> When Erik writes fifty-line off-topic paragraphs, does he > really expect anyone to read them?
I do. I use several Erik filters which filter out everything else and have achieved complete control of the Master's c.l.l opera omnia. (I am considering learning Norwegian too.)
-- Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
In article <3d15ebc...@news.newsgroups.com>, JB <jbl...@hotmail.com> writes: >But I also noticed while >listening to foreign artists at the Staatsoper, who sang >Wagner, that they usually had an icredibly good accent. And >you could still hear that German was not their native >tongue.
Operatically trained Americans singers, singing in English, use Italian vowels. It's very annoying.
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
JB <jbl...@hotmail.com> writes: > Nils Goesche wrote:
> > JB <jbl...@hotmail.com> writes: > > Believe it or not, there are such people, but they are > > rare. I once met a girl (18, I think) from Poland who > > arrived shortly (1-2 years or some such) ago not knowing a > > single word of > > German. When I met her, her German was absolutely > > perfect.
> Please, do not take that personally, but there are different > "degrees of perfection" (I know that this contrdicts the > meaning of the word "perfection").
When I say ``perfect'', I mean it, i.e., there are no ``different degrees''. Of course, you might ask what exactly it was she did perfectly, and believe it or not, I wasn't claiming that she spoke better German than every poet or writer in our history. What I actually meant was: There were no grammatical errors, apart from errors Germans do themselves, and nothing in her pronunciation indicated a non-German heritage.
Yes, this is extremely rare, and in fact she is the /only/ foreigner I ever met (and I've met a lot) who spoke perfectly (in the above sense).
> I entered the 12th form of a Gymnasium in Regensburg without > speaking any German and two years later I had the mark > "gut" in German. I think that more than 20 pupils out of > 30, had a worse mark. So you may say that my German was > "perfect" at that time.
I guess not. I know many foreigners who are able to /write/ much better German than most Germans, but when you talk to them you can tell after two or three words from them that they're foreigners.
> At least fifteen years of constant learning followed.
Well, German is a hard language, and for Germans, too. When you say ``He speaks perfectly'' about a German, this sentence means something entirely different, and there probably are only a few people who do (I certainly don't).
> As far as my accent is concerned, I know that my class mates > had gotten used to it and I know as well that pupils from other > classes still reckognized it. And the situation has not > changed. But I also noticed while listening to foreign artists > at the Staatsoper, who sang Wagner, that they usually had an > icredibly good accent. And you could still hear that German was > not their native tongue.
So you live in Berlin? Oh well, what the heck then: Nobody cares if you are a foreigner (or anything else) here, anyway :-)
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Barry Fishman > | Yes, buried in all that verbiage is often something that is > | significant. It would just be nice if you took the same care in > | expressing yourself that you would like others to take in reading > | your words.
> Pay me for it, and I will. Give me an intelligent response that > makes it worth while, instead of some silly and moronic complaint, > and you may be surprised, but whining losers who only demand are > not worth spending much time on. So here is the clue: Do not > demand anything of others -- just _do_ what you thinkk is the > better thing. Yet, you chose to be silly. What more do I need to > judge how your responses?
Mr. Naggum,
I can understand that you should not be expected to spend a lot of time formulating your response when giving free help. However, that does not justify your abusive attitude. I might pay you for technical help, but I don't believe I should need to pay you to stop being abusive.
You seem to fill your messages with silly phrases like "moronic complaint" and "misbehaving children". I find myself concluding that you apply different standards of behavior to yourself. I suspect you see a distinction between people providing information and people giving it, and just alway classify yourself as a provider, with its lessened set of obligations. (Of course, that would not apply to the message to which I am responding.)
I would not have posted this if I thought my comments applied to just one individual. Unfortunately, such verbal bullying has become commonplace on the internet, and is particularly destructive in comp.lang.lisp because it is done by some of the more technically astute posters. Many people who would otherwise behave civilly get drawn in. In some sense I am being drawn in now, but its my own hostility to bullies that is really responsible.
JB <jbl...@hotmail.com> writes: > Do I understand that correctly? There are two grammatical > genders, masculinum and neutrum.
That's true in the dialect that Erik speaks (and writes). In standard Norwegian (both the majority "bokmål" standard and the minority "nynorsk" standard), there are three genders.
> And by "feminine prononoun" Erik means "girl" for example?
Probably not.
-- (domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.) la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
No. If I had meant Bedrlin, I should have spoken about the "Staatsoper unter den Linden". By Staatsoper I mean something different, but it is easily found out by reading my mail.
(Hint: It is the best opera house in Europe.)
-- Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
| I've learned to do it less. If | it's a situation where I think "they" will grate on peoples nerves, I just have | to hope that I'll have the presence of mind to think ahead and say "We're going | to meet the new emplyee at 9:30 tomorrow."
* Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen | That's true in the dialect that Erik speaks (and writes). In standard | Norwegian (both the majority "bokmål" standard and the minority "nynorsk" | standard), there are three genders.
My "dialect" is the standard upon which the bastardized Bokmål is based. Back in 1929, Riksmål was renamed Bokmål and perverted by nynorsk freaks, in the brutal murder of decent language in Norwegian called Samnorsk, which was abandoned more than 50 years ago, having wrought havoc with both languages, Riksmål survived through the sheer will-power of educated authors who formed a society for the preservation of Norwegian and published the best dictionary of Norwegian in the past 150 years, like the Oxford English Dictionary or Merriam-Webster's Unabridged.
Nynorsk is a concoction of dialects and allows a very wide range of forms. Bokmål is also a wide range of forms, such that radical Bokmål is very close to moderate Nynorsk. Radical Nynorsk is quite simply unintelligible. Moderate Bokmåls reasonably close to Riksmål. Some Norwegians, obsessed with eradicting good taste and class distinctions, claim that Riksmål is also a "dialect" -- but Riksmål is the _only_ "dialect" in Norway that you cannot write in official government communication, which is enough reason to do it, but the status as "dialect" is contradicted by the official government policy of accepting _all_ dialects equally. Except well-written, real Norwegian. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
* Barry Fishman | I can understand that you should not be expected to spend a lot of time | formulating your response when giving free help. However, that does not | justify your abusive attitude.
Look, as far as I am concerned, _you_ are the abusive party here.
| I suspect you [...]
Please confine your guesswork about me to yourself. Posting your personal guesswork about other people is rude and gravely obnoxious no matter what kind of stupid rationalization you use to defend your poor choice. And to think that you are opposed to abusive behavior! I hate such hypocrites!
| I would not have posted this if I thought my comments applied to just one | individual.
Yeah, yeah, of course you speak for others. That is very pretentious of you.
| In some sense I am being drawn in now, but its my own hostility to bullies | that is really responsible.
Of course you are the responsible party. Nothing beats rationalizing your own hostilities more than pretending to do it in the name of some "Good".
Control and confine your own goddamn rude behavior, you abusive do-gooder!
Meta-debate is the _essence_ of abuse on USENET. Nothing good _ever_ comes out of them, except that some disgusted moron is supposed to feel better for reaching desperately for the moral high ground and expressing his _lack_ of ethics by pretending that he is the only moral person around. It is haughty and most religions have deities that strike such venomous beings down. There is ample reason to believe that aggressive rejection of moralists is very good for the communities that have made both habit and rule of it, as such people tend to be _extremely_ annoying and in serious danger of losing life and limb in real life. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
* Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen <la...@gnus.org> | Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: | | > but Riksmål is the _only_ "dialect" in Norway that you cannot write | > in official government communication | | Just in case anybody actually is still reading this -- this is, of | course, nonsense.
Sigh. People who want to _know_ need to talk to Norsk Språkråd. I cannot fight ignorance and malice here. The express purpose of the wide range of allowable forms of Nynorsk and Bokmål is to make certain that not a single Norwegian feels left out
Riksmål is in fact banned by the Norwegian government. There may be something that Lars considers a "dialect" somwhere, spoken by so few people as to constitute an regionally _unaccepted_ speech disorder instead of the accepted ones that make dialects, but it is hard to tell what someone who calls Riksmål a "dialect" might actually mean by that word.
This is no longer a debate for this forum, however. People who want to know have to ask Norwegian government linguists in Norsk Språkråd. They, and only they, control what is officially accepted. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
In article <87k7oqjb8y....@darkstar.cartan>, Nils Goesche <n...@cartan.de> writes:
> ... >> and it is neutral. In good German we refer to a girl as >> "it", for example "Ich sah ein Mädchen, es war hübsch", >> that is "I saw a girl, it was good looking". But in "new >> German" they say "sie war hübsch", that is "she was good >> looking".
> What the hell is this? Do people really say that? For > ``political'' reasons? They should be shot.
why? imo it's only an indication that german is still a living language, following a trend that most western european languages have followed for centuries
>> So German is getting closer and closer to bad English.
> Yes, like this disgusting new habit of saying ``in 1984'' instead > of just ``1984'', invented by some social democrat, I think, or > ``in englisch'' instead of ``auf englisch''. It is amazing how > people, whose anti-americanism cannot be overestimated otherwise, > are particularly big fans of the ``Englishification'' of their > own language.
despite this "englishification" being fashionable, wouldn't it also be a repetition of the process english went through a few centuries ago? when i went to university, we had to take a few humanistic studies, and i took english in the language department (duennbrettbohrer). one of the things our prof didn't tire of pointing out that english started changing rapidly from a typical germanic language to a germanic/romanic mixture and then to its current form with xposure to foreign influences, aided by a willingness to adopt forein language constructs without "englishizing" them.
hs
--
don't use malice as an explanation when stupidity suffices
> * John Wiseman > | From what I've read in multiple places, it's more the other way around. "He" > | as a gender-neutral pronoun came about because of meddling prescriptivist > | grammarians and an act of English Parliament.
> Huh? An act of British Parliament? Never heard that one before. (I have no > idea what an English Parliament is, so I assume it is British. If it is the > language English that has a Parliament, I have never heard of that,
either.)
It depends whether or not the act was passed before the Act of Union 16xx, when it becomes sensible to talk of a "British" parliament as opposed to purely english and scottish parliaments (Traditionally Wales is considered an appendage to England in these sorts of discussions).
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > Meta-debate is the _essence_ of abuse on USENET. Nothing good > _ever_ comes out of them, except that some disgusted moron is > supposed to feel better for reaching desperately for the moral > high ground and expressing his _lack_ of ethics by pretending that > he is the only moral person around. It is haughty and most > religions have deities that strike such venomous beings down. > There is ample reason to believe that aggressive rejection of > moralists is very good for the communities that have made both > habit and rule of it, as such people tend to be _extremely_ > annoying and in serious danger of losing life and limb in real > life.
Again and again you are the best example of what you claim to despise.
* Barry Fishman | Again and again you are the best example of what you claim to despise.
I am quite happy that you understand that you are the abuser and aggressor, and quite amused that you prove my point. Thank you. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
> That's true in the dialect that Erik speaks (and writes). In > standard Norwegian (both the majority "bokmål" standard and the > minority "nynorsk" standard), there are three genders.
I've heard linguists refer to 'west side Osloish' as having 2.5 genders ;-) -- (espen)
> Espen Vestre mentioned the curious concoction some Norwegians write (it is > not spoken) called "New Norwegian" ("nynorsk"), [...]
Those of you who are more interested in the Norwegian language situation than Erik Naggum's dislike for it, can look it up in e.g. Webster's Unabridged (here from the 1989 edition):
Norwegian [...] 3. the speech of Norway in any of its forms, whether Dano-Norwegian, the local dialects, or the standard language based on these, all being closely related to one another and to the other Scandinavian languages.
The mentioned standard language is what is known as New Norwegian, while Dano-Norwegian is a Norwegian adaption of Danish. (Norway was under Danish rule from 1536 to 1814, and before that in a union with Denmark since 1380.) These two languages are the only written forms of Norwegian.
The only unique and somewhat bizarre about the Norwegian language situation, is that the government at one point (in the nineteen thirties) decided that the languages should be mixed into one. This policy failed, and has been abandoned, but the result is that both languages have an endless number of varieties, from the most traditional ones to varieties heavily mixed up with the other language. A subset of these varieties is sanctioned by the government. The traditional Dano-Norwegian that Erik Naggum uses, is not. Neither is traditional New Norwegian or the most mixed up varieties.
> [...] and its users have this > disturbing habit (grammatical rule, really) of referring to inanimate objects > with their genderful pronouns.
This is a characteristic of Norwegian language, as opposed to Danish and and Swedish.
> [...] at the New Norwegian national conferences they are more > concerned with expressing their support for Palestinian terror [...]
This is nonsense. (I was there.)
I often enjoy off-topic threads in comp.lang.lisp, but please try to stay at least vaguely in touch with reality when you attack third parties, so that it won't be _necessary_ to follow up.
* Erik Naggum wrote: > | No. That is the precise usage I'd generate. Or `We're going to meet > | the new employee tomorrow, they'll be here at 9:30'. > How about "..., which should be here at 9:30"?
(assuming you mean `who' not `which', as your followups imply, I think). Yes that's OK too (although `who will be here at ...' might be more exact for `they will be here at ...' for me). I *think* I'd actually write/say what I wrote, but I can't really say for sure now since there is so much context. What I can say is that I would not *correct* what I wrote if I was reading a mail message (or more formal communication) before sending it.
In article <87n0tohcdj....@blitz.comp.com>, Julian Stecklina <der_jul...@web.de> wrote:
>[...] >In German pronouns are typically capitalized in letters, but not in >other kinds of writings.
That's right for the capitalization of the more familiar "Du" in letters but not elsewhere. However, the courteous 2nd person singular/plural usage of "Sie" is *always* capitalized, as well as its declined forms.
> Yes, like this disgusting new habit of saying ``in 1984'' instead > of just ``1984'', invented by some social democrat, I think, or > ``in englisch'' instead of ``auf englisch''. It is amazing how > people, whose anti-americanism cannot be overestimated otherwise, > are particularly big fans of the ``Englishification'' of their > own language.
To use "in 1984" in German language is really strange. I only heard some "business men" use that and it really hurted my ear. :)
But I think there there is a minor difference in meaning between "in Englisch" and "auf Englisch". I cannot specify it, but somehow there are different connotations. I never considered it, however "in" seems worse German in this context.
On 22 Jun 2002 06:18:01 GMT, dvdav...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) wrote:
> In article <8hUQ8.2148$zN4.1003...@news2.news.adelphia.net>, "Robert Monfera" > <monf...@fisec.com> writes:
> >"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
> Armstrong was supposed to say "One small step for *a* man, one giant leap for > mankind". He had such an important 15 minutes of fame that he still has a > little residual fame, and he blew his main line. Maybe it's fitting that (as I
Armstrong's actual words can be found in the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (which, by the way, is a terrific resource):
> Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: >> If there is anything you learn from traveling across the United States, it >> is that there is no such thing as "USA" (is that the politically correct >> term? does "American" exclude Canada and/or Latin and/or South America? do >> I have to care about this, too?) as a homogeneous and universally applicable >> adjective, anymore than "European".
> The usage gets wierd.
> In the USA and especially Canada, "American" refers to citizen of the USA. To > refer to members of the continent, people say "North American".
> In Latin America, on the other hand, people tend to say "North American" when > referring to USAians, even though they most likely are not referring to > Canadians or Mexicans, or even themselves, for that matter.
> I don't know about South America.
> Technically speaking, of course, "American" should refer to anyone from either > of the two continents.
> In practice, as usual, the word has its own meaning according to place and > context.
- Mexicans gripe that "we're Americans too!" in that they're on the same continent;
- Canadians that are apparently trying hard to be the ***holes they consider Americans to be complain in the same fashion.
(Look up "Richard Kulitz" if you want an example of the latter; he was a plague on gnu.misc.discuss a few years ago, as an extremely weird extreme Marxist at Carleton University that liked characterizing Americans as "evil-minded hillbillys". An apt phrase, if the goal is to make up rash insults... It looks like he asked Google Groups to remove his writings... I'm sure they're still available on archives of gnu.misc.discuss, and if you're interested in finding strong vitrol, possibly stronger than #Erik reactions to Bushnell, take a look :-).) -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn@" "enworbbc")) http://cbbrowne.com/info/canada.html Appendium to the Rules of the Evil Overlord #1: "I will not build excessively integrated security-and-HVAC systems. They may be Really Cool, but are far too vulnerable to breakdowns."
* Erik Haugan | Those of you who are more interested in the Norwegian language situation | than Erik Naggum's dislike for it, can look it up in e.g. Webster's | Unabridged (here from the 1989 edition):
Huh? What are you quoting from? Merriam-Webster's Unabridged has this to say on Norwegian. See unabridged.merriam-webster.com:
Main Entry: norwegian Function: noun Inflected Form(s): -s Usage: capitalized Etymology: Medieval Latin Norvegia, Norwegia Norway + English -an, n. suffix 1 a : a native or inhabitant of Norway b : a person of Norwegian descent 2 : the Germanic language of the Norwegian people -- see LANDSMAL, RIKSMAL : INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES table
This entry clearly predates 1929, when the names were changed to Nynorsk and Bokmål. However, at no point has any Norwegian been labeled Dano-Norwegian by any _other_ people than the Landsmål/Nynorsk freaks. They also think it is an insult -- "yours is not real Norwegian because it has Danish in it, nya, nya, nya", which is a load of crap. Ask any _Danish_ person about this.
So I have no idea where you constantly drag up this stupid "Dano-Norwegian" but it is a recurring theme with the nationalist nynorsk freaks who want their little minority stunt to be "Norwegian", despite the fact that it was made up from some self-selected dialects, whereas Riksmål was the actual spoken and written language of the cities.
| The mentioned standard language is what is known as New Norwegian, while | Dano-Norwegian is a Norwegian adaption of Danish.
This is just plain historically wrong. Nynorsk freaks try _so_ hard to make it look this way, and even use "Dansk-Norsk" to refer to Bokmål of today in order to present themselves as retarded hostile jerks rather than actually say anything useful about Bokmål. Suffice to say that Nynorsk is a losing language and that its practitioners and defenders are getting increasingly hostile to their environment. They also waste enormous amounts of taxpayer money on forced publication of nynorsk textbooks in public school that are never used. Lots of things like that poison the language debate in Norway, and this Dano-Norwegian crap is part of it. Erik Haugan is even part of this movement, and you can reach him at <full.name>@nynorsk.no. Generally very knowledgeable about nynorsk, he is _way_ more partial about this language issue than I am, and should scare people.
| The traditional Dano-Norwegian that Erik Naggum uses, is not.
It is called Riksmål. It even has its own dictionary entry in good English dictionaries, you nynorsk twit. This insulting Dano-Norwegian crap does not.
| This is nonsense. (I was there.)
So was the journalist who reported it. Maybe you missed it. Or maybe it was just too unintelligible even for those of you present. Nynorsk is like that.
See what happens when people just cannot just accept a standard, but have to be stupid rebels? Norway did not even have a revolution at the time the rest of Europe was busy figuring out human rights and stuff, because we were busy fighting over how to spell it. It is _really_ ridiculous, not the least that the last remaining 10,000 or so people who actually use Nynorsk fight so hard. -- Guide to non-spammers: If you want to send me a business proposal, please be specific and do not put "business proposal" in the Subject header. If it is urgent, do not use the word "urgent". If you need an immediate answer, give me a reason, do not shout "for your immediate attention". Thank you.
[...] The "Das große Universallexikon" (Coron-Verlag, Zürich) writes: -- Janos Blazi
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==---------- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----
