Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Are senators congressmen?

53 views
Skip to first unread message

Fred Galvin

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 7:53:15 PM2/22/03
to
My dictionaries tell me that the word 'congressman' can be used to
mean 'member of (either branch of) the U.S. Congress'. How common is
that usage? Is it rare or obsolete?

--
It takes steel balls to play pinball.

Don Phillipson

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 8:52:25 PM2/22/03
to
"Fred Galvin" <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:0302221850350...@gandalf.math.ukans.edu...

> My dictionaries tell me that the word 'congressman' can be used to
> mean 'member of (either branch of) the U.S. Congress'. How common is
> that usage? Is it rare or obsolete?

Any US newspaper style book would probably be
a better guide than a general-purpose dictionary.
Your dictionaries are technically right, but US
received practice is that:
Members of the Senate are called Senator Jones etc.
Members of the House of Representatives are called
Congressman Jones, etc.,
although the Constitution defines Congress as
being composed of these two bodies.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada)
dphil...@trytel.com.com.com.less2


Aaron J. Dinkin

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 9:38:46 PM2/22/03
to
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 20:52:25 -0500, Don Phillipson <dphil...@trytel.com> wrote:

> Your dictionaries are technically right, but US
> received practice is that:
> Members of the Senate are called Senator Jones etc.
> Members of the House of Representatives are called
> Congressman Jones, etc.,
> although the Constitution defines Congress as
> being composed of these two bodies.

...Although a member of a House of Representatives that isn't the one in
Congress (a state legislator, that is) would be called Representative
Jones, yes?

-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 10:04:56 PM2/22/03
to
Don Phillipson wrote:
>
> "Fred Galvin" <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote in message
> news:0302221850350...@gandalf.math.ukans.edu...
>
> > My dictionaries tell me that the word 'congressman' can be used to
> > mean 'member of (either branch of) the U.S. Congress'. How common is
> > that usage? Is it rare or obsolete?
>
> Any US newspaper style book would probably be
> a better guide than a general-purpose dictionary.
> Your dictionaries are technically right, but US
> received practice is that:
> Members of the Senate are called Senator Jones etc.
> Members of the House of Representatives are called
> Congressman Jones, etc.,
> although the Constitution defines Congress as
> being composed of these two bodies.

Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
a moment that Jones is a Senator.

--
Bob Lieblich
Neither a Senator nor a Congressman be

amaass

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 10:38:28 PM2/22/03
to

"Robert Lieblich" wrote:
>
> Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
> American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
> a moment that Jones is a Senator.
>

Nevertheless, Senator Jones is a congressman. Or congressperson.


California's state legislature is bicameral, composed of the (upper house)
Senate and (lower house) Assembly. Using "representative" to refer to
members of the state Assembly is wrong. They are assemblymen, or
assemblywomen, or assemblypersons.


-- Adam Maass
in San Francisco, California


Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 11:08:01 PM2/22/03
to
amaass wrote:
>
> "Robert Lieblich" wrote:
> >
> > Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
> > American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
> > a moment that Jones is a Senator.
> >
> Nevertheless, Senator Jones is a congressman. Or congressperson.

If that's what you want to think, you go right ahead. But if you
walked up to Barbara Boxer and said "Hello, Congressperson Boxer,"
she'd probably wonder what's wrong with you. There is no really
good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined -- "elected
representatives," despite its use of a term from the name of the
lower house, is probably the best of a poor lot.


>
> California's state legislature is bicameral, composed of the (upper house)
> Senate and (lower house) Assembly. Using "representative" to refer to
> members of the state Assembly is wrong. They are assemblymen, or
> assemblywomen, or assemblypersons.

True. Different usages for different legislatures. I think
Nebraska is still the only unicameral state legislature. The
legislature with the most elected officials (both houses combined)
is New Hampshire, where you get the feeling that every zip code has
at least one representative.

But "Congressperson Boxer" is still near-taboo.

--
Bob Lieblich

Aaron J. Dinkin

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 11:29:04 PM2/22/03
to
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:08:01 -0500, Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:

> But if you walked up to Barbara Boxer and said "Hello, Congressperson
> Boxer," she'd probably wonder what's wrong with you. There is no really
> good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined -- "elected
> representatives," despite its use of a term from the name of the
> lower house, is probably the best of a poor lot.

What about "member of Congress"? An elected representative could be anyone
in a city council or state legislature.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 22, 2003, 11:37:39 PM2/22/03
to

I was depending on context. "Elected representatives in Congress"
would work if you needed more. I think of "member of Congress" as I
do "Congressperson" -- lower house only.

YMMV.

--
Bob Lieblich
Vote for me

R J Valentine

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 12:15:31 AM2/23/03
to
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 23:08:01 -0500 Robert Lieblich <Robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
...

} There is no really
} good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined -- "elected
} representatives," despite its use of a term from the name of the
} lower house, is probably the best of a poor lot.
...

You'd think the legislators would do something about that. There's no
good reason for them go without a way to refer to them collectively.

--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>

sand

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 1:44:15 AM2/23/03
to
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 05:15:31 -0000, R J Valentine <r...@smart.net>
wrote:

There are words to refer to them collectively but they would not be
accepted in family publications.

Jan Sand

Charles Riggs

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 3:27:48 AM2/23/03
to
On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 22:04:56 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:


>Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
>American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
>a moment that Jones is a Senator.

I dunno. What if I heard "Bob of alt.usage.english", mightn't I think
he is a New Yorker?
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom and
replace it with eir

Gary Vellenzer

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 6:54:13 AM2/23/03
to
In article <UmX5a.203009$iG3.23971@sccrnsc02>, ama...@attbi.com says...

>
> "Robert Lieblich" wrote:
> >
> > Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
> > American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
> > a moment that Jones is a Senator.
> >
>
> Nevertheless, Senator Jones is a congressman. Or congressperson.
>
>
No he's not. He is a member of Congress, though.

Gary

rzed

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 8:34:56 AM2/23/03
to

"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E584921...@Verizon.net...

> amaass wrote:
> >
> > "Robert Lieblich" wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
> > > American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
> > > a moment that Jones is a Senator.
> > >
> > Nevertheless, Senator Jones is a congressman. Or congressperson.
>
> If that's what you want to think, you go right ahead. But if you
> walked up to Barbara Boxer and said "Hello, Congressperson Boxer,"
> she'd probably wonder what's wrong with you. There is no really
> good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined -- "elected
> representatives," despite its use of a term from the name of the
> lower house, is probably the best of a poor lot.
> >
[...]

>
> But "Congressperson Boxer" is still near-taboo.
>

I can't imagine hearing "Congressperson Gephardt" either, though he, at
least, is in the House. In direct address, he would be "Representative
Gephardt," wouldn't he? Or, more likely still, "Mister Gephardt."

--
rzed

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 9:35:08 AM2/23/03
to

"Mister" is okay. You can even use it addressing the president (as
long as we have only male presidents). But "Congressman Gephardt"
(or "Congresswoman <whoever>," as appropriate) is still the default
position. I used "Congressperson" as shorthand for the
alternatives, which was probably a mistake (although venial).

--
Private citizen

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 10:12:02 AM2/23/03
to
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:

> There is no really good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined

»Parliamentarian«" is what my Danish-English dictionary suggests ?
--
Per Erik Rønne

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 10:36:59 AM2/23/03
to

Nope. In fact, each house of Congress has an official called a
parliamentarian, whose job is to assist the chair in applying rules
of procedure:

<http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/parliamentarian.htm>
<http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/houserep.html> (this one
will take a bit of searching)

This isn't anywhere near as big a gap as the lack of a good singular
epicene pronoun, and context usually solves the problem, but there
really isn't a good collective term for members of both houses of
Congress.

--
Bob Lieblich
I got "epicene pronoun" from Jesse Sheidlower -- blame him

Fred Galvin

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 1:28:11 PM2/23/03
to
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Robert Lieblich wrote:

> This isn't anywhere near as big a gap as the lack of a good singular
> epicene pronoun, and context usually solves the problem, but there
> really isn't a good collective term for members of both houses of
> Congress.

Lawmakers?

amaass

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 1:38:41 PM2/23/03
to

"Robert Lieblich" wrote:

} There is no really good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined

I disagree. Congressperson can be used for both Representatives and
Senators. But I would not use "Congressperson" as a title, but as as a
generic for both the House and the Senate.

"Congressperson Boxer" is wrong, because she is (more specifically) Senator
Boxer.
"Congressman Gephart" is commonly used, but is more correctly Representative
Gephart.

But I can say:

Senator Boxer is a congressperson.


Per Rønne wrote:

> »Parliamentarian«" is what my Danish-English dictionary suggests ?

"Parliamentarian" is wrong in the United States. The legislatures are not
parliaments.


-- Adam Maass


Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 2:22:45 PM2/23/03
to
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:28:11 -0600, Fred Galvin
<gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote:

>On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>> This isn't anywhere near as big a gap as the lack of a good singular
>> epicene pronoun, and context usually solves the problem, but there
>> really isn't a good collective term for members of both houses of
>> Congress.
>
>Lawmakers?

I read this term recently and for a moment thought it was ridicule. I
wonder jow it is actually used.

In Germany likewise, their isn't a word that would cover members of
both federal houses, to the exclusion of other parliaments, so it
seems that there is no urgent need for this term.

Oliver

Simon R. Hughes

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 2:46:24 PM2/23/03
to
Thus Spake Robert Lieblich:

> there
> really isn't a good collective term for members of both houses of
> Congress.

Has anyone thought of asking Rey for a couple of suggestions?
--
Simon R. Hughes
"I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.

R Fontana

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 3:19:33 PM2/23/03
to
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Oliver Cromm wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 12:28:11 -0600, Fred Galvin
> <gal...@math.ukans.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 23 Feb 2003, Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >
> >> This isn't anywhere near as big a gap as the lack of a good singular
> >> epicene pronoun, and context usually solves the problem, but there
> >> really isn't a good collective term for members of both houses of
> >> Congress.
> >
> >Lawmakers?
>
> I read this term recently and for a moment thought it was ridicule. I
> wonder jow it is actually used.

I think "lawmakers" is generally used by journalists only. It would
seem strange for someone to use it in ordinary speech or writing. It
doesn't imply ridicule at all. It's just a neutral synonym for
"legislator".

R Fontana

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 4:26:34 PM2/23/03
to

There are two different problems here. One is, what's the general term
for a member of a governmental institution *like* the US Congress? In
American English the best answer is "legislator", I'd say. The second
is, what's the general term for a member of the US Congress? I can't
think of anything better than "member of Congress", and I'm not sure I
like that one since it's so close to "Congressman" which in
non-obsolete use can only mean a member of the lower house.

A problem with "parliamentarian" is that while you could call the US
Congress a sort of 'parliament', 'parliament' strongly implies (to me,
at least) the existence of a parliamentary system of government, such
as most of the Western European countries have, where the real
executive power is drawn from the legislative assembly rather than
being institutionally separate and equal (NTTAWWWTS).

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 6:52:19 PM2/23/03
to
amaass wrote:

[ ... ]

> "Congressperson Boxer" is wrong, because she is (more specifically) Senator
> Boxer.
> "Congressman Gephart" is commonly used, but is more correctly Representative
> Gephart.
>
> But I can say:
>
> Senator Boxer is a congressperson.

Well, of course you can. And any knowledgeable American speaker of
English will wonder what you are trying to convey. Forgive my
asking, but are you a knowledgeable American speaker of English? If
so, what has led you to think that you can call a Senator a
congressperson and have anyone understand what you are saying?

--
Bob Lieblich
Inquring mind

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 9:40:20 PM2/23/03
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:

> amaass wrote:
>> But I can say:
>>
>> Senator Boxer is a congressperson.
>
> Well, of course you can. And any knowledgeable American speaker of
> English will wonder what you are trying to convey. Forgive my
> asking, but are you a knowledgeable American speaker of English? If
> so, what has led you to think that you can call a Senator a
> congressperson and have anyone understand what you are saying?

I agree guardedly with amaass. I'd put it this way: The collective
term "congressmen" (or the rather ugly "congresspersons") includes
senators. However if you describe an individual as a congressman,
it's almost certain that you mean he's in the House of Representatives,
except in the rather unlikely case that you know he's in one of the Houses
but you don't know which.

Neither "Congressman" nor "Congressperson" should be used as a title.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 10:25:17 PM2/23/03
to

i don't know what to say. Where I am (see below),
"Congressman/woman/person" means someone in the House -- period. It
does not mean or include "senator" -- ever. I live three miles or
so from where these people hang out (when they're not fund-raising),
and maybe out there in Podunk or Peoria there is someone who,
hearing the word "Congressmen" or the phrase "Members of Congress,"
allows for the possibility that some senators are meant, but that's
not what the words mean where the people described by those words
assemble.

Maybe this is another instance of "another thing coming" -- some
weird (to me) locution that's been hanging out in the corners of the
language beyond the limits of my perception. That I can live with,
shock to the system though it may be. If, however, it turns out
that this isn't a question of usage but one of logic -- because,
after all, senators are in Congress, too -- then I say bullshit.

> Neither "Congressman" nor "Congressperson" should be used as a title.

Sorry, both are, by the very people to whom the title applies. See
for yourself. Go to
<http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/multidb.cgi>, the
Congressional Record site. Then run a search for "congressman" in
any time frame you like, have it bring up any portion of the
Congressional Record for the House of Representatives, and search
for the word "congressman" within that portion. (I can do so using
<ctrl-f>.) Look at how it's used. I selected
<http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0564887192+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve>
(which I converted to <http://tinyurl.com/6atr>), and it's full of
"Congressman Johnson"s.

And here's a dare: Find anything in the Congressional record that
clearly uses "congressman" or "congressperson" to mean or include
senators.

Okay, senators and congressfolk are not the final word on English
usage. (Thank God.) But they use the labels for their positions the
way I use those words, and until I am shown something (other than
unsupported opinion) that indicates I am wrong, I'm going to keep
insisting that I'm right.

--
Bob Lieblich
I am, you know

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 10:52:02 PM2/23/03
to
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:

> Nope. In fact, each house of Congress has an official called a
> parliamentarian

But in non-US English a »parlamentarian« seem to be the word used when
talking about /any/ single member of a Parliament.
--
Per Erik Rønne

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 10:52:08 PM2/23/03
to
amaass <ama...@attbi.com> wrote:

> "Parliamentarian" is wrong in the United States. The legislatures are not
> parliaments.

What, then, are they? Aren't legislatures per definition Parliaments?
--
Per Erik Rønne

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 11:00:29 PM2/23/03
to

The United States does not have parliamentary government. Its
constitution divides the Government into three branches and
establishes a series of checks and balances among them. Among other
things, the head of government is not a member of the legislature --
cannot be, in fact -- nor are any of the cabinet members (equivalent
of ministers in a parliamentary system).

Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
two terms as indistinguishable.

--
Bob Lieblich
How about that? -- a discussion of English usage

R J Valentine

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 11:20:30 PM2/23/03
to
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 22:25:17 -0500 Robert Lieblich <Robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
...
} "Congressman/woman/person" means someone in the House -- period. It
} does not mean or include "senator" -- ever.
...

} and until I am shown something (other than
} unsupported opinion) that indicates I am wrong, I'm going to keep
} insisting that I'm right.
}
} --
} Bob Lieblich
} I am, you know

He is, you know. And it'd take more than showing him something (and that
more than supported opinion, which he's got herewith) to make him wrong on
this one.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 11:30:00 PM2/23/03
to

Aw, RJ, I didn't know you cared.

They'll probably accuse us of having organized a Greater Laurel
cabal.

--
Bob Lieblich
Hmmm, not a bad idea

R J Valentine

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 12:00:17 AM2/24/03
to
On Sun, 23 Feb 2003 23:30:00 -0500 Robert Lieblich <Robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
...
} They'll probably accuse us of having organized a Greater Laurel
} cabal.

At least I'm outside the Beltway (both of them).

ObDrift: You may not be able to get across the Potomac in the morning, the
way the water is rising. I crossed the Shenandoah this afternoon, and
that's as high as I've seen it in a long time. The Susquehanna was up the
other day, too. I haven't checked Liberty, Prettyboy, or Loch Raven since
the rains, but they were still low the last I saw them.

amaass

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 12:12:54 AM2/24/03
to

Thanks Mike for saying what I was trying to convey.

-- Adam Maass


amaass

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 12:48:31 AM2/24/03
to

"Robert Lieblich" wrote:
> amaass wrote:
>
> > I can say:
> >
> > Senator Boxer is a congressperson.
>
> Well, of course you can. And any knowledgeable American speaker of
> English will wonder what you are trying to convey. Forgive my
> asking, but are you a knowledgeable American speaker of English? If
> so, what has led you to think that you can call a Senator a
> congressperson and have anyone understand what you are saying?
>
> --

I am a knowledgeable and native speaker of American English. Born outside of
Philadelphia, mostly raised in San Francisco. Never been inside the Beltway.
This is usage as I understand it. The term "congressman," when not used as a
title, includes senators.

I'll admit that the usage I have outlined is in a somewhat informal
register, but probably picked up from my high school civics class.

Now, I don't often have reason to worry about what to call my elected
representatives. I simply know that, should the need arise, I can call on my
local representative or either senator for my state. IE, I can call on my
congresspeople.


-- Adam Maass


Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 1:27:45 AM2/24/03
to
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:

> Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> two terms as indistinguishable.

Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in
another way than do non-Americans.

The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
of ENGLISH

parliament noun (Parliament) (in the UK) the highest legislature,
consisting of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of
Commons: the Secretary of State will lay proposals before Parliament |
an Act of Parliament.n the members of this legislature for a particular
period, especially between one dissolution and the next: the act was
passed by the last parliament of the reign.
===========================================
n a similar legislature in other nations |
and states: the Russian parliament. |
===========================================

ORIGIN Middle English: from Old French parlement 'speaking', from the
verb parler.

The NEW OXFORD
Thesaurus of ENGLISH

parliament

noun
1 the Queen's speech to Parliament
the Houses of Parliament, Westminster, the House of Commons, the House
of Lords, the Commons, the Lords, the House, the Lower House, the Upper
House, the Mother of Parliaments; another place.

====================================
2 the Russian parliament |
legislature, legislative assembly, |
congress, senate, chamber, house, |
upper house, lower house, |
upper chamber, lower chamber, |
second chamber, convocation, |
diet, council, assembly, |
Chamber of Deputies. |
===========================================

See table at legislative."
"
--
Per Erik Rønne

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 1:29:02 AM2/24/03
to
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:

> Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> two terms as indistinguishable.

Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in

parliament

See table at legislative."
"
--
Per Erik Rønne

Mark Brader

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 1:29:12 AM2/24/03
to
Per Rønne:

> But in non-US English a »parlamentarian« seem to be the word used when
> talking about /any/ single member of a Parliament.

No, the word is "MP". Or at the provincial level in Canada, MPP, MLA,
or MNA in different provinces. I presume they have state parliaments
in Australia, but what they call their members I don't know.

Just like "Congress{man,woman,person}" in the US, what "MP" means *in
practice* is a member of the lower house of Parliament.

Oh, yes, "parliamentarian" exists, but it's not a commonly used term.
--
Mark Brader | Well, unfortunately, that is impossible, or very difficult, or
Toronto | highly inadvisable, or would require legislation--one of those.
m...@vex.net | -- Sir Humphrey ("Yes Minister", Lynn & Jay)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

Mark Brader

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 1:36:56 AM2/24/03
to
Bob Lieblich:

> > Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> > would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> > two terms as indistinguishable.

Per Rønne:

> Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in
> another way than do non-Americans.

No.



> The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
> of ENGLISH
>
> parliament noun (Parliament) (in the UK) the highest legislature,

> consisting of ...


> ===========================================
> n a similar legislature in other nations |
> and states: the Russian parliament. |
> ===========================================

But the Congress *isn't* a similar legislature to the British Parliament,
for the reasons already explained in the thread.
--
Mark Brader | "He's suffering from Politicians' Logic."
Toronto | "Something must be done, this is something, therefore
m...@vex.net | we must do it." -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 3:20:47 AM2/24/03
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:

> The United States does not have parliamentary government. Its
> constitution divides the Government into three branches and
> establishes a series of checks and balances among them. Among other
> things, the head of government is not a member of the legislature --
> cannot be, in fact -- nor are any of the cabinet members (equivalent
> of ministers in a parliamentary system).

This seems to be taking at face value the oft-repeated claim
that the President is the "head of government". That's debatable
and certainly not asserted anywhere in the Constitution.

One could make a reasonable constitutional case that the
true "head of government" is the Speaker of the House, and
the President is merely the head of the executive. That's
formally very similar to many European parliamentary systems.
It's just that our executive is much more powerful, at
least in practice, than theirs.

John Holmes

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 6:43:20 AM2/23/03
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> amaass wrote:
>>
>> "Robert Lieblich" wrote:
>>>
>>> Just to be absolutely clear, no one with a sound understanding of
>>> American English usage could hear "Congressman Jones" and think for
>>> a moment that Jones is a Senator.
>>>
>> Nevertheless, Senator Jones is a congressman. Or congressperson.
>
> If that's what you want to think, you go right ahead. But if you
> walked up to Barbara Boxer and said "Hello, Congressperson Boxer,"
> she'd probably wonder what's wrong with you. There is no really
> good term for Senators and Congresspersons combined -- "elected
> representatives," despite its use of a term from the name of the
> lower house, is probably the best of a poor lot.

Isn't it a different thing, when you upper-case a word and use it as a
title? It is almost as if it becomes a different word.

'Secretary Rumsfeld' does not mean the same as 'Rumsfeld is a
secretary'. Barbara Boxer is a woman, but you don't call her Woman
Boxer.

So amaass's saying that a senator is a congressman isn't necessarily a
claim that it is appropriate as a title.

--
Regards
John


MC

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 4:07:37 AM2/24/03
to
In article <b3cm98$loc$1...@perki.connect.com.au>,
"John Holmes" <hol...@smart.net.au> wrote:

> 'Secretary Rumsfeld' does not mean the same as 'Rumsfeld is a
> secretary'. Barbara Boxer is a woman, but you don't call her Woman
> Boxer.

Of course not. That would be Tonya Harding.

Armond Perretta

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 7:57:01 AM2/24/03
to
Mike Oliver wrote:
>
> Neither "Congressman" nor "Congressperson" should be used as a
> title.

Then I am afraid many people here in the US are breaking the law. The title
"Congressman" or "Congresswoman" is not at all rare, and is heard often in
speech and debate formats.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.tripod.com

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 8:29:53 AM2/24/03
to
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:

> Bob Lieblich:
> > > Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> > > would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> > > two terms as indistinguishable.

> Per Rønne:
> > Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in
> > another way than do non-Americans.

> No.

> > The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
> > of ENGLISH

> > parliament noun (Parliament) (in the UK) the highest legislature,
> > consisting of ...
> > ===========================================
> > n a similar legislature in other nations |
> > and states: the Russian parliament. |
> > ===========================================

> But the Congress *isn't* a similar legislature to the British Parliament,
> for the reasons already explained in the thread.

But in the example mentioned [the two Houses of the Russian Parliament],
exactly the same is the case. The president is elected /directly/ by the
people.
--
Per Erik Rønne

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 8:29:58 AM2/24/03
to
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:

> Per Rønne:
> > But in non-US English a »parlamentarian« seem to be the word used when
> > talking about /any/ single member of a Parliament.
>
> No, the word is "MP". Or at the provincial level in Canada, MPP, MLA,
> or MNA in different provinces. I presume they have state parliaments
> in Australia, but what they call their members I don't know.

And a member of the European Parliament a MEP.

> Oh, yes, "parliamentarian" exists, but it's not a commonly used term.

But it is a practical word to describe a member of /any/ parliament, the
U.S. Congress included.
--
Per Erik Rønne

John Holmes

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 7:12:15 AM2/24/03
to
Mark Brader wrote:
> Per Rønne:
>> But in non-US English a »parlamentarian« seem to be the word used
>> when talking about /any/ single member of a Parliament.
>
> No, the word is "MP". Or at the provincial level in Canada, MPP, MLA,
> or MNA in different provinces. I presume they have state parliaments
> in Australia, but what they call their members I don't know.

It is similar.

At the federal level:
lower house, Joe Bloggs MHR, the Member for Some-electorate (there's no
title before his name);
upper house: Senator Bloggs.

State level:
lower house, the same style as federal, but with some other letters such
as MLA - varies from state to state;
upper house, Joe Bloggs MLC, Member for Some-province - again the
letters vary with state and not all states have an upper house.

Generically, they are all members of parliament, but MP does not tend to
be used to anywhere near the same extent as in Britain because it is not
really accurate. It does sometimes appear in newspaper headlines though,
such as "MP ON SPEEDING CHARGE", because of its brevity.

Apart from senators, there isn't a title which precedes the name. They
do get a Hon or Rt Hon, but that is only used in very formal forms of
address.

--
Regards
John

amaass

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 9:48:21 AM2/24/03
to

"Per Rønne" wrote:

> Mark Brader wrote:
>
> > Oh, yes, "parliamentarian" exists, but it's not a commonly used term.
>
> But it is a practical word to describe a member of /any/ parliament, the
> U.S. Congress included.
>

Well, yes, but the US Congress isn't a parliament. Using "parliamentarian"
in this way reveals an other-than-US worldview of the way things are.

The US word would probably be "legislator."


-- Adam Maass


Don Aitken

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 10:43:48 AM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:20:47 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
wrote:

If the government is divided into three branches, it seems to follow
that nobody can be head of all of it. However, this use of
"government" is a peculiarity of the US system. In a parliamentary
system, the government means the ministers. Neither the legislature
nor the judiciary is part of the government. The head of the executive
is therefore the head of government. In international contexts, the
same description may reasonably be applied to the US President, who
participates as an equal in meetings of heads of government, although
he is also a head of state.

--
Don Aitken

R Fontana

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 1:39:04 PM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Per Rønne wrote:

> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> > would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> > two terms as indistinguishable.
>
> Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in
> another way than do non-Americans.
>
> The NEW OXFORD Dictionary
> of ENGLISH
>
> parliament noun (Parliament) (in the UK) the highest legislature,
> consisting of the Sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of
> Commons: the Secretary of State will lay proposals before Parliament |
> an Act of Parliament.n the members of this legislature for a particular
> period, especially between one dissolution and the next: the act was
> passed by the last parliament of the reign.
> ===========================================
> n a similar legislature in other nations |
> and states: the Russian parliament. |
> ===========================================

Note the "similar". I don't know enough about the Russian system of
government to say whether "parliament" is appropriate (at least for
AmE). I think in the American press one typically hears only about the
lower chamber, the Duma. Skimming over the Russian Constitution, the
system of government seems like it has a lot of features of the
US system with a little bit of the French one thrown in. (The
President can call new elections for the Duma, for example.) But the
main functions of the legislature seem to be closer to the American
model, as far as I can tell from skimming. Formally, separation of
powers is part of the framework, whereas the main feature of
parliamentary systems is that they muddle the legislative/executive
distinction (NTTAWWT). I'd say, then, that "parliament"
is inappropriate since words like "assembly" or "legislature" are
available. If you call it a "parliament", then there's no reason not
to call the US Congress a "parliament", but then "parliament" has just
become a synonym for "legislature".


Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 1:51:27 PM2/24/03
to
Don Aitken wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:20:47 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
> wrote:
>> One could make a reasonable constitutional case that the
>> true "head of government" is the Speaker of the House, and
>> the President is merely the head of the executive. That's
>> formally very similar to many European parliamentary systems.
>> It's just that our executive is much more powerful, at
>> least in practice, than theirs.
>
> If the government is divided into three branches, it seems to follow
> that nobody can be head of all of it. However, this use of
> "government" is a peculiarity of the US system. In a parliamentary
> system, the government means the ministers. Neither the legislature
> nor the judiciary is part of the government. The head of the executive
> is therefore the head of government.

Don't European-style "ministers" have some of the functions of
our committee chairs, as well as those of Cabinet secretaries?
Perhaps it's our committee chairs that are the true "ministers",
and the Speaker of the House the Prime Minister.

Newt Gingrich tried explicitly and self-conciously to
make himself Prime Minister in actual fact and function, and
the attempt was perfectly constitutional. It failed, but
it might have succeeded.

Dena Jo

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 4:35:40 PM2/24/03
to
p...@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote:

> But it is a practical word to describe a member of /any/ parliament, the
> U.S. Congress included.

On the contrary, it's a highly impractical word to use when describing a
member of the U.S. Congress because no one will know what you mean and the
purpose of language is to communicate. "Parliamentarian" in the U.S.
usually refers to someone skilled in the art of or knowledgeable about
parliamentary procedure.

--
Dena Jo

Mark Brader

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 4:51:17 PM2/24/03
to
Per Rønne:
>>> Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in
>>> another way than do non-Americans.

>>> parliament noun (Parliament) (in the UK) the highest legislature,


>>> consisting of ...
>>> ===========================================
>>> n a similar legislature in other nations |
>>> and states: the Russian parliament. |
>>> ===========================================

Mark Brader:


>> But the Congress *isn't* a similar legislature to the British Parliament,
>> for the reasons already explained in the thread.

Per Rønne:


> But in the example mentioned [the two Houses of the Russian Parliament],
> exactly the same is the case. The president is elected /directly/ by the
> people.

Ah, but that's in a *foreign country*. Who expects anyone to keep track
of how *their* legislature works?
--
Mark Brader "Do YOU trust US?"
Toronto "YES!! Well, we try to."
m...@vex.net -- A Walk in the Woods, by Lee Blessing

Jerry Friedman

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 4:57:28 PM2/24/03
to
p...@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne) wrote in message news:<1fqw2e6.19g8t371vgptfmN%p...@ronne.invalid>...

As a matter of usage, the U.S. Congress is not called a parliament, no
matter how similar to or different from other legislatures it is. If
it's illogical, then we get a special exemption, as when we use
"American" to refer specifically to people from the U.S.

I suppose it's possible that shortly after the U.S. Constitution was
implemented, Lord Tomnoddy might have said something like, "the
Intercourse, or whatever they call their parliament." But I think
that now no native English speaker would call our Congress a
parliament. Always willing to be proven wrong, though.

--
Jerry Friedman

Joe Manfre

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 5:52:53 PM2/24/03
to
Don Aitken (don-a...@freeuk.com) wrote:
>If the government is divided into three branches, it seems to follow
>that nobody can be head of all of it. However, this use of
>"government" is a peculiarity of the US system.

By the way, is there any non-U.S. equivalent to the really expansive
U.S. sense of "government" that means everybody from the legislators
to the state traffic-court judges to the county dogcatcher to the
state property-tax department to the President to the guy who runs the
street-sweeper with the city logo on the side to the Supreme Court's
chief justice? Public sector, maybe? This seems like a useful
amorphous concept to have a term for, and I'd be interested to hear if
the rest of the Anglosphere does indeed have one. (I feel the same
way about the Hiberno-Britic "savoury" and suspect there's something a
little deficient in the language of those of us who don't have a
version of that word.)


JM

Gary Vellenzer

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 6:14:16 PM2/24/03
to
In article <Xns932C8A6E826EEd...@130.133.1.4>, denajo2
@csNOSPAM.com says...
And he is an employee of the legislative body, not an elected member.

Gary

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 6:29:36 PM2/24/03
to
Joe Manfre wrote:

> By the way, is there any non-U.S. equivalent to the really expansive
> U.S. sense of "government" that means everybody from the legislators
> to the state traffic-court judges to the county dogcatcher to the
> state property-tax department to the President to the guy who runs the
> street-sweeper with the city logo on the side to the Supreme Court's
> chief justice?

"The State".

Don Aitken

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 7:01:50 PM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:51:27 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
wrote:

>Don Aitken wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 00:20:47 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
>> wrote:
>>> One could make a reasonable constitutional case that the
>>> true "head of government" is the Speaker of the House, and
>>> the President is merely the head of the executive. That's
>>> formally very similar to many European parliamentary systems.
>>> It's just that our executive is much more powerful, at
>>> least in practice, than theirs.
>>
>> If the government is divided into three branches, it seems to follow
>> that nobody can be head of all of it. However, this use of
>> "government" is a peculiarity of the US system. In a parliamentary
>> system, the government means the ministers. Neither the legislature
>> nor the judiciary is part of the government. The head of the executive
>> is therefore the head of government.
>
>Don't European-style "ministers" have some of the functions of
>our committee chairs, as well as those of Cabinet secretaries?
>Perhaps it's our committee chairs that are the true "ministers",
>and the Speaker of the House the Prime Minister.
>

Not really. Their functions are executive. They are required to be
members of one or other House of Parliament so that they can be
questioned there about how they carry out those functions. They also
propose bills, but any MP can do that. However, the government
(through the Leader of the House, who is a senior minister) controls
the timetable of the House, which I believe your committee chairs do.
Legislative subject committees here are still a fairly new thing
(since 1979), and their powers are nothing like those of their US
counterparts.

Other European countries vary. Most do not require all ministers to be
members of the legislature; indeed, some prohibit it.

--
Don Aitken

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 8:04:04 PM2/24/03
to
amaass wrote:
>
> "Mike Oliver" wrote:

[ ... ]

> > Neither "Congressman" nor "Congressperson" should be used as a title.
>
> Thanks Mike for saying what I was trying to convey.

I knew what you were trying to convey. You were wrong. So is
Mike. I cited chapter and verse and dared you to rebut. Where are
your facts?

This isn't an ordinary usage question, because the people to whom
the labels actually apply have made their own use of them. It's one
thing to argue that we should use the label "Moldavia" for what the
inhabitants of that country call, in English, "Moldova." I don't
agree, but the point can be argued. But you can't tell me that *as
a matter of fact* the inhabitants of that country don't call their
country *Moldova* in English. Plainly they do, and there is
evidence to that effect all over the place.

Same here. Congressmen refer to each other all the time as
"Congressman [or woman] <whatever>." Argue that they shouldn't, if
you want to. But don't tell me they don't do it.

Same for using "congressman" to include senators. The people to
whom those terms apply don't use them that way. Okay, I allow for
the possibility of such usages among the Great Unwashed, who may not
be wise to the locutions of Capital Hill. But show some to me if
you want me to admit they exist. As far as I can tell, the only
basis for this argument is "logic": senators are in Congress, so
they are congressmen/women, too. Bfrsplk.

--
Bob Lieblich
Adamant

Don Aitken

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 8:03:49 PM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:29:36 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
wrote:

>Joe Manfre wrote:

Cobbett used to call it "the Thing".

--
Don Aitken

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 8:40:07 PM2/24/03
to
Armond Perretta wrote:
> Mike Oliver wrote:
>> Neither "Congressman" nor "Congressperson" should be used as a
>> title.
>
> Then I am afraid many people here in the US are breaking the law.

Never said it was a law.

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 8:41:20 PM2/24/03
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:

> Same for using "congressman" to include senators. The people to
> whom those terms apply don't use them that way.

So? I don't think very highly of them as a class, and don't see
why I should look to them for guidance in how to discuss them.

Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 9:00:33 PM2/24/03
to
On 24 Feb 2003 13:57:28 -0800, jerry_f...@yahoo.com (Jerry
Friedman) wrote:

> But I think
>that now no native English speaker would call our Congress a
>parliament. Always willing to be proven wrong, though.

Googling "houses of the US parliament" turns out very few examples,
but some seem to be from native speakers.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22houses+of+the+US+parliament%22&btnG=Google+Search

Oliver

Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 9:38:07 PM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 10:51:27 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
wrote:

>Don't European-style "ministers" have some of the functions of


>our committee chairs, as well as those of Cabinet secretaries?
>Perhaps it's our committee chairs that are the true "ministers",
>and the Speaker of the House the Prime Minister.

I always wondered which is the best way to translate some of these
terms. In Germany, we sure talk about "das US-Parlament", but also
about "der Kongress", if the meaning is clear from context (not the
congress of the German psychological society). I found a German
language page declaring "the US parliament elects Jefferson as 3rd
president." Is that historically true, apart from the wording?

The US "Secretary of State" gets a literal translation into Japanese,
but in German, we say "Foreign Minister", i.e. we translate to the
analogous function in the German executive. Well, in this case, a
literal translation won't work, because "Staatssekretaere" in German
are (brit.) permanent secretaries/(US) undersecretaries, according to
wordreference.com.

But I would also prefer this kind of translation, because then you
don't have to learn "the US secretary of state is the analogue of the
Foreign Minister in Germany". But we do say "niederländischer
Ministerpräsident", although the latter word is used for the heads of
the states (Länder) in Germany. It would be too unconventional to do
an "acculturation" like that within English, i.e. if an Australian
would call the US SoS the "US FM". No easy way out...

Oliver

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 9:58:11 PM2/24/03
to

I don't particularly admire thieves, but I don't give them advice on
their argot.

And I still haven't seen a single citation to a single document of
any sort in which "congressman" is used to include senators.

--
Bob Lieblich
Tiring

R J Valentine

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 10:08:34 PM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 20:04:04 -0500 Robert Lieblich <Robert....@verizon.net> wrote:
...

} Same for using "congressman" to include senators. The people to
} whom those terms apply don't use them that way. Okay, I allow for
} the possibility of such usages among the Great Unwashed, who may not
} be wise to the locutions of Capital Hill.
...

Oy!

--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>

Fred Galvin

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 11:07:49 PM2/24/03
to
On Mon, 24 Feb 2003, Oliver Cromm wrote:

> I always wondered which is the best way to translate some of these
> terms. In Germany, we sure talk about "das US-Parlament", but also
> about "der Kongress", if the meaning is clear from context (not the
> congress of the German psychological society). I found a German
> language page declaring "the US parliament elects Jefferson as 3rd
> president." Is that historically true, apart from the wording?

Yes, the "parliament" in this case being the House of Representatives.
In the election of 1800, under the original rules (subsequently
changed by constitutional amendment as a result of that fiasco), each
Elector voted for "two persons" without distinguishing between
presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Thomas Jefferson and
his running mate Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes, and the
tie had to be broken by the House of Representatives, voting by
states, with each state having one vote. After 35 inconclusive
ballots, the deadlock was broken in favor of Jefferson, and Burr
became Vice-President. As Vice-President, having in the meantime
killed Alexander Hamilton (the man on the $10 bill) in a duel, Burr
presided over the impeachment trial of a Supreme Court justice,
leading to the famous quip "in this court the judge is arraigned
before the murderer".

--
It takes steel balls to play pinball.

Hedberg

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 1:35:06 AM2/25/03
to

When I use the link you provided, I get six references (at least one
is a duplicate) and I don't think any of them are by Americans.

Perhaps there are native English speakers from places other than the
U.S. who would refer to the U.S. Congress as "Parliament," it's
possible I suppose, but I doubt that anyone of those would be very
familiar with either the U.S. or its government. It would be exactly
like an American referring to England's Parliament as Congress: an
error.

Harold

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 12:15:56 AM2/25/03
to
Mark Brader <m...@vex.net> wrote:

> Per Rønne:
> >>> Then, Americans are using the words »parliament« and »legislature« in
> >>> another way than do non-Americans.
>
> >>> parliament noun (Parliament) (in the UK) the highest legislature,
> >>> consisting of ...
> >>> ===========================================
> >>> n a similar legislature in other nations |
> >>> and states: the Russian parliament. |
> >>> ===========================================
>
> Mark Brader:
> >> But the Congress *isn't* a similar legislature to the British Parliament,
> >> for the reasons already explained in the thread.
>
> Per Rønne:
> > But in the example mentioned [the two Houses of the Russian Parliament],
> > exactly the same is the case. The president is elected /directly/ by the
> > people.
>
> Ah, but that's in a *foreign country*. Who expects anyone to keep track
> of how *their* legislature works?

But in BrE, the U.S. is a *foreign country* too :-).
--
Per Erik Rønne

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 12:16:07 AM2/25/03
to
R Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:

> Skimming over the Russian Constitution, the
> system of government seems like it has a lot of features of the
> US system with a little bit of the French one thrown in. (The
> President can call new elections for the Duma, for example.)

As can the King in monarchies like Denmark :-).

Of course, in reality it means »the Prime Minister«.

> If you call it a "parliament", then there's no reason not
> to call the US Congress a "parliament", but then "parliament" has just
> become a synonym for "legislature".

Which is what the New Oxford Thesaurus of English does:

The NEW OXFORD
Thesaurus of ENGLISH

parliament

noun
...
====================================
2 the Russian parliament |
legislature, legislative assembly, |
congress, senate, chamber, house, |
upper house, lower house, |
upper chamber, lower chamber, |
second chamber, convocation, |
diet, council, assembly, |
Chamber of Deputies. |
====================================

--
Per Erik Rønne

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 12:16:22 AM2/25/03
to
Oliver Cromm <Crom...@compuNONserve.de> wrote:

> The US "Secretary of State" gets a literal translation into Japanese,
> but in German, we say "Foreign Minister"

A literal translation into Danish would give »statsminister«, Minister
of State. The title applyed to the Danish Prime Minister :-).
--
Per Erik Rønne

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 12:16:35 AM2/25/03
to
Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:

Does that include counties and local districts, »communes« as we call
them?
--
Per Erik Rønne

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 4:35:54 AM2/25/03
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:
> Mike Oliver wrote:
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>> Same for using "congressman" to include senators. The people to
>>> whom those terms apply don't use them that way.
>> So? I don't think very highly of them as a class, and don't see
>> why I should look to them for guidance in how to discuss them.
> I don't particularly admire thieves, but I don't give them advice on
> their argot.

Who's talking about the argot of congressmen? I'm talking
about English.

> And I still haven't seen a single citation to a single document of
> any sort in which "congressman" is used to include senators.

I have no real interest in searching for such a document. I
report my understanding of the meaning of the word. What you
do with that information is your own affair.

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 4:43:02 AM2/25/03
to
Per Rønne wrote:
> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>> Joe Manfre wrote:
>>> By the way, is there any non-U.S. equivalent to the really expansive
>>> U.S. sense of "government"
>> "The State".
>
> Does that include counties and local districts, »communes« as we call
> them?

To me it means all those entrusted with a coercive monopoly on the
use of physical force.

John Holmes

unread,
Feb 24, 2003, 9:14:46 PM2/24/03
to
Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
> I suppose it's possible that shortly after the U.S. Constitution was
> implemented, Lord Tomnoddy might have said something like, "the
> Intercourse, or whatever they call their parliament." But I think
> that now no native English speaker would call our Congress a
> parliament. Always willing to be proven wrong, though.

I think most non-American native speakers probably would describe your
Congress as 'a sort of parliament' if they wanted to use some sort of
generic description of what it is. 'Legislature' is a fairly uncommonly
used word outside the US. 'Parliament' would be the only half-way
appropriate word in most people's active vocabularies.

--
Regards
John

Simon R. Hughes

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 7:40:36 AM2/25/03
to
Thus Spake =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=:

Translated "municipalities", but no one uses that word in English.
--
Simon R. Hughes
"I often think there should exist a special typographical
sign for a smile -- some sort of concave mark, a supine
round bracket" -- Vladimir Nabokov, _Strong Opinions_.

Maria Conlon

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 9:20:45 AM2/25/03
to

So you must be from the school of
I-don't-care-what-you-call-yourselves-I'll-use-my-own-terms-to-describe-
you. A bit haughty, but you may not see that until something similar
happens to you or yours.

As for "talking about English," I would think that statement's not quite
complete. "American" English, maybe? Hard to tell.

Maria Conlon

Tony Cooper

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 10:08:03 AM2/25/03
to
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 01:35:54 -0800, Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu>
wrote:

>Robert Lieblich wrote:

When one is encouraged to "write your congressman", isn't the meaning
to write either a Senator or a Representative? That's the most common
usage of "congressman" that I see.


--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s

R Fontana

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 3:24:01 PM2/25/03
to
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Simon R. Hughes wrote:

> Thus Spake =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=:

> > Does that include counties and local districts, »communes« as we call
> > them?
>
> Translated "municipalities", but no one uses that word in English.

We use it in American English, typically to refer to cities and towns
as administrative units.

I don't think of county government as "municipal", though.

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 3:42:12 PM2/25/03
to
Maria Conlon wrote:

> So you must be from the school of
> I-don't-care-what-you-call-yourselves-I'll-use-my-own-terms-to-describe-
> you. A bit haughty, but you may not see that until something similar
> happens to you or yours.

It's not a rule I'd apply to, say, Hottentots, or plumbers. But
congressmen? They're our property. I don't see why *they* should
get to choose what they're called.

A.Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 4:02:25 PM2/25/03
to
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3E5998DD...@Verizon.net>...
> Per Rønne wrote:
> >
> > What, then, are they? Aren't legislatures per definition Parliaments?
>
> The United States does not have parliamentary government. Its
> constitution divides the Government into three branches and
> establishes a series of checks and balances among them. Among other
> things, the head of government is not a member of the legislature --
> cannot be, in fact -- nor are any of the cabinet members (equivalent
> of ministers in a parliamentary system).

I had the same problem as Per. I think I'm generally knowledgable, but
I wasn't aware of this meaning of the word "parliamentary democracy".
I was quite aware of the difference to a system with a directly
elected president. In highschool I even wrote a paper on why Germany
doesn't have a directly elected president any more. But I was not
aware of the term "parliamentary" as opposed to "presidential". I
indeed thought "parliament" means any assembly of representatives who
do the legislation.

> Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> two terms as indistinguishable.

Is this standardly taught in school?

Oliver

Maria Conlon

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 5:15:22 PM2/25/03
to
A.Oliver Cromm wrote:
> Robert Lieblich wrote ...

[...]


>
>> Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
>> would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
>> two terms as indistinguishable.
>
> Is this standardly taught in school?

Bob may have an up-to-date answer, but I can say that when I was in
school, I learned that we have a legislature and that it is not the same
as a parliament. This was in American Government class, which I took in
8th grade (I think).

This was also [mumble-mumble] years ago.

Maria Conlon

Hedberg

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 7:15:46 PM2/25/03
to
On 25 Feb 2003 13:02:25 -0800, scherzk...@hotmail.com (A.Oliver
Cromm) wrote:

>Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3E5998DD...@Verizon.net>...

[...]


>
>> Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
>> would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
>> two terms as indistinguishable.
>
>Is this standardly taught in school?
>
>Oliver

Yes, it is typically taught in American schools but it's quite
possible to earn a PhD here without ever having learned it.

Harold

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 5:41:47 PM2/25/03
to
R Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:

Indeed, "municipal government" is often contrasted with "county
government".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |He who will not reason, is a bigot;
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |he who cannot is a fool; and he who
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |dares not is a slave.
| Sir William Drummond
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 5:58:21 PM2/25/03
to
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in
news:3E5ADBC3...@Verizon.net:

> Mike Oliver wrote:
>>
>> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>>
>> > Same for using "congressman" to include senators. The people to
>> > whom those terms apply don't use them that way.
>
>> So? I don't think very highly of them as a class, and don't see
>> why I should look to them for guidance in how to discuss them.
>
> I don't particularly admire thieves, but I don't give them advice on
> their argot.

But I wouldn't use their argot.


--
My Predecessors?
Olivier LeDain
Oliver Cromwell

R Fontana

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 6:59:39 PM2/25/03
to
On 25 Feb 2003, A.Oliver Cromm wrote:

> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message news:<3E5998DD...@Verizon.net>...
> > Per Rønne wrote:
> > >
> > > What, then, are they? Aren't legislatures per definition Parliaments?
> >
> > The United States does not have parliamentary government. Its
> > constitution divides the Government into three branches and
> > establishes a series of checks and balances among them. Among other
> > things, the head of government is not a member of the legislature --
> > cannot be, in fact -- nor are any of the cabinet members (equivalent
> > of ministers in a parliamentary system).
>
> I had the same problem as Per. I think I'm generally knowledgable, but
> I wasn't aware of this meaning of the word "parliamentary democracy".
> I was quite aware of the difference to a system with a directly
> elected president. In highschool I even wrote a paper on why Germany
> doesn't have a directly elected president any more. But I was not
> aware of the term "parliamentary" as opposed to "presidential". I
> indeed thought "parliament" means any assembly of representatives who
> do the legislation.

It may be that the association of the word 'parliament' in English with
the British Parliament led to the term 'parliamentary democracy' to
describe the modern sort of governmental system the British have, and
similar systems in other countries. It seems sensible to me because in
such systems the focus of power is in the party or coalition of parties
that can command a majority in the legislature. I think 'presidential'
is a bad term for the US system, or isn't specific enough, because (a)
some parliamentary systems have presidents, playing a
mostly-figureheadish role; (b) other systems with more powerful
presidents (e.g., France, the US, Russia) have rather different
systems.

I think the key feature of the US system is the separation of (three)
powers, including (a) a non-figurehead executive leader who is
(ordinarily) politically independent of the legislature, (b) a
legislature whose electoral terms aren't subject to control by the
executive, and (c) a judiciary which is fully independent of the
other two branches, especially in its customary role as arbiter of
disputes over the meaning of the constitution, which is treated as
something that can't be changed by simple legislative enactment or
executive order. I think what makes it all work, though sometimes
very clumsily, *is* the separation (including the federal/state
vertical separation): for example, the system makes it
likely that the legislature and the executive will have competing
interests, which decreases the likelihood of them getting together to
abolish the judiciary, etc.

> > Asked if our Congress is a parliament, a knowledgeable American
> > would respond that it is a legislature and that we do not regard the
> > two terms as indistinguishable.
>
> Is this standardly taught in school?

I think it's common to get some superficial treatment of the British
parliamentary system at the high school level. But other kinds of
systems are less likely to be discussed (e.g., the French or German
approach), except in the context of historical study (which in my day
never went past 1945). I took a course in college on comparative
European political systems, but most students don't take such a course
(and such a course might not even be offered at all tertiary institutions).


Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 7:24:29 PM2/25/03
to
R Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in
news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030225...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu:

I wondered whether you are taught what is the difference between a
"parliament" and the US congress

--
Oliver Cromm
My Predecessors?
Olivier LeDain - Oliver Cromwell - ?

R Fontana

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 7:44:42 PM2/25/03
to

Well, the difference isn't inherent in the two things -- they're both
basically legislative bodies (and the US Congress is clearly modeled on
the British Parliament). The difference exists in the way they
function in particular political systems. I guess you could say that
'parliament' should be an acceptable term for 'legislature', but to
Americans at least it so strongly implies a parliamentary system of
government that it seems misleading to call the Congress 'a
parliament'. Putting it a different way, the word 'parliament' is
simply never used in AmE to refer to the US Congress or a state
legislature (the 50 state governments have 3-way separation-of-powers
designs roughly similar to the federal government). For some reason,
maybe a significant one, maybe not, 'parliament' never caught on in the
US as a word for 'legislature' (unless there's some weird exception I
don't know about). So 'parliament' has come to mean 'the kind of
legislature that exists in a system like the British one', and that's
also why we can call it a 'parliamentary system of government'. A
'legislative system of government' wouldn't be too meaningful, since
federal and state governments in the US all have legislatures as one of
the coequal branches of government.


Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 7:46:10 PM2/25/03
to
Oliver Cromm <o...@c.de> writes:

I'm pretty sure that we were taught that the key difference was that
in a parliamentary system, the analogue of the US "administration"
(the president and his cabinet, heading the executive branch agencies)
was chosen from within the parliament, whereas in the US system the
congress was simply a legislature. A "parliament" was that sort of
legislature-plus-source-of-executive-power body. But it was focused
on the British parliament, and I'm not sure if most people understood
it as more than "a non-US legislative body". Certainly, the US
congress was *never* described as a "parliament".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten...
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |it sucked.
Palo Alto, CA 94304

kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


amaass

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 8:41:43 PM2/25/03
to

"Oliver Cromm" <o...@c.de> wrote in message
news:Xns932DC56E475...@206.167.113.5...

> R Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> wrote in
> news:Pine.GSO.4.44.030225...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu:
>
> > On 25 Feb 2003, A.Oliver Cromm wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Is this standardly taught in school?
> >
> > I think it's common to get some superficial treatment of the British
> > parliamentary system at the high school level.
>
> I wondered whether you are taught what is the difference between a
> "parliament" and the US congress
>
> --

I vaguely remember something along the lines of:

Governmental authority in Britain flows from the Sovereign, as expressed via
Parliament and implemented in the executive branch by the Prime Minister and
Cabinet.

Govermental authority in the United States flows from the consent of the
governed (ie, "the people"), and is vested in three powerful yet mostly
independent branches of the government: a legislative body (Congress); an
executive (the President and his employees); and a judiciary (the Supreme
Court and other, lower courts established by law).


This is high-school level Civics class (12th grade). The US system was dealt
with at great length, since it is, after all, ours. The British system was
dealt with briefly, to set the context for how and why the US system is set
up as it is. And the French Napoleanic Code was mentioned briefly, because
it, rather than British Common Law, forms the basis for state government in
the US state of Louisiana.


The main contrast between the US Congress and a British-style parliament, as
I was taught it, is the source of authority. In Britain, it's the Sovereign.
In the US, it's The People.


-- Adam Maass


Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 9:10:58 PM2/25/03
to

And if thesauruses gave *exact* synonyms, you'd have won the
argument. Surely, for example, you wouldn't contend that "upper
chamber" and "lower chamber" mean the same thing, would you? Why
assume that everything listed in a thesaurus under "parliament" is
an exact synonym for it?

--
Bob Lieblich
Shades of meaning matter

Mike Oliver

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 9:21:04 PM2/25/03
to
"A.Oliver Cromm" wrote:

> I had the same problem as Per. I think I'm generally knowledgable, but
> I wasn't aware of this meaning of the word "parliamentary democracy".
> I was quite aware of the difference to a system with a directly
> elected president.

Do you count the US system as including a "directly elected president"?
Because it doesn't, really, unless you mean elected directly by the
Electoral College, a body which has no other purpose and never meets
at all.

The theory is that the President is elected, not by the people,
but by the several States.

amaass

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 9:24:32 PM2/25/03
to

"Robert Lieblich" <Robert....@Verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3E5AC104...@Verizon.net...
> amaass wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Mike for saying what I was trying to convey.
>
> I knew what you were trying to convey. You were wrong. So is
> Mike. I cited chapter and verse and dared you to rebut. Where are
> your facts?
>

OK, OK.

Googled on "write your congressmen."

Some returned sites indicate a distinction between members of the House and
members of the Senate. Some do not.

"Congressmen," in actual usage, sometimes includes Senators.


Example, snipped from:

http://www.qtm.net/~mitchj/shawnee2.html

[QUOTED MATERIAL]
Go to the Senate and the House of Representatives, and use the locator to
find each of your congressmen. Then write, and include your complete name
and home address. Loss of these beautiful trails is imminent!
[/QUOTED MATERIAL]


-- Adam Maass


Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 11:15:47 PM2/25/03
to
Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:

> The theory is that the President is elected, not by the people,
> but by the several States.

Wasn't the present president elected by the - Supreme Court?
--
Per Erik Rønne

amaass

unread,
Feb 25, 2003, 11:43:25 PM2/25/03
to

Technically, no. The Supreme Court forbade recounting popular votes in
Florida, thus giving Florida's Electoral College votes to George W Bush,
thus giving the Presidency to George W Bush.

Not something I'm happy with. I'd just as soon do away with the Electoral
College and have the President directly elected from the popular vote.

Of course, that would mean amending the Constitution, which isn't easy to
do.

-- Adam Maass


R Fontana

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 12:00:25 AM2/26/03
to
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Mike Oliver wrote:

> "A.Oliver Cromm" wrote:
>
> > I had the same problem as Per. I think I'm generally knowledgable, but
> > I wasn't aware of this meaning of the word "parliamentary democracy".
> > I was quite aware of the difference to a system with a directly
> > elected president.
>
> Do you count the US system as including a "directly elected president"?
> Because it doesn't, really, unless you mean elected directly by the
> Electoral College, a body which has no other purpose and never meets
> at all.

Also, there are countries with parliamentary systems of government
that have a directly-elected president. Examples: Italy (starting
this year I think), Ireland, Greece. How do those who don't have the
term "parliamentary system" describe the system seen both in European
monarchical states and in the republics I mentioned, as well as
republics where the figurehead president is not elected by the
people (e.g., Italy till this year, Israel), where the head of
state is essentially a ceremonial position and all executive power is
concentrated in the government formed by a prime minister who can
command the support of a majority of a newly-elected
parliament/legislature?


Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 12:43:32 AM2/26/03
to

> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Oliver Cromm wrote:
>
>> I wondered whether you are taught what is the difference between a
>> "parliament" and the US congress
>
> Well, the difference isn't inherent in the two things -- they're both
> basically legislative bodies (and the US Congress is clearly modeled on
> the British Parliament). The difference exists in the way they
> function in particular political systems. I guess you could say that
> 'parliament' should be an acceptable term for 'legislature', but to
> Americans at least it so strongly implies a parliamentary system of
> government that it seems misleading to call the Congress 'a
> parliament'. Putting it a different way, the word 'parliament' is
> simply never used in AmE to refer to the US Congress or a state
> legislature

[snip]

Yes, thanks, I have understood teh difference. I wondered how you are
taught the meaning of the word "parliament". From your answer it appears
that it is rather implicit, in that "parliament" is used for the British
legislature, and never for the American one, with some differences
exposed. Well, that's the normal way to learnwords, I guess.

The American Embassy in Germany tells me, btw, that the American
President is both head of State and of Government.

Oliver Cromm

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 12:52:30 AM2/26/03
to
"amaass" <ama...@attbi.com> wrote in
news:rXU6a.234867$SD6.11758@sccrnsc03:

>
> "Oliver Cromm" <o...@c.de> wrote in message
> news:Xns932DC56E475...@206.167.113.5...
>>

>> I wondered whether you are taught what is the difference between a
>> "parliament" and the US congress
>> --
>

> The main contrast between the US Congress and a British-style
> parliament, as I was taught it, is the source of authority. In
> Britain, it's the Sovereign. In the US, it's The People.

Sounds a bit tendential - that's because Britain is a (constitutional)
monarchy, right? Not inherent in the parliamentary system. In Germany,
the sovereign is the people.

From: German constitution
Article 20
(2) All state authority emanates from the people. It is exercised by the
people by means of elections and voting and by separate legislative,
executive and judicial organs.
(3) Legislation is subject to the constitutional order; the executive and
the judiciary are bound by the law.
(4) All Germans shall have the right to resist any person seeking to
abolish this constitutional order, should no other remedy be possible.
(inserted 24 June 1968)

(4) is very interesting and much discussed; the ultimate anti-Hitler
clause.

R J Valentine

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 12:59:24 AM2/26/03
to
On 25 Feb 2003 14:41:47 -0800 Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

} R Fontana <rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
}
}> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Simon R. Hughes wrote:
}>
}> > Thus Spake =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?=:
}>
}> > > Does that include counties and local districts, »communes« as we
}> > > call them?
}> >
}> > Translated "municipalities", but no one uses that word in English.
}>
}> We use it in American English, typically to refer to cities and towns
}> as administrative units.
}>
}> I don't think of county government as "municipal", though.
}
} Indeed, "municipal government" is often contrasted with "county
} government".

Especially in "SCMODS", the "State, County, [and] Municipal Offender Data
System" highlighted in _The Blues Brothers_.

--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
SWCNYS

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 1:15:48 AM2/26/03
to
amaass <ama...@attbi.com> wrote:

> Not something I'm happy with. I'd just as soon do away with the Electoral
> College and have the President directly elected from the popular vote.

In one or two turns [the latter if no candidate gets more than 50% of
the total number of votes cast]
--
Per Erik Rønne

Hedberg

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 4:07:33 AM2/26/03
to
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:15:48 +0100, p...@ronne.invalid (Per Rønne)
wrote:

Many suggestions have been offered over the years as to how the
American system of selecting a president should be changed. Rarely,
if ever, is it suggested that a majority should be required for
election.

Harold

R J Valentine

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 2:15:21 AM2/26/03
to
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 05:59:24 -0000 R J Valentine <r...@smart.net> wrote:
...
} SWCNYS

Oops, that should be "SWRNYS". Sorry. I was wrong.

Per Rønne

unread,
Feb 26, 2003, 2:36:09 AM2/26/03
to
Hedberg <hhed...@swbell.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Feb 2003 07:15:48 +0100, p...@ronne.invalid (Per Rųnne)
> wrote:

> >amaass <ama...@attbi.com> wrote:

> >> Not something I'm happy with. I'd just as soon do away with the Electoral
> >> College and have the President directly elected from the popular vote.

> >In one or two turns [the latter if no candidate gets more than 50% of
> >the total number of votes cast]

> Many suggestions have been offered over the years as to how the
> American system of selecting a president should be changed. Rarely,
> if ever, is it suggested that a majority should be required for
> election.

Nevertheless, it was the lack of two turns that lead to the election of
Salvador Allende in Chile.

BTW, Vladimir Putin got slightly more than 50% of the votes in turn one.
His democratic mandate is strong.
--
Per Erik Rųnne

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages