Can you ID this language?
fruitella
Its definately nothing like Hindi or anything even close.
Romanise
Sounds Chines or some similar tone language.
Helmut Richter
> Its unlike any language I've heard before.
I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like this but it does
much more sound like speech backwards.
And why is the young lady called an "Indian" girl? She does not really
look like an Indian.
--
Helmut Richter
fruitella
You might be unaware but India is comprised of a number of races.
Approximately 35 to 40 million Indians are of mongoloid stock and look
what the untrained eye might think of as 'chinese'.
Assuming it is a legitimate language, i am still unable to determine
its origins phonetically. It might well be reverse speech.
António Marques
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, fruitella wrote:
>
>> Its unlike any language I've heard before.
>
> I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like this but it does
> much more sound like speech backwards.
Yes, that much is evident from the sweeping/'whoosh' sound one hears
cadentially. I've only joined this thread in hope that some of you
acoustics experts could explain why is it that reversing a digital
soundwave results in that sound.
> And why is the young lady called an "Indian" girl? She does not really
> look like an Indian.
Fruitella calls her indian because whoever posted the video title it
'indian girl...'. Fruitella presumably found it while looking for videos
of indian girls.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, fruitella wrote:
> > Its unlike any language I've heard before.
>
> I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like this but it does
> much more sound like speech backwards.
>
> And why is the young lady called an "Indian" girl?
What else would she be called if she's from India?
> She does not really look like an Indian.
Did Freddie Mercury look like an Indian?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury
Romanise
Peter T. Daniels
He looked like a Parsee Zanzibarian. Why would you call him an Indian?
Hans Aberg
It is English.
Hans
Archie
news:h4cdkn$8u4$1...@aioe.org...
Visual clues are in the video itself of course, but how does one play a
Youtube video in reverse?
Giovanni
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> "Hans Aberg" <haberg_...@math.su.se> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:h4cdkn$8u4$1...@aioe.org...
>> fruitella wrote:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P9gwcMDAs
>>
>> It is English.
>> Hans
>
> Visual clues are in the video itself of course,
Yes, the man walking backwards suggests it, but he's walking slowly
enough that he could just be walking backwards.
The sound, however, very strongly suggests a file played backwards, as
others have suggested, and my guess was that it was English -- the very
heavy stress, for example.
> --
athel
Hans Aberg
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P9gwcMDAs
>>
>> It is English.
> Visual clues are in the video itself of course, but how does one play a
> Youtube video in reverse?
First take it down with a program like "RealPlayer Downloader" (there
are some others), which gives a file "untitled.flv" (just run it when
the video plays in the browser). It can be played in reverse in say
"QuickTime Player" by pressing "j", but I heard no sound. So extract the
audio file using say
mplayer untitled.flv -dumpaudio -dumpfile untitled.mp3
Now the sound plays backwards in "QuickTime Player" by pressing "j".
One might convert it using say <http://www.talkbackwards.com/>. Then one
must have a .wav file. The conversion might be done by say Audacity or
mplayer. Or use a commercial program like LogicPro, which might reverse
the whole video. (Don't know these things for sure.)
Hans
Athel Cornish-Bowden
> [ ... ]
> Yes, that much is evident from the sweeping/'whoosh' sound one hears
> cadentially. I've only joined this thread in hope that some of you
> acoustics experts could explain why is it that reversing a digital
> soundwave results in that sound.
Not really pertinent to your question (to which I agree a response from
an expert would be interesting), but I read many years ago in
Scientific American that a piano played backwards sounds like an organ
(in that case because the rapid decline in sound after a piano string
is hit corresponds to the build up of sound that an organ produces when
a note is played). As this was in the days when tape recorders had real
tape that you could handle (though it wasn't necessarily a good idea) I
persuaded a friend who had a tape recorder to feed some piano music
into it backwards. With a bit of fiddling around to get the reading
head to read the tape properly at the right speed, it worked, and it
did indeed sound much more like an organ than a piano -- not enough
like an organ to make you think it was an organ, but not at all like a
piano.
--
athel
Romanise
> On Jul 24, 5:12 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > Did Freddie Mercury look like an Indian?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury
>
> He looked like a Parsee Zanzibarian. Why would you call him an Indian?
A Znzibarian Parsee looks different from Indian Parsee?
Harlan Messinger
The poster of the video identifies her as his sister. I imagine he would
know if she is Indian.
Yes, it sounds exactly like an audio recording in reverse.
Trond Engen
Whatever made him a Zanzibarian Parsee, it can't have been a Java parser.
--
Trond Engen
Peter T. Daniels
No idea.
That was not the point.
The point was to wonder why ranjit would expect him to look like an
Indian, since he wasn't one.
fruitella
have you tried it and if so, what is being said backwards? it is
really english backwards and not a real language?
alan
"fruitella" <visual...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:057089ac-bafd-4e9f...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> Its unlike any language I've heard before.
>
> Its definately nothing like Hindi or anything even close.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P9gwcMDAs
I just recorded the audio and played it backwards --- it's English, with a
British sounding accent. My quick recording was pretty low quality, but I
definitely picked up the words "Europe" and "environment" . . .
LEE Sau Dan
Helmut> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, fruitella wrote:
>> Its unlike any language I've heard before.
Helmut> I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like
Helmut> this but it does much more sound like speech backwards.
I've practised it, with some success. My friends were surpised when I
demonstrated it to them. :) I can do it for any short phrases, but you
have to give me 1 or 2 minutes of preparation time to come up with how
to utter the phrase backwards. For longer terses, I need days of
practice before being able to do it smoothly. I've even done it for a
song! :D But none of these can count as "fluent speech". :(
The playback doesn't sound very natural, but still recognizable as
speech sounds and intelligible to a native speaker. (I've done it for
Cantonese, English and Mandarin. Never tried German or French, though.)
You'll feel some "foreign accents", because some sound combinations are
really difficult (e.g. [ts']) to do backwards.
Indeed, when I watched that video, my first feeling is "Is it played
backwards"? Why? Because of the loudness pattern. In normal speech,
each syllable tends to start with a sharp rise in loudness. The
loudness remains high in the first half of the syllable. The loudness
drops gradually towards the end of the syllable. When speaking
backwards, I have tried to reverse this loudness pattern. This way,
when played back, it'd sound more natural (other than the "foreign
accent"). But this is indeed quite difficult, as it is a very unnatural
way to speak. Starting with a softer voice and then increasing the
loudness is not difficult. But the abrupt drop of loudness at the end
of the syllable is difficult. Another thing difficult is that in most
languages, the syllable structure is asymmetric: Many consonants and
consonant clusters can occur at the beginning but not the end of a
syllable. So, when trying to reproduce the sound segment sequence in a
reversed manner, you have to learn many new tongue movements.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦 ~{@nJX6X~}
E-mail: dan...@informatik.uni-freiburg.de
Home page: http://www.informatik.uni-freiburg.de/~danlee
António Marques
wrote:
> >>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> writes:
>
> Helmut> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, fruitella wrote:
> >> Its unlike any language I've heard before.
>
> Helmut> I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like
> Helmut> this but it does much more sound like speech backwards.
>
> I've practised it, with some success. My friends were surpised when I
> demonstrated it to them. :) I can do it for any short phrases, but you
> have to give me 1 or 2 minutes of preparation time to come up with how
> to utter the phrase backwards. For longer terses, I need days of
> practice before being able to do it smoothly. I've even done it for a
> song! :D But none of these can count as "fluent speech". :(
When the original Sound Blaster came out, I tried the simple exercise
of saying a phrase backwards and then reversing it just to see how
close it would sound to the correct thing. To my amazement, it was
quite similar - about the only thing wrong with it was the sentence
intonation. But then it had no difficult clusters, but it wasn't
prepared or anything, I just did it as carelessly as careless can be.
Hence my surprise.
> Indeed, when I watched that video, my first feeling is "Is it played
> backwards"? Why? Because of the loudness pattern. In normal speech,
> each syllable tends to start with a sharp rise in loudness. The
> loudness remains high in the first half of the syllable. The loudness
> drops gradually towards the end of the syllable. When speaking
> backwards, I have tried to reverse this loudness pattern. This way,
> when played back, it'd sound more natural (other than the "foreign
> accent"). But this is indeed quite difficult, as it is a very unnatural
> way to speak. Starting with a softer voice and then increasing the
> loudness is not difficult. But the abrupt drop of loudness at the end
> of the syllable is difficult. Another thing difficult is that in most
> languages, the syllable structure is asymmetric: Many consonants and
> consonant clusters can occur at the beginning but not the end of a
> syllable. So, when trying to reproduce the sound segment sequence in a
> reversed manner, you have to learn many new tongue movements.
I expected you'd be the one to explain to us the repetitive whooshing
that immediately betrays this or any other reversed waveform that I've
heard. Can it really be that you didn't notice it? NB it has nothing
to do with speech itself - such as you describe above - it's present
in any kind of sound that you play backwards. And it's not an artifact
of reversal either, because if you re-reverse the wave, the whooshing
is gone. PLEASE someone explain it. You were all so clever discussing
sound waves just some years ago...
António Marques
> "fruitella" <visualseep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
OK, I had to do it. Download the mp4 version, drop it into Audacity,
you don't even need to separate the streams, and play it backwards.
You'll get:
...[th]e inter(gran?). Now the major challenge in front of Bureau of
Energy Efficiency - BEE - would be the effective implementation and
mutual acceptance of these codes by the builders. Here the people
should also be aware that energy-efficient building means energy
saving, a better environment, more comfort and reduced electricity bill
(s?).
With camera person (Avishie?), (Iga Zarnum?) - (Par?) News - Delhi.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Thanks! I actually tried transcribing the whole thing phonetically and
then reading it backwards (which has worked for me in other cases). I
picked out "Delhi" at the end (actually I thought she said "New
Delhi"), and "B.E.E." in there was pretty obvious, though I couldn't
guess what it stood for.
Ross Clark
Hans Aberg
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P9gwcMDAs
>> I just recorded the audio and played it backwards --- it's English, with a
>> British sounding accent. My quick recording was pretty low quality, but I
>> definitely picked up the words "Europe" and "environment" . . .
>
> OK, I had to do it. Download the mp4 version, drop it into Audacity,
> you don't even need to separate the streams, and play it backwards.
I found the following page, which has a convenient link one can put into
the browser - to download the mp4 just click on the link:
http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/04/download-youtube-videos-as-mp4-files.html
Then the mp4 plays backwards in "QuickTime Player", now with sound (and
picture) by pressing "j".
Hans
garabik-ne...@kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk
...
> I found the following page, which has a convenient link one can put into
> the browser - to download the mp4 just click on the link:
> http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/04/download-youtube-videos-as-mp4-files.html
>
I suggest using 'clive' for other video sites. Works perfectly.
http://code.google.com/p/clive/
Not that I am actually downloading youtube videos, mind you. It is
against the terms of use. <wink>.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ |
| __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk |
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!
Hans Aberg
> I suggest using 'clive' for other video sites. Works perfectly.
> http://code.google.com/p/clive/
>
> Not that I am actually downloading youtube videos, mind you. It is
> against the terms of use. <wink>.
It is probably legal if the WIPO copyright treaty
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/trtdocs_wo033.html
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/wct/index.html
has been correctly implemented into your local law, as you do not
redistribute it the material. - The material has already been provided
to you and you merely use it privately in a different form (so it is
similar making a tape recording from a radio - see Article 4, 10(2),
then Berne convention Articles 9, 10, etc). Check what is valid in your
country, though.
Hans
Artur Jachacy
> On Jul 25, 12:46 am, "alan" <in_flagra...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "fruitella" <visualseep...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:057089ac-bafd-4e9f...@o15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Its unlike any language I've heard before.
>>
>> > Its definately nothing like Hindi or anything even close.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6P9gwcMDAs
>>
>> I just recorded the audio and played it backwards --- it's English,
>> with a British sounding accent. My quick recording was pretty low
>> quality, but I definitely picked up the words "Europe" and
>> "environment" . . .
>
> OK, I had to do it. Download the mp4 version, drop it into Audacity, you
> don't even need to separate the streams, and play it backwards. You'll
> get:
You don't even need to download the video. You can play it on the website
and record the audio with Audacity or even the Windows Sound Recorder.
Just set the recording device to Stereo Mix.
A.
--
Gridneff: So the point is to get the message across,
without saying in so many words: You stupid fucking morons,
you're learning fucking elf languages!
Pan for Windows (beta) - <http://panbuilds.googlepages.com>
Bart Mathias
>>>>>> "Helmut" == Helmut Richter <hh...@web.de> writes:
>
> Helmut> On Fri, 24 Jul 2009, fruitella wrote:
> >> Its unlike any language I've heard before.
>
> Helmut> I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like
> Helmut> this but it does much more sound like speech backwards.
>
> I've practised it, with some success. My friends were surpised when I
> demonstrated it to them. :) I can do it for any short phrases, but you
> have to give me 1 or 2 minutes of preparation time to come up with how
> to utter the phrase backwards. For longer terses, I need days of
> practice before being able to do it smoothly. I've even done it for a
> song! :D But none of these can count as "fluent speech". :(
Y. R. Chao was expert at this. After attending a one-hour performance of
his in Berkeley about 1960 I took advantage of owning a wire recorder
(it doesn't know whether the wire is going frontwards or backwards) to
play at it for a few days.
I could make Japanese sound quite natural (to me; I'm sure even my
frontward Japanese doesn't sound natural to a Japanese), but my English
intonation was always a bit sing-song. I was also surprised to discover
that my English /i/, supposedly [I], is a "diphthong." "Tim" backwards
came out like an Australian "might?" (something like [mVIht], rising tone).
Bart Mathias
Trond Engen
> I expected you'd be the one to explain to us the repetitive whooshing
> that immediately betrays this or any other reversed waveform that
> I've heard. Can it really be that you didn't notice it? NB it has
> nothing to do with speech itself - such as you describe above - it's
> present in any kind of sound that you play backwards. And it's not an
> artifact of reversal either, because if you re-reverse the wave, the
> whooshing is gone. PLEASE someone explain it. You were all so clever
> discussing sound waves just some years ago...
OK. An attempt: When speaking we typically release most air early in the
word (and/or compound, and/or sentence). I _think_ that what you call
whooshing is the sound of the reduction in airstream played backwards. I
can't speak for any sound, but many natural sources of sound (or,
indeed, energy) will have a similar pattern of release.
(In the book I read now, Botha, Rudolf and Chris Knight (Ed.): _The
Prehistory of Language_ Oxford UP 2009, Eric Reuland (at least I think
it was him, I can't find the passage without effort) tentatively
attributes the (near-)universal trait of fronting for emphasis, and
secondary for questioning, to this.)
--
Trond Engen
António Marques
> António Marques:
>
> > I expected you'd be the one to explain to us the repetitive whooshing
> > that immediately betrays this or any other reversed waveform that
> > I've heard. Can it really be that you didn't notice it? NB it has
> > nothing to do with speech itself - such as you describe above - it's
> > present in any kind of sound that you play backwards. And it's not an
> > artifact of reversal either, because if you re-reverse the wave, the
> > whooshing is gone. PLEASE someone explain it. You were all so clever
> > discussing sound waves just some years ago...
>
> OK. An attempt: When speaking we typically release most air early in the
> word (and/or compound, and/or sentence). I _think_ that what you call
> whooshing is
Let's just get this clear, you do hear it too? You are familiar with
what I'm referring to? (From your answer, I assume yes to both.)
> the sound of the reduction in airstream played backwards. I
> can't speak for any sound, but many natural sources of sound (or,
> indeed, energy) will have a similar pattern of release.
Would it be the case that we're just neurologically trained to filter
out the normal release pattern - and that having it played backwards,
not only do we not filter it out, we simultaneously get a distorted
perception of the rest because we're trying to filter out something
that isn't there? (The reverse playback also having its own forward
release pattern, however not in the same places it originally should
be.)
> (In the book I read now, Botha, Rudolf and Chris Knight (Ed.): _The
> Prehistory of Language_ Oxford UP 2009, Eric Reuland (at least I think
> it was him, I can't find the passage without effort) tentatively
> attributes the (near-)universal trait of fronting for emphasis, and
> secondary for questioning, to this.)
(Here I must admit I don't see the connection.)
Trond Engen
> OK. An attempt: [...]
Oh, I forgot. In one of our local boring talent show rip-offs this year
one contestant sang backwards: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-txqes0SEGI>
It's the show's official YouTube clip, so there's a lot of boring stuff
included. The interesting parts are from 1:00 to 2:15 and from 2:55 to 4:00.
--
Trond Engen
Trond Engen
> On 25 Jul, 20:31, Trond Engen <trond...@engen.priv.no> wrote:
>
>> Ant�nio Marques:
>>
>>> I expected you'd be the one to explain to us the repetitive
>>> whooshing that immediately betrays this or any other reversed
>>> waveform that I've heard. Can it really be that you didn't notice
>>> it? NB it has nothing to do with speech itself - such as you
>>> describe above - it's present in any kind of sound that you play
>>> backwards. And it's not an artifact of reversal either, because if
>>> you re-reverse the wave, the whooshing is gone. PLEASE someone
>>> explain it. You were all so clever discussing sound waves just some
>>> years ago...
>>
>> OK. An attempt: When speaking we typically release most air early in
>> the word (and/or compound, and/or sentence). I _think_ that what you
>> call whooshing is
>
> Let's just get this clear, you do hear it too? You are familiar with
> what I'm referring to? (From your answer, I assume yes to both.)
Yes, I do. Providing that we mean the same thing, of course.
>> the sound of the reduction in airstream played backwards. I can't
>> speak for any sound, but many natural sources of sound (or, indeed,
>> energy) will have a similar pattern of release.
>
> Would it be the case that we're just neurologically trained to filter
> out the normal release pattern - and that having it played backwards,
> not only do we not filter it out, we simultaneously get a distorted
> perception of the rest because we're trying to filter out something
> that isn't there? (The reverse playback also having its own forward
> release pattern, however not in the same places it originally should
> be.)
Might be. I usually restrain myself to what I do best -- idle
speculation. One should be able to speculate less idly, though. Surely
some university has soundclips of speech on the web with prepared graphs
of acoustic release. Playing them backwards and marking the points it
might be possible to discern e.g. a percieved background curve that
resembles "wooshing".
>> (In the book I read now, Botha, Rudolf and Chris Knight (Ed.): _The
>> Prehistory of Language_ Oxford UP 2009, Eric Reuland (at least I
>> think it was him, I can't find the passage without effort)
>> tentatively attributes the (near-)universal trait of fronting for
>> emphasis, and secondary for questioning, to this.)
>
> (Here I must admit I don't see the connection.)
Fronted elements get more air, making them both louder and clearer.
--
Trond Engen
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
His parents were Indians. His surname Bulsara makes his origin Bulsar
(Valsad) in Gujarat.
http://www.google.com/search?q=bulsar+gujarat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
LEE Sau Dan
Helmut> I do not rule out the possibility that one can speak like
Helmut> this but it does much more sound like speech backwards.
Bart> Y. R. Chao was expert at this. After attending a one-hour
Bart> performance of his in Berkeley about 1960 I took advantage of
Bart> owning a wire recorder (it doesn't know whether the wire is
Bart> going frontwards or backwards) to play at it for a few days.
Bart> I could make Japanese sound quite natural (to me; I'm sure
Bart> even my frontward Japanese doesn't sound natural to a
Bart> Japanese),
Japanese is relatively easy because most syllable are open, with pure
vowel. And there are no difficult consonant clusters. The the
"kya"-like sounds and short syllables are tricky.
Bart> but my English intonation was always a bit sing-song.
I have no problems with control the pitch level. I can even sing a
song! :)
Bart> I was also surprised to discover that my English /i/,
Bart> supposedly [I], is a "diphthong." "Tim" backwards came out
Bart> like an Australian "might?" (something like [mVIht], rising
Bart> tone).
Instead of "mid"?
The first sounds that I found difficult were the aspirated sounds. This
is when I realized that [t'] is really [t] followed by [h]. So, to
pronounce it backwards, I have to learn to pronounce [h] before an
unaspirated [t]. Those are very good phonetic exercises, though. :)
Also, when trying to do "n-" and "m-" syllables, the playback turn out
to have very strong initial "n-"s and "m-"s. By strong, I mean it's too
long (in time) and the nasalization is too heavy. This shows that
e.g. the two [m]s in "mum" have slightly different qualities. The final
[m] is louder, more nasalized and has a longer duration. These
differences become notable by playing it backwards, so that instead of
interpreting the sounds as speech sounds and words (left-brain
intervening), we hear the raw sounds as unintelligible sounds (a mainly
right-brain activity).
benl...@ihug.co.nz
And he was schooled in India from age 8 to 17.
Romanise
Not many Parsees in South India I suppose.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
I knew a few Parsis in Chennai. Names I can remember are females:
Shanas, Zimmeron, males: Cyrus, Xerxes.
Romanise
This guy mercury had typical Parsee face, of course one has to have
encountered them regularly as some one living in Surat, Mumbai or Pune.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 24, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 24, 10:54 am, Romanise <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 1:17 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 24, 5:12 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > Did Freddie Mercury look like an Indian?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury
> His parents were Indians. His surname Bulsara makes his origin Bulsar
> (Valsad) in Gujarat.
> http://www.google.com/search?q=bulsar+gujarat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&...
Judging from the case of Baroda (Marathi pronunciation [bV*.o:d[A]),
Bulsar must be a British respelling of the Marathi name of the place
which name must have been [bVls@*.] where [*.] is a retroflex flap. In
the case of Baroda, it had a Maratha king. Why would Valsad have a
Marathi name - did it too have a Maratha king?
dmjo...@gmail.com
vaDodaraa, valsaaD
What is marathi in it.
Many Parsee names are on place names, with suffuxes -ia (Bilimor-a) -na
(Vesu). -wala suffix they share with hindus and muslims.
Romanise
Have long suspected him to be a Parsee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Amroliwala
Had to be sure because of -wala in his surname.
Amroli is shown as almost part of Surat. I thought it was bit far to
the south on rail line.
Peter T. Daniels
wrote:
Yeah, that would _really_ make him look like an Indian!
ModerateMallu
The -wala suffix could be either Parsee (Zoroastrian) or Bohri (Shia
Muslim). Interestingly, Zoroastrians have Persian roots, while Bohris
have Arab roots. Although their origins are different they have good bit
of similarity in the way they speak Gujarati, and their cuisine too, no?
ModerateMallu
Which begs the question, what is an Indian look? Each state (of each
country) in South Asia is quite distinct (they all don't look the same
to me ;-)), and within each little state there are variations as well.
The sum total that is India has people of all races - from "European
looking" to "African looking" to "Chinese looking" and all shades in
between. One cannot tell by the last name alone.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> On Jul 26, 1:10 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 25, 6:51 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 24, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 24, 10:54 am, Romanise <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 24, 1:17 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 24, 5:12 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > Did Freddie Mercury look like an Indian?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury
> > > His parents were Indians. His surname Bulsara makes his origin Bulsar
> > > (Valsad) in Gujarat.
> > >http://www.google.com/search?q=bulsar+gujarat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&...
>
> > Judging from the case of Baroda (Marathi pronunciation [bV*.o:d[A]),
> > Bulsar must be a British respelling of the Marathi name of the place
> > which name must have been [bVls@*.] where [*.] is a retroflex flap. In
> > the case of Baroda, it had a Maratha king. Why would Valsad have a
> > Marathi name - did it too have a Maratha king?
>
> vaDodaraa, valsaaD
>
> What is marathi in it.
vaDodaraa is mostly spelt as Baroda (Bank of Baroda, not Bank of
Vadodara) in English because it is spelt <baD.odA> in Marathi.
Romanise
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 8:47 am, "dmjos...@gmail.com" <dmjos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 26, 1:10 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com" <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 25, 6:51 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > <ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 24, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 24, 10:54 am, Romanise <josh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Jul 24, 1:17 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Jul 24, 5:12 am, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
> > > > > > > > Did Freddie Mercury look like an Indian?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury
> > > > His parents were Indians. His surname Bulsara makes his origin Bulsar
> > > > (Valsad) in Gujarat.
> > > >http://www.google.com/search?q=bulsar+gujarat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&...
>
> > > Judging from the case of Baroda (Marathi pronunciation [bV*.o:d[A]),
> > > Bulsar must be a British respelling of the Marathi name of the place
> > > which name must have been [bVls@*.] where [*.] is a retroflex flap. In
> > > the case of Baroda, it had a Maratha king. Why would Valsad have a
> > > Marathi name - did it too have a Maratha king?
>
> > vaDodaraa, valsaaD
>
> > What is marathi in it.
>
> vaDodaraa is mostly spelt as Baroda (Bank of Baroda, not Bank of
> Vadodara) in English because it is spelt <baD.odA> in Marathi.
Dont know about Marathi, but Hindi called it baDaudaa. Doubt if
Gaekwads themselves called it baDaudaa.
Romanise
In Surat -wala is common among baniya ( though some baniyas and kolis
call them ghaanchii, teli (gangu). They even say that they are
products of their women servicing sailors from Europe when Surat was
the major port for North India.
You will find at least 100 surnames with -wala in them.
ModerateMallu
>
>
> Dont know about Marathi, but Hindi called it baDaudaa. Doubt if
> Gaekwads themselves called it baDaudaa.
>
>
Here is a link that might help
Romanise
Knew vaTa+udara. Did know other stuff. Thanks.
ModerateMallu
Couple of nitpicks. The website translates the compound to "heart of the
banyan tree." The Sanskrit dictionary definition would be "belly
(udaram) of the fig tree (vaTa)" :-)
As for Valsad, the Wikipedia entry is unconvincing. It say the word is a
corruption of vad (banyan tree???) and saal (meaning hampering). So,
vad-saal becomes valsaad. Are Gujjus dyslexic? :-)
As for Ranjit's question on whether the names of the cities have Marathi
or Gujarati origins. The answer is, neither. Most names have Sanskritic
origins that are modified in the local language.
Romanise
Place names are studied by Archeologists, Historians and would you
believe it by Bio-Science people. Of course for many finding a reason
why it is so takes one no where. The village in the boundaries of
which I was born is called CHHAYAA. The word has meaning 'shadow' but
how could it have become name of a place. The place was founded by the
rulers of the region who were pushed back by the Jadeja kings of
Jamnagar region. I fact village school always was conducted in the
fort that was built by the kings, visible clearly on Google Earth.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
No, but it would support the view that he _was_ an Indian, contrary to
your assertion.
Peter T. Daniels
If he was born before Tanzanian independence (which seems likely), he
was a subject of Her Majesty and presumably turned into a Tanzanian
afterward. If after, he was a Tanzanian, not an Indian. ("Indian"
isn't an ethnicity.)
Crone
Parsees or Parsis are ethnically of Persian/Iranian origin, and have
retained the integrity of their ethnicity by not permitting
intermarriage or conversions into their faith, and by retaining their
distinct customs. There is some dispute over their ethnic integrity, as
mtDNA indicates an affinity with the people of Gujarat, but that would
indicate patrilineal insularity. I doubt there has been any recent
dilution through the matrilineal route. Their numbers are steadily
declining through childlessness, de facto inbreeding and the
consequences, and there is a strong likelihood of the community's total
disintegration within the next few generations.
Fwiw, "Indian" could be considered as much an ethnic identity as "Arab"
or "European".
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Yes, he was born in 1946. By the time Tanzania came into existence, he
was probably in England. But this was not a discussion about the
technicalities of citizenship. It arose from someone's comment that
the speaker in the backward-speaking video clip didn't "look Indian".
In reply to which some people said something roughly equivalent to
your parenthetical above -- that Indian people look many different
ways. FM was mentioned as an Indian who didn't "look Indian". His
parents were both born in India, of ancestry resident in India for
many centuries. They moved to Zanzibar as adults, and sent their son
back to India where he spent almost all his school years. If you want
to state dogmatically that he was "not Indian" on the grounds of his
place of birth, probably nobody cares much.
Peter T. Daniels
So much older than me???
> By the time Tanzania came into existence, he
> was probably in England. But this was not a discussion about the
> technicalities of citizenship. It arose from someone's comment that
> the speaker in the backward-speaking video clip didn't "look Indian".
> In reply to which some people said something roughly equivalent to
> your parenthetical above -- that Indian people look many different
(That wasn't me)
> ways. FM was mentioned as an Indian who didn't "look Indian". His
> parents were both born in India, of ancestry resident in India for
> many centuries. They moved to Zanzibar as adults, and sent their son
> back to India where he spent almost all his school years. If you want
> to state dogmatically that he was "not Indian" on the grounds of his
> place of birth, probably nobody cares much.-
"Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship. And in 1946, he wouldn't
have been a citizen of India, either!
And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
linguistic communities.
ModerateMallu
1946: FM is born in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar. FM's and FM's
parents' citizenship unknown. Did birth in a British Protectorate mean a
British passport? I suppose so. It would have certainly helped 18 years
later.
1947: India becomes independent, but part of the British Commonwealth.
FM's parents' citizenship sill unknown - presumed Indian despite
residence in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar.
1950: India becomes a republic. FM's parents' citizenship unknown, still
in Zanzibar. The parents (and FM too) would have had to make a choice of
citizenship. They might have opted for a British passport instead of an
Indian one because Zanzibar was still a British Protectorate at this point.
1954: FM shipped off to Panchgani (Pune, India) from Zanzibar (still a
British Protectorate). Don't know about Indian school admission rules,
but FM's passport would have been an issue. Then again, if the price is
right, money trumps a passport ;-)
1961: Tanganyika becomes independent, but part of the British
Commonwealth. Zanzibar is still a British Protectorate and FM's parents
still live in Zanzibar presumably under a British passport.
1962: Tanganyika becomes a republic. Zanzibar is still a British
Protectorate.
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
1964: Zanzibar revolution occurs. The revolution is a prequel to Idi
Amin's shenanigans in Uganda decades later. People targeted in Zanzibar
are Arabs and South Asians (both wealthier than people of African
ethnicity). Zanzibar merges with Tanganyika to form the United Republic
of Tanzania. But FM and family don't live in Zanzibar/Tanzania anymore.
The long and the short of all of this rambling is that Freddie Mercury
was a British citizen of Indo-Persian ethnicity, and not a Tanzanian
citizen (even by birth). However, despite being a British citizen,
"aapro Farokh" looked like a Parsee, if not Indian :-)
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Indeed? What penalties will be imposed if it attempts to mean
something else?
And in 1946, he wouldn't
> have been a citizen of India, either!
I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
before 1947?
>
> And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> linguistic communities.
We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
> "Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship. And in 1946, he wouldn't
> have been a citizen of India, either!
Does a Parsi from Mumbai, who looks like Freddie Mercury, not look
like an Indian?
> And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> linguistic communities.
That would be true in my case too (Malayalam is non-Indic).
Peter T. Daniels
Hunh?
What could "Indian" mean before there was a country named "India"?
There were dozens of polities (with all those rajahs and maharajahs
and such), which would claim the allegiance of South Asians before
there was an "India" -- people from Lahore were "Indian" before 1947:
but would any of them have claimed to be such a thing?
> And in 1946, he wouldn't
>
> > have been a citizen of India, either!
>
> I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
> of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
> before 1947?
Who invented the notion of "India"?
> > And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> > linguistic communities.
>
> We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
Exactly. Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
Peter T. Daniels
<ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 11:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > "Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship. And in 1946, he wouldn't
> > have been a citizen of India, either!
>
> Does a Parsi from Mumbai, who looks like Freddie Mercury, not look
> like an Indian?
I suppose he looks like a Parsi. It's especially clear-cut in the case
of Parsis, because Parsis do not intermarry.
> > And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> > linguistic communities.
>
> That would be true in my case too (Malayalam is non-Indic).
Do you look like "an Indian"? What do Indians look like? Do Andamanese
look like Indians?
Peter T. Daniels
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens," which is why I used the phrase "subjects of Her Majesty.")
> 1964: Zanzibar revolution occurs. The revolution is a prequel to Idi
> Amin's shenanigans in Uganda decades later. People targeted in Zanzibar
> are Arabs and South Asians (both wealthier than people of African
> ethnicity). Zanzibar merges with Tanganyika to form the United Republic
> of Tanzania. But FM and family don't live in Zanzibar/Tanzania anymore.
>
> The long and the short of all of this rambling is that Freddie Mercury
> was a British citizen of Indo-Persian ethnicity, and not a Tanzanian
> citizen (even by birth). However, despite being a British citizen,
> "aapro Farokh" looked like a Parsee, if not Indian :-)-
Ruud Harmsen
>> like an Indian?
Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:20:45 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
>I suppose he looks like a Parsi. It's especially clear-cut in the case
>of Parsis, because Parsis do not intermarry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi
===
Genealogical DNA tests to determine purity of lineage have brought
mixed results. One study supports the Parsi contention (Nanavutty
1970, p. 13) that they have maintained their Persian roots by avoiding
intermarriage with local populations. In that 2002 study of the
Y-chromosome (patrilineal) DNA of the Parsis of Pakistan, it was
determined that Parsis are genetically closer to Iranians than to
their neighbours (Qamar et al. 2002, p. 1119). However, a 2004 study
in which Parsi mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal) was compared with that
of the Iranians and Gujaratis determined that Parsis are genetically
closer to Gujaratis than to Iranians. Taking the 2002 study into
account, the authors of the 2004 study suggested "a male-mediated
migration of the ancestors of the present-day Parsi population, where
they admixed with local females [...] leading ultimately to the loss
of mtDNA of Iranian origin" (Quintana-Murci 2004, p. 840)
/===
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com
benl...@ihug.co.nz
There has been a place named "India" for many centuries, and people
from there have been called "Indians" in English since long before
there was an independent nation-state bearing the name.
>
> > And in 1946, he wouldn't
>
> > > have been a citizen of India, either!
>
> > I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
> > of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
> > before 1947?
>
> Who invented the notion of "India"?
Somebody long before 1947.
>
> > > And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> > > linguistic communities.
>
> > We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
>
> Exactly.
So what was the relevance of your comment above?
>Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
> looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype.
Peter T. Daniels
You mean, you don't know the answer? The Greeks. It's not an autonym,
and it never named a people, let alone all the people from Pakistan to
Burma.
> > > > And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> > > > linguistic communities.
>
> > > We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
>
> > Exactly.
>
> So what was the relevance of your comment above?
>
> >Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
> > looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
>
> That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype.-
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Nobody in this discussion has claimed that it was an autonym.
> and it never named a people, let alone all the people from Pakistan to
> Burma.
Uh-huh. So when the Greeks referred to "Indoi", who were they talking
about?
anal...@hotmail.com
People whom we would call Indians today have adopted the term from the
British. Their own terms for (parts of) their country are Bharatam
(the Hindi version Bharat occurs in the constitution as another name
for India and Indian postage stamps would say both India and Bharat),
SaptaSaindhava, AryAvarta etc. Mughal/Muslim conquerors called a big
part of Northern India Hindustan.
In the West the name comes from the Greeks for whom it was the land
beyond the Indus. Shakespeare mentions India and Indians a few times.
> > and it never named a people, let alone all the people from Pakistan to
> > Burma.
>
> Uh-huh. So when the Greeks referred to "Indoi", who were they talking
> about?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
> > > > > > linguistic communities.
>
> > > > > We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
>
> > > > Exactly.
>
> > > So what was the relevance of your comment above?
>
> > > >Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
> > > > looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
>
> > > That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype.-- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Richard Herring
<ec8ae2f2-c351-489e...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> writes
>On Jul 27, 12:02�am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
>> and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
>> FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
>> Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
>> family would have become British citizens.
>
>(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
>citizens,"
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalit� is BRITISH CITIZEN.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> <ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
> >On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
> >> and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
> >> FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
> >> Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
> >> family would have become British citizens.
>
> >(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
> >citizens,"
>
> Who aren't, and when?
>
> Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
> January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
> and current British passports state that the holder's
Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
discussion happened.
Richard Herring
<41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>> In message
>> <ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>>
>> >On Jul 27, 12:02�am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
>> >> and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
>> >> FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
>> >> Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
>> >> family would have become British citizens.
>>
>> >(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
>> >citizens,"
>>
>> Who aren't, and when?
>>
>> Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
>> January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
>> and current British passports state that the holder's
>
>Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
(But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
>
>Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
>discussion happened.
"Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
> >On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
> >> >On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> 1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
> >> >> and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
> >> >> FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
> >> >> Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
> >> >> family would have become British citizens.
>
> >> >(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
> >> >citizens,"
>
> >> Who aren't, and when?
>
> >> Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
> >> January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
> >> and current British passports state that the holder's
>
> >Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
>
> (But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
> Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
>
>
>
> >Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
> >discussion happened.
>
> "Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum. The
conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
but not _de facto_.
Richard Herring
<830bbe2b-d919-4d71...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> In message
>> <41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70-85e1-d0de842e4...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>> >On Aug 27, 6:09�am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>> >> In message
>> >> <ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>> >> >On Jul 27, 12:02�am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> 1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
>> >> >> and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
>> >> >> FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
>> >> >> Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
>> >> >> family would have become British citizens.
>>
>> >> >(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
>> >> >citizens,"
>>
>> >> Who aren't, and when?
>>
>> >> Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
>> >> January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
>> >> and current British passports state that the holder's
>>
>> >Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
>>
>> (But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
>> Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
>>
>>
>> >Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
>> >discussion happened.
>>
>> "Were", not "are". �Your post said "they're", which implies now.
>
>This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum.
I'm talking about your post of July 2009, not an urban legend raised in
some irrelevant earlier discussion, whenever it was.
> The
>conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
>but not _de facto_.
No doubt. The fact that some people continue to use incorrect or
outdated terminology should hardly be a surprise to anyone in this
forum.
Nevertheless, the present-tense, unquantified statement "they're not
called 'British citizens'" is false by counterexample.
--
Richard Herring
Peter T. Daniels
> In message
> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 1, 4:51 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> In message
> >> <41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70-85e1-d0de842e4...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
> >> >On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >> >> In message
> >> >> <ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a...@y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> writes
> >> >> >On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> 1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
> >> >> >> and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
> >> >> >> FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
> >> >> >> Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
> >> >> >> family would have become British citizens.
>
> >> >> >(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
> >> >> >citizens,"
>
> >> >> Who aren't, and when?
>
> >> >> Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
> >> >> January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
> >> >> and current British passports state that the holder's
>
> >> >Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
>
> >> (But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
> >> Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
>
> >> >Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
> >> >discussion happened.
>
> >> "Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
>
> >This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum.
>
> I'm talking about your post of July 2009, not an urban legend raised in
> some irrelevant earlier discussion, whenever it was.
>
> > The
> >conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
> >but not _de facto_.
>
> No doubt. The fact that some people continue to use incorrect or
> outdated terminology should hardly be a surprise to anyone in this
> forum.
>
> Nevertheless, the present-tense, unquantified statement "they're not
> called 'British citizens'" is false by counterexample.
July 2009 was the first time I _ever_ saw the expression "British
citizen," so it is true by experience.
Richard Herring
<d0a6effa-4e91-42f7...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> >> >Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
>>
>> >> (But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
>> >> Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
>>
>> >> >Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
>> >> >discussion happened.
>>
>> >> "Were", not "are". �Your post said "they're", which implies now.
>>
>> >This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum.
>>
>> I'm talking about your post of July 2009, not an urban legend raised in
>> some irrelevant earlier discussion, whenever it was.
>>
>> > The
>> >conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
>> >but not _de facto_.
>>
>> No doubt. The fact that some people continue to use incorrect or
>> outdated terminology should hardly be a surprise to anyone in this
>> forum.
>>
>> Nevertheless, the present-tense, unquantified statement "they're not
>> called 'British citizens'" is false by counterexample.
>
>July 2009 was the first time I _ever_ saw the expression "British
>citizen," so it is true by experience.
That's argument from ignorance.
Surely I don't have to spell out the difference between "some", "all"
and "none", or how many counterexamples it takes to disprove a claim?
The statement "*I* don't call them 'British citizens'" might be true by
experience, but your claim was somewhat more general than that.
--
Richard Herring
Joachim Pense
> On 2009-08-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> Hmm. 31 days.
>
>
> That's nothing. Have you never heard of the longest thread ever on
> the USERNET?
>
>
Maybe I'll reply next year, in scri.larng
Joachim
John D Salt
news:7cjnb59kita62e5t2...@4ax.com:
[Snips]
> What is 'USERNET' ???
It's a well-known part of teh interweb.
Same as in town.
All the best,
Gokmop.
--
In what method shall we implement the matrix of this government display
picnic?
-- Bill Bailey
Otto Bahn
>>> Hmm. 31 days.
>>
>>
>>That's nothing. Have you never heard of the longest thread ever on
>>the USERNET?
>
> What is 'USERNET' ???
Your posting to it.
--oTTo--
Adam Funk
> [Snips]
>> What is 'USERNET' ???
ITYM 'The USERNET'.
> It's a well-known part of teh interweb.
>
> Same as in town.
Is it connected to the intersewer, or the intertubes?
--
Usenet is a cesspool, a dung heap. [Patrick A. Townson]
John D Salt
@news.newsfroup.net:
> On John D Salt wrote:
>
>> [Snips]
>>> What is 'USERNET' ???
>
> ITYM 'The USERNET'.
Not me, guv.
The >s are a clue.
All the best,
Teh Gokmop.
John McWilliams
> John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> found these unused words:
>
>> Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5002f7a56999d153d5a66269f15cdb48
>> @news.newsfroup.net:
>>
>>> On John D Salt wrote:
>>>
>>>> [Snips]
>>>>> What is 'USERNET' ???
>>> ITYM 'The USERNET'.
>> Not me, guv.
>>
>> The >s are a clue.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Teh Gokmop.
>
>
Tim Bruening
"Sir F. A. Rien" wrote:
> John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> found these unused words:
>
> >Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5002f7a56999d153d5a66269f15cdb48
> >@news.newsfroup.net:
> >
> >> On John D Salt wrote:
> >>
> >>> [Snips]
> >>>> What is 'USERNET' ???
> >>
> >> ITYM 'The USERNET'.
> >
> >Not me, guv.
> >
> >The >s are a clue.
> >
> >All the best,
> >
> >Teh Gokmop.
>
> You'll need it, clueless wonder!
Happy All Saints Day!
John D Salt
> John D Salt <jdsalt_AT_gotadsl.co.uk> found these unused words:
[Snips]
>>Not me, guv.
>>
>>The >s are a clue.
>>
>>All the best,
>>
>>Teh Gokmop.
>
> You'll need it, clueless wonder!
I'm sorry, your utterance is incomprehensible.
Care to try again, pretending that Terrestrial is your first language?
Or do you just enjoy spouting random gibberish?
All the best,
John.
Otto Bahn
>>>>> [Snips]
>>>>>> What is 'USERNET' ???
>>>> ITYM 'The USERNET'.
>>> Not me, guv.
>>>
>>> The >s are a clue.
>>>
>>> All the best,
>>>
>>> Teh Gokmop.
>>
>> You'll need it, clueless wonder!
Please don't waste band width if you don't have anything
to say.
TIA,
--oTTo--
DJensen
--
DJensen
Otto Bahn
> Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
My news reader crossposts automagically.
--oTTo--
Otto Bahn
>> "DJensen" <i_m...@yahoo.ca> wrote
>>
>>> Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
>>
>> My news reader crossposts automagically.
>
> sweet
"Windows Defender for Outlook Express has detected a potential threat(s):
Item 1: Follow-up To line is not he same as the Newsgroups line."
Nice try, Bucko! And people rag on Microsoft security...
--oTTo--
Doctroid
DJensen <i_m...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
If you'll look up near the top of these posts, you'll find a line
starting with the word "Newsgroups:". Following that word there are the
names of several newsgroups, one of which is "rec.arts.sf.tv". The
presence of that name on that 'header line' causes the thread to be
posted to that newsgroup.
Hope this helps!
--
Sig available on request.
- Doctroid
John McWilliams
Whatever
Tim Bruening
DJensen wrote:
> Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
Beats me. I found it on alt.tv.stargate-sg1
nemo
"Adam Funk" <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5002f7a56999d153...@news.newsfroup.net...
Who he?
Adam Funk
>>> Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
>>
>> My news reader crossposts automagically.
>
> suite
IFYPFY
--
"Mrs CJ and I avoid clichés like the plague."
Adam Funk
> The proper acronym is "UNSENET" (United Nations SElectric NETwork). Why do
> Americans always assume that the Infrogmation Superhighway is a property of
> the US government (United States SEcret NETwork)? It's a good thing that the
> UN took over somewhat and was able to greatly diminish the murdering of
> plankton by whales in the Pacific. The US governement only owns teh
> interweb.
Shouldn't the UNSENET be nearly the opposite of the USERNET?
> P.S. I can't cross-post to the original froups on this news server. It must
> be because it's an American server!
That's OK. My computer FYXPFY automatically.
Ubiquitous
>Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
Besides "it's in the 'Newsgroups' header"?
--
"You can touch my junk, but you'll never touch my freedom!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dlj-ocqW9g
Adam Funk
> i_m...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
>>Why is this thread being posted in rec.arts.sf.tv?
>
> Besides "it's in the 'Newsgroups' header"?
Some people's computers do that automatically!
--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]