> > * Thomas Bushnell, BSG > > | And, I'm actually quite forgiving of typos--
> > Really? One word: Vacuum.
> The amazing thing is that Erik's horridly low score in my gnus finally > rose to the point where his posts are visible to me, and I see that he > has not progressed a single inch.
> Erik, you are the model for everyone here.
Jelous?
> If only everyone on comp.lang.lisp acted like you, the world would > be so much better,
The like of you might read this and think you think what you say is true.
> that I can't understand why people don't take > your excellent advice more often.
The amount and kind of people talking to you on this newsgroup should be an indication of who take his advice and who does not.
And it's not me, it's the beer in my head talking here, now. (And if you're lucky, it will be there tomorrow, too, so you might have a nice discussion.)
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.
ObLisp: multiple namespaces :-).
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me, The Rhythm has control. Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me, bl...@telus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > "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".
English is annoying here, because "American" works when you /need/ an adjective, and can't just say "US"; but when you need an adjective, and you want to distinguish the US from Canada and Mexico, neither "American" nor "North American" work, obviously. This country's second language, Spanish, has a nice word here, "estadounidense", but it just doesn't work in English. Of course, it's also more important in Spanish, where saying "americano" when meaning the US, would just be confusing.
-- /|_ .-----------------------. ,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war | ,--' _,' | Wage class war! | / / `-----------------------' ( -. | | ) | (`-. '--.) `. )----'
* Lieven Marchand <m...@wyrd.be> | | Not to mention what is so neutral about das M"adchen?
"In German, a young lady has no sex, while a turnip has. Think what overwrought reverence that shows for the turnip, and what callous disrespect for the girl." (Mark Twain)
Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: > * Barry Fishman > | I find this concept quite alien. Can people not speak the language > | they speak?
> ... > I wonder how it is possible _not_ to see that there were several ways > to interpret what I said (as there always are with all communication) > and/or you had to choose one that was so silly.
I understood what you said. I just choose to be a bit silly in responding to it. It just shell-shock from reading your long run-on paragraphs, convoluted sentences, and unproductive abuse.
> I find that a lot of people who think very little when > they read generally do not get what I say at all, but that those who > do think, or even go back and look, find that I have been precise and > accurate and not at all difficult to read. This tells me that I am > writing for an audience that is not used to half-listen to what they > hear, but of actually paying attention.
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.
* Barry Fishman | I understood what you said. I just choose to be a bit silly in responding to | it. It just shell-shock from reading your long run-on paragraphs, convoluted | sentences, and unproductive abuse.
Then take a break and recover full operation of your intellect instead of posting silliness. You have a choice here.
| 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? How much weight can a complaint about what others somehow fail to do have when it comes from someone who willfully chooses to be silly? If you impress me with your clear thinking instead of annoy me with your silliness, and you will, in fact, receive a response in kind. I may waste time on misbehaving children, but demanding children who cannot even do what they demand from others is generally fruitless -- most of the time, these children are not even able to grasp what they have received. -- 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.
Ray Blaak <bl...@telus.net> writes: > 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 have heard Mexicans refer to Canadians as "norteamericanos".
> Avoid? I thought contractions in writing were a total no-no.
it depends on the type of writing. they are a no-no for formal writing but not for casual writing [i've seen contractions in e.b. white's essays for instance] or poetry. lyn dupre recommends completely avoiding them in negative forms because she suggests the the negation is too easy to miss.
oz -- there is no such thing as too many cooks. -- anon
In the last exciting episode, Ray Blaak <bl...@telus.net> wrote::
> t...@apocalypse.OCF.Berkeley.EDU (Thomas F. Burdick) writes: >> when you need an adjective, and you want to distinguish the US from Canada >> and Mexico, neither "American" nor "North American" work, obviously.
> "American" works just fine in Canada for that purpose.
It does except when dealing with some particularly "anti-American" Canadians. There aren't that many of them, and they're irritating to deal with, but they do exist... -- (concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@cbbrowne.com") http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/emacs.html :FATAL ERROR -- ATTEMPT TO USE CANADIAN COINS
> > The greater problem with old/ancient literature is the metaphorical > > language. I recently had the pleasure of reading Sophokles' > > Antigone. But Faust II is also an excellent example.
> Huh? You think contemporary writing lacks metaphorical language?
I do not mean that metaphorical language has disappeared, but the metaphors or symbols employed by contemporary writers are (of course) more common to the reader of today and thus simpler to understand.
OK. Let's drop that topic, as I am unable to find examples to back my theory. :)
* Patrick W wrote: > Does this sound strange? > "Somebody called and left a message. I couldn't tell whether it was a man or > a woman. They didn't leave a name or number...."
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'.
Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> writes: > I've always wondered what people did about ships with obviously > masculine names. HMS Lord Nelson? Lots and lots of examples in navies.
Julian Stecklina <der_jul...@web.de> writes: > I do not mean that metaphorical language has disappeared, but the > metaphors or symbols employed by contemporary writers are (of course) > more common to the reader of today and thus simpler to understand.
> OK. Let's drop that topic, as I am unable to find examples to back my > theory. :)
Oh, that's certainly true; I misunderstood your meaning. No need for examples here, they abound in the millions. There are surely plenty of things in Homer that resounded for ancient hearers that go completely over my head because they are allusions, metaphors, symbols pointing at things that are nowhere in my experience.
"USian" has become fairly common usage on some parts of the web (like kuro5hin, festering pile of crap^W^W^W^Wslashdot, etc.). Some people I know pronounce is as use-ian, others us-ian or u-s-ian. I favour use-ian personally, since it's closer to how I say "USA" quickly, use-ay. (that's use, not "uze" rhyming with "ooze")
"Stateside" is often used in England and Ireland for "in the USA".
Erik Naggum wrote: > Real Norwegian does not even _have_ a feminine > gender, but of course > has feminine pronouns. Consequently, we have "den" for > masculine and "det" > for neutral grammatical gender, and "han" and "hun" > respectively for sex.
Do I understand that correctly? There are two grammatical genders, masculinum and neutrum. And by "feminine prononoun" Erik means "girl" for example? If this is true, then the same thing is happening in German at the moment. For exmaple the word for "girl" is "Mädchen" 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".
So German is getting closer and closer to bad English.
-- 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 =-----
* Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> | 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"? -- 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 <3233831343471...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: >* Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> >| 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"?
"[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong to me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a corporation, but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they".
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
* dvdav...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) | In article <3233831343471...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: | | >* Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> | >| 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"? | | "[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong to | me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a corporation, | but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they".
Heh, amusing mistake of mine. I really thought "who", but because of the purposeful removal of gender/sex, the whole "person" property got lost. Just goes to show how unnatural I think "they" in such usage is, I guess. -- 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.
JB <jbl...@hotmail.com> writes: > Erik Naggum wrote: > > Real Norwegian does not even _have_ a feminine > > gender, but of course > > has feminine pronouns. Consequently, we have "den" for > > masculine and "det" > > for neutral grammatical gender, and "han" and "hun" > > respectively for sex.
> Do I understand that correctly? There are two grammatical > genders, masculinum and neutrum. And by "feminine > prononoun" Erik means "girl" for example? > If this is true, then the same thing is happening in German > at the moment. For exmaple the word for "girl" is "Mädchen" > 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.
> 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.
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
In article <3233832348612...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes: >* dvdav...@aol.comNOSPAM (Dvd Avins) >| In article <3233831343471...@naggum.net>, Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> >writes: >| >| >* Tim Bradshaw <t...@cley.com> >| >| 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"? >| >| "[W]hich", when talking about an individual human sounds completely wrong >to >| me. It is equivalent to "it". I would use it in talking about a >corporation, >| but I don't think I would if I referred to corporations as "they".
> Heh, amusing mistake of mine. I really thought "who", but because of the > purposeful removal of gender/sex, the whole "person" property got lost. >Just > goes to show how unnatural I think "they" in such usage is, I guess.
"..., who will be here at 9:30" is the sort of constuction I use, which alienates people because I'm being too formal. 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."
-- Attaining and helping others attain "Aha!" experiences, as satisfying as attaining and helping others attain orgasms.
Erik Naggum wrote: > E.g., I know people who arrived in Norway as young > children and still speak with an atrociously thick > accent at 40, and 40-year-old who arrived six > months ago who speak without a trace of accent.
I do not believe the second part of this statement (but do not take that as a personal attack!). I came to Germany at the age of seventeen and I still have a slight accent. But many people who are used to the way I speak swear that I have no accent at all. They have gotten used to my accent! So this may be the case with you too. And it took, more than ten years of learning until I could enjoy Schiller.
-- 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 =-----
JB <jbl...@hotmail.com> writes: > Erik Naggum wrote:
> > E.g., I know people who arrived in Norway as young > > children and still speak with an atrociously thick > > accent at 40, and 40-year-old who arrived six > > months ago who speak without a trace of accent.
> I do not believe the second part of this statement (but do > not take that as a personal attack!). I came to Germany at > the age of seventeen and I still have a slight accent. But > many people who are used to the way I speak swear that I > have no accent at all. They have gotten used to my accent! > So this may be the case with you too.
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. Only after a while I realized that there was something strange about her pronunciation, and I asked her where she came from. She was very surprised, as nobody else had realized she was a foreigner for a long time. I thought about what was wrong with her pronunciation and then I got it: Her pronunciation was /too/ perfect. Her language was absolutely beautiful, no German speaks that cleanly with such beautiful vowels :-)
> And it took, more than ten years of learning until I could > enjoy Schiller.
I bet that wasn't only a language issue :-)
Regards, -- Nils Goesche Ask not for whom the <CONTROL-G> tolls.
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"). 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. At least fifteen years of constant learning followed. 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.
-- 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 =-----
