
An efficient use of language may prove proper, reliable and advantagous,
but it is in no way aesthetic unless simplicity is the user's main arti-
stic focus as it is in postmodern literature (in which language is put
aside the context often stressing dull day to day life).
>> Of course the need for efficiency is a main trait of our time and
>> effects our use of language. To no good avail, IMNSHO.
>
> MOIELHTY. heh.
?? You got me with that acronym. What does it mean?
<snip>
> Hmmm Maybe. I decided that the three possible hosts of C7 are Mon-
> treal, San Antonio and Reykjavick. I hope the mtlers wont sit on their
> lazy asses, thinking some magical bunch of little faeries will come to
> do the work for them. That's a typical syndrom of this socialistic
> province where the govt usually take care of every of your needs or so
Repeat with me: Etatism is evil. Etatism is evil. Etatism is evil. <g>
>>>> I think I'd like to get to know theflesh and blood behind some of
>>>> the ASCII signatures.
>>>
>>> I can send you bits, if you want.
>>
>> You carnivore, you. I name you Gothgrinder from now on. ;)
>
> As in "Grinder of goths" or "Goth that is grinding[stuff]"?
As in goth grinding other goths just for the sheer fun of it.
Oh, no, that would rather be n********* than you. ;P
>>> Well, all you need is money for plane tickets. And about 30-40 bucks
>>> for the events. And maybe a hundred or two for the booze and the
>>> smokes. No the cheapest thing, but very feasible if you plan in
>>> advance.
>>
>> Well, first of all the date of c6 is *really* badly chosen for main-
>> land European (student)s since it is the time of examina and other
>> university issues then.
>
> Hmm... There are always disadvantaged people in such events.
> Look, you have to define your priorities. Some trivial exams or a good
> party in some exotically foreign city?
I think I should wait for my first convergence. The fact that I have
read many posts by a.g.denizens and have made up my mind about some of
them is pretty much in vain if noone recognises my handle at a conver-
gence and I join the ever-silently-observing shygoth parade. I can mope
on my own much better at home. ;)
So I'll take my exams this time over the ever-so-exotic c6 in Seattle.
>> Secondly, as far as I can tell flights from Germany to the West Coast
>> are obscenely expensive. A flight to Seattle costs up to four times
>> as much as a flight to New York.
>
> You can fly to NYC and ride the cheap greyhound buses from there to
> Seattle.
>
> If I was to go, that's prolly what I'd do. I do Mtl/SA(Tx) once or
> twice every years on such horrible buses and I'm still alive.
Well, even if I should survive an East-West track, the busride itself is
still without doubt an unpleasent loss of several days that I need for
studies. Moreover, I'd not be very likeable and social after hours after
hours in a Greyhound bus.
So I'll either take a flight or have to wait for c7 in Reykjavic.
Rachael
Tá mo charáiste ag fanamhaint. ;)
& listening to Schönberg
Rachael
> On Sat, 16 Oct 1999 06:48:01 +0100, Rachael <me> wrote:
>
>> The US American economy is too important for global wellfare that any
>> country/poiltical entity the like of the EU could risk retaliation
>> measures. Don't forget that organs like the WTO have decided pro-
>> American whenever they were appealed to.
Well, this needs to be corrected. This week a WTO panel decided against
the US and reached the verdict that the US American tax reductions on
export goods are illegitim subsidies and have to be abolished. :)
> They're loud mouthed, but they never do shit, in the end. Trust me.
> We're still going on vacation to Cuba, we still buy Cuban cigars and
> we still own cuban companies that used to be owned by merkins and
> we're still buying US crap, the US is still buying our crap.
As discussed in the WTO thread with Benton, the US have already imple-
mented retaliation measures against the EU after the WTO decisions re-
garding banana imports and regarding hormonal treated American beef.
In both cases high tariffs on European goods were imposed.
<snip>
>>> Why? Because you couldn't understand the expressions used by the
>>> people or because "they don't think like us"?
>>
>> Both. I'm not capable enough to understand Chinese properly, and
>> there are of course cultural specifics and traits one cannot find in
>> European tradition which provides the context I've grown up with.
>
> So, basically, you still have the ability to be "surprised" by
> differences. Maybe is the moribund condition of my sense of
> astonishment the reason of my "ability" to conceive the logic in what
> is so "different" and "unusual". To accept it, in fact.
I do not only see differences as a part of life, I do in fact see their
necessity to constitute an evolving interchange of cultures. The accep-
tance of differences constitutes tolerance and thereby is a commendable
trait, but one needs not/must not internalize the difference for its
own sake. "Benefit from change, benefit from stillstand. Both will en-
hance you." (Thomas de Aquino)
>> I would not say "they" (as if there was a homogenic group of Chinese)
>> "don't think like us", I'd rather say there are certain differences
>> regarding behaviour and way to express oneself that make dialogue in-
>> teresting and open to misunderstandings at the same time.
>
> Their or your, mostly?
Both. The Western European cultural context has evolved differently from
the Chinese one, therefore both the persons opposite have to pay respect
to differing views and socio-cultural traditions. I tried to learn about
these differences as much as possible beforehand, but haven't been flaw-
less without doubt. It takes time to benefit from differences.
<snip>
<re: Herakleitos>
>
> Which makes me think that war isn't a world I would have used to make
> such a statement, then. A bit too off, a bit too subject to
> misunderstanding. Ahhhh intellectuals. Especially philosophs. All the
> same bastards since the antiquity.
Well, the pre-Socratics' writings do not know the distinction in between
subjective and objective entity. It was not until the 16th century that
Descartes constituted this distinguishing feature, so Herakleitos' alle-
gory of war was not open to misunderstandings in his time.
(And still is not, methinks.)
Regarding your bashing of philosophers: As much as I agree with you re-
garding postmodern academic philosophy which mostly paraphrases its sim-
ple thought by an inconceivable language, I have to object your descrip-
tion of such great minds as Hume, Hobbes, Kant or Hegel. They have not
only developed academic philosophy in the fields of ethics and metaphy-
sics, it is their influence on natural sciences and academic practice
that makes their writings invaluable. Hume's economic theorema, Hobbes
political pamphlets ("Behemoth" for instance), Kant's reasoning regard-
ing an universally appliable code of ethics are the pillars that consti-
tute our modern society and enable it to develop and unfold.
<snip>
>>> Hmm Veux-tu bien me dire pourquoi pas? Il me semble que si nous
>>> pouvions ramener a la vie l'un de nos trolls favoris et le rendre
>>> immortel, la vie serait plus gaie.
>>
>> Mais imagine quelqu'un comme Goblin devenir immortel.
>
> Goblin est un paradoxe vivant. Un hybride, peut-etre? Toujours est-il
> que j'eprouve une certaine satisfaction a le voir evoluer dans les
> meandres de ce n.g..
Il a évolué? Par des étrilles de oddly, j'assume? Je ne le sais pas
parce que j'ai éteindré ce caractère inconstant, cette personne assom-
mante et ce troll développé à peine instantement en le WTO fil.
>> Ou cet agent 57 dont j'ai oublié le nom. Quel cauchemar!
>
> Wow. C'est en tant que lurker que tu as ete temoin de cette creature
> ou serait-tu un regulier qui as change de nom? Je te demande ca
> parceque j'etais dans l'impression que tu n'est apparu dans le n.g.
> que depuis peu...
Je lis a.g dès décembre et ai participé à des discussions au sujet de la
musique à des différentes reprises jusqu'à l'été. Mais j'ai préferé être
régulier dans a.g.f à la mer de flammes laquelle on connaît comme a.g.
> Anyway... Oui, "Agent 57"! heh Je l'aimais bien celui-la. L'un des
> plus amusants.
J'ai eu l'impression qu'il a causé les membres de a.g-s.f des nuits
blanches et a quitté parce qu'il s'ennuyait dans cette n.g.
>>>> Je suis ambigue. L'art se constitute en être et pas être en même
>>>> temps.
>>>
>>> Moi, je n'admettrai jamais l'etre, quand bien meme me menacerait on
>>> de m'attacher des electrodes aux couilles ou de m'enfoncer des clous
>>> dans les lobes temporaux. Je suis un pur, un dur non-goth.
>>
>> Ton imagination te réfute. Ce sont des idées d'un Poe ou Sade, qui
>> sont tous les deux gothique comme f***.
>
> Bah, pas besoin d'etre si foutument gothique pour etre pervers, cruel
> ou imaginatif. Eventuellement, ca amene quelques affinites avec la
> plupart des goths en general, mais un goth cela ne fait pas ;)
>
>> Au moins ainsi on dit. Je ne me qualifie jamais de gothique excepté
>> que je m'ennuie et sais qu'il y a un francophone là qui réfuse à être
>> ce qui il est. ;)
> Quelle ironie. Quand je pense a tout ces poseurs et Authentique
> Goths(tm) qui ne parviennent pas a etre reconus comme tels... et moi,
> un authentique non goth pur sang, je me fais etiqueter "Goth" par tout
> ce monde. Je commence a comprendre pourquoi Eldritch est devenu un tel
> fucker, si aigri et anti-goth >;)
Une citation pour paraphraser un dire de klaatu:
"Face it [Alain], you're goth."
Et je me souviens du syllogisme de chijin:
"Heheh! Doesn't matter anyway, due to the rule:
'the Goth that says it is Goth is not *true* Goth'
or something.
So, 'not' Goth=UberGoth
**or, in symbolism:
if A is Goth, then A is not Goth
A is Goth
therefore, A is Spooky**"
Avec A pour Alain cela veut entrer dans la tête.
Si je n'ai pas perdu laquelle. ;)
<snip>
> Feel free. But if I start involving elements of puter games, that I
> just downloaded, in the convo, don't complain as I warned you that I'm
> in a gaming frenzy.
Let me check your profound knowledge regarding games.
Assign the following sequence to a big seller of 1993:
"KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL"
<snip>
>>> The mere word, asm, reminds me of the BBSes and the fact that it was
>>> already old in that time... heh.
>>
>> But assembler still is the base for every language, regardless how
>> far developed it may be. That's the fun part of it.
>
> Yes, but it's so atrociously lenghty to write stuff with it.
> No need for me to be a programming guru to know this... heh
I wrote a complete data base in assembler since Pascal was too slow in
my opinion. I needed more than goddamn two years for more than 50.000
lines code, and by the time it was finished nobody was interested in a
DOS interface anymore. I still hope I've learned something else the hard
way apart from the truism "Anybody can do anything with VB much better
and faster than YOU geek with asm" (quote a friend). ;(
<snip>
>> A goddamnit fluffy Rachael tonight
>
> Fluff is good for you.
Yeah, but the brain tends to become blocked with it.
Rachael
Ba mhaith liom deoch ól agus tobac a chaitheamh.
& listening to Schönberg
Rachael
German language.
klaatu scripsit:
> I gather that German as a language will tend to simply take a phrase
> defining the object in question and string it all together, sort of
> like NotAGoth.
> Now, what was that word for "airsickness" again?
The state parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (one of the new states
in the North-East) passed on October 14th the following law:
"Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufga-
benübertragungsgesetz (RkReÜAÜG)"
The members of the parliament are said to have laughed aloud when they
heard this over-long monstrosity of a word with 86 letters. Well, I'd
have cried over the evil bureaucracy that gives birth to such words.
Rachael
Is searbh an fíon é seo.