Re: Foreigner(s)
ke...@cam.ac.uk
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= <sp...@RQNNE.dk> wrote:
><je...@alesia.dk> wrote:
>
>> On 19 Feb., 22:56, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes, I thought so - and My Fair Lady was produced by Americans.
>>
>> A note on theatrical terminology: You should use "written" instead of
>> "produced". The play was written in the 1950s.
>
>Actually, 1913 by the Englishman Bernard Shaw.
>
Nonsense. Shaw wrote a play called "Pygmalion". Next you'll be saying
Shakespeare wrote "Kiss me, Kate".
Katy
HVS
And Shaw wasn't an Englishman.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
James Hogg
>In article <1ivey0u.1u0l81fq3lmysN%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
>=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= <sp...@RQNNE.dk> wrote:
>><je...@alesia.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Feb., 22:56, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yes, I thought so - and My Fair Lady was produced by Americans.
>>>
>>> A note on theatrical terminology: You should use "written" instead of
>>> "produced". The play was written in the 1950s.
>>
>>Actually, 1913 by the Englishman Bernard Shaw.
>>
>
>Nonsense. Shaw wrote a play called "Pygmalion".
And then went on to roll in his grave when it became
"My Fair Lady".
James
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:gnmmgb$3og$1...@smaug.linux.pwf.cam.ac.uk...
> In article <1ivey0u.1u0l81fq3lmysN%p...@RQNNE.invalid>,
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Per_R=F8nne?= <sp...@RQNNE.dk> wrote:
>><je...@alesia.dk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 Feb., 22:56, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yes, I thought so - and My Fair Lady was produced by Americans.
>>>
>>> A note on theatrical terminology: You should use "written" instead
>>> of
>>> "produced". The play was written in the 1950s.
Wrong notion: The play My Fair Lady was /PRODUCED/ - cf. below:
>>
>>Actually, 1913 by the Englishman Bernard Shaw.
He was an Irish author.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Fair_Lady_(film):
My Fair Lady is a 1964 musical film adaptation of the Lerner and Loewe
stage musical, My Fair Lady, based in turn on the play Pygmalion by
George Bernard Shaw. The film was directed by George Cukor and stars
Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison.
The film was /produced/ by Herman Levin and Warner Bros. Entertainment
in Hollywood and the play was /written/ by Alan Jay Lerner
tony cooper
One of those things that is "technically" correct but an error in
understanding on Arne's part. The producer, in this context, is the
person or group that provides the financing and other non-creative
functions. While Levin was the "Producer", producers are brought in
to the picture (!) for administrative, rather than creative, talents.
The terminology suggested - "written" - is a more accurate indication
because it reveals the creative influence. A movie written by an
American is influenced by the writer's perspective as an American. An
American can produce a film without stamping it with any American
influence.
The word "produced", in this context, does not have the same meaning
as "produced" meaning "bring into existence". It has a far narrower
meaning specific to the theater and film industry.
Arne would be wise to learn to say "Why?" rather than "Wrong notion"
until he has a broader understanding of AmE usage.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:87cup4t6ebmt86hf1...@4ax.com...
>
> Arne would be wise to learn to say "Why?" rather than "Wrong notion"
> until he has a broader understanding of AmE usage.
Probably, but one of the times I wrote "why" I was also referred to as
"ignorant" and "you don't listen" etc.
But in this case -where I don't agree with the notion that My Fair Lady
was produced by instead of was written by, as this is in my book two
different things - I have just expressed my disagreement. But of course
you will always be able to say that I have not a broader understanding
of AmE usage whatever I say.
Nevertheless, I will have to think about your notion a little further
before I come to a conclusion about this.So give me a few more days to
ponder over it, please.
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
He was a Dubliner.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
AFAIK, Arne, your explanation was substantially clearer than Coop's,
so I wouldn't worry.
Per Rønne
Born in Dublin 1856, he moved to London 1876. He lived in London until
his death at the age of 94.
So he was a Dubliner for 20 years and a Londoner for 74 years.
Hans Christian Andersen moved from Odense to Copenhagen at the age of
14; for the rest of his life he celebrated his "Copenhagen birthday".
When young Danes move from a provincial town to Copenhagen it often only
takes them six months to identify themselves as Copenhageners. Though of
course not "a Copenhagener born and bred".
Did 94-year-old Shaw consider himself a Londoner or a Dubliner? I don't
know - do you?
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk
Errare humanum est, sed in errore perseverare turpe est
je...@alesia.dk
> But in this case -where I don't agree with the notion that My Fair Lady
> was produced by instead of was written by, as this is in my book two
> different things - I have just expressed my disagreement.
There has been some confusion here. I have caused at least some of it,
so let me attempt to clear things up.
The lyrics of song "On the Street Where You Live" were written by Alan
Jay Lerner, who wrote in American English and who is generally
responsible for the linguistic flavor of the song. As far as I can
narrow it down, the song (lyrics as well as music) was written in the
second half of 1954.
I earlier referred to My Fair Lady as a play, which created some
confusion. At least one poster assumed that I was referring to the
play Pygmalion, which My Fair Lady was based on. My Fair Lady is a
musical (or, more elaborately, a musical theater stage work). Neither
the song itself nor the storyline that leads to the song appear in
Pygmalion.
The verb "to produce" when used in reference to a musical (as well as
other many other types of performances on stage) describes the
creative effort that (ideally) is based on the written lyrics and
music, as written by the lyricist and the composer. It involves a
director, musicians, actors, scenography and costumes. The result of
this effort is a production of the musical. A production will run at
one or more theaters. Successful musicals like My Fair Lady will be
produced many times. The person who is in charge of a production,
especially the financial aspects, is called the producer.
When a movie of a musical the was written for stage performance is
made, like the movie My Fair Lady from 1964, a screenplay is written.
Screenplays are written by acreenwriters. The screenplay may edit or
change the dialog or the lyrics of the original musical, but the song
"On the Street Where You Live" was not changed in the screenplay. The
producer of a movie is the person responsible (financially) for the
project that begins with a screenplay and ends with a movie ready to
be seen by audiences. The producer is said to produce the movie, even
though hundreds of people usually do the actual work, creative or
otherwise. The term "production" is usually used for the phase where
cameras are used.
The usage of "produce", "producer", and "production" that I have
outlined above are common to AmE and BrE, but some of the other terms
used may not be widely accepted as BrE.
I hope this illustrates how an English speaker would normally
understand "My Fair Lady was produced" and why "written by an
American" is a happier choice than "produced by Americans" when
arguing that the lyrics of "On the Street Where You Live" are likely
to have an American flavor.
HVS
> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:03 GMT, HVS
>> <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> And Shaw wasn't an Englishman.
>>
>> He was a Dubliner.
>
> Born in Dublin 1856, he moved to London 1876. He lived in London
> until his death at the age of 94.
>
> So he was a Dubliner for 20 years and a Londoner for 74 years.
I don't know Chuck's feelings on this, but I have no problem with
calling Shaw a Londoner as well as a Dubliner.
What I took issue with was with you calling him an "Englishman": he
may have become a Londoner, and even became very English -- but he
could never become an Englishman any more than I can.
> Hans Christian Andersen moved from Odense to Copenhagen at the
> age of 14; for the rest of his life he celebrated his
> "Copenhagen birthday".
This is moving away from the "English vs Englishman" usage issue. It
may be different in Danish: if Anderson had moved to Stockholm at
the age of 20, would you call him a "Swede" or a "Dane"?
Per Rønne
je...@alesia.dk
> On 21 Feb 2009, Per Rønne wrote
> This is moving away from the "English vs Englishman" usage issue. It
> may be different in Danish: if Anderson had moved to Stockholm at
> the age of 20, would you call him a "Swede" or a "Dane"?
One of my neighbors was born in Sweden, married a Dane as a young
adult and moved to Denmark. She is around 85. Another of my neighbors
did much the same; she is around 75. They consider themselves Danes
("dansker" in Danish) in general. But they will call themselves Swedes
("svensker" in Danish) when it is appropriate to the conversation.
Similary, I think of them as Danes and will use the other label in
special situations. I am sure that they both think of their roles as
Danes and Swedes as complementary. Legally they are Danish citizens
and Danish law does not allow dual citizenship -- but that is another
story.
My nephew's wife is 23. Her parents are from Poland and moved to
Denmark just before she was born. She is a Dane most of the time, but
she and my nephew will both use the word "polak" (person from Poland)
to describe her (or her mother for that matter) in contexts where that
aspect seems important. Again, these people think of their identity as
Danish and Polish as complementary, as do we who know them.
I have another neighbor who is from Russia. He has lived in Copenhagen
for 22 years working for a Russian (originally Soviet) company. He
uses English at work and when conversing us neighbors, and he mostly
speaks Russian with his friends. We neighbors think of him as Russian;
it would be out of the question to think of him as a Dane. I am sure
that he thinks of himself as a Russian living in Denmark, not in any
way as a Dane.
So it all depends.
HVS
> On 21 Feb., 17:44, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2009, Per Rřnne wrote
Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being
"English" and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I objected
to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised in
Ireland).
To me it's conceivable for someone to become "English" -- or more
precisely to become "an English [noun]". Joseph Conrad became "an
English writer", and if Shaw had been described as "English" or "an
English writer" I'd merely have clarified the issue rather than
stating categorically that "he wasn't one of those".
But in my usage -- and I'm fairly sure this isn't my own
idiosyncracy -- an "Englishman" *has* to have been born as one:
unlike "English", the term doesn't define a state of being or a
nationality, it requires a specific country of birth.
I'm not sure if this distinction applies in other languages, but to
me that's the essential difference between referring to someone as
"English" and calling him an "Englishman".
the Omrud
I disagree about the possibility of becoming English. One can, of
course, become British, but being English requires a complete state of
mind and shared experience of the time in which your personality was
formed. Although I don't think it has to start at birth - I know people
who came here during their childhood but are definitely English.
I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being English and
being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've ever discussed this
with anybody so it may just be the way I feel.
--
David
HVS
> HVS wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2009, wrote
>>
>>> On 21 Feb., 17:44, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 21 Feb 2009, Per Rønne wrote
That's why I was careful to say "more precisely to become "an
English [noun]" -- but those cases you mention go to the core of
what I'm getting at.
Could you ever hear yourself describing such people -- "who came
here during their childhood but are definitely English" -- as
"Englishmen"?
It may just be me, but that just sounds entirely wrong to my ear.
> I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being
> English and being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've
> ever discussed this with anybody so it may just be the way I
> feel.
>
--
James Silverton
>>>
>> The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being "English"
>> and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I
>> objected to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised
>> in Ireland).
>>
> I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being
> English and being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've
> ever discussed this with anybody so it may just be the way I
> feel.
In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to get
"a decent cup of tea".
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
the Omrud
I was extending it - I feel that a person who comes to England in
adulthood will never become English, any more than I could ever become
Scottish.
> Could you ever hear yourself describing such people -- "who came
> here during their childhood but are definitely English" -- as
> "Englishmen"?
I might, but see below.
> It may just be me, but that just sounds entirely wrong to my ear.
I don't think I ever use the word, except when singing in Iolanthe.
Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
--
David
James Silverton
> I don't think I ever use the word, except when singing in
> Iolanthe. Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
In Pinafore,
"For he himself has said it/ And it's greatly to his credit/ He remains
an Englishman."
the Omrud
> the wrote on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:35:30 GMT:
>
>
>> I don't think I ever use the word, except when singing in
>> Iolanthe. Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>
> In Pinafore,
> "For he himself has said it/ And it's greatly to his credit/ He remains
> an Englishman."
Oops. I've sung them all and they get mixed up in my head.
--
David
HVS
> HVS wrote:
Going back to my first comment in this branch of the thread, then,
I take it you're not disagreeing with me that describing the man
who wrote the play "Pygmalion" as "an Englishman" is just...wrong.
>> Could you ever hear yourself describing such people -- "who
>> came here during their childhood but are definitely English" --
>> as "Englishmen"?
>
> I might, but see below.
>
>> It may just be me, but that just sounds entirely wrong to my
>> ear.
>
> I don't think I ever use the word, except when singing in
> Iolanthe.
Don't you mean Pinafore?
the Omrud
Yep.
--
David
Ian Jackson
<not.jim....@verizon.net> writes
>the wrote on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:06:23 GMT:
>
>>>>
>>> The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being "English"
>>>and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I
>>> objected to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised
>>>in Ireland).
>>>
>> I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being
>> English and being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've
>> ever discussed this with anybody so it may just be the way I
>> feel.
>
>In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
>still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
>American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
>Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to
>get "a decent cup of tea".
>
always takes sufficient teabags to last the duration. It's not you can't
get them in the States. It's just that those you can get don't seem to
taste of tea.
--
Ian
tony cooper
wrote:
We're lucky. We have a term that fits the assimilated incomer:
Americanized. That doesn't work in the UK. You can't say
"Englishized" or "Britishized".
Hatunen
"Kiss Me, Kate" is far more different from "The Taming of the
Shrew" than "My Fair Lady" is from "Pygmalion".
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Lew
> "Kiss Me, Kate" is far more different from "The Taming of the
> Shrew" than "My Fair Lady" is from "Pygmalion".
But /Ten Things I Hate About You/, starring Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles, is
quite close to /Shrew/.
--
Lew
Per Rønne
> the wrote on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:06:23 GMT:
>
> >>>
> >> The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being "English"
> >> and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I
> >> objected to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised
> >> in Ireland).
> >>
> > I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being
> > English and being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've
> > ever discussed this with anybody so it may just be the way I
> > feel.
>
> In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
> still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
> American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
> Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to get
> "a decent cup of tea".
That they immediately destroy by putting milk in the tea ;-(.
Per Rønne
> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
<http://www.google.dk/search?q=%22An+Englishman+in%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:da:official&client=firefox-a>
600,000 hits.
Ian Jackson
<p...@RQNNE.invalid> writes
>James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>> In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
>> still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
>> American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
>> Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to get
>> "a decent cup of tea".
>
>That they immediately destroy by putting milk in the tea ;-(.
No. But a lot DO put far too much milk in their tea, and are far too
quick in removing the teabag from the cup. We (at least in NE England)
have the expression "Water bewitched and tea begrudged".
--
Ian
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:7dsvp4dcpfb48ofg2...@4ax.com...
>>Nevertheless, I will have to think about your notion a little further
>>before I come to a conclusion about this.So give me a few more days to
>>ponder over it, please.
>
> AFAIK, Arne, your explanation was substantially clearer than Coop's,
> so I wouldn't worry.
Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
LFS
The tea is not the problem: what you can't get is *boiling* water (cue
discussion of kettles redux)
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
the Omrud
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>
> The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
>
> <http://www.google.dk/search?q=%22An+Englishman+in%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
> aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:da:official&client=firefox-a>
>
> 600,000 hits.
Strange, I only get 130,000.
It feels like the title of something, rather than an ideomatic way of
talking about somebody in normal speech.
The term ""a connecticut yankee in" is quite common (294,000 hits), but
that doesn't make it likely that any American here has ever said it.
--
David
Chuck Riggs
wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2009, Per Rønne wrote
>
>> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:03 GMT, HVS
>>> <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> And Shaw wasn't an Englishman.
>>>
>>> He was a Dubliner.
>>
>> Born in Dublin 1856, he moved to London 1876. He lived in London
>> until his death at the age of 94.
>>
>> So he was a Dubliner for 20 years and a Londoner for 74 years.
>
>I don't know Chuck's feelings on this, but I have no problem with
>calling Shaw a Londoner as well as a Dubliner.
If I can call myself a Dubliner and a Marylander, for I've lived in
Dublin almost as long as I lived in Maryland, I have no problem with
that, Harvey.
>What I took issue with was with you calling him an "Englishman": he
>may have become a Londoner, and even became very English -- but he
>could never become an Englishman any more than I can.
I agree. With me, even though I have an Irish passport and make this
country my home, I remain an American.
>> Hans Christian Andersen moved from Odense to Copenhagen at the
>> age of 14; for the rest of his life he celebrated his
>> "Copenhagen birthday".
>
>This is moving away from the "English vs Englishman" usage issue. It
>may be different in Danish: if Anderson had moved to Stockholm at
>the age of 20, would you call him a "Swede" or a "Dane"?
In English usage, I'd say he was a Swede is he was born in Sweden.
Ian Jackson
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes
dual-voltage [1] travelling kettle and plug adaptor!
Experience shows that relying on the hotel room coffee percolator for
marginally warm water results in tea which continues to taste of coffee
(albeit diminishingly) for at least a week. But, of course, if you can
rely on the hotel room having a microwave oven, you can always boil your
water in individual cups.
[1] You can use a 230V kettle on 115V, but it takes absolutely ages to
boil.
--
Ian
the Omrud
Teabag?
--
David
the Omrud
Ah. Now then, is Chuck an Irishman? Who has the say-so?
--
David
Chuck Riggs
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> the wrote on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:06:23 GMT:
>
>>>>
>>> The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being "English"
>>> and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I
>>> objected to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised
>>> in Ireland).
>>>
>> I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being
>> English and being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've
>> ever discussed this with anybody so it may just be the way I
>> feel.
>
>In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
>still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
>American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
>Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to get
>"a decent cup of tea".
In English usage, if you were born in America, you forever remain an
American, no matter where you have lived or do live.
James Hogg
But some people do write "Englishised" and "Britishised" when
they feel a need for a term. You often see then with hyphens,
sometimes even with apostrophes - British'ised!
OED has only Englishize. Most of the quotations refer to
Anglicisations in a linguistic sense, but there's this:
1922 Blackwood's Mag. Sept. 281/1 F...had been accustomed to meet
the Englishised Indian in the privacy of his board-room in
London.
English word formation allows this kind of creation. The
nationality adjectives exist and the suffix exists. It's not
surprising that some people put them together by analogy with
existing, more familiar formations.
But you could say that the relative rarity of these terms proves
your point. Maybe we just say "assmilated" more often.
James
(BrE with a distinctly septentrional flavour)
Chuck Riggs
This is never a problem for some of us, since Real Men® drink coffee.
Ian Jackson
<Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
Does "Anglicized" not suffice? It's certainly OK for England. As the
ancient island of Anglia presumably included Scotland, it should also be
OK for the Scots. Or would that no longer be PC?
--
Ian
Chuck Riggs
I'm glad you're happy, but harking back a few posts, although I now
live in Ireland I remain an American, my country by birth.
James Hogg
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <um62q45e624g16vru...@4ax.com>, James Hogg
><Jas....@gOUTmail.com> writes
>>On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:21:28 -0500, tony cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>>We're lucky. We have a term that fits the assimilated incomer:
>>>Americanized. That doesn't work in the UK. You can't say
>>>"Englishized" or "Britishized".
>>
>>But some people do write "Englishised" and "Britishised" when
>>they feel a need for a term. You often see then with hyphens,
>>sometimes even with apostrophes - British'ised!
>>
>>OED has only Englishize. Most of the quotations refer to
>>Anglicisations in a linguistic sense, but there's this:
>>1922 Blackwood's Mag. Sept. 281/1 F...had been accustomed to meet
>>the Englishised Indian in the privacy of his board-room in
>>London.
>>
>>English word formation allows this kind of creation. The
>>nationality adjectives exist and the suffix exists. It's not
>>surprising that some people put them together by analogy with
>>existing, more familiar formations.
>>
>>But you could say that the relative rarity of these terms proves
>>your point. Maybe we just say "assmilated" more often.
>>
>Does "Anglicized" not suffice? It's certainly OK for England.
Agreed.
>As the
>ancient island of Anglia presumably included Scotland, it should also be
>OK for the Scots. Or would that no longer be PC?
Definitely not. Neither politically nor historically correct.
There has never been an island called Anglia. That's only ever
been a part of the island formerly known as Albion and Pretania.
James
(BrE with a distinctly Celtic flavour)
Per Rønne
> In message <1ivirxy.4npyu1rzpb2kN%p...@RQNNE.invalid>, Per Rønne
> <p...@RQNNE.invalid> writes
> >James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
> >> still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
> >> American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
> >> Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to get
> >> "a decent cup of tea".
> >
> >That they immediately destroy by putting milk in the tea ;-(.
>
> No. But a lot DO put far too much milk in their tea,
In my experience, you cannot put to /little/ milk in the tea ...
Had it been rum it had been another case!
> and are far too quick in removing the teabag from the cup.
I think the opposite is the major problem. As late as an hour ago the
people at the church had made the tea too strong - as coffee drinkers
usually do.
> We (at least in NE England) have the expression "Water bewitched and tea
> begrudged".
--
Per Rønne
> Per Rřnne wrote:
> > the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
> >
> > The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
> >
> > <http://www.google.dk/search?q=%22An+Englishman+in%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
> > aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:da:official&client=firefox-a>
> >
> > 600,000 hits.
>
> Strange, I only get 130,000.
I now I get 141,000 - google doesn't seem that stable ...
> It feels like the title of something, rather than an ideomatic way of
> talking about somebody in normal speech.
>
> The term ""a connecticut yankee in" is quite common (294,000 hits), but
> that doesn't make it likely that any American here has ever said it.
I can only recommend the novel. Mart Twains "A Conneticut Yankee in King
Arthur's Court" :-).
--
Per Erik Rřnne
the Omrud
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>>> The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
>>>
>>> <http://www.google.dk/search?q=%22An+Englishman+in%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
>>> aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:da:official&client=firefox-a>
>>>
>>> 600,000 hits.
>> Strange, I only get 130,000.
>
> I now I get 141,000 - google doesn't seem that stable ...
>
>> It feels like the title of something, rather than an ideomatic way of
>> talking about somebody in normal speech.
>>
>> The term ""a connecticut yankee in" is quite common (294,000 hits), but
>> that doesn't make it likely that any American here has ever said it.
>
> I can only recommend the novel. Mart Twains "A Conneticut Yankee in King
> Arthur's Court" :-).
Er, yes, I knew that. My point was that just because a phrase is
frequently found on the Web, it doesn't mean that it's in common
ideomatic usage.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
A regrettable compromise, innit?
I see that a nice Small Ball & Chain Tea Infuser is available for $4.00
Australian from:
http://www.happybodies.com.au/index/40;Products%20-%20Tea%20Leaf/
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:nj9ol.38331$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
I thought he was an Irisman - I might be wrong in this!
the Omrud
He lives in Ireland and has, I believe, dual US and Irish citizenship,
but he considers himself an American.
--
David
Arne H. Wilstrup
am old, you know)
James Silverton
> But some people do write "Englishised" and "Britishised" when
> they feel a need for a term. You often see then with hyphens,
> sometimes even with apostrophes - British'ised!
> OED has only Englishize. Most of the quotations refer to
> Anglicisations in a linguistic sense, but there's this:
> 1922 Blackwood's Mag. Sept. 281/1 F...had been accustomed to
> meet the Englishised Indian in the privacy of his board-room
> in London.
> English word formation allows this kind of creation. The
> nationality adjectives exist and the suffix exists. It's not
> surprising that some people put them together by analogy with
> existing, more familiar formations.
> But you could say that the relative rarity of these terms
> proves your point. Maybe we just say "assmilated" more often.
I thought so and the online OED does list "english" as a verb with
references back to 1490. Particularly in Bible translation, I have heard
of the Bible being "englished" in current use.
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
HVS
>>> It feels like the title of something, rather than an ideomatic
>>> way of talking about somebody in normal speech.
-snip-
> Er, yes, I knew that. My point was that just because a phrase
> is frequently found on the Web, it doesn't mean that it's in
> common ideomatic usage.
That's twice you've spelled it "ideomatic" rather than "idiomatic";
am I correct in oy-ing it, or is that a legitimate alternative?
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
R H Draney
>
>Experience shows that relying on the hotel room coffee percolator for
>marginally warm water results in tea which continues to taste of coffee
>(albeit diminishingly) for at least a week. But, of course, if you can
>rely on the hotel room having a microwave oven, you can always boil your
>water in individual cups.
Absent the microwave, there's something called an "immersion heater" that will
do the same thing...I'm not a big morning coffee/tea person, but I carry one
when I travel because I prefer to shave with a razor with its business end
boiling hot....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
the Omrud
> On 22 Feb 2009, the Omrud wrote
>
>>>> It feels like the title of something, rather than an ideomatic
>>>> way of talking about somebody in normal speech.
>
> -snip-
>
>> Er, yes, I knew that. My point was that just because a phrase
>> is frequently found on the Web, it doesn't mean that it's in
>> common ideomatic usage.
>
> That's twice you've spelled it "ideomatic" rather than "idiomatic";
> am I correct in oy-ing it, or is that a legitimate alternative?
I thought so, and I've been overriding my spiel chucker, but I can't
find it in the OED. There are over a million hits for it though, so if
I'm wrong then I'm not alone.
--
David
meal-twit: http://twitter.com/omrud
HVS
If it is a legitimate word I'd assume it has some relation to
ideology and ideograms (rather than to idioms).
Robert Lieblich
>
> HVS wrote:
[ ... ]
> > That's twice you've spelled it "ideomatic" rather than "idiomatic";
> > am I correct in oy-ing it, or is that a legitimate alternative?
>
> I thought so, and I've been overriding my spiel chucker, but I can't
> find it in the OED. There are over a million hits for it though, so if
> I'm wrong then I'm not alone.
Wasn't Ideomatic the automatic transmission on the Freudmobile?
--
Bob Lieblich
Well, why not?
HVS
I thought you were old, Bob -- but you're junger than I thought.
Lew
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>>> The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
>>>
>>> <http://www.google.dk/search?q=%22An+Englishman+in%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&
>>> aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:da:official&client=firefox-a>
>>>
>>> 600,000 hits.
>> Strange, I only get 130,000.
>
> I now I get 141,000 - google doesn't seem that stable ...
>
>> talking about somebody in normal speech.
>>
>> The term ""a connecticut yankee in" is quite common (294,000 hits), but
>> that doesn't make it likely that any American here has ever said it.
>
> I can only recommend the novel. Mart Twains "A Conneticut Yankee in King
> Arthur's Court" :-).
Google hits are hardly a valid metric. Something like the existence of that
book can cause a lot of hits without a phrase being in common use otherwise.
--
Lew
tony cooper
wrote:
>On 22 Feb 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote
>
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>> HVS wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>>> That's twice you've spelled it "ideomatic" rather than
>>>> "idiomatic"; am I correct in oy-ing it, or is that a
>>>> legitimate alternative?
>>>
>>> I thought so, and I've been overriding my spiel chucker, but I
>>> can't find it in the OED. There are over a million hits for it
>>> though, so if I'm wrong then I'm not alone.
>>
>> Wasn't Ideomatic the automatic transmission on the Freudmobile?
>
>I thought you were old, Bob -- but you're junger than I thought.
In the river of life, his craft is on an ebbing tide.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Hatunen
>On 21 Feb., 00:33, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>
>> But in this case -where I don't agree with the notion that My Fair Lady
>> was produced by instead of was written by, as this is in my book two
>> different things - I have just expressed my disagreement.
>
>There has been some confusion here. I have caused at least some of it,
>so let me attempt to clear things up.
>
>The lyrics of song "On the Street Where You Live" were written by Alan
>Jay Lerner, who wrote in American English and who is generally
>responsible for the linguistic flavor of the song. As far as I can
>narrow it down, the song (lyrics as well as music) was written in the
>second half of 1954.
>
>I earlier referred to My Fair Lady as a play, which created some
>confusion. At least one poster assumed that I was referring to the
>play Pygmalion, which My Fair Lady was based on. My Fair Lady is a
>musical (or, more elaborately, a musical theater stage work). Neither
>the song itself nor the storyline that leads to the song appear in
>Pygmalion.
>
>The verb "to produce" when used in reference to a musical (as well as
>other many other types of performances on stage) describes the
>creative effort that (ideally) is based on the written lyrics and
>music, as written by the lyricist and the composer. It involves a
>director, musicians, actors, scenography and costumes. The result of
>this effort is a production of the musical.
Um...
A play or musical has a producer. He is the one who provides the
money and facilities for producing the play, frequently by
appealing to investors to provide the money needed. He/she also
hires the director and the other people who put the show
together, and he/she writes the checks to pay them and actors.
Obviously, the Golden Rule applies: Whoever has the gold gets to
rule, so the producer can exercise considerable influence on the
artistic quality of the show,
>A production will run at
>one or more theaters. Successful musicals like My Fair Lady will be
>produced many times. The person who is in charge of a production,
>especially the financial aspects, is called the producer.
Yes. But using "produce" as a verb usually always means the
actions of the producer, not the sort of blanket for everyone
elses's involvement you seem to indicate above.
>When a movie of a musical the was written for stage performance is
>made, like the movie My Fair Lady from 1964, a screenplay is written.
>Screenplays are written by acreenwriters. The screenplay may edit or
>change the dialog or the lyrics of the original musical, but the song
>"On the Street Where You Live" was not changed in the screenplay. The
>producer of a movie is the person responsible (financially) for the
>project that begins with a screenplay and ends with a movie ready to
>be seen by audiences. The producer is said to produce the movie, even
>though hundreds of people usually do the actual work, creative or
>otherwise. The term "production" is usually used for the phase where
>cameras are used.
What you're doing here is obfuscating the line between the two
meanings of the verb "to produce", one being the funcitons
performed by the person or persons billed as "Producer", and the
other the generic word for creation of something.
I've been in theater off and on now for 54 years and I have never
heard the verb "produce" used in the generic sense of to create
something.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Robert Bannister
> I don't think I ever use the word, except when singing in Iolanthe.
Please don't forget "HMS Pinafore":
ALL. He is an Englishman!
BOAT. He is an Englishman!
For he himself has said it,
And it's greatly to his credit,
That he is an Englishman!
ALL. That he is an Englishman!
BOAT. For he might have been a Roosian,
A French, or Turk, or Proosian,
Or perhaps Itali-an!
ALL. Or perhaps Itali-an!
BOAT. But in spite of all temptations
To belong to other nations,
He remains an Englishman!
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>
> The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
It may still be around, but as I said earlier about "Dane" and
"Spaniard", my feeling is that these nouns are slowly dying out, and
part of the reason is that they refer to one gender. True, we have the
words "Englishwoman", "Frenchwoman", etc., (although no "Gerwoman"), but
we don't have a non-gender-specific noun, so there is, I think, a
tendency to avoid the noun and choose the adjective with a different
construction.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> We're lucky. We have a term that fits the assimilated incomer:
> Americanized. That doesn't work in the UK. You can't say
> "Englishized" or "Britishized".
Interesting that "Americanized" implies the full operation, while
"Anglicised" only implies a make-over.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
>
> I thought so and the online OED does list "english" as a verb with
> references back to 1490. Particularly in Bible translation, I have heard
> of the Bible being "englished" in current use.
>
If I read that I would think it meant a spin had been put on it.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
> James Silverton <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> the wrote on Sat, 21 Feb 2009 22:06:23 GMT:
>>
>>>> The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being "English"
>>>> and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I
>>>> objected to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised
>>>> in Ireland).
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure whether there is a big difference between being
>>> English and being an Englishman. However, I'm not sure I've
>>> ever discussed this with anybody so it may just be the way I
>>> feel.
>> In my own opinion, I have been both an Englishman and a Scot and I
>> still feel some sentimental attachment to Britain but I *am* an
>> American. To me, when I first came to the US, a confirmed Englishman or
>> Englishwoman was one who complained bitterly about not being able to get
>> "a decent cup of tea".
>
> That they immediately destroy by putting milk in the tea
Having drunk over-milked, over-sweetened and over-brewed tea in India, I
am convinced that this is where British Army tea came from, but not all
English people drink it like that.
--
Rob Bannister
Hatunen
<use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2009, Per Rønne wrote
>
>> Chuck Riggs <chr...@eircom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:44:03 GMT, HVS
>>> <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> And Shaw wasn't an Englishman.
>>>
>>> He was a Dubliner.
>>
>> Born in Dublin 1856, he moved to London 1876. He lived in London
>> until his death at the age of 94.
>>
>> So he was a Dubliner for 20 years and a Londoner for 74 years.
>
>I don't know Chuck's feelings on this, but I have no problem with
>calling Shaw a Londoner as well as a Dubliner.
>
>What I took issue with was with you calling him an "Englishman": he
>may have become a Londoner, and even became very English -- but he
>could never become an Englishman any more than I can.
America and England, separated by a common language , and all...
I note that comedian Yakov Smirnoff is described by Wikipedia as
"a Ukrainian-born American comedian", a construction that easily
passes American sensibilities. One of his jokes was to comment to
the effect, If I move to Germany I will never become a German, if
I move to Italy, I will never become an Italian, but after five
years in America I am already an American. What a country!
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
wrote:
>On 21 Feb 2009, wrote
>
>> On 21 Feb., 17:44, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 21 Feb 2009, Per Rřnne wrote
>>
>>> This is moving away from the "English vs Englishman" usage
>>> issue. It may be different in Danish: if Anderson had moved
>>> to Stockholm at the age of 20, would you call him a "Swede" or
>>> a "Dane"?
>>
>> One of my neighbors was born in Sweden, married a Dane as a
>> young adult and moved to Denmark. She is around 85. Another of
>> my neighbors did much the same; she is around 75. They consider
>> themselves Danes ("dansker" in Danish) in general. But they will
>> call themselves Swedes ("svensker" in Danish) when it is
>> appropriate to the conversation. Similary, I think of them as
>> Danes and will use the other label in special situations. I am
>> sure that they both think of their roles as Danes and Swedes as
>> complementary. Legally they are Danish citizens and Danish law
>> does not allow dual citizenship -- but that is another story.
>>
>> My nephew's wife is 23. Her parents are from Poland and moved to
>> Denmark just before she was born. She is a Dane most of the
>> time, but she and my nephew will both use the word "polak"
>> (person from Poland) to describe her (or her mother for that
>> matter) in contexts where that aspect seems important. Again,
>> these people think of their identity as Danish and Polish as
>> complementary, as do we who know them.
>>
>> I have another neighbor who is from Russia. He has lived in
>> Copenhagen for 22 years working for a Russian (originally
>> Soviet) company. He uses English at work and when conversing us
>> neighbors, and he mostly speaks Russian with his friends. We
>> neighbors think of him as Russian; it would be out of the
>> question to think of him as a Dane. I am sure that he thinks of
>> himself as a Russian living in Denmark, not in any way as a
>> Dane.
>>
>> So it all depends.
>
>Maybe I'm not being clear enough.
>
>The distinction I'm trying to make here is between being
>"English" and being "an Englishman" (which is the term I objected
>to when it was applied to a writer who was born and raised in
>Ireland).
>
>To me it's conceivable for someone to become "English" -- or more
>precisely to become "an English [noun]". Joseph Conrad became "an
>English writer", and if Shaw had been described as "English" or "an
>English writer" I'd merely have clarified the issue rather than
>stating categorically that "he wasn't one of those".
>
>But in my usage -- and I'm fairly sure this isn't my own
>idiosyncracy -- an "Englishman" *has* to have been born as one:
>unlike "English", the term doesn't define a state of being or a
>nationality, it requires a specific country of birth.
>
>I'm not sure if this distinction applies in other languages, but to
>me that's the essential difference between referring to someone as
>"English" and calling him an "Englishman".
There is an extra dimension to this.
An immigrant such as the late Ján Ludvík Hoch can become British, not
just by formal citizenship but "culturally", more easily than he could
be accepted as English (or Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish).
I think it was the writer George Mikes who on acquiring British
citizenship said to a friend something like "I am now English". The
friend gently corrected him explaining that he had become British not
English.
Ján Ludvík Hoch: Robert Maxwell.
CDB
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:16:31 GMT, HVS wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2009, Robert Lieblich wrote
>>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>> HVS wrote:
>>> [ ... ]
>>>>> That's twice you've spelled it "ideomatic" rather than
>>>>> "idiomatic"; am I correct in oy-ing it, or is that a
>>>>> legitimate alternative?
>>>> I thought so, and I've been overriding my spiel chucker, but I
>>>> can't find it in the OED. There are over a million hits for it
>>>> though, so if I'm wrong then I'm not alone.
>>> Wasn't Ideomatic the automatic transmission on the Freudmobile?
>> I thought you were old, Bob -- but you're junger than I thought.
> In the river of life, his craft is on an ebbing tide.
Here's hoping he's a tiptop paddler.
Per Rønne
There seem to be lots of tourist-like books with titles like "An
Englishman in Egypt" ...
BTW, the reason for not having a "Gerwoman" is because there's no
"GerMAN"; German from Germania is simply neuter. As is Dane and Swede.
Per Rønne
Per Rønne
> I note that comedian Yakov Smirnoff is described by Wikipedia as
> "a Ukrainian-born American comedian", a construction that easily
> passes American sensibilities. One of his jokes was to comment to
> the effect, If I move to Germany I will never become a German, if
> I move to Italy, I will never become an Italian, but after five
> years in America I am already an American. What a country!
Did Charlie Chaplin ever become an American?
--
Per Erik Rønne
HVS
In England I can see the equivalent of "a Ukrainian-born English
comedian" working -- just. But "a Ukrainian-born Englishman"
simply doesn't work at all.
HVS
Indeed -- but "English" is a little more flexible than that
implies; it depends whether it's used by itself or as a modifier.
We would never say that Conrad became "English" -- but insisting
that he must be called "a Polish-born British writer" strikes me as
quite wrong: he was a Polish-born English writer.
Similarly with Mikes: I wonder if his friend would have corrected
him if, on publishing his first book, he had said something like "I
am now an English writer who came from Hungary".
the Omrud
> the Omrud wrote:
>
>> I don't think I ever use the word, except when singing in Iolanthe.
>
> Please don't forget "HMS Pinafore":
>
> ALL. He is an Englishman!
I know, I know. My mistake.
Chuck Riggs
<usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote:
>Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:nj9ol.38331$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>>> "Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>> news:7dsvp4dcpfb48ofg2...@4ax.com...
>>>> >>Nevertheless, I will have to think about your notion a little
>>>> further
>>>>>> before I come to a conclusion about this.So give me a few more days
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> ponder over it, please.
>>>>> AFAIK, Arne, your explanation was substantially clearer than Coop's,
>>>>> so I wouldn't worry.
>>>> Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>> Ah. Now then, is Chuck an Irishman? Who has the say-so?
>>
>> I thought he was an Irisman - I might be wrong in this!
>
>He lives in Ireland and has, I believe, dual US and Irish citizenship,
>but he considers himself an American.
A man can have American and Irish citizenships simultaneously, but
from English usage, transcendental and physical standpoints, I don't
see how he can be an "American" and an "Irishman" at the same time.
--
Regards,
Chuck Riggs
Near Dublin, Ireland
Chuck Riggs
>"Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:qn82q4d7kia3gaocj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>
>>>"Chuck Riggs" <chr...@eircom.net> skrev i meddelelsen
>>>news:7dsvp4dcpfb48ofg2...@4ax.com...
>>> >>Nevertheless, I will have to think about your notion a little
>>> >>further
>>>>>before I come to a conclusion about this.So give me a few more days
>>>>>to
>>>>>ponder over it, please.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK, Arne, your explanation was substantially clearer than Coop's,
>>>> so I wouldn't worry.
>>>
>>>Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>
>> I'm glad you're happy, but harking back a few posts, although I now
>> live in Ireland I remain an American, my country by birth.
>>
>Well, I just looked at the signature - my memory fades away sometimes (I
>am old, you know)
My signature could be more explicit than it is, 'tis true, but lengthy
signatures can be a bore. No one wants to plough through an
autobiography at the end of every post. Even the briefest of
condensations of mine would be a lengthy tome.
Yendrick
>
> > >> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>
> > > The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
>
> > It may still be around, but as I said earlier about "Dane" and
> > "Spaniard", my feeling is that these nouns are slowly dying out, and
> > part of the reason is that they refer to one gender. True, we have the
> > words "Englishwoman", "Frenchwoman", etc., (although no "Gerwoman"), but
> > we don't have a non-gender-specific noun, so there is, I think, a
> > tendency to avoid the noun and choose the adjective with a different
> > construction.
>
> There seem to be lots of tourist-like books with titles like "An
> Englishman in Egypt" ...
>
> BTW, the reason for not having a "Gerwoman" is because there's no
> "GerMAN"; German from Germania is simply neuter. As is Dane and Swede.
> --
So..... where do little Germans, Danes and Swedes come from?
Actually, it would be nice if someone would neuter the French. (Just
kidding- obligatory American francophobia).
Yendrick
Per Rønne
> So..... where do little Germans, Danes and Swedes come from?
They are born by Germans, Danes or Swedes - of the opposite sex :-).
--
Per Erik Rønne
tony cooper
wrote:
>Even the briefest of
>condensations of mine would be a lengthy tome.
So your gas would turn to liquid and words would pour out of you?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> I note that comedian Yakov Smirnoff is described by Wikipedia as "a
>> Ukrainian-born American comedian", a construction that easily
>> passes American sensibilities. One of his jokes was to comment to
>> the effect, If I move to Germany I will never become a German, if I
>> move to Italy, I will never become an Italian, but after five years
>> in America I am already an American. What a country!
>
> Did Charlie Chaplin ever become an American?
I'm pretty sure that most people who know of him consider Bob Hope to
have been an American. Do Brits consider him an Englishman? Frank
Oz? John Muir? How about Liz Taylor? She was born in England, but
her parents were Americans. Cary Grant?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |You may hate gravity, but gravity
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |doesn't care.
Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Clayton Christensen
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
the Omrud
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) writes:
>
>> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I note that comedian Yakov Smirnoff is described by Wikipedia as "a
>>> Ukrainian-born American comedian", a construction that easily
>>> passes American sensibilities. One of his jokes was to comment to
>>> the effect, If I move to Germany I will never become a German, if I
>>> move to Italy, I will never become an Italian, but after five years
>>> in America I am already an American. What a country!
>> Did Charlie Chaplin ever become an American?
>
> I'm pretty sure that most people who know of him consider Bob Hope to
> have been an American. Do Brits consider him an Englishman? Frank
> Oz? John Muir? How about Liz Taylor? She was born in England, but
> her parents were Americans. Cary Grant?
I had to look up John Muir. Certainly looks Scottish from his photo.
Bob Hope, Frank Oz and Liz Taylor were taken to the USA as children, so
they're probably Americans, but as I said, I don't use the word
"Englishman". Both Oz and Taylor had non-English parents.
How about Henry Morton Stanley? Did you know he was born just 40 miles
from me here in Cheshire, although he was never English. He went to the
USA at the age of 18, so I suspect he remained, er, whatever he was when
he left. He later returned and became an MP.
HVS
> p...@RQNNE.invalid (Per Rønne) writes:
>
>> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I note that comedian Yakov Smirnoff is described by Wikipedia
>>> as "a Ukrainian-born American comedian", a construction that
>>> easily passes American sensibilities. One of his jokes was to
>>> comment to the effect, If I move to Germany I will never
>>> become a German, if I move to Italy, I will never become an
>>> Italian, but after five years in America I am already an
>>> American. What a country!
>>
>> Did Charlie Chaplin ever become an American?
>
> I'm pretty sure that most people who know of him consider Bob
> Hope to have been an American. Do Brits consider him an
> Englishman? Frank Oz? John Muir? How about Liz Taylor? She
> was born in England, but her parents were Americans. Cary
> Grant?
I'd say that Taylor, Grant, Hope, and Chaplin are all certainly
identified over here as English.
Dan McGrath
>Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
There is no such word as "rare".
- Dan
--
Daniel G. McGrath
Binghamton, New York
e-mail: dmcg6174[AT]gmail[DOT]com
Nick
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> the Omrud wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think I ever use the word {englishman], except when singing in
>>> Iolanthe.
>>
>> Please don't forget "HMS Pinafore":
>>
>> ALL. He is an Englishman!
>
> I know, I know. My mistake.
Do you do My Fair Lady? "An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely
classifies him". Or Sting or Godley and Creme?
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>
>>Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>
> There is no such word as "rare".
>
Of course there is - just look it up in a dictionary. You are not a
native speaker of English, I presume?
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
>
>>Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>
> There is no such word as "rare".
>
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rare_1?view=uk
Still not convinced?
Leslie Danks
> "Dan McGrath" <inv...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>
>>>Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>
>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>
> As I said before, "Of course there is" - e.g.
> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rare_1?view=uk
>
> Still not convinced?
Any bets on who wins this argument?
And when...
--
Les (BrE)
Hell rarely freezes over.
the Omrud
> the Omrud <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> writes:
>
>> Robert Bannister wrote:
>>> the Omrud wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't think I ever use the word {englishman], except when singing in
>>>> Iolanthe.
>>> Please don't forget "HMS Pinafore":
>>>
>>> ALL. He is an Englishman!
>> I know, I know. My mistake.
>
> Do you do My Fair Lady? "An Englishman's way of speaking absolutely
> classifies him". Or Sting or Godley and Creme?
I've never sung in any 20th Century musicals (I'm available, if there
are any casting directors reading AUE), but yes, I know all of those.
Rather makes my point, doesn't it? The use is slightly strange. "An
Englishman in New York" sounds like the title of a novel.
<fighting talk>
Godley and Creme are, of course, half of the greatest band ever to come
out of Manchester.
the Omrud
Arne, Daniel is autistic and has fixations with certain words.
Occasionally these get the better of him and he challenges their use
across Usenet. Don't try to discuss it.
At other times he makes interesting contributions though.
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:49a3174a$0$2295$91ce...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
It has nothing to do with "winning", but I am perhaps a little tired of
being considered a moron in English.
I am of course not always correct - I accept that - but I am not always
incorrect, either.
Simply to say that "there is not such a word as "rare" called for my
answer.
I am, however, surprised that none of you native English speakers did
say anything about this, but now when I am saying something, it ends up
with a remark of who is winning the argument.
It is like you are of the same family and protect each other from the
wild and mean Dane and contradict whatever he is saying, as a nonnative
speaker must not be right -ever!
Instead of rebuke him for his nonsense, you are arguing with me instead.
Why is that? Another urge to fight back and bash the Danes? :-)
Robin Bignall
wrote:
I kant see the point.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Arne H. Wilstrup
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>> "Dan McGrath" <inv...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>
>> Of course there is - just look it up in a dictionary. You are not a
>> native speaker of English, I presume?
>
> Arne, Daniel is autistic and has fixations with certain words.
How on Earth should I know?
> Occasionally these get the better of him and he challenges their use
> across Usenet. Don't try to discuss it.
I teach in 6 different classes, and in three of them there are
altogether 4 autist - all boys but with different symptoms, so I know a
little about it.
>
> At other times he makes interesting contributions though.
I am sure of that - but you knew something I didn't know - and being an
autist doesn't mean that you cannot contradict what he or she is saying
if you do it in the right way. But you have to know the very person
first.
All autists are not alike, you know.
the Omrud
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:oPEol.39024$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>> "Dan McGrath" <inv...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>> Of course there is - just look it up in a dictionary. You are not a
>>> native speaker of English, I presume?
>> Arne, Daniel is autistic and has fixations with certain words.
>
> How on Earth should I know?
Look, don't get nowty with me. I told you a straightforward fact which
I assumed you *didn't* know. I didn't complain about your posting. You
really are very combative.
If I'm intending to provoke you, you will be in no doubt about it at
all. If I state a simple fact, I mean nothing by it other than to
impart the fact.
>> Occasionally these get the better of him and he challenges their use
>> across Usenet. Don't try to discuss it.
>
> I teach in 6 different classes, and in three of them there are
> altogether 4 autist - all boys but with different symptoms, so I know a
> little about it.
>> At other times he makes interesting contributions though.
>
> I am sure of that - but you knew something I didn't know - and being an
> autist doesn't mean that you cannot contradict what he or she is saying
> if you do it in the right way. But you have to know the very person
> first.
You can try it all you like, but in the case of this topic, you won't
get a response.
> All autists are not alike, you know.
Golly. (That's an AUE term for "Don't teach your grandmother to suck
eggs", which is an English expression you might know, or if not which
you can check out for yourself.)
Dan has been posting to AUE for many years and we are very familiar with
him and his obsessions. *You* cannot diagnose him from one post.
I feel very uncomfortable talking about him in the third person - I
consider it impolite, but it's the only simple way to tell newcomers and
others reading about the behaviour which they find strange. I won't get
into a discussion about this.
Yendrick
> "Leslie Danks" <leslie.da...@aon.at> skrev i meddelelsennews:49a3174a$0$2295$91ce...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
>
>
>
> > "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>
> >>news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>
> >>>>Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>
> >>> There is no such word as "rare".
>
> >> As I said before, "Of course there is" - e.g.
> >>http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rare_1?view=uk
>
> >> Still not convinced?
>
> > Any bets on who wins this argument?
> > And when...
>
> It has nothing to do with "winning", but I am perhaps a little tired of
> being considered a moron in English.
>
> I am of course not always correct - I accept that - but I am not always
> incorrect, either.
>
> Simply to say that "there is not such a word as "rare" called for my
> answer.
>
> I am, however, surprised that none of you native English speakers did
> say anything about this, but now when I am saying something, it ends up
> with a remark of who is winning the argument.
>
> It is like you are of the same family and protect each other from the
> wild and mean Dane and contradict whatever he is saying, as a nonnative
> speaker must not be right -ever!
>
> Instead of rebuke him for his nonsense, you are arguing with me instead.
> Why is that? Another urge to fight back and bash the Danes? :-)
You're darn tootin'. Think of it as revenge for all of those bland
butter cookies that get crammed down our throats every Christmas.
Yendrick
the Omrud
> "Leslie Danks" <leslie...@aon.at> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:49a3174a$0$2295$91ce...@newsreader02.highway.telekom.at...
>> "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>
>>> "Dan McGrath" <inv...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>>>
>>> As I said before, "Of course there is" - e.g.
>>> http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rare_1?view=uk
>>>
>>> Still not convinced?
>> Any bets on who wins this argument?
>> And when...
>
> It has nothing to do with "winning", but I am perhaps a little tired of
> being considered a moron in English.
>
> I am of course not always correct - I accept that - but I am not always
> incorrect, either.
>
> Simply to say that "there is not such a word as "rare" called for my
> answer.
>
> I am, however, surprised that none of you native English speakers did
> say anything about this, but now when I am saying something, it ends up
> with a remark of who is winning the argument.
The only way to deal with Dan's obsessive posts is to ignore them and
move on. You didn't know that before so you can't be blamed for
replying. You know it now. Most posters here said nothing about Dan's
posts because they have learned to ignore them, not because they hate
Danes. Leslie's comment is a lighthearted one which makes the point
that you can't persuade Dan with logic, so you will not win. It has
nothing to do with your status as a non-native speaker. Furrfu.
Hatunen
On the other hand, there is no such word as "gullible".
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Hatunen
wrote:
>"the Omrud" <usenet...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:oPEol.39024$Sp5....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>> "Dan McGrath" <inv...@invalid.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:u0q5q453rj65q2vmh...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 09:30:51 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you! A praise from an Irishman - that's rare and great.
>>>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>>
>>> Of course there is - just look it up in a dictionary. You are not a
>>> native speaker of English, I presume?
>>
>> Arne, Daniel is autistic and has fixations with certain words.
>
>How on Earth should I know?
You couldn't; that's why he told you. Take the chip off your
shoulder.
Skitt
> "the Omrud" skrev:
>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>> "Dan McGrath" skrev
>>>> There is no such word as "rare".
>>>
>>> Of course there is - just look it up in a dictionary. You are not a
>>> native speaker of English, I presume?
>>
>> Arne, Daniel is autistic and has fixations with certain words.
>
> How on Earth should I know?
Arne, here's something that Daniel's mother wrote:
http://alt-usage-english.org/McGrath.html
I found it by using the search box for "Daniel" at the AUE Web site.
http://alt-usage-english.org/index.shtml
There is a problem, though -- how is anyone new to the group ever going to
find it? I couldn't locate any link to it at any place a newby might read.
Maybe I missed it, but if I did, so would many others. It is on the site
map, of course, but who'd know?
--
Skitt (AmE)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
We know that. Dan McGrath is a person of considerable ability when
dealing with subjects that are strictly logical.
He has a severe problem with the word "rare". It has at least two
different meanings and different etymologies.
I believe that this offends against his sense of logio.
Various AUE-ers have discussed the word with Dan but this has not helped
him.
He has a psychological fixation with the word.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Default User
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
> > I am, however, surprised that none of you native English speakers
> > did say anything about this, but now when I am saying something,
> > it ends up with a remark of who is winning the argument.
>
> The only way to deal with Dan's obsessive posts is to ignore them and
> move on.
Some of us decided to insert Mr. McGrath into our newsreader's killfile.
Brian
--
Day 20 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Robert Bannister
>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's not very English to say "Englishman".
>>> The term "An Englishman in ..." seems quite common:
>> It may still be around, but as I said earlier about "Dane" and
>> "Spaniard", my feeling is that these nouns are slowly dying out, and
>> part of the reason is that they refer to one gender. True, we have the
>> words "Englishwoman", "Frenchwoman", etc., (although no "Gerwoman"), but
>> we don't have a non-gender-specific noun, so there is, I think, a
>> tendency to avoid the noun and choose the adjective with a different
>> construction.
>
> There seem to be lots of tourist-like books with titles like "An
> Englishman in Egypt" ...
>
> BTW, the reason for not having a "Gerwoman" is because there's no
I don't think so. I can't imagine anyone saying "She's a German", when
they could say "She's German", and the "man" part sounds like and
etymologically is the same as the word for a male person. "Neuter", of
course, is meaningless in English where we only distinguish between
animate and inanimate - you can't use "it" for a Dane unless it's a dog,
and even then most people opt for "he" or "she".
--
Rob Bannister