Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: square meters Re: Olympic question(s)
157 views
Skip to first unread message
![Peter Duncanson [BrE]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjU1GGYFBCZgBCNB-pRgkosMu-ej0qpnECw3jc8uGYOTiF8a=s40-c)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 30, 2012, 10:33:04 AM9/30/12
to
On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>
>>On Sep 29, 9:31=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/12 8:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> > And who does that? *"I'll add some puree to give my dish extra
>>> > richness."
>>>
>>> > The pureed content must be specified!
>>>
>>> I have met "a pur=E9e of X" in various menus and recipes.
>>
>>Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>mash."
>
>But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
in India?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
>Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>
>>On Sep 29, 9:31=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/12 8:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>> > And who does that? *"I'll add some puree to give my dish extra
>>> > richness."
>>>
>>> > The pureed content must be specified!
>>>
>>> I have met "a pur=E9e of X" in various menus and recipes.
>>
>>Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>mash."
>
>But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
in India?
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
anal...@hotmail.com
Sep 30, 2012, 10:34:30 AM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 8:39 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 3:49 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in messagenews:00e7cc6f-2fe5-42d8...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to the
> > > throne'.
>
> > Slang term for "child".
>
> sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
Here is an interesting snippet on this topic:
From
http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/tcnj/linguistics/soundnsense.htm
Phonetic Intensives
There are certain sounds and sound combinations that seem to be
associated with certain images or ideas in English. These sounds and
sound combinations are known as phonetic intensives. Look at the list
of words below, for example:
flame, flare, flash, flicker
glare, gleam, glint, glow, glisten
slippery, slick, slide, slime, slop, slobber, slushy
staunch, stalwart, stout, sturdy, stable, steady, stocky, stern,
strong, stubborn, steel
inch, imp, thin, slim, little, bit, chip, sliver, snip, wink, kid,
glimmer, flicker, miniature
moan, groan, woe, toll
doom, gloom, moody
flare, glare, stare, blare
spatter, scatter, shatter, chatter, rattle, clatter, batter
ripple, bubble, twinkle, sparkle, rumble, jingle
What do the words in each group have in common in terms of sound?
What do they have in common in terms of meaning?
Mel Brooks, a famous comedian, once said that the k sound is the
funniest sound in the English language. Edgar Allan Poe chose
"nevermore" as the word that his raven would say in "The Raven,"
because he thought that the -ore sound was the most despairing in the
English language (as in mourn, forlorn, tore, and deplore).
Certain sounds are associated with certain images or ideas in English.
end quote.
> On Sep 30, 3:49 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in messagenews:00e7cc6f-2fe5-42d8...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to the
> > > throne'.
>
> > Slang term for "child".
>
> sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
Here is an interesting snippet on this topic:
From
http://gsteinbe.intrasun.tcnj.edu/tcnj/linguistics/soundnsense.htm
Phonetic Intensives
There are certain sounds and sound combinations that seem to be
associated with certain images or ideas in English. These sounds and
sound combinations are known as phonetic intensives. Look at the list
of words below, for example:
flame, flare, flash, flicker
glare, gleam, glint, glow, glisten
slippery, slick, slide, slime, slop, slobber, slushy
staunch, stalwart, stout, sturdy, stable, steady, stocky, stern,
strong, stubborn, steel
inch, imp, thin, slim, little, bit, chip, sliver, snip, wink, kid,
glimmer, flicker, miniature
moan, groan, woe, toll
doom, gloom, moody
flare, glare, stare, blare
spatter, scatter, shatter, chatter, rattle, clatter, batter
ripple, bubble, twinkle, sparkle, rumble, jingle
What do the words in each group have in common in terms of sound?
What do they have in common in terms of meaning?
Mel Brooks, a famous comedian, once said that the k sound is the
funniest sound in the English language. Edgar Allan Poe chose
"nevermore" as the word that his raven would say in "The Raven,"
because he thought that the -ore sound was the most despairing in the
English language (as in mourn, forlorn, tore, and deplore).
Certain sounds are associated with certain images or ideas in English.
end quote.
Joachim Pense
Sep 30, 2012, 10:51:24 AM9/30/12
to
Am 30.09.2012 15:24, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> On Sep 30, 9:06 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> My impression from reading this thread is that those who distinguish
>> between a "difference" and a "change", short for "change in the
>> language", do so on the basis that "the language" or "The Language" is
>> something that lasts for generations. They are using "difference" for a
>> word or usage that may be ephemeral.
>
> No, that is not what "we" were saying. How can _anyone_ linguistic
> scholar or naive layperson, know whether any particular mistake or
> difference is ephemeral or lasting?
>
> _All_ changes in language are not perceived by the layperson as
> changes in the language, but as mistakes (to be corrected) or
> differences (to be remarked upon). In recent years, it has become
> possible -- through very extensive diachronic and corpus investigation
> -- to discover where the changes come from (Labov divides the
> "factors" into three groups, covered in his three sizable volumes).
>
> A pervasive syntactic change of the last several decades, which I
> mentioned in this thread once, is the "double copula" with nominal
> clause complements: "What I meant is is that the moon looked really
> big on the horizon last night." No pause between the is's.
>
> I heard on a call-in radio program in 1989 [I can date it because I
> heard it in th car while commuting to Milwaukee, which I did once a
> week that winter quarter]:
>
> "My question is would have been 'Why did you take X out of the game at
> that point?'"
>
>> To older people new words or new meanings adopted by young people are
>> differences. These may be perceived by the older people to be
>> unnecessary and sometimes corruptions of existing words.
>
> Yes
>
>> Such differences don't become "Changes In The Language" unless they are
>> adopted and used more widely and survive to be used in the future as
>> accepted features of, at least some version of, the language.
>
> They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> language" can exist.
>
Let's forget about the linguistically unaware people. Quite naturally,
even the trained Linguist can only observe changes that have already
happened - they cannot look into the future. But in the case of lexical,
grammatical, semantic changes, they can be observed without much
research effort when they happened just very recently and are at the
point of becoming accepted by a great part of the public and are
expected to win eventually. Example: "Singular 'they'".
My claim is that is much more difficult for phonetic changes. Labov had
to put enormous effort and to wait many years to arrive at his results
on Martha's Vineyard. I personally am not aware of any phonetic change
that may have happened in Germany in the last 200 years, but I am
convinced that there must be some.
Phonological changes (like mergers of phonemes) are easier to detect,
but here I can still only see differences between speakers and groups of
speakers groups, no time gradient. If I am not mistaken, the examples
named in this thread were all phonological, or sometimes even
morphological disguised as phonological (like losses of final sounds).
A reason might be that for the first three kinds of changes we have the
vast and old corpus of written texts (including usenet postings, private
E-Mails and such) as materials. For the sounds, we have only recordings,
which don't get so far back in time. Also, written texts are usually in
formal standard language, while recordingsg often aren't. And even if
there is a recording in formal standard language, there is still a
degree of variation for phonetic and phonologic accents. (Maybe less so
in RP English than in German?).
Joachim
> On Sep 30, 9:06 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> My impression from reading this thread is that those who distinguish
>> between a "difference" and a "change", short for "change in the
>> language", do so on the basis that "the language" or "The Language" is
>> something that lasts for generations. They are using "difference" for a
>> word or usage that may be ephemeral.
>
> No, that is not what "we" were saying. How can _anyone_ linguistic
> scholar or naive layperson, know whether any particular mistake or
> difference is ephemeral or lasting?
>
> _All_ changes in language are not perceived by the layperson as
> changes in the language, but as mistakes (to be corrected) or
> differences (to be remarked upon). In recent years, it has become
> possible -- through very extensive diachronic and corpus investigation
> -- to discover where the changes come from (Labov divides the
> "factors" into three groups, covered in his three sizable volumes).
>
> A pervasive syntactic change of the last several decades, which I
> mentioned in this thread once, is the "double copula" with nominal
> clause complements: "What I meant is is that the moon looked really
> big on the horizon last night." No pause between the is's.
>
> I heard on a call-in radio program in 1989 [I can date it because I
> heard it in th car while commuting to Milwaukee, which I did once a
> week that winter quarter]:
>
> "My question is would have been 'Why did you take X out of the game at
> that point?'"
>
>> To older people new words or new meanings adopted by young people are
>> differences. These may be perceived by the older people to be
>> unnecessary and sometimes corruptions of existing words.
>
> Yes
>
>> Such differences don't become "Changes In The Language" unless they are
>> adopted and used more widely and survive to be used in the future as
>> accepted features of, at least some version of, the language.
>
> They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> language" can exist.
>
Let's forget about the linguistically unaware people. Quite naturally,
even the trained Linguist can only observe changes that have already
happened - they cannot look into the future. But in the case of lexical,
grammatical, semantic changes, they can be observed without much
research effort when they happened just very recently and are at the
point of becoming accepted by a great part of the public and are
expected to win eventually. Example: "Singular 'they'".
My claim is that is much more difficult for phonetic changes. Labov had
to put enormous effort and to wait many years to arrive at his results
on Martha's Vineyard. I personally am not aware of any phonetic change
that may have happened in Germany in the last 200 years, but I am
convinced that there must be some.
Phonological changes (like mergers of phonemes) are easier to detect,
but here I can still only see differences between speakers and groups of
speakers groups, no time gradient. If I am not mistaken, the examples
named in this thread were all phonological, or sometimes even
morphological disguised as phonological (like losses of final sounds).
A reason might be that for the first three kinds of changes we have the
vast and old corpus of written texts (including usenet postings, private
E-Mails and such) as materials. For the sounds, we have only recordings,
which don't get so far back in time. Also, written texts are usually in
formal standard language, while recordingsg often aren't. And even if
there is a recording in formal standard language, there is still a
degree of variation for phonetic and phonologic accents. (Maybe less so
in RP English than in German?).
Joachim
Tak To
Sep 30, 2012, 10:53:34 AM9/30/12
to
On 9/29/2012 4:33 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sep 29, 4:29 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 1:30 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 1:04 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>> Am 28.09.2012 23:07, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 3:14 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>>>>>> Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If people notice that "our" kids are talking like "them" (in ways "we"
>>>>>>>> never did), isn't that a recognition that "our" dialect is changing?
>>>>>>>> (Not all such borrowing may be long-term, of course, but short-term,
>>>>>>>> it's a change.)
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and I observe that for lexical, semantical, grammatical changes,
>>>>>>> but not for sound changes.
>>
>>>>>> What sound changes are you thinking of that happened or are happening
>>>>>> without people noticing?
>>
>>>>> All of them.
>>
>>>>> People notice mistakes or (regional, i.e. accent) differences. They do
>>>>> not consider them changes or evidence of change.
>>
>>>> You are talking about recognizable changes that people don't understand
>>>> as such - this happens for grammatical, semantic, lexical changes.
>>>> People do notice them, and they notice that the generations have
>>>> different usages, and they complain about decay (which is a form of
>>>> change). So they do notice that something is changing, even if they
>>>> don't like it.
>>
>>> WE understand "decay" as a kind of change. They (regular people)
>>> don't.
>>
>> One preposterous assertion after another!
>>
>>> If a piece of bread gets moldy, do people say "The bread changed!"?
>>> No, they might say it decayed.
>>
>> Peter, this is desperate. Go back to Grice, whom you're so fond of
>> quoting. Or Dixon on Australian abstractions. If people know what
>> specific type of change has taken place, they will say so, and not
>> talk in generalities.
>
> But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
> They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
> children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
> will talk correctly henceforth.
Or they resign to the fact that the mistakes have become
too prevalent to be corrected, ever. Ergo, language
_standards_ have changed. For most people, that means
the language has changed.
Most people are not so egotistical to think that they
have the final word on what "their language" is, even
if it is their mother tongue and they have spoken it
all their lives.
In fact, there are probably more people in the world
who think they speak a corrupted form of a standard
language than people who think they have complete
mastery of their own language.
That their parents and friends and neighbors all speak
the exact same form does not disuade them from having
this notion.
Your attempt to redefine "change" to exclude "decay"
reminds me of DeFrancis's redefinition of "ideogram"
to exclude "logogram".
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
> On Sep 29, 4:29 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Sep 30, 1:30 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 1:04 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>> Am 28.09.2012 23:07, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 3:14 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>>>>>> Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If people notice that "our" kids are talking like "them" (in ways "we"
>>>>>>>> never did), isn't that a recognition that "our" dialect is changing?
>>>>>>>> (Not all such borrowing may be long-term, of course, but short-term,
>>>>>>>> it's a change.)
>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and I observe that for lexical, semantical, grammatical changes,
>>>>>>> but not for sound changes.
>>
>>>>>> What sound changes are you thinking of that happened or are happening
>>>>>> without people noticing?
>>
>>>>> All of them.
>>
>>>>> People notice mistakes or (regional, i.e. accent) differences. They do
>>>>> not consider them changes or evidence of change.
>>
>>>> You are talking about recognizable changes that people don't understand
>>>> as such - this happens for grammatical, semantic, lexical changes.
>>>> People do notice them, and they notice that the generations have
>>>> different usages, and they complain about decay (which is a form of
>>>> change). So they do notice that something is changing, even if they
>>>> don't like it.
>>
>>> WE understand "decay" as a kind of change. They (regular people)
>>> don't.
>>
>> One preposterous assertion after another!
>>
>>> If a piece of bread gets moldy, do people say "The bread changed!"?
>>> No, they might say it decayed.
>>
>> Peter, this is desperate. Go back to Grice, whom you're so fond of
>> quoting. Or Dixon on Australian abstractions. If people know what
>> specific type of change has taken place, they will say so, and not
>> talk in generalities.
>
> But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
> They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
> children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
> will talk correctly henceforth.
Or they resign to the fact that the mistakes have become
too prevalent to be corrected, ever. Ergo, language
_standards_ have changed. For most people, that means
the language has changed.
Most people are not so egotistical to think that they
have the final word on what "their language" is, even
if it is their mother tongue and they have spoken it
all their lives.
In fact, there are probably more people in the world
who think they speak a corrupted form of a standard
language than people who think they have complete
mastery of their own language.
That their parents and friends and neighbors all speak
the exact same form does not disuade them from having
this notion.
Your attempt to redefine "change" to exclude "decay"
reminds me of DeFrancis's redefinition of "ideogram"
to exclude "logogram".
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
Joachim Pense
Sep 30, 2012, 10:54:51 AM9/30/12
to
Am 30.09.2012 16:31, schrieb Joachim Pense:
>
>
> Am 30.09.2012 15:04, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>> On Sep 30, 12:06 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced " " in the past. Today, most of
>>>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>>>
>>> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
>>> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
>>> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
>>> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
>>> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
>>> according to the spelling.
>>
>> <y>s turned into <i>s throughout German toward the end of the 19th
>> century. I don't know whether there was an official reform, or perhaps
>> whether it was a byproduct of switching largely from Fraktur to
>> Antiqua.
>>
>
> I think it was part of the 1903 spelling reform, but it was only the
> spelling, and only for those <y>s that were pronounced as an i anyway -
> the ones pronounced like ü remained <y>. (The <y>s in loanwords were
> kept as well).
>
A notable example is "sein" (meaning both "his" and "to be"), which used
to be spelled with a <y> in one meaning and with an <i> in the other (I
don't recall which stood for which), just to differentiate.
Joachim
>
>
> Am 30.09.2012 15:04, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>> On Sep 30, 12:06 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>>>
>>>
>
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced " " in the past. Today, most of
>>>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>>>
>>> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
>>> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
>>> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
>>> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
>>> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
>>> according to the spelling.
>>
>> <y>s turned into <i>s throughout German toward the end of the 19th
>> century. I don't know whether there was an official reform, or perhaps
>> whether it was a byproduct of switching largely from Fraktur to
>> Antiqua.
>>
>
> I think it was part of the 1903 spelling reform, but it was only the
> spelling, and only for those <y>s that were pronounced as an i anyway -
> the ones pronounced like ü remained <y>. (The <y>s in loanwords were
> kept as well).
>
A notable example is "sein" (meaning both "his" and "to be"), which used
to be spelled with a <y> in one meaning and with an <i> in the other (I
don't recall which stood for which), just to differentiate.
Joachim
Guy Barry
Sep 30, 2012, 10:59:44 AM9/30/12
to
analyst41 wrote in message
news:9618cc9a-f737-4fb0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
["sprog"]
> > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
> PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
> meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
There's something in that. Shakespeare used a verb "shog" (meaning to "go
> PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
> meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
away") in some of his plays, e.g. "shall we shog?" I remember sniggering
over that when I was at school even though it had no rude meaning in
English. It just *sounded* rude.
But why doesn't "snag" sound rude?
--
Guy Barry
Adam Funk
Sep 30, 2012, 11:03:26 AM9/30/12
to
On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:26:43 +0100, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
><news:33kjj9x...@news.ducksburg.com> in
> sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival
>> gender inflection into English for one word only.
>
> For, 'naive' is the adjective and 'naïf' the noun (in
> English).
Oops. Is there any good reason for that, though?
>> The only other one I can think of is "blond(e)",
>
> 'Fiancé(e)'. There might be one or two more like that,
> though none comes to mind immediately.
Oops again.
>> & not many people switch that back & forth.
>
> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:26:43 +0100, Adam Funk
><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
><news:33kjj9x...@news.ducksburg.com> in
> sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
>
> [...]
>
>> I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival
>> gender inflection into English for one word only.
>
> For, 'naive' is the adjective and 'naïf' the noun (in
> English).
Oops. Is there any good reason for that, though?
>> The only other one I can think of is "blond(e)",
>
> 'Fiancé(e)'. There might be one or two more like that,
> though none comes to mind immediately.
Oops again.
>> & not many people switch that back & forth.
>
> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
--
...the reason why so many professional artists drink a lot is not
necessarily very much to do with the artistic temperament, etc. It is
simply that they can afford to, because they can normally take a large
part of a day off to deal with the ravages. [Amis _On Drink_]
Adam Funk
Sep 30, 2012, 11:04:09 AM9/30/12
to
On 2012-09-29, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> [naif/naive]
>> >"blond(e)", & not many people switch that back & forth.
>>
>> "fiancé(e)"
>
> Presumably Adam didn't consider it an adjective. Another candidate
> is "né(e)", although MWo and AHD don't list the masculine form.
Actually I didn't think of either of those; the inflection question is
the same as for adjectives anyway.
--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.
> Peter Duncanson [BrE] <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> [naif/naive]
>> >I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival gender inflection
>> >into English for one word only. The only other one I can think of is
>> >"blond(e)", & not many people switch that back & forth.
>>
>> "fiancé(e)"
>
> Presumably Adam didn't consider it an adjective. Another candidate
> is "né(e)", although MWo and AHD don't list the masculine form.
Actually I didn't think of either of those; the inflection question is
the same as for adjectives anyway.
--
XML is like violence: if it doesn't solve the problem,
use more.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 12:48:45 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 9:49 am, Jerry Friedman <jerry_fried...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 7:24 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> That was one of thy best.
So show us where gen.pop. refers to language change per se.
> On Sep 30, 7:24 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> > have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> > language" can exist.
>
> ...
> > They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> > have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> > language" can exist.
>
>
> That was one of thy best.
So show us where gen.pop. refers to language change per se.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 12:56:26 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 10:34 am, "analys...@hotmail.com" <analys...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Where did you get that from????
You actually _know about_ what are usually called "expressives" (not
"phonetic intensives"), which occur in the lexicon in English and
other languages, but in Austroasiatic languages are grammaticalized,
and you can make the above statement??
Note, BTW, the attribution of "funny k" to Mel Brooks.
wrote:
> On Sep 30, 8:39 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 30, 3:49 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in messagenews:00e7cc6f-2fe5-42d8...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to the
> > > > throne'.
>
> > > Slang term for "child".
>
> > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>
> PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
> meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
???
>
> > On Sep 30, 3:49 am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" wrote in messagenews:00e7cc6f-2fe5-42d8...@e14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to the
> > > > throne'.
>
> > > Slang term for "child".
>
> > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>
> PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
> meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
Where did you get that from????
You actually _know about_ what are usually called "expressives" (not
"phonetic intensives"), which occur in the lexicon in English and
other languages, but in Austroasiatic languages are grammaticalized,
and you can make the above statement??
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 12:57:44 PM9/30/12
to
snag in her stocking."
anal...@hotmail.com
Sep 30, 2012, 1:02:48 PM9/30/12
to
frictionless continuant) in Tamil country is noted by non-linguists
all the time. They have been talking about it for decades - but as of
now it is still present dialectally although the same speaker may
realize it correctly in a word and lenit it to plain retroflex l in
another a minute later. But I don't know if non-linguists regard it
as change - they certainly view it as something they know the language
has had for as long as they can imagine and is in danger of losing.
They say that Lithuanian lost the dual number only recently - I wonder
if that could have happened without non-linguists noticing it as it
was happening.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 1:03:33 PM9/30/12
to
considerable population's speech, the phonemes could be in the process
of merging.
The literature is full of examples of "changes in progress."
> But in the case of lexical,
> grammatical, semantic changes, they can be observed without much
> research effort when they happened just very recently and are at the
> point of becoming accepted by a great part of the public and are
> expected to win eventually. Example: "Singular 'they'".
>
> My claim is that is much more difficult for phonetic changes. Labov had
> to put enormous effort and to wait many years to arrive at his results
> on Martha's Vineyard. I personally am not aware of any phonetic change
> that may have happened in Germany in the last 200 years, but I am
> convinced that there must be some.
the mid 1960s, so it probably was not officially recognized at that
time.
> Phonological changes (like mergers of phonemes) are easier to detect,
> but here I can still only see differences between speakers and groups of
> speakers groups, no time gradient. If I am not mistaken, the examples
> named in this thread were all phonological, or sometimes even
> morphological disguised as phonological (like losses of final sounds).
>
> A reason might be that for the first three kinds of changes we have the
> vast and old corpus of written texts (including usenet postings, private
> E-Mails and such) as materials. For the sounds, we have only recordings,
> which don't get so far back in time. Also, written texts are usually in
> formal standard language, while recordingsg often aren't. And even if
> there is a recording in formal standard language, there is still a
> degree of variation for phonetic and phonologic accents. (Maybe less so
> in RP English than in German?).
evidence for phonetic realities. Things can even be said about
Akkadian phonetics! (Extinct since the 2nd or so century CE.)
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 1:06:34 PM9/30/12
to
> Most people are not so egotistical to think that they
> have the final word on what "their language" is, even
> if it is their mother tongue and they have spoken it
> all their lives.
Follett, or William Safire does. They accept linguistic authority
without question.
> In fact, there are probably more people in the world
> who think they speak a corrupted form of a standard
> language than people who think they have complete
> mastery of their own language.
>
> That their parents and friends and neighbors all speak
> the exact same form does not disuade them from having
> this notion.
>
> Your attempt to redefine "change" to exclude "decay"
> reminds me of DeFrancis's redefinition of "ideogram"
> to exclude "logogram".
They are two entirely different and necessary concepts.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 1:07:39 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 10:54 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> Am 30.09.2012 16:31, schrieb Joachim Pense:
> > Am 30.09.2012 15:04, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> >> On Sep 30, 12:06 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >>> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>
> >>>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced " " in the past. Today, most of
> >>>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>
> >>> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
> >>> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
> >>> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
> >>> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
> >>> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
> >>> according to the spelling.
>
> >> <y>s turned into <i>s throughout German toward the end of the 19th
> >> century. I don't know whether there was an official reform, or perhaps
> >> whether it was a byproduct of switching largely from Fraktur to
> >> Antiqua.
>
> > I think it was part of the 1903 spelling reform, but it was only the
> > spelling, and only for those <y>s that were pronounced as an i anyway -
> > the ones pronounced like remained <y>. (The <y>s in loanwords were
> Am 30.09.2012 16:31, schrieb Joachim Pense:
> > Am 30.09.2012 15:04, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
> >> On Sep 30, 12:06 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> >>> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>
> >>>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced " " in the past. Today, most of
> >>>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>
> >>> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
> >>> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
> >>> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
> >>> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
> >>> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
> >>> according to the spelling.
>
> >> <y>s turned into <i>s throughout German toward the end of the 19th
> >> century. I don't know whether there was an official reform, or perhaps
> >> whether it was a byproduct of switching largely from Fraktur to
> >> Antiqua.
>
> > I think it was part of the 1903 spelling reform, but it was only the
> > spelling, and only for those <y>s that were pronounced as an i anyway -
> > kept as well).
>
> A notable example is "sein" (meaning both "his" and "to be"), which used
> to be spelled with a <y> in one meaning and with an <i> in the other (I
> don't recall which stood for which), just to differentiate.
I think <y> in the verb -- I never noticed that one was one way and
>
> A notable example is "sein" (meaning both "his" and "to be"), which used
> to be spelled with a <y> in one meaning and with an <i> in the other (I
> don't recall which stood for which), just to differentiate.
the other the other!
James Silverton
Sep 30, 2012, 2:09:47 PM9/30/12
to
"of obscure origin" but meant "A lively young fellow" in 1767 or various
young fish from 1790.
"Sprog" itself is listed as "Services slang" for new recruit or trainee
from 1941 or in 1945 as "slang (orig. Naut) for a youngster, child or
baby."
I'm pretty sure that I recall its use by an English parent in the form
"the sprog" for "my child" at least 40 years ago.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 30, 2012, 3:38:03 PM9/30/12
to
On Oct 1, 2:01 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 29, 11:54 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 4:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 30, 10:07 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 30, 1:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Does the Queen of Engliand notice that her grandsons "drop" their
> > > > > > > final consonants? Does she urge them to be more careful in their
> > > > > > > public appearances, at least? Evidently not.
>
> > > > > > "Evidently" here seems to be used in a sense completely divorced from
> > > > > > its cognate "evidence". It seems that PTD notices the grandsons
> > > > > > dropping consonants. I am pretty sure that people all over England
> > > > > > notice it (though it is so common among that generation of the upper
> > > > > > class that it's hardly mention-worthy any more).
>
> > > > > If it's so common, why would anyone notice?
>
> > > > People did indeed notice, long ago. This is a change that has been
> > > > happening over the last three decades or so. It's just that it's not
> > > > news any more.
>
> > > People -- perhaps not even only boys any more -- are sent to Eton to
> > > have that sort of thing beaten out of them.
>
> > They may have been at one time. Evidently it doesn't work so well any
> > more.
>
> > > Thirty years ago, the Princes were not speaking in public,
>
> > Who are we talking about here? 30 years ago William was a babe in
> > arms, and Harry was not yet born.
>
> Who was it set the parameter at "the last three decades or so"?
>
> > Prince Charles certainly did speak in public at that time.
>
> > so no one
>
> > > noticed the Royal Family doing it. I doubt Princess Diana did it in
> > > public. Certainly Prince Charles did not and does not do it (a coup[le
> > > of weeks ago we had an hour-long program of him describing home movies
> > > to some unseen listener, and in that informal setting he would have
> > > done so if he ever did).
>
> > Your point?
>
> Your claim that it's common for the Royal Family to talk like a
> commoner is false.
Rather, you have misunderstood my claim.
> > Perhaps you think I was referring above simply to the history of
> > English pronunciation in the Royal Family? No, they are simply an
> > indication of how widely, and how far up the social ladder, these once
> > stigmatized features have spread.-
>
> When did Eton stop beating their boys?
I have no idea, even of whether your presupposition is correct.
> On Sep 29, 11:54 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 4:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 30, 10:07 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 30, 1:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Does the Queen of Engliand notice that her grandsons "drop" their
> > > > > > > final consonants? Does she urge them to be more careful in their
> > > > > > > public appearances, at least? Evidently not.
>
> > > > > > "Evidently" here seems to be used in a sense completely divorced from
> > > > > > its cognate "evidence". It seems that PTD notices the grandsons
> > > > > > dropping consonants. I am pretty sure that people all over England
> > > > > > notice it (though it is so common among that generation of the upper
> > > > > > class that it's hardly mention-worthy any more).
>
> > > > > If it's so common, why would anyone notice?
>
> > > > People did indeed notice, long ago. This is a change that has been
> > > > happening over the last three decades or so. It's just that it's not
> > > > news any more.
>
> > > People -- perhaps not even only boys any more -- are sent to Eton to
> > > have that sort of thing beaten out of them.
>
> > They may have been at one time. Evidently it doesn't work so well any
> > more.
>
> > > Thirty years ago, the Princes were not speaking in public,
>
> > Who are we talking about here? 30 years ago William was a babe in
> > arms, and Harry was not yet born.
>
> Who was it set the parameter at "the last three decades or so"?
>
> > Prince Charles certainly did speak in public at that time.
>
> > so no one
>
> > > noticed the Royal Family doing it. I doubt Princess Diana did it in
> > > public. Certainly Prince Charles did not and does not do it (a coup[le
> > > of weeks ago we had an hour-long program of him describing home movies
> > > to some unseen listener, and in that informal setting he would have
> > > done so if he ever did).
>
> > Your point?
>
> Your claim that it's common for the Royal Family to talk like a
> commoner is false.
Rather, you have misunderstood my claim.
> > Perhaps you think I was referring above simply to the history of
> > English pronunciation in the Royal Family? No, they are simply an
> > indication of how widely, and how far up the social ladder, these once
> > stigmatized features have spread.-
>
> When did Eton stop beating their boys?
I have no idea, even of whether your presupposition is correct.
Dr Nick
Sep 30, 2012, 3:46:36 PM9/30/12
to
James Silverton <jim.si...@verizon.net> writes:
> The OED has heard of the word "sprog" but says "compare sprag", which
> is "of obscure origin" but meant "A lively young fellow" in 1767 or
> various young fish from 1790.
>
> "Sprog" itself is listed as "Services slang" for new recruit or
> trainee from 1941 or in 1945 as "slang (orig. Naut) for a youngster,
> child or baby."
>
> I'm pretty sure that I recall its use by an English parent in the form
> "the sprog" for "my child" at least 40 years ago.
Should we tell him it's a verb as well, or would the outrage be too much
> The OED has heard of the word "sprog" but says "compare sprag", which
> is "of obscure origin" but meant "A lively young fellow" in 1767 or
> various young fish from 1790.
>
> "Sprog" itself is listed as "Services slang" for new recruit or
> trainee from 1941 or in 1945 as "slang (orig. Naut) for a youngster,
> child or baby."
>
> I'm pretty sure that I recall its use by an English parent in the form
> "the sprog" for "my child" at least 40 years ago.
for him?
Nathan Sanders
Sep 30, 2012, 4:12:53 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<1eff035c-aa5f-484e...@rj6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> If Labov gives an explanation for (or even endorses) your peculiar
> views about awareness of language change, I'd be grateful for a
> reference slightly better than 'read three volumes'.
Don't expect a reference; Labov gives no such explanation or
endorsement.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
<1eff035c-aa5f-484e...@rj6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
"benl...@ihug.co.nz" <benl...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> If Labov gives an explanation for (or even endorses) your peculiar
> views about awareness of language change, I'd be grateful for a
> reference slightly better than 'read three volumes'.
Don't expect a reference; Labov gives no such explanation or
endorsement.
Nathan
--
Department of Linguistics
Swarthmore College
http://sanders.phonologist.org/
R H Draney
Sep 30, 2012, 4:23:50 PM9/30/12
to
Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>
>On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>>Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>
>>>Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>>complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>>mash."
>>
>>But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>
>Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>in India?
In MyE, "curry", like "puree", is a verb...you'd no more ask for "a curry" than
>>>complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>>mash."
>>
>>But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>
>Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>in India?
you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
R H Draney
Sep 30, 2012, 4:30:23 PM9/30/12
to
Adam Funk filted:
>
>On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>
>> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
>> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
>
>Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
When life hands them to me, I make...sorry; mind wandered a bit there....r
>On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>
>> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
>> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
>
>Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
Brian M. Scott
Sep 30, 2012, 4:40:40 PM9/30/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 16:03:26 +0100, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:ui3mj9x...@news.ducksburg.com> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
> On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:26:43 +0100, Adam Funk
>><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
>><news:33kjj9x...@news.ducksburg.com> in
>> sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
>> [...]
>>> I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival
>>> gender inflection into English for one word only.
>> For [me], 'naive' is the adjective and 'naïf' the noun (in
them used.
[...]
Brian
<a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
<news:ui3mj9x...@news.ducksburg.com> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
> On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 17:26:43 +0100, Adam Funk
>><a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in
>><news:33kjj9x...@news.ducksburg.com> in
>> sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
>> [...]
>>> I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival
>>> gender inflection into English for one word only.
>> English).
> Oops. Is there any good reason for that, though?
For my usage? It reflects the way that I've seen and heard
> Oops. Is there any good reason for that, though?
them used.
[...]
Brian
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 30, 2012, 4:50:13 PM9/30/12
to
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/snag?q=snag
2 North American informal catch or obtain:
"it’s the first time they’ve snagged the star for a photo"
Brian M. Scott
Sep 30, 2012, 4:52:40 PM9/30/12
to
On 30 Sep 2012 13:30:23 -0700, R H Draney
<dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
<news:k4aa4...@drn.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
> Adam Funk filted:
>>On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
>>> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
>>Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
> When life hands them to me, I make...[...]
Theorems!
Brian
<dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in
<news:k4aa4...@drn.newsguy.com> in
sci.lang,alt.religion.kibology,alt.usage.english:
> Adam Funk filted:
>>On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
>>> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
>>Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
Theorems!
Brian
Joachim Pense
Sep 30, 2012, 5:01:06 PM9/30/12
to
Am 30.09.2012 18:56, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> Note, BTW, the attribution of "funny k" to Mel Brooks.
>
First time I heard of the "funny k" was in a German translation of the
>
> Note, BTW, the attribution of "funny k" to Mel Brooks.
>
piece "The Sunshine Boys" (written 1972 by Neil Simon) in a theatre in
Wiesbaden in the early-to-mid seventies.
Joachim
Joachim Pense
Sep 30, 2012, 5:06:44 PM9/30/12
to
Am 30.09.2012 19:03, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> Pronunciation of <er> as a form of shwa? That was not taught to us in
> the mid 1960s, so it probably was not officially recognized at that
> time.
>
It was certainly widespread in many dialects at that time. I doubt that
>
> Pronunciation of <er> as a form of shwa? That was not taught to us in
> the mid 1960s, so it probably was not officially recognized at that
> time.
>
it is new.
Joachim
Jerry Friedman
Sep 30, 2012, 5:12:38 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 2:24 pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
> you'd no more ask for "a curry" than you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
That's a bit surprising, since the original sense in Tamil was a noun,
and the noun derived from it is first attested in English in 1598,
whereas the verb derived from the noun isn't attested till 1839
(OED). But stranger things have happened.
--
Jerry Friedman
> Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
> >On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>Peter T. Daniels filted:
>
> >>>Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
> >>>complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
> >>>mash."
>
> >>But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>
> >Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
> >in India?
>
> In MyE, "curry", like "puree", is a verb...
And the associated noun is "currycomb"?
> >>Peter T. Daniels filted:
>
> >>>Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
> >>>complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
> >>>mash."
>
> >>But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>
> >Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
> >in India?
>
> In MyE, "curry", like "puree", is a verb...
> you'd no more ask for "a curry" than you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
and the noun derived from it is first attested in English in 1598,
whereas the verb derived from the noun isn't attested till 1839
(OED). But stranger things have happened.
--
Jerry Friedman
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 30, 2012, 5:15:45 PM9/30/12
to
60s) did not take him "many years". However, he made crucial use of
data collected in 1933 for the Linguistic Atlas of New England, from
which he was able to show that the centralization variable was part of
a change in progress, and not just a stable age-grading pattern.
Just for fun, there's a photo here of one of Labov's original
informants:
http://www.mvtimes.com/2011/08/16/50-years-language-study-began-marthas-vineyard-6918/
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 30, 2012, 5:31:29 PM9/30/12
to
thousands of examples. Its popularity as takeaway food in England will
give you numerous hits on "go out for a curry" or the catch-phrase "I
could murder a curry". Of course, if you're ordering in a restaurant
where there are numerous such dishes on the menu, you will want to be
more specific.
Bill Marcum
Sep 30, 2012, 5:47:30 PM9/30/12
to
On 09/28/2012 01:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> He's in rehab, and officially she's his six-week "rehab counselor,"
> hired by his father to ease him through the transition into drug-free
> life.
>
Interesting. The movie "They Might Be Giants" also had a female Dr.
Watson who was a p-sychiatrist. George C. Scott as Holmes (actually a
modern day Don Quixote who thought he was Holmes).
> He's in rehab, and officially she's his six-week "rehab counselor,"
> hired by his father to ease him through the transition into drug-free
> life.
>
Interesting. The movie "They Might Be Giants" also had a female Dr.
Watson who was a p-sychiatrist. George C. Scott as Holmes (actually a
modern day Don Quixote who thought he was Holmes).
Paul Wolff
Sep 30, 2012, 5:46:28 PM9/30/12
to
In message <k48gh7$eld$1...@dont-email.me>, pauljk <paul....@xtra.co.nz>
writes
>
>"Christian Weisgerber" <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote in message
>news:k478ua$1b40$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de...
>> Andrew B <bul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> >>>>>>http://www.wikistrike.com/article-la-carte-de-france-vue-de-l-etrange...
>>>
>>> I'm also not sure why the "English" (either cultivated or not) refer to
>>> everything in English except "Jeanne d'Arc" and "Champaign" (?), whereas
>>> the uncultivated Americans use colloquial French.
>>
>> You are taking this much too seriously. Obviously it is not how
>> the <others> perceive France, but how the French think that the
>> <others> perceive France.
>>
>> I think the "France as seen by the Germans" map *is* a reasonable
>> if jocular summary of the stereotypes prevalent in Germany ("wine,
>> baguette, and beret"), although you can quibble with some details;
>> e.g., I didn't know what chouchen was, so I seriously doubt that
>> it is widely known in Germany.
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with your "Obviously it is not how
>the <others> perceive France, but how the French think that
>the <others> perceive France."
>
>Perhaps the word "chouchen" is used because the map with
><others'> perceptions is intended for the French audience.
>If the map said "Honigwein" the intended audience wouldn't
>know what that means.
>
And au contraire as far as the unFrench are concerned. My thought about
chouchen was a variety of choucroute. Honey-wine, give or take an
umlaut, is easy to interpret.
--
Paul
writes
>
>"Christian Weisgerber" <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote in message
>news:k478ua$1b40$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de...
>> Andrew B <bul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> >>>>>>http://www.wikistrike.com/article-la-carte-de-france-vue-de-l-etrange...
>>>
>>> I'm also not sure why the "English" (either cultivated or not) refer to
>>> everything in English except "Jeanne d'Arc" and "Champaign" (?), whereas
>>> the uncultivated Americans use colloquial French.
>>
>> You are taking this much too seriously. Obviously it is not how
>> the <others> perceive France, but how the French think that the
>> <others> perceive France.
>>
>> I think the "France as seen by the Germans" map *is* a reasonable
>> if jocular summary of the stereotypes prevalent in Germany ("wine,
>> baguette, and beret"), although you can quibble with some details;
>> e.g., I didn't know what chouchen was, so I seriously doubt that
>> it is widely known in Germany.
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with your "Obviously it is not how
>the <others> perceive France, but how the French think that
>the <others> perceive France."
>
>Perhaps the word "chouchen" is used because the map with
><others'> perceptions is intended for the French audience.
>If the map said "Honigwein" the intended audience wouldn't
>know what that means.
>
And au contraire as far as the unFrench are concerned. My thought about
chouchen was a variety of choucroute. Honey-wine, give or take an
umlaut, is easy to interpret.
--
Paul
Paul Wolff
Sep 30, 2012, 5:49:10 PM9/30/12
to
In message <k46var$laa$1...@dont-email.me>, Andrew B <bul...@gmail.com>
writes
>On 29/09/2012 08:43, pauljk wrote:
>> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
>> news:q3fhj9x...@news.ducksburg.com...
>>> On 2012-09-28, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Sep 28, 12:19 pm, James Silverton <jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2012 2:05 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>>> > On Sep 27, 8:00 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> I like these maps of France.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>http://www.wikistrike.com/article-la-carte-de-france-vue-de-l-etrange...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Very nice (though I've only spent a few days in France), but do
>>>>> > assiduous watchers of Fox News really associate France with a
>>>>> hexagon?
>>>>>
>>>>> The term "l'Hexagone" for mainland France is quite common in French
>>>>> newspapers and magazines.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>> I believe you, and I like the term "hexagonal French", but do
>>>> (stereotyped) uncultivated Fox News fans know that?
>>>
>>> It does seem a bit farfetched.
>>
>> One has to remember, the map doesn't faithfully represent
>> what the foreigners know about France but what the French
>> think they do.
>>
>> You two seem to suggest, the French assume the Fox News
>> fans are more knowledgeable than they, in fact, are. :-)
>
Thus proving that the French are all at sixes and sevens.
--
Paul
writes
>On 29/09/2012 08:43, pauljk wrote:
>> "Adam Funk" <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote in message
>> news:q3fhj9x...@news.ducksburg.com...
>>> On 2012-09-28, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Sep 28, 12:19 pm, James Silverton <jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 9/28/2012 2:05 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>>> > On Sep 27, 8:00 am, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> I like these maps of France.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>http://www.wikistrike.com/article-la-carte-de-france-vue-de-l-etrange...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Very nice (though I've only spent a few days in France), but do
>>>>> > assiduous watchers of Fox News really associate France with a
>>>>> hexagon?
>>>>>
>>>>> The term "l'Hexagone" for mainland France is quite common in French
>>>>> newspapers and magazines.
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>>> I believe you, and I like the term "hexagonal French", but do
>>>> (stereotyped) uncultivated Fox News fans know that?
>>>
>>> It does seem a bit farfetched.
>>
>> One has to remember, the map doesn't faithfully represent
>> what the foreigners know about France but what the French
>> think they do.
>>
>> You two seem to suggest, the French assume the Fox News
>> fans are more knowledgeable than they, in fact, are. :-)
>
>I'm also not sure why the "English" (either cultivated or not) refer to
>everything in English except "Jeanne d'Arc" and "Champaign" (?),
>whereas the uncultivated Americans use colloquial French.
>
>Incidentally, the "hexagon" as drawn is in fact heptagonal.
>I'm also not sure why the "English" (either cultivated or not) refer to
>everything in English except "Jeanne d'Arc" and "Champaign" (?),
>whereas the uncultivated Americans use colloquial French.
>
>
Thus proving that the French are all at sixes and sevens.
--
Paul
Bill Marcum
Sep 30, 2012, 5:59:32 PM9/30/12
to
On 09/30/2012 11:03 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>
>> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
>> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
>
> Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
>
>
You say lemmayta and I say lemmahta...
> On 2012-09-29, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>>
>> I do, but I also used 'lemmata' in my dissertation, just
>> because I could, so that doesn't mean much!
>
> Sure, I like "lemmata" too.
>
>
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 30, 2012, 7:21:37 PM9/30/12
to
On Oct 1, 1:42 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 12:25 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 29.09.2012 22:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 11:22 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> > >> Am 29.09.2012 14:43, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > >>> On Sep 29, 1:53 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sep 29, 5:15 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Am 28.09.2012 22:48, schrieb benli...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> > >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 28, 1:20 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> They may not recognize their diachronic significance, but they
> > >>>>>>>> certainly do notice them.
>
> > >>>>>>> Once again, how is that not _exactly_ what I have been saying?
>
> > >>>>>> Because what you said, several days ago, was:
>
> > >>>>>> "People _don't_ notice language change. That's how it can happen!"
>
> > >>>>> If I don't notice the diachronic significance of a change, then I don't
> > >>>>> notice the change. I only may notice the variation. So I don't see a
> > >>>>> contradiction in what Peter wrote here.
>
> > >>>> What we were discussing was the existence (or lack) of recorded
> > >>>> comments on AusEng pronunciation from the early years. So even if
> > >>>> Peter's general claim were correct in the sense you and he propose, it
> > >>>> would not explain an absence of such comments, since people may
> > >>>> perfectly well comment on differences without giving a historical
> > >>>> explanation of them.
>
> > >>> Wait a minute ... the absence of comments on "language change" shows
> > >>> that they recognized that "language change" was proceeding all around
> > >>> them, just as it always had been and always will?
>
> > >>>> Certainly if someone is comparing two different dialects of a
> > >>>> language, they may notice differences without being aware of their
> > >>>> diachronic significance (that one dialect is innovative relative to
> > >>>> the other). But can that be true of generational differences? If
> > >>>> grandma notices the young folks talking in a new way, she has noticed
> > >>>> a change.
>
> > >>> She has noticed what YOU CALL a change. What she has noticed is that
> > >>> they are talking sloppy or wrong and tries to correct them. She hopes
> > >>> they'll grow out of it as they grow out of their adolescence.
>
> > >>> Pretty obviously, that's a denial of the existence or possibility or
> > >>> acceptability of change.
>
> > >>>> She knows she didn't talk that way when she was their age.
> > >>>> She may attribute it to moral decline, or foreign corruption, or
> > >>>> whatever; she may not know whether the change will last or be just a
> > >>>> passing fad. But it would seem very perverse to say that she has not
> > >>>> noticed a change.
>
> > >>> Why do you claim that any difference is a change? Why can you not
> > >>> accept that it is simply a difference -- and that the origin of
> > >>> differences became a topic of academic study for a handful of
> > >>> scholars, that has still, over 200 years later, not filtered down to
> > >>> the gen.pub.?
>
> > >> Everyone notices that "gay" meant something different 50 years ago. A
> > >> difference between earlier and today is called a change.
>
> > > No. It is a difference. It is an added meaning. It is not grasped as a
> > > change in the language, because the concept of "change in a language"
> > > is not available. In this case, it's not a mistake or merely a
> > > difference, but an improvement. (Except to those who think it's a
> > > corruption.)
>
> > An added meaning is not perceived as a change?
>
> It's an addition to the dictionary, not a change to the language.
> (Remember, words haven't "really" been created until they appear in a
> dictionary.)
>
> Not the linguist view. The gen.pop. view. (In case the quibble faction
> is itching for something else to quibble about.)
I think we really need to get clear about who qualifies as a
"linguist", the sort of person uniquely capable of understanding that
languages change. So for example, when Caxton (1490) writes
"...certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was
vsed and spoken whan I was borne" (just a few lines before the "eggs"
anecdote we discussed recently)...is he being a linguist?
> On Sep 30, 12:25 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 29.09.2012 22:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > On Sep 29, 11:22 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> > >> Am 29.09.2012 14:43, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > >>> On Sep 29, 1:53 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > >>>> On Sep 29, 5:15 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Am 28.09.2012 22:48, schrieb benli...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> > >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 28, 1:20 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> They may not recognize their diachronic significance, but they
> > >>>>>>>> certainly do notice them.
>
> > >>>>>>> Once again, how is that not _exactly_ what I have been saying?
>
> > >>>>>> Because what you said, several days ago, was:
>
> > >>>>>> "People _don't_ notice language change. That's how it can happen!"
>
> > >>>>> If I don't notice the diachronic significance of a change, then I don't
> > >>>>> notice the change. I only may notice the variation. So I don't see a
> > >>>>> contradiction in what Peter wrote here.
>
> > >>>> What we were discussing was the existence (or lack) of recorded
> > >>>> comments on AusEng pronunciation from the early years. So even if
> > >>>> Peter's general claim were correct in the sense you and he propose, it
> > >>>> would not explain an absence of such comments, since people may
> > >>>> perfectly well comment on differences without giving a historical
> > >>>> explanation of them.
>
> > >>> Wait a minute ... the absence of comments on "language change" shows
> > >>> that they recognized that "language change" was proceeding all around
> > >>> them, just as it always had been and always will?
>
> > >>>> Certainly if someone is comparing two different dialects of a
> > >>>> language, they may notice differences without being aware of their
> > >>>> diachronic significance (that one dialect is innovative relative to
> > >>>> the other). But can that be true of generational differences? If
> > >>>> grandma notices the young folks talking in a new way, she has noticed
> > >>>> a change.
>
> > >>> She has noticed what YOU CALL a change. What she has noticed is that
> > >>> they are talking sloppy or wrong and tries to correct them. She hopes
> > >>> they'll grow out of it as they grow out of their adolescence.
>
> > >>> Pretty obviously, that's a denial of the existence or possibility or
> > >>> acceptability of change.
>
> > >>>> She knows she didn't talk that way when she was their age.
> > >>>> She may attribute it to moral decline, or foreign corruption, or
> > >>>> whatever; she may not know whether the change will last or be just a
> > >>>> passing fad. But it would seem very perverse to say that she has not
> > >>>> noticed a change.
>
> > >>> Why do you claim that any difference is a change? Why can you not
> > >>> accept that it is simply a difference -- and that the origin of
> > >>> differences became a topic of academic study for a handful of
> > >>> scholars, that has still, over 200 years later, not filtered down to
> > >>> the gen.pub.?
>
> > >> Everyone notices that "gay" meant something different 50 years ago. A
> > >> difference between earlier and today is called a change.
>
> > > No. It is a difference. It is an added meaning. It is not grasped as a
> > > change in the language, because the concept of "change in a language"
> > > is not available. In this case, it's not a mistake or merely a
> > > difference, but an improvement. (Except to those who think it's a
> > > corruption.)
>
> > An added meaning is not perceived as a change?
>
> It's an addition to the dictionary, not a change to the language.
> (Remember, words haven't "really" been created until they appear in a
> dictionary.)
>
> Not the linguist view. The gen.pop. view. (In case the quibble faction
> is itching for something else to quibble about.)
I think we really need to get clear about who qualifies as a
"linguist", the sort of person uniquely capable of understanding that
languages change. So for example, when Caxton (1490) writes
"...certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was
vsed and spoken whan I was borne" (just a few lines before the "eggs"
anecdote we discussed recently)...is he being a linguist?
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 7:26:16 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 8:38 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>>> To me, it sounds like a very hodge-podge way of going about things. What
>>>> happens to children who move to another school district or worse to
>>>> another state? Faced with totally different courses, do they have to
>>>> start over?
>>
>>> Why would the courses be totally different?
>>
>> Because you have said they are determined by local bodies. It is not
>> simply a case of determining what the subject content is and whether
>> they are learning science or religion. When things are taught is also
>> vital to ensure that children can transfer from school to school without
>> getting too far behind.
>
> So where does "totally different" come from?
>
Generally speaking, different areas are different. One region thinks
reading, writing and 'rithmetic are sufficient on their own; another
thinks a foreign language is important; the next thinks ballet is
essential; the one after that insists everyone does woodwork, while yet
another won't countenance anything that's not mentioned directly in the
Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or whatever.
I believe strongly in a national curriculum where every student learns
more or less the same things in each subject area he/she does, not on
the same day, but at least in the same year, although the subjects are
not necessarily taught in the same way.
In other words, content is dictated, but teaching methods and the
resources used to attain those ends are decided by individual schools.
There should also be examinations at appropriate times, set, marked and
moderated by an outside body, and schools that regularly under-perform
should be checked to see whether they need more help or just a kick up
the backside.
Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
--
Robert Bannister
> On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sep 28, 8:38 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>>> To me, it sounds like a very hodge-podge way of going about things. What
>>>> happens to children who move to another school district or worse to
>>>> another state? Faced with totally different courses, do they have to
>>>> start over?
>>
>>> Why would the courses be totally different?
>>
>> Because you have said they are determined by local bodies. It is not
>> simply a case of determining what the subject content is and whether
>> they are learning science or religion. When things are taught is also
>> vital to ensure that children can transfer from school to school without
>> getting too far behind.
>
> So where does "totally different" come from?
>
Generally speaking, different areas are different. One region thinks
reading, writing and 'rithmetic are sufficient on their own; another
thinks a foreign language is important; the next thinks ballet is
essential; the one after that insists everyone does woodwork, while yet
another won't countenance anything that's not mentioned directly in the
Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or whatever.
I believe strongly in a national curriculum where every student learns
more or less the same things in each subject area he/she does, not on
the same day, but at least in the same year, although the subjects are
not necessarily taught in the same way.
In other words, content is dictated, but teaching methods and the
resources used to attain those ends are decided by individual schools.
There should also be examinations at appropriate times, set, marked and
moderated by an outside body, and schools that regularly under-perform
should be checked to see whether they need more help or just a kick up
the backside.
Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 7:35:00 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 10:33 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>> On 29/09/12 8:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And who does that? *"I'll add some puree to give my dish extra
>>>>> richness."
>>>>
>>>>> The pureed content must be specified!
>>>>
>>>> I have met "a pur=E9e of X" in various menus and recipes.
pourri? It has a powerful aroma.
--
Robert Bannister
> On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>
>>> On Sep 29, 9:31=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/12 8:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And who does that? *"I'll add some puree to give my dish extra
>>>>> richness."
>>>>
>>>>> The pureed content must be specified!
>>>>
>>>> I have met "a pur=E9e of X" in various menus and recipes.
>>>
>>> Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>> complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>> mash."
>>
>> But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>
> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
> in India?
>
Is that the famous one cooked in an earthenware pot and known as pot
>>> Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>> complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>> mash."
>>
>> But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>
> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
> in India?
>
pourri? It has a powerful aroma.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 7:36:44 PM9/30/12
to
although I would ignore small fry? (Admittedly "fry-up" is more usual).
--
Robert Bannister
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 7:37:54 PM9/30/12
to
Indian restaurants offer "chicken curry," "lamb curry," "goat curry,"
etc., or "curried chicken," etc.,and the host might ask if you'd like
a curry today, but unlike in England, where there seems to be a
generic takeout (UK: takeaway) count-noun dish called "a curry," you
can't simply order either "curry" or "a curry."
But more likely, each dish will have its own proper name.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 7:39:30 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 4:50 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
By underhanded means. If you go through the agent and all the proper
channels, and enter a contract and all that, you probably haven't
"snagged" her. The example sentence would describe what papparazzi do.
wrote:
channels, and enter a contract and all that, you probably haven't
"snagged" her. The example sentence would describe what papparazzi do.
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 7:40:17 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 12:06 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>> On 29/09/12 11:27 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>>> Am 29.09.2012 15:31, schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
>>>> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, and I observe that for lexical, semantical, grammatical
>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>> but not for sound changes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What sound changes are you thinking of that happened or are happening
>>>>>> without people noticing?
>>>>>
>>>>> All of them.
>>>>
>>>> What recent or ongoing sound changes exactly do you have in mind
>>>> where you could have observed people's reactions to them?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know of any recent or ongoing sound changes (in German). That's
>>> why I feel they are difficult to be noticed.
>>
>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced "ü" in the past. Today, most of
>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>>
>>
>
> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
> according to the spelling.
I'm sure I remember people saying "sümpathisch", whereas now everybody
>>
>>
>
> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
> according to the spelling.
says "simpathisch". Perhaps it's just my ear.
--
Robert Bannister
DKleinecke
Sep 30, 2012, 7:41:09 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 5:51 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 12:18 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 8:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >
>
> > There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>
> > > movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
> > > the state has suffered ever since.
>
> > Proposition 13 makes it possible for senior citizens to keep their
> > houses. Until the depression hit it was even possible to turn your
> > remaining taxes into a lien on the property. It was scary there for a
> > while but I seem to be able to put together the taxes on my house -
> > but it hurts. Helps that Prop 13 cuts my taxes to half what they would
> > have been.
>
> And simultaneously and consequently cuts state services in half.
>
> The asinine "referendum" procedure in California has done far more
> harm than good, even though it started out as a "good government"
> measure.
>
> Pure democracy works only in the tiniest polities, where everyone
> knows everyone else and grasps the consequences of every decision for
> everyone. It works (or worked?) in the New England towns where it was
> devised. It doesn't work elsewhere.
>
> That's why our government is a democratic republic (if you can keep
> it, as Franklin said), not a democracy.
Just to remind you that it was not all bad.
As I mentioned once before, I was brought up to recognize that Hiram
Johnson took the state of California away from the SP Railroad and
gave it back to the people. The tool he used was the referendum.
There are good referendums. We are voting in November to abolish the
death penalty.
> On Sep 30, 12:18 am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 29, 8:58 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >
>
> > There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>
> > > movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
> > > the state has suffered ever since.
>
> > Proposition 13 makes it possible for senior citizens to keep their
> > houses. Until the depression hit it was even possible to turn your
> > remaining taxes into a lien on the property. It was scary there for a
> > while but I seem to be able to put together the taxes on my house -
> > but it hurts. Helps that Prop 13 cuts my taxes to half what they would
> > have been.
>
> And simultaneously and consequently cuts state services in half.
>
> The asinine "referendum" procedure in California has done far more
> harm than good, even though it started out as a "good government"
> measure.
>
> Pure democracy works only in the tiniest polities, where everyone
> knows everyone else and grasps the consequences of every decision for
> everyone. It works (or worked?) in the New England towns where it was
> devised. It doesn't work elsewhere.
>
> That's why our government is a democratic republic (if you can keep
> it, as Franklin said), not a democracy.
Just to remind you that it was not all bad.
As I mentioned once before, I was brought up to recognize that Hiram
Johnson took the state of California away from the SP Railroad and
gave it back to the people. The tool he used was the referendum.
There are good referendums. We are voting in November to abolish the
death penalty.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 7:47:21 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 7:26 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/12 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Sep 28, 8:38 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> To me, it sounds like a very hodge-podge way of going about things. What
> >>>> happens to children who move to another school district or worse to
> >>>> another state? Faced with totally different courses, do they have to
> >>>> start over?
>
> >>> Why would the courses be totally different?
>
> >> Because you have said they are determined by local bodies. It is not
> >> simply a case of determining what the subject content is and whether
> >> they are learning science or religion. When things are taught is also
> >> vital to ensure that children can transfer from school to school without
> >> getting too far behind.
>
> > So where does "totally different" come from?
>
> Generally speaking, different areas are different. One region thinks
> reading, writing and 'rithmetic are sufficient on their own; another
> thinks a foreign language is important; the next thinks ballet is
> essential; the one after that insists everyone does woodwork, while yet
> another won't countenance anything that's not mentioned directly in the
> Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or whatever.
Different areas are _somewhat_ different, not _totally_ different.
> On 30/09/12 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >>> On Sep 28, 8:38 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> To me, it sounds like a very hodge-podge way of going about things. What
> >>>> happens to children who move to another school district or worse to
> >>>> another state? Faced with totally different courses, do they have to
> >>>> start over?
>
> >>> Why would the courses be totally different?
>
> >> Because you have said they are determined by local bodies. It is not
> >> simply a case of determining what the subject content is and whether
> >> they are learning science or religion. When things are taught is also
> >> vital to ensure that children can transfer from school to school without
> >> getting too far behind.
>
> > So where does "totally different" come from?
>
> Generally speaking, different areas are different. One region thinks
> reading, writing and 'rithmetic are sufficient on their own; another
> thinks a foreign language is important; the next thinks ballet is
> essential; the one after that insists everyone does woodwork, while yet
> another won't countenance anything that's not mentioned directly in the
> Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or whatever.
> I believe strongly in a national curriculum where every student learns
> more or less the same things in each subject area he/she does, not on
> the same day, but at least in the same year, although the subjects are
> not necessarily taught in the same way.
long as you don't force the folks whose people have been there 50,000
years to assimilate to it), but not for a large and diverse country
like the USA.
> In other words, content is dictated, but teaching methods and the
> resources used to attain those ends are decided by individual schools.
> There should also be examinations at appropriate times, set, marked and
> moderated by an outside body, and schools that regularly under-perform
> should be checked to see whether they need more help or just a kick up
> the backside.
>
> Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
> university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
> oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
> every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
> in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
school districts.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 30, 2012, 8:11:56 PM9/30/12
to
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 8:16:29 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 11:27 AM, benl...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
> On Sep 30, 2:57 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>> Question begs question (begs itself?).
>>
>> Are you perhaps using the new (and obviously incorrect) meaning of "begs
>> the question"? I cannot see it is avoiding the question.
>
> "Avoiding the question" is neither the original nor the new meaning.
> I was using the traditional meaning, which is "assumes the correctness
> of one's own position in the present argument".
> The new use, much deplored, is more or less equivalent to "raises the
> question".
> BUT, I see that both dictionaries closest to hand also give a sense
> "evade the point at issue" (Macquarie), "evade difficulty" (COD), the
> latter qualified as (pop.). I was not familiar with that usage.
> "Begs itself" is, of course, a joke.
Fairy nuff.
>
>>
>> You are the one claiming that
>>
>>> linguistic changes "give the impression of pure stasis". You suggested
>>> that people couldn't "conceptualize" such a thing as ongoing
>>> historical change. But people can and do conceptualize such a thing in
>>> all kinds of aspects of culture. Why should they not do so with
>>> respect to language?
>>
>> Indeed. We all rush out to buy the latest iphone, but hate linguistic
>> change. Or do we? I think our linguistic iphones are the latest gimmicky
>> phrases used by pop stars or other celebrities - to demonstrate how far
>> I am behind the times, I'll offer "sick" for "great" as being a
>> linguistic innovation that is/was greedily accepted as was "like" or
>> "goes" for "says".
>>
>> Strange pronunciations and strange vocabulary items are, I would
>> suggest, easily accepted, but grammatical innovations are resisted, at
>> least by the old.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Bannister
>
--
Robert Bannister
> On Sep 30, 2:57 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, benli...@ihug.co.nz wrote:
>>
>>> Question begs question (begs itself?).
>>
>> Are you perhaps using the new (and obviously incorrect) meaning of "begs
>> the question"? I cannot see it is avoiding the question.
>
> "Avoiding the question" is neither the original nor the new meaning.
> I was using the traditional meaning, which is "assumes the correctness
> of one's own position in the present argument".
> The new use, much deplored, is more or less equivalent to "raises the
> question".
> BUT, I see that both dictionaries closest to hand also give a sense
> "evade the point at issue" (Macquarie), "evade difficulty" (COD), the
> latter qualified as (pop.). I was not familiar with that usage.
> "Begs itself" is, of course, a joke.
Fairy nuff.
>
>>
>> You are the one claiming that
>>
>>> linguistic changes "give the impression of pure stasis". You suggested
>>> that people couldn't "conceptualize" such a thing as ongoing
>>> historical change. But people can and do conceptualize such a thing in
>>> all kinds of aspects of culture. Why should they not do so with
>>> respect to language?
>>
>> Indeed. We all rush out to buy the latest iphone, but hate linguistic
>> change. Or do we? I think our linguistic iphones are the latest gimmicky
>> phrases used by pop stars or other celebrities - to demonstrate how far
>> I am behind the times, I'll offer "sick" for "great" as being a
>> linguistic innovation that is/was greedily accepted as was "like" or
>> "goes" for "says".
>>
>> Strange pronunciations and strange vocabulary items are, I would
>> suggest, easily accepted, but grammatical innovations are resisted, at
>> least by the old.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Bannister
>
--
Robert Bannister
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Sep 30, 2012, 8:18:23 PM9/30/12
to
On Oct 1, 8:38 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 2:01 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 11:54 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 30, 4:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 10:07 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 30, 1:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Does the Queen of Engliand notice that her grandsons "drop" their
> > > > > > > > final consonants? Does she urge them to be more careful in their
> > > > > > > > public appearances, at least? Evidently not.
>
> > > > > > > "Evidently" here seems to be used in a sense completely divorced from
> > > > > > > its cognate "evidence". It seems that PTD notices the grandsons
> > > > > > > dropping consonants. I am pretty sure that people all over England
> > > > > > > notice it (though it is so common among that generation of the upper
> > > > > > > class that it's hardly mention-worthy any more).
>
> > > > > > If it's so common, why would anyone notice?
>
> > > > > People did indeed notice, long ago. This is a change that has been
> > > > > happening over the last three decades or so. It's just that it's not
> > > > > news any more.
>
> > > > People -- perhaps not even only boys any more -- are sent to Eton to
> > > > have that sort of thing beaten out of them.
>
> > > They may have been at one time. Evidently it doesn't work so well any
> > > more.
>
> > > > Thirty years ago, the Princes were not speaking in public,
>
> > > Who are we talking about here? 30 years ago William was a babe in
> > > arms, and Harry was not yet born.
>
> > Who was it set the parameter at "the last three decades or so"?
>
> > > Prince Charles certainly did speak in public at that time.
>
> > > so no one
>
> > > > noticed the Royal Family doing it. I doubt Princess Diana did it in
> > > > public. Certainly Prince Charles did not and does not do it (a coup[le
> > > > of weeks ago we had an hour-long program of him describing home movies
> > > > to some unseen listener, and in that informal setting he would have
> > > > done so if he ever did).
>
> > > Your point?
>
> > Your claim that it's common for the Royal Family to talk like a
> > commoner is false.
>
> Rather, you have misunderstood my claim.
>
> > > Perhaps you think I was referring above simply to the history of
> > > English pronunciation in the Royal Family? No, they are simply an
> > > indication of how widely, and how far up the social ladder, these once
> > > stigmatized features have spread.-
>
> > When did Eton stop beating their boys?
>
> I have no idea, even of whether your presupposition is correct.
One of the more interesting bits in the "Story of English" TV series
(the "Muvver Tongue" episode) was John Wells commenting on recordings
of boys of the same age from Winchester (one of the better "Public
Schools"), in the 1960s vs 1980s. He pointed out a number of features
in the later recording which were "long regarded as Cockney or just
vulgar speech, now spreading both geographically and socially".
> On Oct 1, 2:01 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 29, 11:54 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 30, 4:35 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 5:53 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 30, 10:07 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 29, 4:57 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 30, 1:32 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Does the Queen of Engliand notice that her grandsons "drop" their
> > > > > > > > final consonants? Does she urge them to be more careful in their
> > > > > > > > public appearances, at least? Evidently not.
>
> > > > > > > "Evidently" here seems to be used in a sense completely divorced from
> > > > > > > its cognate "evidence". It seems that PTD notices the grandsons
> > > > > > > dropping consonants. I am pretty sure that people all over England
> > > > > > > notice it (though it is so common among that generation of the upper
> > > > > > > class that it's hardly mention-worthy any more).
>
> > > > > > If it's so common, why would anyone notice?
>
> > > > > People did indeed notice, long ago. This is a change that has been
> > > > > happening over the last three decades or so. It's just that it's not
> > > > > news any more.
>
> > > > People -- perhaps not even only boys any more -- are sent to Eton to
> > > > have that sort of thing beaten out of them.
>
> > > They may have been at one time. Evidently it doesn't work so well any
> > > more.
>
> > > > Thirty years ago, the Princes were not speaking in public,
>
> > > Who are we talking about here? 30 years ago William was a babe in
> > > arms, and Harry was not yet born.
>
> > Who was it set the parameter at "the last three decades or so"?
>
> > > Prince Charles certainly did speak in public at that time.
>
> > > so no one
>
> > > > noticed the Royal Family doing it. I doubt Princess Diana did it in
> > > > public. Certainly Prince Charles did not and does not do it (a coup[le
> > > > of weeks ago we had an hour-long program of him describing home movies
> > > > to some unseen listener, and in that informal setting he would have
> > > > done so if he ever did).
>
> > > Your point?
>
> > Your claim that it's common for the Royal Family to talk like a
> > commoner is false.
>
> Rather, you have misunderstood my claim.
>
> > > Perhaps you think I was referring above simply to the history of
> > > English pronunciation in the Royal Family? No, they are simply an
> > > indication of how widely, and how far up the social ladder, these once
> > > stigmatized features have spread.-
>
> > When did Eton stop beating their boys?
>
> I have no idea, even of whether your presupposition is correct.
One of the more interesting bits in the "Story of English" TV series
(the "Muvver Tongue" episode) was John Wells commenting on recordings
of boys of the same age from Winchester (one of the better "Public
Schools"), in the 1960s vs 1980s. He pointed out a number of features
in the later recording which were "long regarded as Cockney or just
vulgar speech, now spreading both geographically and socially".
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 30, 2012, 8:26:23 PM9/30/12
to
and a "takeaway menu". None of the dishes on either menu, except for one
dish, has "curry" in the name. That dish is simply named "curry"
preceded or followed by the name of the main ingredient, various meats,
king prawns or vegetables.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Sep 30, 2012, 8:27:11 PM9/30/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:35:00 +0800, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 30/09/12 10:33 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 9:31=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/12 8:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And who does that? *"I'll add some puree to give my dish extra
>>>>>> richness."
>>>>>
>>>>>> The pureed content must be specified!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have met "a pur=E9e of X" in various menus and recipes.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>>> complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>>> mash."
>>>
>>> But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>>
>> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>> in India?
>>
>
>Is that the famous one cooked in an earthenware pot and known as pot
>pourri? It has a powerful aroma.
That's the one!
>On 30/09/12 10:33 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 29, 9:31=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 29/09/12 8:28 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And who does that? *"I'll add some puree to give my dish extra
>>>>>> richness."
>>>>>
>>>>>> The pureed content must be specified!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have met "a pur=E9e of X" in various menus and recipes.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>>> complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>>> mash."
>>>
>>> But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>>
>> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>> in India?
>>
>
>Is that the famous one cooked in an earthenware pot and known as pot
>pourri? It has a powerful aroma.
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 8:36:09 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 11:39 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> _differences_ says nothing about whether those differences are
>>> interpreted as _changes_
>>
>> I think we've all grasped this point of yours by the tenth time you
>> made it...
>>
>>> (which they are not; they are interpreted as mistakes or as
>>> differences).
>>
>> ... it's just that we're a tad skeptical of this blanket claim of
>> yours.
>
> The only counter Ross has offered is that an Australian writer of the
> 1820s noted that AusE of his generation differend from something else
> that did not have London v > w.
>
> He has not quoted anything from his writer to indicate that he
> understood there was such a thing as "langauge change."
>
> I might refer again to Rudi Keller's book on the "invisible hand."
>
> It was interesting to learn that Australians refer to themselves as
> "currency" or "the Currency" (he's given it both ways). Over here,
> that's a word for cash money.
>
Duh. That's how they got the name. The currency issued by Governor
MacQuarie was considered inferior as were the Currency Lad and Lasses,
but in fact J. T. Bigge described them in 1820 as tall and slender, of
fair complexion, stronger and healthier than the English-born, ‘active
in their habits’, lively and assertive, and optimistic about the future;
and observed that these qualities provided ‘a remarkable exception to
the moral and physical character of their parents’, so they adopted the
term themselves.
--
Robert Bannister
> On Sep 29, 6:47 pm, na...@mips.inka.de (Christian Weisgerber) wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I cannot understand why you seem unable to grasp that observing
>> Peter T. Daniels <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> _differences_ says nothing about whether those differences are
>>> interpreted as _changes_
>>
>> I think we've all grasped this point of yours by the tenth time you
>> made it...
>>
>>> (which they are not; they are interpreted as mistakes or as
>>> differences).
>>
>> ... it's just that we're a tad skeptical of this blanket claim of
>> yours.
>
> The only counter Ross has offered is that an Australian writer of the
> 1820s noted that AusE of his generation differend from something else
> that did not have London v > w.
>
> He has not quoted anything from his writer to indicate that he
> understood there was such a thing as "langauge change."
>
> I might refer again to Rudi Keller's book on the "invisible hand."
>
> It was interesting to learn that Australians refer to themselves as
> "currency" or "the Currency" (he's given it both ways). Over here,
> that's a word for cash money.
>
Duh. That's how they got the name. The currency issued by Governor
MacQuarie was considered inferior as were the Currency Lad and Lasses,
but in fact J. T. Bigge described them in 1820 as tall and slender, of
fair complexion, stronger and healthier than the English-born, ‘active
in their habits’, lively and assertive, and optimistic about the future;
and observed that these qualities provided ‘a remarkable exception to
the moral and physical character of their parents’, so they adopted the
term themselves.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 8:50:25 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 9:24 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> language" can exist.
Surely all those who have awareness of language whether of their own or
> They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> language" can exist.
of a second or third language are equally capable of recognising such
things, although they may not have the specialised vocabulary to express
the thought in the same way as linguists.
>
>> I've referred to young people but of course the same applies to any
>> small group whose slang or jargon might or might not get into wider use.
>
> Vocabulary is, as always, trivial.
I'd put money on "there's" taking over from "there are" completely,
probably within my lifetime. It just needs the extra step of writing it
"theres". That is a grammatical change that has taken place mainly over
the last thirty years, although I am sure there are examples from well
before that time.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 9:00:31 PM9/30/12
to
On 29/09/12 8:54 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>> In German, the loss of the dative -e in many words (Im Haus < Im Hause)
>>> is pretty recent (last half century), and even older changes can be
>>> easily noticed by reading older texts.
>>
>> Off-topic here, but when would you say the change from Genitive to
>> Accusative took place in phrases like:
>> ein Glas kalten Wassers > ein Glas kaltes Wasser?
>
> It didn't change to the accusative. Rather, it's an apposition
> where both parts share the same case. Here are some examples,
> picked from Duden _Richtiges und gutes Deutsch_, with unambiguous
> case endings:
> ein Glas guter Wein (nominative)
> für einen Zentner kanadischen Weizen (accusative)
> bei einer Tasse duftendem Kaffee (dative)
>
> I don't know how old this construction is.
>
Thank you. I have never seen a Nominative construction before, but I
suppose it just occurs less commonly. I have seen and used Dative, so I
should have said "apposition" but it slipped my mind.
--
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>> In German, the loss of the dative -e in many words (Im Haus < Im Hause)
>>> is pretty recent (last half century), and even older changes can be
>>> easily noticed by reading older texts.
>>
>> Off-topic here, but when would you say the change from Genitive to
>> Accusative took place in phrases like:
>> ein Glas kalten Wassers > ein Glas kaltes Wasser?
>
> It didn't change to the accusative. Rather, it's an apposition
> where both parts share the same case. Here are some examples,
> picked from Duden _Richtiges und gutes Deutsch_, with unambiguous
> case endings:
> ein Glas guter Wein (nominative)
> für einen Zentner kanadischen Weizen (accusative)
> bei einer Tasse duftendem Kaffee (dative)
>
> I don't know how old this construction is.
>
Thank you. I have never seen a Nominative construction before, but I
suppose it just occurs less commonly. I have seen and used Dative, so I
should have said "apposition" but it slipped my mind.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 9:02:59 PM9/30/12
to
On 29/09/12 8:34 PM, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>> I think morphological changes are perceivable and observed as changes.
>
With some set phrases like "zu Hause", often written "zuhause" before
the Reform, hanging on till at least the middle of the century. I still
find "auf dem Lande" slipping out occasionally.
--
Robert Bannister
> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>> I think morphological changes are perceivable and observed as changes.
>> In German, the loss of the dative -e in many words (Im Haus < Im Hause)
>> is pretty recent (last half century),
>
> Mmm... first half of the 20th century?
>> is pretty recent (last half century),
>
>
With some set phrases like "zu Hause", often written "zuhause" before
the Reform, hanging on till at least the middle of the century. I still
find "auf dem Lande" slipping out occasionally.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 9:03:58 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 12:11 AM, Paul Madarasz wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
>> A "weekly commutation ticket" gets you 5 (or 7) round trips for a
>> reduced rate.
>>
> Interesting. I've only hear "commutation" in regard to saving people
> from judicial punishment, usually the barbaric death penalty.
What about from DC to AC?
--
Robert Bannister
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
>> A "weekly commutation ticket" gets you 5 (or 7) round trips for a
>> reduced rate.
>>
> Interesting. I've only hear "commutation" in regard to saving people
> from judicial punishment, usually the barbaric death penalty.
What about from DC to AC?
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Sep 30, 2012, 9:05:52 PM9/30/12
to
On 30/09/12 12:26 AM, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2012-09-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 5:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 7:47 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I will say what I think communicates the best to my audience.
>>>
>>>> Oh, Nathan won't like that. He thinks the best way to communicate with
>>>> a naif is to dump an immense flood of factoids all over them
>>>> regardless of their background.
>>>
>>> Is that a typo for "waif"?
>>
>> No. MW11C lists the non-diaresis spelling second, the reverse of the
>> entry for "naive."
>
>
> I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival gender inflection
> into English for one word only. The only other one I can think of is
> "blond(e)", & not many people switch that back & forth.
>
>
fiancé(e), né(e); not so common: divorcé(e).
--
Robert Bannister
> On 2012-09-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>> On Sep 28, 5:00 pm, Adam Funk <a24...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-09-28, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 27, 7:47 pm, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I will say what I think communicates the best to my audience.
>>>
>>>> Oh, Nathan won't like that. He thinks the best way to communicate with
>>>> a naif is to dump an immense flood of factoids all over them
>>>> regardless of their background.
>>>
>>> Is that a typo for "waif"?
>>
>> No. MW11C lists the non-diaresis spelling second, the reverse of the
>> entry for "naive."
>
>
> I don't see the point in borrowing French adjectival gender inflection
> into English for one word only. The only other one I can think of is
> "blond(e)", & not many people switch that back & forth.
>
>
fiancé(e), né(e); not so common: divorcé(e).
--
Robert Bannister
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 10:53:28 PM9/30/12
to
In article <iqle68lf1ghhhrptk...@4ax.com>, Mike L
<n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:52:46 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <k43k3...@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney
>><dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Bishop filted:
>>>>
>>>>In article
>>>><db73a8b5-354c-4fb4...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Jerry
>>>>Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sep 27, 1:14=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >I would say Marin County contains suburbs (pl).
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> >There is also a large
>>>>>> >mountain and a fair lot of wild seacoast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: The "large mountain" isn't for people living in the Rocky
Mountain =
>>>>>states.
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite. Or even parts of California.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, yes, the Saws.
>>>
>>>That's the *Snowy* Saws, pardner....r
>>
>>The Mother Saws or am I mistaken?
>
>You clearly have treasured memories of the place.
Bogie at 12 o'clock.
charles, what shall we do until then?
<n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 14:52:46 -0800, ctbi...@earthlink.net (Charles
>Bishop) wrote:
>
>>In article <k43k3...@drn.newsguy.com>, R H Draney
>><dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Bishop filted:
>>>>
>>>>In article
>>>><db73a8b5-354c-4fb4...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Jerry
>>>>Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sep 27, 1:14=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >I would say Marin County contains suburbs (pl).
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed.
>>>>>
>>>>>> >There is also a large
>>>>>> >mountain and a fair lot of wild seacoast.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note: The "large mountain" isn't for people living in the Rocky
Mountain =
>>>>>states.
>>>>>
>>>>>Quite. Or even parts of California.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, yes, the Saws.
>>>
>>>That's the *Snowy* Saws, pardner....r
>>
>>The Mother Saws or am I mistaken?
>
>You clearly have treasured memories of the place.
Bogie at 12 o'clock.
charles, what shall we do until then?
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 10:59:28 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<9105f6ec-de73-49a6...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
[snip-more people should]
>
>But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
>They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
>children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
>will talk correctly henceforth.
I'm going to jump in here, because I think I discovered what Peter means.
I think he means that when some form of language changes, it isn't seen as
a change, but a mistake. This is because those using the language don't
know, at that time, that this particular change will last and thus become
part of the language, thereby being noticed as a change. For the short
term, it's seen as a mistake because it's not the way you're supposed to
speak (or write). It's only with time and the approval of history that
it's seen as a change.
If I'm correct, it would have been better to have tried to explain it in
several different ways, rather than just repeating himself, even with the
added benefit of SHOUTING to try to make the point.
If I'm wrong, then, well.
charles, not the first time
<9105f6ec-de73-49a6...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
[snip-more people should]
>
>But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
>They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
>children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
>will talk correctly henceforth.
I'm going to jump in here, because I think I discovered what Peter means.
I think he means that when some form of language changes, it isn't seen as
a change, but a mistake. This is because those using the language don't
know, at that time, that this particular change will last and thus become
part of the language, thereby being noticed as a change. For the short
term, it's seen as a mistake because it's not the way you're supposed to
speak (or write). It's only with time and the approval of history that
it's seen as a change.
If I'm correct, it would have been better to have tried to explain it in
several different ways, rather than just repeating himself, even with the
added benefit of SHOUTING to try to make the point.
If I'm wrong, then, well.
charles, not the first time
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:06:44 PM9/30/12
to
In article <k47tq8$1idb$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>, na...@mips.inka.de
covering all cases. In the short term anything that is different from
"normal" will be seen as a mistake, error, improvement or a simple
difference. It's only long term that it will be seen as a change to the
language when history has had its say.
--
charles
>> I cannot understand why you seem unable to grasp that observing
>> _differences_ says nothing about whether those differences are
>> interpreted as _changes_
>
>I think we've all grasped this point of yours by the tenth time you
>made it...
Then you can ignore my previous post.
>> _differences_ says nothing about whether those differences are
>> interpreted as _changes_
>
>I think we've all grasped this point of yours by the tenth time you
>made it...
>
>> (which they are not; they are interpreted as mistakes or as
>> differences).
>
>... it's just that we're a tad skeptical of this blanket claim of
>yours.
I think he's right though I don't know if it can be a blanket statement
>> (which they are not; they are interpreted as mistakes or as
>> differences).
>
>... it's just that we're a tad skeptical of this blanket claim of
>yours.
covering all cases. In the short term anything that is different from
"normal" will be seen as a mistake, error, improvement or a simple
difference. It's only long term that it will be seen as a change to the
language when history has had its say.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:16:47 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<d313e9a4-f5b8-40a9...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>On Sep 29, 6:09=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> In article <fguc68hovbl1mr6238c5gjlme2drten...@4ax.com>, Paul Madarasz
>> <paul.madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
>> >>What PTAs do is raise money for extras. These days, those "extras"
>> >>include things like art and music classes.
>>
>> >And sometimes buy school supplies for the kids, since education has
>> >taken a back seat to more important things, like buying armaments that
>> >even the DoD doesn't want. =A0If the PTA comes up short, the teachers
>> >often supplement the shortages out of their own pocket.
>>
>> It doesn't appear that education has taken a back to anything else, at
>> least in CA. The amount spend on education is *fixed* in the budget.
>
>And the cost of education continues to increase. There would thus be
>less and less funds available for it every year.
I think, though I'm not sure, that it's fixed as a percentage. Other than
inflation, is there something else to cause the cost of education to rise?
>
>> There
>> is a proposition on the upcoming ballot that will increase taxes (sales,
>> mostly) for schools. However, the proposition doesn't say that the money
>> need be spent on educating. "For the Children" is a rallying cry to
>> increase taxes.
you have a number and summary?
I think it's a good idea that a state (or any government) has its income
and thus spending limited.
>
>> I'd be curious what the budgets were 50 years ago compared to now under
>> various conditions, such as per student, per teacher, per administrator,
>> capital expenses, usw.
>
>That's just about when Reagan began the murder of one of the nation's
>greatest systems of higher education -- when he put an end to free in-
>state tuition for the most deserving students, including at the
>flagship campuses of Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Perhaps the state couldn't afford it then. It certainly can't now.
--
charles
<d313e9a4-f5b8-40a9...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>On Sep 29, 6:09=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>> In article <fguc68hovbl1mr6238c5gjlme2drten...@4ax.com>, Paul Madarasz
>> <paul.madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
>> >>What PTAs do is raise money for extras. These days, those "extras"
>> >>include things like art and music classes.
>>
>> >And sometimes buy school supplies for the kids, since education has
>> >taken a back seat to more important things, like buying armaments that
>> >even the DoD doesn't want. =A0If the PTA comes up short, the teachers
>> >often supplement the shortages out of their own pocket.
>>
>> It doesn't appear that education has taken a back to anything else, at
>> least in CA. The amount spend on education is *fixed* in the budget.
>
>And the cost of education continues to increase. There would thus be
>less and less funds available for it every year.
I think, though I'm not sure, that it's fixed as a percentage. Other than
inflation, is there something else to cause the cost of education to rise?
>
>> There
>> is a proposition on the upcoming ballot that will increase taxes (sales,
>> mostly) for schools. However, the proposition doesn't say that the money
>> need be spent on educating. "For the Children" is a rallying cry to
>> increase taxes.
>
>There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
>the state has suffered ever since.
I don't think there is a referendum that made no new taxes possible. Do
>There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
>the state has suffered ever since.
you have a number and summary?
I think it's a good idea that a state (or any government) has its income
and thus spending limited.
>
>> I'd be curious what the budgets were 50 years ago compared to now under
>> various conditions, such as per student, per teacher, per administrator,
>> capital expenses, usw.
>
>That's just about when Reagan began the murder of one of the nation's
>greatest systems of higher education -- when he put an end to free in-
>state tuition for the most deserving students, including at the
>flagship campuses of Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Perhaps the state couldn't afford it then. It certainly can't now.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:18:24 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<5883b8a5-4752-44d9...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 9:04=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 10:59 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > So you've pushed the decision-making up one level, from town to
>> > county. That's one level too far up for the children's good.
>>
>> > A New Yorker wouldn't want a New York County school board making
>> > decisions binding on both (Dominican) Washington Heights and the
>> > (ritzy) Upper East Side. Their needs are very different. There are
>> > _neighborhood_ school boards in NYC.
>>
>> So poor neighbourhoods stay poor and ignorant while the rich ones
>> prosper? This is the danger - I'm not saying that is what actually happen=
>s.
>
>Taxes are not levied or apportioned by neighborhood. The whole city
>collects taxes from the entire population, and spends them as needed
>on the entire population.
Property taxes are levied by "neighborhood" with more expensive areas
paying more in property taxes. There are, however, no offical lines of
demarcation.
--
charles
<5883b8a5-4752-44d9...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 9:04=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>> On 29/09/12 10:59 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>
>> > So you've pushed the decision-making up one level, from town to
>> > county. That's one level too far up for the children's good.
>>
>> > A New Yorker wouldn't want a New York County school board making
>> > decisions binding on both (Dominican) Washington Heights and the
>> > (ritzy) Upper East Side. Their needs are very different. There are
>> > _neighborhood_ school boards in NYC.
>>
>> So poor neighbourhoods stay poor and ignorant while the rich ones
>> prosper? This is the danger - I'm not saying that is what actually happen=
>s.
>
>Taxes are not levied or apportioned by neighborhood. The whole city
>collects taxes from the entire population, and spends them as needed
>on the entire population.
Property taxes are levied by "neighborhood" with more expensive areas
paying more in property taxes. There are, however, no offical lines of
demarcation.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:20:39 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<67f6725a-8741-4629...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> <95e1d27b-5d25-42f1-8847-d166beaaa...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
>> >> <c3462d32-667a-4195-b22f-365915429...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >On Sep 28, 1:49=3D3DA0am, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wro=
>te:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> >> <28408820-b34f-40a5-810d-5a1ca57b2...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,=
> "P=3D
>> >ete=3D3D
>> >> >> >On Sep 27, 2:37=3D3D3DA0pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com>=
> wrot=3D
>> >e:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>
>> >> >> [snip possible Royko mention]
>>
>> >> >> >> Royko? =3D3D3DA0Even Slats Grobnik knows that Royko started the =
>with =3D
>> >Chica=3D3D
>> >> >go
>> >> >> >> Daily News, when the News folded he went over to the Sun-Times, =
>and
>> >> >> >> when Murdoch bought the Sun-Times he escaped to the Chicago Trib=
>une=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >What does Royko have to do with anything?
>>
>> >> >> >> I was a loyal reader and follower of Royko in the Sun-Times and =
>the
>> >> >> >> Trib, but don't remember him in the News. =3D3D3DA0When I was wo=
>rking=3D
>> > for =3D3D
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> Tribune, I sat at the same table with Royko one night at the Bil=
>ly
>> >> >> >> Goat Tavern. =3D3D3DA0He showed absolutely no interest in gettin=
>g to =3D
>> >know =3D3D
>> >> >me.
>>
>> >> >> >I once rode on the 145 bus on Michigan Avenue with Gene Siskel. It
>> >> >> >didn't seem appropriate to approach him. (New Yorkers don't accost
>> >> >> >celebrities on the street.)
>>
>> >> >> ">What does [Siskel] have to do with anything?"
>>
>> >> >Do try to keep up. Unexploited encounters with celebrities.
>>
>> >> >Stimulatedl, however, by someone's attempt to derail the topic by
>> >> >mentioning the only Chicago newspaperman he'd ever heard of, even
>> >> >though said columnist had clearly never opened, let alone read every
>> >> >line of, a city budget in his entire career.
>>
>> >> Ah, now I understand. Siskel is the one who had to do with the budget.
>>
>> >> Thanks.
>>
>> >Gene Siskel was the Pulitzer-prize-winning (years before his cross-the-
>> >avenue rival Ebert) movie critic.
>>
>> Why would a movie critic be put in charge of the budget?
>
>Why would you suppose that one was?
Because you were explaing to someone (it's hard to read the text above)
that it wasn't Royko that was responsible for reporting on the budget, and
then next mentioned Siskel and the budget and the poor choice of Royko.
--
charles
<67f6725a-8741-4629...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>> <95e1d27b-5d25-42f1-8847-d166beaaa...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, "Pete=
>> >> <c3462d32-667a-4195-b22f-365915429...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> >On Sep 28, 1:49=3D3DA0am, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wro=
>te:
>> >> >> In article
>> >> >> <28408820-b34f-40a5-810d-5a1ca57b2...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,=
> "P=3D
>> >ete=3D3D
>> >> >> >On Sep 27, 2:37=3D3D3DA0pm, tony cooper <tony.cooper...@gmail.com>=
> wrot=3D
>> >e:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:18:12 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>
>> >> >> [snip possible Royko mention]
>>
>> >> >> >> Royko? =3D3D3DA0Even Slats Grobnik knows that Royko started the =
>with =3D
>> >Chica=3D3D
>> >> >go
>> >> >> >> Daily News, when the News folded he went over to the Sun-Times, =
>and
>> >> >> >> when Murdoch bought the Sun-Times he escaped to the Chicago Trib=
>une=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> >> >What does Royko have to do with anything?
>>
>> >> >> >> I was a loyal reader and follower of Royko in the Sun-Times and =
>the
>> >> >> >> Trib, but don't remember him in the News. =3D3D3DA0When I was wo=
>rking=3D
>> > for =3D3D
>> >> >the
>> >> >> >> Tribune, I sat at the same table with Royko one night at the Bil=
>ly
>> >> >> >> Goat Tavern. =3D3D3DA0He showed absolutely no interest in gettin=
>g to =3D
>> >know =3D3D
>> >> >me.
>>
>> >> >> >I once rode on the 145 bus on Michigan Avenue with Gene Siskel. It
>> >> >> >didn't seem appropriate to approach him. (New Yorkers don't accost
>> >> >> >celebrities on the street.)
>>
>> >> >> ">What does [Siskel] have to do with anything?"
>>
>> >> >Do try to keep up. Unexploited encounters with celebrities.
>>
>> >> >Stimulatedl, however, by someone's attempt to derail the topic by
>> >> >mentioning the only Chicago newspaperman he'd ever heard of, even
>> >> >though said columnist had clearly never opened, let alone read every
>> >> >line of, a city budget in his entire career.
>>
>> >> Ah, now I understand. Siskel is the one who had to do with the budget.
>>
>> >> Thanks.
>>
>> >Gene Siskel was the Pulitzer-prize-winning (years before his cross-the-
>> >avenue rival Ebert) movie critic.
>>
>> Why would a movie critic be put in charge of the budget?
>
>Why would you suppose that one was?
Because you were explaing to someone (it's hard to read the text above)
that it wasn't Royko that was responsible for reporting on the budget, and
then next mentioned Siskel and the budget and the poor choice of Royko.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:24:22 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<af940ab2-38b3-4e2a...@j2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 8:58=A0pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >
years afterwards, allowing for planning. Previously taxes could be raised
whenever addtional money was needed, which was pretty much always.
Of course, governments are being creative about still raising the money
they think they need. What used to be taxes are now "fees", and there are
add-ons for traffic tickets that can raise the cost of the original ticket
10x. Of course this last is purely in the interest of public safety and
not a way to get more cash.
charles
<af940ab2-38b3-4e2a...@j2g2000pbg.googlegroups.com>,
DKleinecke <dklei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sep 29, 8:58=A0pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >
>
>There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>> movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
>> the state has suffered ever since.
>
>There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>> movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
>> the state has suffered ever since.
>
>Proposition 13 makes it possible for senior citizens to keep their
>houses. Until the depression hit it was even possible to turn your
>remaining taxes into a lien on the property. It was scary there for a
>while but I seem to be able to put together the taxes on my house -
>but it hurts. Helps that Prop 13 cuts my taxes to half what they would
>have been.
Not only that, but you know what the taxes will be when you buy and for
>houses. Until the depression hit it was even possible to turn your
>remaining taxes into a lien on the property. It was scary there for a
>while but I seem to be able to put together the taxes on my house -
>but it hurts. Helps that Prop 13 cuts my taxes to half what they would
>have been.
years afterwards, allowing for planning. Previously taxes could be raised
whenever addtional money was needed, which was pretty much always.
Of course, governments are being creative about still raising the money
they think they need. What used to be taxes are now "fees", and there are
add-ons for traffic tickets that can raise the cost of the original ticket
10x. Of course this last is purely in the interest of public safety and
not a way to get more cash.
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:36:07 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<987d3cd4-0961-48f7...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 12:18=A0am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 8:58=A0pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >
>>
>> There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>>
>> > movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
>> > the state has suffered ever since.
>>
>> Proposition 13 makes it possible for senior citizens to keep their
>> houses. Until the depression hit it was even possible to turn your
>> remaining taxes into a lien on the property. It was scary there for a
>> while but I seem to be able to put together the taxes on my house -
>> but it hurts. Helps that Prop 13 cuts my taxes to half what they would
>> have been.
>
>
>The asinine "referendum" procedure in California has done far more
>harm than good, even though it started out as a "good government"
>measure.
I think it's being misused, yes.
--
charles
<987d3cd4-0961-48f7...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 12:18=A0am, DKleinecke <dkleine...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 8:58=A0pm, "Peter T. Daniels" >
>>
>> There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
>>
>> > movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
>> > the state has suffered ever since.
>>
>> Proposition 13 makes it possible for senior citizens to keep their
>> houses. Until the depression hit it was even possible to turn your
>> remaining taxes into a lien on the property. It was scary there for a
>> while but I seem to be able to put together the taxes on my house -
>> but it hurts. Helps that Prop 13 cuts my taxes to half what they would
>> have been.
>
>And simultaneously and consequently cuts state services in half.
Good.
>
>The asinine "referendum" procedure in California has done far more
>harm than good, even though it started out as a "good government"
>measure.
>
>Pure democracy works only in the tiniest polities, where everyone
>knows everyone else and grasps the consequences of every decision for
>everyone. It works (or worked?) in the New England towns where it was
>devised. It doesn't work elsewhere.
>
>That's why our government is a democratic republic (if you can keep
>it, as Franklin said), not a democracy.
Yes. But there should be more constraints on what the government can do.
>Pure democracy works only in the tiniest polities, where everyone
>knows everyone else and grasps the consequences of every decision for
>everyone. It works (or worked?) in the New England towns where it was
>devised. It doesn't work elsewhere.
>
>That's why our government is a democratic republic (if you can keep
>it, as Franklin said), not a democracy.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:41:00 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<434fbbc6-da3b-4980...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>"go
>> away") in some of his plays, e.g. "shall we shog?" =A0I remember sniggeri=
connotations rude?
--
charles
<434fbbc6-da3b-4980...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>On Sep 30, 10:59=A0am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> analyst41 wrote in message
>>
>> news:9618cc9a-f737-4fb0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 30, 8:39 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> ["sprog"]
>>
>> > > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>> > PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
>> > meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
>>
>> There's something in that. =A0Shakespeare used a verb "shog" (meaning to =
>> analyst41 wrote in message
>>
>> news:9618cc9a-f737-4fb0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Sep 30, 8:39 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> ["sprog"]
>>
>> > > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>> > PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
>> > meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
>>
>"go
>> away") in some of his plays, e.g. "shall we shog?" =A0I remember sniggeri=
>ng
>> over that when I was at school even though it had no rude meaning in
>> English. =A0It just *sounded* rude.
>> over that when I was at school even though it had no rude meaning in
>>
>> But why doesn't "snag" sound rude?
>
>It certainly has negative connotations. "We hit a snag." "She got a
>snag in her stocking."
Do the negative connotations make it sound rude? Are words with negative
>> But why doesn't "snag" sound rude?
>
>It certainly has negative connotations. "We hit a snag." "She got a
>snag in her stocking."
connotations rude?
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:47:47 PM9/30/12
to
In article <acs2or...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
hard to get consensus in the first place and if there's a need for
changes, it's hard to get those.
>
>In other words, content is dictated, but teaching methods and the
>resources used to attain those ends are decided by individual schools.
>There should also be examinations at appropriate times, set, marked and
>moderated by an outside body, and schools that regularly under-perform
>should be checked to see whether they need more help or just a kick up
>the backside.
Content can be given to local schools if there is a choice among them for
parents.
>
>Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
>university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
>oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
>every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
>in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
I see no need for a national curriculum. We're going to have to disagree.
--
charles
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 30/09/12 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Sep 28, 8:38 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> To me, it sounds like a very hodge-podge way of going about things. What
>>>>> happens to children who move to another school district or worse to
>>>>> another state? Faced with totally different courses, do they have to
>>>>> start over?
>>>
>>>> Why would the courses be totally different?
>>>
>>> Because you have said they are determined by local bodies. It is not
>>> simply a case of determining what the subject content is and whether
>>> they are learning science or religion. When things are taught is also
>>> vital to ensure that children can transfer from school to school without
>>> getting too far behind.
>>
>> So where does "totally different" come from?
>>
>
>Generally speaking, different areas are different. One region thinks
>reading, writing and 'rithmetic are sufficient on their own; another
>thinks a foreign language is important; the next thinks ballet is
>essential; the one after that insists everyone does woodwork, while yet
>another won't countenance anything that's not mentioned directly in the
>Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or whatever.
>
>On 30/09/12 12:02 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>> On 29/09/12 11:01 AM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> On Sep 28, 8:38 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> To me, it sounds like a very hodge-podge way of going about things. What
>>>>> happens to children who move to another school district or worse to
>>>>> another state? Faced with totally different courses, do they have to
>>>>> start over?
>>>
>>>> Why would the courses be totally different?
>>>
>>> Because you have said they are determined by local bodies. It is not
>>> simply a case of determining what the subject content is and whether
>>> they are learning science or religion. When things are taught is also
>>> vital to ensure that children can transfer from school to school without
>>> getting too far behind.
>>
>> So where does "totally different" come from?
>>
>
>Generally speaking, different areas are different. One region thinks
>reading, writing and 'rithmetic are sufficient on their own; another
>thinks a foreign language is important; the next thinks ballet is
>essential; the one after that insists everyone does woodwork, while yet
>another won't countenance anything that's not mentioned directly in the
>Bible or Quran or Book of Mormon or whatever.
>
>I believe strongly in a national curriculum where every student learns
>more or less the same things in each subject area he/she does, not on
>the same day, but at least in the same year, although the subjects are
>not necessarily taught in the same way.
A national anything is going to be worse that local (FCVO) decisions. It's
>more or less the same things in each subject area he/she does, not on
>the same day, but at least in the same year, although the subjects are
>not necessarily taught in the same way.
hard to get consensus in the first place and if there's a need for
changes, it's hard to get those.
>
>In other words, content is dictated, but teaching methods and the
>resources used to attain those ends are decided by individual schools.
>There should also be examinations at appropriate times, set, marked and
>moderated by an outside body, and schools that regularly under-perform
>should be checked to see whether they need more help or just a kick up
>the backside.
parents.
>
>Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
>university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
>oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
>every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
>in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
--
charles
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:48:40 PM9/30/12
to
In article <acs3cd...@mid.individual.net>, Robert Bannister
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 1/10/12 4:23 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>> Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
>>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>although I would ignore small fry? (Admittedly "fry-up" is more usual).
Do you curry favor?
--
cjharles, or favor curry
<rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>On 1/10/12 4:23 AM, R H Draney wrote:
>> Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
>>>
>>> On 29 Sep 2012 23:07:55 -0700, R H Draney <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels filted:
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>>>> complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>>>> mash."
>>>>
>>>> But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>>>
>>> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>>> in India?
>>
>> In MyE, "curry", like "puree", is a verb...you'd no more ask for "a
>>>>> Exactly. It was claimed above that "puree" can be used with no
>>>>> complement to refer to a specific dish, like "mash" in "bangers and
>>>>> mash."
>>>>
>>>> But "curry puree" doesn't really nail it down....r
>>>
>>> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>>> in India?
>>
curry" than
>> you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
>>
>>
>
>We don't curry horses in my house, and what's wrong with a nice fry,
>> you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
>>
>>
>
>although I would ignore small fry? (Admittedly "fry-up" is more usual).
Do you curry favor?
--
cjharles, or favor curry
Charles Bishop
Sep 30, 2012, 11:51:02 PM9/30/12
to
In article
<4f1f3160-1d65-4403...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 7:26=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[snip]
small countries.
--
charles
<4f1f3160-1d65-4403...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 7:26=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
[snip]
>>
>> Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
>> university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
>> oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
>> every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
>> in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
>
>Again, that could work in a very small country. It does work in US
>school districts.
I wonder if the LA County School District isn't about the size of some
>> Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
>> university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
>> oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
>> every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
>> in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
>
>Again, that could work in a very small country. It does work in US
>school districts.
small countries.
--
charles
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:32:12 PM9/30/12
to
another part of the world. Why would you suppose anything else?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:33:38 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 8:26 pm, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
wrote:
If they serve all those different things with the same sauce, you
should probably dine elsewhere.
wrote:
should probably dine elsewhere.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:34:41 PM9/30/12
to
> <434fbbc6-da3b-4980-9168-a2eec611f...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 30, 10:59=A0am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> analyst41 wrote in message
>
> >>news:9618cc9a-f737-4fb0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 30, 8:39 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> ["sprog"]
>
> >> > > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
> >> > PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
> >> > meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
>
> >> There's something in that. =A0Shakespeare used a verb "shog" (meaning to =
> >"go
> >> away") in some of his plays, e.g. "shall we shog?" =A0I remember sniggeri=
> >ng
> >> over that when I was at school even though it had no rude meaning in
> >> English. =A0It just *sounded* rude.
>
> >> But why doesn't "snag" sound rude?
>
> >It certainly has negative connotations. "We hit a snag." "She got a
> >snag in her stocking."
>
> Do the negative connotations make it sound rude? Are words with negative
> connotations rude?
Sounding rude is a negative connotation.
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 30, 10:59=A0am, "Guy Barry" <guy.ba...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >> analyst41 wrote in message
>
> >>news:9618cc9a-f737-4fb0...@u19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Sep 30, 8:39 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> ["sprog"]
>
> >> > > sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
> >> > PTD's linguistic dogmatist hat must have been off ("the attachment of
> >> > meaning to sounds is arbitrary") that time.
>
> >> There's something in that. =A0Shakespeare used a verb "shog" (meaning to =
> >"go
> >> away") in some of his plays, e.g. "shall we shog?" =A0I remember sniggeri=
> >ng
> >> over that when I was at school even though it had no rude meaning in
> >> English. =A0It just *sounded* rude.
>
> >> But why doesn't "snag" sound rude?
>
> >It certainly has negative connotations. "We hit a snag." "She got a
> >snag in her stocking."
>
> Do the negative connotations make it sound rude? Are words with negative
> connotations rude?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:36:08 PM9/30/12
to
> <4f1f3160-1d65-4403-94ca-2d2e42c93...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
>
> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 7:26=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >> Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
> >> university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
> >> oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
> >> every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
> >> in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
>
> >Again, that could work in a very small country. It does work in US
> >school districts.
>
> I wonder if the LA County School District isn't about the size of some
> small countries.
Bigger than quite a few!
> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >On Sep 30, 7:26=A0pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
> >> Who chooses the national curriculum? A committee of administrators,
> >> university lecturers, working schoolteachers, parents and students would
> >> oversee the people who would do the actual work. There would be reviews
> >> every five years. I don't know whether such a scheme is practised fully
> >> in any country at present, but that is what I would like to see.
>
> >Again, that could work in a very small country. It does work in US
> >school districts.
>
> I wonder if the LA County School District isn't about the size of some
> small countries.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:38:39 PM9/30/12
to
On Sep 30, 9:04 pm, Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> On 30/09/12 12:11 AM, Paul Madarasz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
> On 30/09/12 12:11 AM, Paul Madarasz wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 05:30:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>
> >> A "weekly commutation ticket" gets you 5 (or 7) round trips for a
> >> reduced rate.
>
> > Interesting. I've only hear "commutation" in regard to saving people
> > from judicial punishment, usually the barbaric death penalty.
>
> What about from DC to AC?
That what transformers do, no? and rectifiers go the other way?
> >> A "weekly commutation ticket" gets you 5 (or 7) round trips for a
> >> reduced rate.
>
> > Interesting. I've only hear "commutation" in regard to saving people
> > from judicial punishment, usually the barbaric death penalty.
>
> What about from DC to AC?
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:40:51 PM9/30/12
to
> <9105f6ec-de73-49a6-910d-ad25c9760...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Those things seen as mistakes _are_ changes (whether they're going to
stick or not), but at no time are they perceived as changes.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> [snip-more people should]
>
>
>
> >But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
> >They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
> >children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
> >will talk correctly henceforth.
>
> I'm going to jump in here, because I think I discovered what Peter means.
> I think he means that when some form of language changes, it isn't seen as
> a change, but a mistake. This is because those using the language don't
> know, at that time, that this particular change will last and thus become
> part of the language, thereby being noticed as a change. For the short
> term, it's seen as a mistake because it's not the way you're supposed to
> speak (or write). It's only with time and the approval of history that
> it's seen as a change.
No. I think it was Robert who already tried that interpretation.
>
> [snip-more people should]
>
>
>
> >But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
> >They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
> >children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
> >will talk correctly henceforth.
>
> I'm going to jump in here, because I think I discovered what Peter means.
> I think he means that when some form of language changes, it isn't seen as
> a change, but a mistake. This is because those using the language don't
> know, at that time, that this particular change will last and thus become
> part of the language, thereby being noticed as a change. For the short
> term, it's seen as a mistake because it's not the way you're supposed to
> speak (or write). It's only with time and the approval of history that
> it's seen as a change.
Those things seen as mistakes _are_ changes (whether they're going to
stick or not), but at no time are they perceived as changes.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:49:41 PM9/30/12
to
> <d313e9a4-f5b8-40a9-ad0a-141fad70d...@l32g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
more -- and they hate it that professors are more interested in
research than in teaching (there's that science-phobia again). The
liberal talk show host Ed Schultz used as a promo for months a snippet
from a hostile caller who thought it was a waste of money "to find out
why turtles cross the road" [sic; he didn't even say "chickens," which
would have fit the cliche']. I happened to have heard that call, and
less than a week earlier, a main runway at JFK airport had been shuit
down for an entire day precisely because it was covered with turtles
who were migrating out of Jamaica Bay to wherever it was they were
going. Wouldn't it have been nice to know why, and perhaps even to
figure out how to dissuade them? (Even if one had no qualms about
squashing turtles, it would still be rather hazardous to try to take
off or land on them!)
> >> There
> >> is a proposition on the upcoming ballot that will increase taxes (sales,
> >> mostly) for schools. However, the proposition doesn't say that the money
> >> need be spent on educating. "For the Children" is a rallying cry to
> >> increase taxes.
>
> >There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
> >movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
> >the state has suffered ever since.
>
> I don't think there is a referendum that made no new taxes possible. Do
> you have a number and summary?
As David mentioned, it was the notorious Prop 13, and it required a
3/5 or 2/3 majority in the legislature for any tax increase. (IIRC.)
They've started over with numbering propositions. I wonder whether
they don't reuse the notorious numbers, like that one (like hurricane
names -- there won't be another Andrew or Camille or Katrina or Rita).
> I think it's a good idea that a state (or any government) has its income
> and thus spending limited.
What about a war?
> >> I'd be curious what the budgets were 50 years ago compared to now under
> >> various conditions, such as per student, per teacher, per administrator,
> >> capital expenses, usw.
>
> >That's just about when Reagan began the murder of one of the nation's
> >greatest systems of higher education -- when he put an end to free in-
> >state tuition for the most deserving students, including at the
> >flagship campuses of Berkeley and Los Angeles.
>
> Perhaps the state couldn't afford it then. It certainly can't now.
The Reagan way of doing things couldn't afford it.
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 29, 6:09=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> In article <fguc68hovbl1mr6238c5gjlme2drten...@4ax.com>, Paul Madarasz
> >> <paul.madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
> >> >>What PTAs do is raise money for extras. These days, those "extras"
> >> >>include things like art and music classes.
>
> >> >And sometimes buy school supplies for the kids, since education has
> >> >taken a back seat to more important things, like buying armaments that
> >> >even the DoD doesn't want. =A0If the PTA comes up short, the teachers
> >> >often supplement the shortages out of their own pocket.
>
> >> It doesn't appear that education has taken a back to anything else, at
> >> least in CA. The amount spend on education is *fixed* in the budget.
>
> >And the cost of education continues to increase. There would thus be
> >less and less funds available for it every year.
>
> I think, though I'm not sure, that it's fixed as a percentage. Other than
> inflation, is there something else to cause the cost of education to rise?
One of the latest rightwing bugaboos is how universities cost more and
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 29, 6:09=A0pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
> >> In article <fguc68hovbl1mr6238c5gjlme2drten...@4ax.com>, Paul Madarasz
> >> <paul.madar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Fri, 28 Sep 2012 20:00:20 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> ><gramma...@verizon.net> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>
> >> >>What PTAs do is raise money for extras. These days, those "extras"
> >> >>include things like art and music classes.
>
> >> >And sometimes buy school supplies for the kids, since education has
> >> >taken a back seat to more important things, like buying armaments that
> >> >even the DoD doesn't want. =A0If the PTA comes up short, the teachers
> >> >often supplement the shortages out of their own pocket.
>
> >> It doesn't appear that education has taken a back to anything else, at
> >> least in CA. The amount spend on education is *fixed* in the budget.
>
> >And the cost of education continues to increase. There would thus be
> >less and less funds available for it every year.
>
> I think, though I'm not sure, that it's fixed as a percentage. Other than
> inflation, is there something else to cause the cost of education to rise?
more -- and they hate it that professors are more interested in
research than in teaching (there's that science-phobia again). The
liberal talk show host Ed Schultz used as a promo for months a snippet
from a hostile caller who thought it was a waste of money "to find out
why turtles cross the road" [sic; he didn't even say "chickens," which
would have fit the cliche']. I happened to have heard that call, and
less than a week earlier, a main runway at JFK airport had been shuit
down for an entire day precisely because it was covered with turtles
who were migrating out of Jamaica Bay to wherever it was they were
going. Wouldn't it have been nice to know why, and perhaps even to
figure out how to dissuade them? (Even if one had no qualms about
squashing turtles, it would still be rather hazardous to try to take
off or land on them!)
> >> There
> >> is a proposition on the upcoming ballot that will increase taxes (sales,
> >> mostly) for schools. However, the proposition doesn't say that the money
> >> need be spent on educating. "For the Children" is a rallying cry to
> >> increase taxes.
>
> >There was tea party in CA decades before there was a "tea party"
> >movement. They got that asinine "no new taxes" referendum passed, and
> >the state has suffered ever since.
>
> I don't think there is a referendum that made no new taxes possible. Do
> you have a number and summary?
3/5 or 2/3 majority in the legislature for any tax increase. (IIRC.)
They've started over with numbering propositions. I wonder whether
they don't reuse the notorious numbers, like that one (like hurricane
names -- there won't be another Andrew or Camille or Katrina or Rita).
> I think it's a good idea that a state (or any government) has its income
> and thus spending limited.
> >> I'd be curious what the budgets were 50 years ago compared to now under
> >> various conditions, such as per student, per teacher, per administrator,
> >> capital expenses, usw.
>
> >That's just about when Reagan began the murder of one of the nation's
> >greatest systems of higher education -- when he put an end to free in-
> >state tuition for the most deserving students, including at the
> >flagship campuses of Berkeley and Los Angeles.
>
> Perhaps the state couldn't afford it then. It certainly can't now.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:53:02 PM9/30/12
to
> <5883b8a5-4752-44d9-a306-208ed3712...@w3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
Where? Who sets the rate on each individual property or block or
"neighborhood"?
Has that scheme survived any legal challenges?
Chicago has lots of official "neighborhoods," and their boundaries
don't necessarily coincide with the boundaries of any of the 50 wards
(which presumably have to be redrawn every 10 years with population
shifts, just like all the other districts).
New York City has many "Community Boards," that have a lot of say in
questions of zoning, historic preservation, parks, etc.
"neighborhood"?
Has that scheme survived any legal challenges?
Chicago has lots of official "neighborhoods," and their boundaries
don't necessarily coincide with the boundaries of any of the 50 wards
(which presumably have to be redrawn every 10 years with population
shifts, just like all the other districts).
New York City has many "Community Boards," that have a lot of say in
questions of zoning, historic preservation, parks, etc.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:55:16 PM9/30/12
to
> <67f6725a-8741-4629-8d9d-983d403ba...@x14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
I mentioned a nameless City Hall reporter. Someone named Royko, who
obviously was not the person in question. Someone tried for some
reflected glory by having been in the same room with Royko. I mocked
that by having been in the same bus with Siskel. None of which had
anything to do with the jobs of either of the named celebrities.
obviously was not the person in question. Someone tried for some
reflected glory by having been in the same room with Royko. I mocked
that by having been in the same bus with Siskel. None of which had
anything to do with the jobs of either of the named celebrities.
Peter T. Daniels
Sep 30, 2012, 11:56:38 PM9/30/12
to
> <987d3cd4-0961-48f7-96b5-571162a9f...@o7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, "Peter
> T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >That's why our government is a democratic republic (if you can keep
> >it, as Franklin said), not a democracy.
>
> Yes. But there should be more constraints on what the government can do.
The Constitution's not good enough for you?
> >That's why our government is a democratic republic (if you can keep
> >it, as Franklin said), not a democracy.
>
> Yes. But there should be more constraints on what the government can do.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Oct 1, 2012, 12:10:04 AM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 4:40 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Sep 30, 10:00 pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <9105f6ec-de73-49a6-910d-ad25c9760...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip-more people should]
>
> > >But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
> > >They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
> > >children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
> > >will talk correctly henceforth.
>
> > I'm going to jump in here, because I think I discovered what Peter means.
> > I think he means that when some form of language changes, it isn't seen as
> > a change, but a mistake. This is because those using the language don't
> > know, at that time, that this particular change will last and thus become
> > part of the language, thereby being noticed as a change. For the short
> > term, it's seen as a mistake because it's not the way you're supposed to
> > speak (or write). It's only with time and the approval of history that
> > it's seen as a change.
>
> No. I think it was Robert who already tried that interpretation.
>
> Those things seen as mistakes _are_ changes (whether they're going to
> stick or not), but at no time are they perceived as changes.
Let me make the point here that they are "mistakes" not in the sense
> On Sep 30, 10:00 pm, ctbis...@earthlink.net (Charles Bishop) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <9105f6ec-de73-49a6-910d-ad25c9760...@v15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > [snip-more people should]
>
> > >But THEY DO NOT KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF CHANGE HAS TAKEN PLACE.
> > >They are not aware that a change has taken place, only that the
> > >children are making mistakes and need to be corrected so that they
> > >will talk correctly henceforth.
>
> > I'm going to jump in here, because I think I discovered what Peter means.
> > I think he means that when some form of language changes, it isn't seen as
> > a change, but a mistake. This is because those using the language don't
> > know, at that time, that this particular change will last and thus become
> > part of the language, thereby being noticed as a change. For the short
> > term, it's seen as a mistake because it's not the way you're supposed to
> > speak (or write). It's only with time and the approval of history that
> > it's seen as a change.
>
> No. I think it was Robert who already tried that interpretation.
>
> Those things seen as mistakes _are_ changes (whether they're going to
> stick or not), but at no time are they perceived as changes.
of a happenstance mistake that any speaker might make, but mistakes
that the perceiver notices are made repeatedly, persistently, by
members of the younger generation, and that the perceiver does not
recall having been made before. If there is some scientific reason why
perceiving that should not be called perceiving a "change", perhaps
you can refer us to some linguistic or psychological literature that
would support your refusal?
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Oct 1, 2012, 12:20:56 AM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 10:15 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 3:51 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 30.09.2012 15:24, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > On Sep 30, 9:06 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> My impression from reading this thread is that those who distinguish
> > >> between a "difference" and a "change", short for "change in the
> > >> language", do so on the basis that "the language" or "The Language" is
> > >> something that lasts for generations. They are using "difference" for a
> > >> word or usage that may be ephemeral.
>
> > > No, that is not what "we" were saying. How can _anyone_ linguistic
> > > scholar or naive layperson, know whether any particular mistake or
> > > difference is ephemeral or lasting?
>
> > > _All_ changes in language are not perceived by the layperson as
> > > changes in the language, but as mistakes (to be corrected) or
> > > differences (to be remarked upon). In recent years, it has become
> > > possible -- through very extensive diachronic and corpus investigation
> > > -- to discover where the changes come from (Labov divides the
> > > "factors" into three groups, covered in his three sizable volumes).
>
> > > A pervasive syntactic change of the last several decades, which I
> > > mentioned in this thread once, is the "double copula" with nominal
> > > clause complements: "What I meant is is that the moon looked really
> > > big on the horizon last night." No pause between the is's.
>
> > > I heard on a call-in radio program in 1989 [I can date it because I
> > > heard it in th car while commuting to Milwaukee, which I did once a
> > > week that winter quarter]:
>
> > > "My question is would have been 'Why did you take X out of the game at
> > > that point?'"
>
> > >> To older people new words or new meanings adopted by young people are
> > >> differences. These may be perceived by the older people to be
> > >> unnecessary and sometimes corruptions of existing words.
>
> > > Yes
>
> > >> Such differences don't become "Changes In The Language" unless they are
> > >> adopted and used more widely and survive to be used in the future as
> > >> accepted features of, at least some version of, the language.
>
> > > They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> > > have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> > > language" can exist.
>
> > Let's forget about the linguistically unaware people. Quite naturally,
> > even the trained Linguist can only observe changes that have already
> > happened - they cannot look into the future. But in the case of lexical,
> > grammatical, semantic changes, they can be observed without much
> > research effort when they happened just very recently and are at the
> > point of becoming accepted by a great part of the public and are
> > expected to win eventually. Example: "Singular 'they'".
>
> > My claim is that is much more difficult for phonetic changes. Labov had
> > to put enormous effort and to wait many years to arrive at his results
> > on Martha's Vineyard.
>
> Not to belittle his efforts in any way, the research (in the early
> 60s) did not take him "many years". However, he made crucial use of
> data collected in 1933 for the Linguistic Atlas of New England, from
> which he was able to show that the centralization variable was part of
> a change in progress, and not just a stable age-grading pattern.
>
> Just for fun, there's a photo here of one of Labov's original
> informants:
>
> http://www.mvtimes.com/2011/08/16/50-years-language-study-began-marth...
...and, I should have added, an article by a MV boy who grew up to be
a linguist!
> On Oct 1, 3:51 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Am 30.09.2012 15:24, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > On Sep 30, 9:06 am, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net>
> > > wrote:
>
> > >> My impression from reading this thread is that those who distinguish
> > >> between a "difference" and a "change", short for "change in the
> > >> language", do so on the basis that "the language" or "The Language" is
> > >> something that lasts for generations. They are using "difference" for a
> > >> word or usage that may be ephemeral.
>
> > > No, that is not what "we" were saying. How can _anyone_ linguistic
> > > scholar or naive layperson, know whether any particular mistake or
> > > difference is ephemeral or lasting?
>
> > > _All_ changes in language are not perceived by the layperson as
> > > changes in the language, but as mistakes (to be corrected) or
> > > differences (to be remarked upon). In recent years, it has become
> > > possible -- through very extensive diachronic and corpus investigation
> > > -- to discover where the changes come from (Labov divides the
> > > "factors" into three groups, covered in his three sizable volumes).
>
> > > A pervasive syntactic change of the last several decades, which I
> > > mentioned in this thread once, is the "double copula" with nominal
> > > clause complements: "What I meant is is that the moon looked really
> > > big on the horizon last night." No pause between the is's.
>
> > > I heard on a call-in radio program in 1989 [I can date it because I
> > > heard it in th car while commuting to Milwaukee, which I did once a
> > > week that winter quarter]:
>
> > > "My question is would have been 'Why did you take X out of the game at
> > > that point?'"
>
> > >> To older people new words or new meanings adopted by young people are
> > >> differences. These may be perceived by the older people to be
> > >> unnecessary and sometimes corruptions of existing words.
>
> > > Yes
>
> > >> Such differences don't become "Changes In The Language" unless they are
> > >> adopted and used more widely and survive to be used in the future as
> > >> accepted features of, at least some version of, the language.
>
> > > They are already changes in the language, but only linguistic scholars
> > > have the mental model to recognize that such a thing as "change in the
> > > language" can exist.
>
> > Let's forget about the linguistically unaware people. Quite naturally,
> > even the trained Linguist can only observe changes that have already
> > happened - they cannot look into the future. But in the case of lexical,
> > grammatical, semantic changes, they can be observed without much
> > research effort when they happened just very recently and are at the
> > point of becoming accepted by a great part of the public and are
> > expected to win eventually. Example: "Singular 'they'".
>
> > My claim is that is much more difficult for phonetic changes. Labov had
> > to put enormous effort and to wait many years to arrive at his results
> > on Martha's Vineyard.
>
> Not to belittle his efforts in any way, the research (in the early
> 60s) did not take him "many years". However, he made crucial use of
> data collected in 1933 for the Linguistic Atlas of New England, from
> which he was able to show that the centralization variable was part of
> a change in progress, and not just a stable age-grading pattern.
>
> Just for fun, there's a photo here of one of Labov's original
> informants:
>
> http://www.mvtimes.com/2011/08/16/50-years-language-study-began-marth...
...and, I should have added, an article by a MV boy who grew up to be
a linguist!
Joachim Pense
Oct 1, 2012, 12:46:13 AM10/1/12
to
Am 01.10.2012 01:40, schrieb Robert Bannister:
> On 30/09/12 12:06 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>>> On 29/09/12 11:27 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>>>> Am 29.09.2012 15:31, schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
>>>>> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and I observe that for lexical, semantical, grammatical
>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>> but not for sound changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What sound changes are you thinking of that happened or are
>>>>>>> happening
>>>>>>> without people noticing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What recent or ongoing sound changes exactly do you have in mind
>>>>> where you could have observed people's reactions to them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know of any recent or ongoing sound changes (in German). That's
>>>> why I feel they are difficult to be noticed.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced "ￜ" in the past. Today, most of
>>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
>> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
>> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
>> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
>> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
>> according to the spelling.
>
> I'm sure I remember people saying "sï¿œmpathisch", whereas now everybody
> says "simpathisch". Perhaps it's just my ear.
>
>
I only know "sï¿œmpathisch". There are some regional accents that don't
have ￜ and ￜ and use e and i instead.
Joachim
> On 30/09/12 12:06 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>> Am 30.09.2012 03:41, schrieb Robert Bannister:
>>> On 29/09/12 11:27 PM, Joachim Pense wrote:
>>>> Am 29.09.2012 15:31, schrieb Christian Weisgerber:
>>>>> Joachim Pense <sn...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, and I observe that for lexical, semantical, grammatical
>>>>>>>> changes,
>>>>>>>> but not for sound changes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What sound changes are you thinking of that happened or are
>>>>>>> happening
>>>>>>> without people noticing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> What recent or ongoing sound changes exactly do you have in mind
>>>>> where you could have observed people's reactions to them?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know of any recent or ongoing sound changes (in German). That's
>>>> why I feel they are difficult to be noticed.
>>>
>>> I'm sure that more "y"s were pronounced "ￜ" in the past. Today, most of
>>> them seem to be "i" or "ie".
>>>
>>>
>>
>> There is only one such case that I am aware of, and that is not a sound
>> change: The word for "Oxide" used to by "Oxyd" in Germany (derivation
>> from Greek), but that was officially replaced by the artificially
>> created "Oxid" in the seventies by the chemists, because they were
>> re-organizing their terminology. The pronounciation was changed
>> according to the spelling.
>
> I'm sure I remember people saying "sï¿œmpathisch", whereas now everybody
> says "simpathisch". Perhaps it's just my ear.
>
>
I only know "sï¿œmpathisch". There are some regional accents that don't
have ￜ and ￜ and use e and i instead.
Joachim
R H Draney
Oct 1, 2012, 12:46:29 AM10/1/12
to
>On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:35:00 +0800, Robert Bannister
><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>>pourri? It has a powerful aroma.
>
>That's the one!
Ah, a Curry Puri Tandoori!...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
><rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>On 30/09/12 10:33 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>
>>> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>>> in India?
>>>
>>
>>Is that the famous one cooked in an earthenware pot and known as pot
>>On 30/09/12 10:33 PM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
>>>
>>> Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
>>> in India?
>>>
>>
>>pourri? It has a powerful aroma.
>
>That's the one!
Ah, a Curry Puri Tandoori!...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Bill Marcum
Oct 1, 2012, 12:46:46 AM10/1/12
to
On 09/30/2012 09:05 PM, Robert Bannister wrote:
>>
> fiancé(e), né(e); not so common: divorcé(e).
>
Mick Jagger laid a divorcée in New York City.
>>
> fiancé(e), né(e); not so common: divorcé(e).
>
Mick Jagger laid a divorcée in New York City.
Joachim Pense
Oct 1, 2012, 12:51:10 AM10/1/12
to
rectifiers go the other way.
Joachim
Peter Brooks
Oct 1, 2012, 12:56:31 AM10/1/12
to
On Sep 30, 10:24 pm, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
>
>
> Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <m...@peterduncanson.net> filted:
>
>
> >Is "curry puree" a variant spelling of "Curry Puri", a curry from Puri
> >in India?
>
> In MyE, "curry", like "puree", is a verb...you'd no more ask for "a curry" than
> >in India?
>
> you'd order "a fry" or "a boil"....r
>
I agree, though one might go out for a curry or, if particularly hung-
>
over, a fry-up, even though one wouldn't order either as such.
R H Draney
Oct 1, 2012, 12:57:03 AM10/1/12
to
Bill Marcum filted:
>
>On 09/28/2012 01:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> He's in rehab, and officially she's his six-week "rehab counselor,"
>> hired by his father to ease him through the transition into drug-free
>> life.
>>
>Interesting. The movie "They Might Be Giants" also had a female Dr.
>Watson who was a p-sychiatrist. George C. Scott as Holmes (actually a
>modern day Don Quixote who thought he was Holmes).
This "female Dr Watson who shrinks heads" thing runs pretty deep...there was
also "Return of the World's Greatest Detective", a 1976 TV movie starring Larry
Hagman as a motorcycle cop who, due to a head injury, believes himself to be
Sherlock Holmes while at the same time developing powers of deduction to support
the delusion; social worker Dr Joan Watson is played by Jenny O'Hara....
And there's "The Return of Sherlock Holmes", where the cryogenically-frozen
Holmes (Michael Pennington) is brought back from stasis after eighty years by
Joan Watson (Margaret Colin), descendant of his original partner...Connie Booth,
who played Mrs Hudson in the John Cleese Holmes spoof "The Strange Case of the
End of Civilization As We Know It", appears in this one in a minor role....r
>
>On 09/28/2012 01:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> He's in rehab, and officially she's his six-week "rehab counselor,"
>> hired by his father to ease him through the transition into drug-free
>> life.
>>
>Interesting. The movie "They Might Be Giants" also had a female Dr.
>Watson who was a p-sychiatrist. George C. Scott as Holmes (actually a
>modern day Don Quixote who thought he was Holmes).
This "female Dr Watson who shrinks heads" thing runs pretty deep...there was
also "Return of the World's Greatest Detective", a 1976 TV movie starring Larry
Hagman as a motorcycle cop who, due to a head injury, believes himself to be
Sherlock Holmes while at the same time developing powers of deduction to support
the delusion; social worker Dr Joan Watson is played by Jenny O'Hara....
And there's "The Return of Sherlock Holmes", where the cryogenically-frozen
Holmes (Michael Pennington) is brought back from stasis after eighty years by
Joan Watson (Margaret Colin), descendant of his original partner...Connie Booth,
who played Mrs Hudson in the John Cleese Holmes spoof "The Strange Case of the
End of Civilization As We Know It", appears in this one in a minor role....r
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 1:43:24 AM10/1/12
to
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9c501740-1f7f-4c6d...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 30, 12:13 am, "pauljk" <paul.kr...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>> "R H Draney" <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote in
>> messagenews:k47nl...@drn.newsguy.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > pauljk filted:
>>
>> >>"James Silverton" <jim.silver...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> >>news:k44pna$cmh$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> >>>The term "l'Hexagone" for mainland France is quite common in French newspapers
>> >>>and
>> >>> magazines.
>>
>> >>Europeans do that often.
>> >>France is The Hexagon, historical Bohemia is The Diamond, etc.
>>
>> >>However, modern Italy is The Boot.
>>
>> > It's not just Europeans; Michigan and Wisconsin are always at odds over which
>> > state looks like a mitten....r
>>
>> :-)
>> That must be a nice relief from arguing which state looks more
>> like a Roman brick.
>
> None of them looks like a roman brick (in the sense that term is used
> today, as for instance by Frank Lloyd Wright, who used roman brick in
> his Prairie style houses to accentuate the horizontality). Oklahoma's
> panhandle looks like a roman brick.
So? I didn't say any of them did look like a roman brick.
What's there to stop anybody arguing which one looks _more_ like one.
For example, judging the relative roman-brickness of some, Kansas
looks more like the roman brick than North Dakota which looks
more like it than Colorado, which looks more like it than Wyoming
which in turn looks more it than New Mexico. Nothing wrong with
that, even though none of them, or any other, look quite like a roman
brick.
pjk
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 1:57:22 AM10/1/12
to
"Paul Wolff" <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5JCDY210...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
> In message <k48gh7$eld$1...@dont-email.me>, pauljk <paul....@xtra.co.nz> writes
>>
>>"Christian Weisgerber" <na...@mips.inka.de> wrote in message
>>news:k478ua$1b40$1...@lorvorc.mips.inka.de...
>>> Andrew B <bul...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> >>>>>>http://www.wikistrike.com/article-la-carte-de-france-vue-de-l-etrange...
>>>>
>>>> I'm also not sure why the "English" (either cultivated or not) refer to
>>>> everything in English except "Jeanne d'Arc" and "Champaign" (?), whereas
>>>> the uncultivated Americans use colloquial French.
>>>
>>> You are taking this much too seriously. Obviously it is not how
>>> the <others> perceive France, but how the French think that the
>>> <others> perceive France.
>>>
>>> I think the "France as seen by the Germans" map *is* a reasonable
>>> if jocular summary of the stereotypes prevalent in Germany ("wine,
>>> baguette, and beret"), although you can quibble with some details;
>>> e.g., I didn't know what chouchen was, so I seriously doubt that
>>> it is widely known in Germany.
>>
>>I agree wholeheartedly with your "Obviously it is not how
>>the <others> perceive France, but how the French think that
>>the <others> perceive France."
>>
>>Perhaps the word "chouchen" is used because the map with
>><others'> perceptions is intended for the French audience.
>>If the map said "Honigwein" the intended audience wouldn't
>>know what that means.
>>
> And au contraire as far as the unFrench are concerned. My thought about chouchen was
> a variety of choucroute. Honey-wine, give or take an umlaut, is easy to interpret.
By "intended audience" I meant French, not unFrench, in which case
"chouchen" would be the right term to use.
pjk
Trond Engen
Oct 1, 2012, 2:04:09 AM10/1/12
to
Charles Bishop:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> Charles Bishop:
>>
>>> Paul Madarasz:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
all industrialized countries, prizes of services rise more than prices
of goods, simply because it takes fewer and fewer manhours to make
things (and more and more things are made by cheap manhours abroad). The
cost of education is mainly domestic manhours and will rise more than
average inflation. 2. The need for advanced aids and facilities
increases. In your grandparents days, schools needed a blackboard,
chalks and a rolldown map of the Holy Land. What was an acceptable
environment for children a generation ago isn't today. The same
considerations apply, with a different balance, to healthcare, police
and military. One should thus expect the cost of public and private
services to rise more than inflation, but this would be more than made
up for in cost of living by the relative fall in costs of goods.
(OTOH, prices can rise and inflation be high from imported goods alone.
That means improved competivity. This difference in source of inflation
is why the focus on inflation in economics is only a proxy for the real
problem and why those who don't know that make more harm than good.)
> I think it's a good idea that a state (or any government) has its
> income and thus spending limited.
OK, as long as you accept a slowly diminishing level of services. From
schools, healthcare, police and the military.
>> That's just about when Reagan began the murder of one of the
>> nation's greatest systems of higher education -- when he put an end
>> to free in-state tuition for the most deserving students, including
directly or by taxes is equally expensive. Same goes for healthcare and
security. There are some (quite well-studied) differences in efficiency,
especially due to how markets work for different types of services --
e.g. military security are ridiculous if acquired separately from single
buyers instead of society as a whole -- but the main effect is skewing
and limitation of access, which may be good or bad depending on your
general outlook and the particular service.
--
Trond Engen
> Peter T. Daniels:
>
>> Charles Bishop:
>>
>>> Paul Madarasz:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> What PTAs do is raise money for extras. These days, those
>>>>> "extras" include things like art and music classes.
>>>>
>>>> And sometimes buy school supplies for the kids, since education
>>>> has taken a back seat to more important things, like buying
>>>> armaments that even the DoD doesn't want. =A0If the PTA comes up
>>>> short, the teachers often supplement the shortages out of their
>>>> own pocket.
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear that education has taken a back to anything else,
>>> at least in CA. The amount spend on education is *fixed* in the
>>> budget.
>>
>> And the cost of education continues to increase. There would thus be
>> less and less funds available for it every year.
>
> I think, though I'm not sure, that it's fixed as a percentage. Other
> than inflation, is there something else to cause the cost of
> educationto rise?
Technological progress, for two reasons (that I can think of now). 1. In
>>>>> What PTAs do is raise money for extras. These days, those
>>>>> "extras" include things like art and music classes.
>>>>
>>>> And sometimes buy school supplies for the kids, since education
>>>> has taken a back seat to more important things, like buying
>>>> armaments that even the DoD doesn't want. =A0If the PTA comes up
>>>> short, the teachers often supplement the shortages out of their
>>>> own pocket.
>>>
>>> It doesn't appear that education has taken a back to anything else,
>>> at least in CA. The amount spend on education is *fixed* in the
>>> budget.
>>
>> And the cost of education continues to increase. There would thus be
>> less and less funds available for it every year.
>
> I think, though I'm not sure, that it's fixed as a percentage. Other
> than inflation, is there something else to cause the cost of
> educationto rise?
all industrialized countries, prizes of services rise more than prices
of goods, simply because it takes fewer and fewer manhours to make
things (and more and more things are made by cheap manhours abroad). The
cost of education is mainly domestic manhours and will rise more than
average inflation. 2. The need for advanced aids and facilities
increases. In your grandparents days, schools needed a blackboard,
chalks and a rolldown map of the Holy Land. What was an acceptable
environment for children a generation ago isn't today. The same
considerations apply, with a different balance, to healthcare, police
and military. One should thus expect the cost of public and private
services to rise more than inflation, but this would be more than made
up for in cost of living by the relative fall in costs of goods.
(OTOH, prices can rise and inflation be high from imported goods alone.
That means improved competivity. This difference in source of inflation
is why the focus on inflation in economics is only a proxy for the real
problem and why those who don't know that make more harm than good.)
> I think it's a good idea that a state (or any government) has its
> income and thus spending limited.
schools, healthcare, police and the military.
>> That's just about when Reagan began the murder of one of the
>> nation's greatest systems of higher education -- when he put an end
>> at the flagship campuses of Berkeley and Los Angeles.
>
> Perhaps the state couldn't afford it then. It certainly can't now.
For society as a whole, having people paying for access to education
>
> Perhaps the state couldn't afford it then. It certainly can't now.
directly or by taxes is equally expensive. Same goes for healthcare and
security. There are some (quite well-studied) differences in efficiency,
especially due to how markets work for different types of services --
e.g. military security are ridiculous if acquired separately from single
buyers instead of society as a whole -- but the main effect is skewing
and limitation of access, which may be good or bad depending on your
general outlook and the particular service.
--
Trond Engen
Dr Nick
Oct 1, 2012, 2:36:49 AM10/1/12
to
up - from that meat, prepared vegetables and appropriate spices.
So why should you dine elsewhere. Oh I know, you've not been to that
sort of curry house and therefore it's obviously WRONG.
benl...@ihug.co.nz
Oct 1, 2012, 4:26:00 AM10/1/12
to
On Oct 1, 12:21 pm, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> On Oct 1, 1:42 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 12:25 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > > Am 29.09.2012 22:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 11:22 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> > > >> Am 29.09.2012 14:43, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > >>> On Sep 29, 1:53 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sep 29, 5:15 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> Am 28.09.2012 22:48, schrieb benli...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> > > >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Sep 28, 1:20 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>> They may not recognize their diachronic significance, but they
> > > >>>>>>>> certainly do notice them.
>
> > > >>>>>>> Once again, how is that not _exactly_ what I have been saying?
>
> > > >>>>>> Because what you said, several days ago, was:
>
> > > >>>>>> "People _don't_ notice language change. That's how it can happen!"
>
> > > >>>>> If I don't notice the diachronic significance of a change, then I don't
> > > >>>>> notice the change. I only may notice the variation. So I don't see a
> > > >>>>> contradiction in what Peter wrote here.
>
> > > >>>> What we were discussing was the existence (or lack) of recorded
> > > >>>> comments on AusEng pronunciation from the early years. So even if
> > > >>>> Peter's general claim were correct in the sense you and he propose, it
> > > >>>> would not explain an absence of such comments, since people may
> > > >>>> perfectly well comment on differences without giving a historical
> > > >>>> explanation of them.
>
> > > >>> Wait a minute ... the absence of comments on "language change" shows
> > > >>> that they recognized that "language change" was proceeding all around
> > > >>> them, just as it always had been and always will?
>
> > > >>>> Certainly if someone is comparing two different dialects of a
> > > >>>> language, they may notice differences without being aware of their
> > > >>>> diachronic significance (that one dialect is innovative relative to
> > > >>>> the other). But can that be true of generational differences? If
> > > >>>> grandma notices the young folks talking in a new way, she has noticed
> > > >>>> a change.
>
> > > >>> She has noticed what YOU CALL a change. What she has noticed is that
> > > >>> they are talking sloppy or wrong and tries to correct them. She hopes
> > > >>> they'll grow out of it as they grow out of their adolescence.
>
> > > >>> Pretty obviously, that's a denial of the existence or possibility or
> > > >>> acceptability of change.
>
> > > >>>> She knows she didn't talk that way when she was their age.
> > > >>>> She may attribute it to moral decline, or foreign corruption, or
> > > >>>> whatever; she may not know whether the change will last or be just a
> > > >>>> passing fad. But it would seem very perverse to say that she has not
> > > >>>> noticed a change.
>
> > > >>> Why do you claim that any difference is a change? Why can you not
> > > >>> accept that it is simply a difference -- and that the origin of
> > > >>> differences became a topic of academic study for a handful of
> > > >>> scholars, that has still, over 200 years later, not filtered down to
> > > >>> the gen.pub.?
>
> > > >> Everyone notices that "gay" meant something different 50 years ago. A
> > > >> difference between earlier and today is called a change.
>
> > > > No. It is a difference. It is an added meaning. It is not grasped as a
> > > > change in the language, because the concept of "change in a language"
> > > > is not available. In this case, it's not a mistake or merely a
> > > > difference, but an improvement. (Except to those who think it's a
> > > > corruption.)
>
> > > An added meaning is not perceived as a change?
>
> > It's an addition to the dictionary, not a change to the language.
> > (Remember, words haven't "really" been created until they appear in a
> > dictionary.)
>
> > Not the linguist view. The gen.pop. view. (In case the quibble faction
> > is itching for something else to quibble about.)
>
> I think we really need to get clear about who qualifies as a
> "linguist", the sort of person uniquely capable of understanding that
> languages change. So for example, when Caxton (1490) writes
> "...certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was
> vsed and spoken whan I was borne" (just a few lines before the "eggs"
> anecdote we discussed recently)...is he being a linguist?
Oh, and here's another one. Rather more generally formulated, but hey,
it's Chaucer so it's worth hearing:
Ye knowe eek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do;
Eek for to winne love in sondry ages,
In sondry londes, sondry ben usages.
- Troilus and Criseyde, Book II, 22-28
> On Oct 1, 1:42 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 30, 12:25 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > > Am 29.09.2012 22:48, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > > On Sep 29, 11:22 am, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
> > > >> Am 29.09.2012 14:43, schrieb Peter T. Daniels:
>
> > > >>> On Sep 29, 1:53 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> > > >>>> On Sep 29, 5:15 pm, Joachim Pense <s...@pense-mainz.eu> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> Am 28.09.2012 22:48, schrieb benli...@ihug.co.nz:
>
> > > >>>>>> On Sep 29, 12:08 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> On Sep 28, 1:20 am, "benli...@ihug.co.nz" <benli...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>> They may not recognize their diachronic significance, but they
> > > >>>>>>>> certainly do notice them.
>
> > > >>>>>>> Once again, how is that not _exactly_ what I have been saying?
>
> > > >>>>>> Because what you said, several days ago, was:
>
> > > >>>>>> "People _don't_ notice language change. That's how it can happen!"
>
> > > >>>>> If I don't notice the diachronic significance of a change, then I don't
> > > >>>>> notice the change. I only may notice the variation. So I don't see a
> > > >>>>> contradiction in what Peter wrote here.
>
> > > >>>> What we were discussing was the existence (or lack) of recorded
> > > >>>> comments on AusEng pronunciation from the early years. So even if
> > > >>>> Peter's general claim were correct in the sense you and he propose, it
> > > >>>> would not explain an absence of such comments, since people may
> > > >>>> perfectly well comment on differences without giving a historical
> > > >>>> explanation of them.
>
> > > >>> Wait a minute ... the absence of comments on "language change" shows
> > > >>> that they recognized that "language change" was proceeding all around
> > > >>> them, just as it always had been and always will?
>
> > > >>>> Certainly if someone is comparing two different dialects of a
> > > >>>> language, they may notice differences without being aware of their
> > > >>>> diachronic significance (that one dialect is innovative relative to
> > > >>>> the other). But can that be true of generational differences? If
> > > >>>> grandma notices the young folks talking in a new way, she has noticed
> > > >>>> a change.
>
> > > >>> She has noticed what YOU CALL a change. What she has noticed is that
> > > >>> they are talking sloppy or wrong and tries to correct them. She hopes
> > > >>> they'll grow out of it as they grow out of their adolescence.
>
> > > >>> Pretty obviously, that's a denial of the existence or possibility or
> > > >>> acceptability of change.
>
> > > >>>> She knows she didn't talk that way when she was their age.
> > > >>>> She may attribute it to moral decline, or foreign corruption, or
> > > >>>> whatever; she may not know whether the change will last or be just a
> > > >>>> passing fad. But it would seem very perverse to say that she has not
> > > >>>> noticed a change.
>
> > > >>> Why do you claim that any difference is a change? Why can you not
> > > >>> accept that it is simply a difference -- and that the origin of
> > > >>> differences became a topic of academic study for a handful of
> > > >>> scholars, that has still, over 200 years later, not filtered down to
> > > >>> the gen.pub.?
>
> > > >> Everyone notices that "gay" meant something different 50 years ago. A
> > > >> difference between earlier and today is called a change.
>
> > > > No. It is a difference. It is an added meaning. It is not grasped as a
> > > > change in the language, because the concept of "change in a language"
> > > > is not available. In this case, it's not a mistake or merely a
> > > > difference, but an improvement. (Except to those who think it's a
> > > > corruption.)
>
> > > An added meaning is not perceived as a change?
>
> > It's an addition to the dictionary, not a change to the language.
> > (Remember, words haven't "really" been created until they appear in a
> > dictionary.)
>
> > Not the linguist view. The gen.pop. view. (In case the quibble faction
> > is itching for something else to quibble about.)
>
> I think we really need to get clear about who qualifies as a
> "linguist", the sort of person uniquely capable of understanding that
> languages change. So for example, when Caxton (1490) writes
> "...certaynly our langage now vsed varyeth ferre from that whiche was
> vsed and spoken whan I was borne" (just a few lines before the "eggs"
> anecdote we discussed recently)...is he being a linguist?
Oh, and here's another one. Rather more generally formulated, but hey,
it's Chaucer so it's worth hearing:
Ye knowe eek, that in forme of speche is chaunge
With-inne a thousand yeer, and wordes tho
That hadden prys, now wonder nyce and straunge
Us thinketh hem; and yet they spake hem so,
And spedde as wel in love as men now do;
Eek for to winne love in sondry ages,
In sondry londes, sondry ben usages.
- Troilus and Criseyde, Book II, 22-28
Arnaud F.
Oct 1, 2012, 5:11:08 AM10/1/12
to
How come that "chaunge" and "straunge", presumably with Normandic [ao] finally surface in present-day English with [ei]?
A.
James Hogg
Oct 1, 2012, 5:22:24 AM10/1/12
to
Trond Engen wrote:
> pauljk:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Guy Barry:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to
>>>>> the throne'.
>>>>
>>>> Slang term for "child".
>> "And this is the picture of my little sprog taking his first steps."
>>
>> However, it can have derogative meaning when used in
>> reference to adult children. I believe, the implication is
>> that such children are still underdeveloped mindless babes.
>> I guess the sound of the word helps, as you've suggested.
>
> 'Sprog' is Danish for language. Finally something linguistic!
The Danes even have a linguistic enclave that they call by the term
"language island":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprog%C3%B8
--
James
> pauljk:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Guy Barry:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to
>>>>> the throne'.
>>>>
>>>> Slang term for "child".
>>>
>>> sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>>
>> On the contrary, the original meaning was a loving term as in:
>>> sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>>
>> "And this is the picture of my little sprog taking his first steps."
>>
>> However, it can have derogative meaning when used in
>> reference to adult children. I believe, the implication is
>> that such children are still underdeveloped mindless babes.
>> I guess the sound of the word helps, as you've suggested.
>
> 'Sprog' is Danish for language. Finally something linguistic!
The Danes even have a linguistic enclave that they call by the term
"language island":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprog%C3%B8
--
James
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 5:31:47 AM10/1/12
to
news:723dc6b4-170d-4939...@n9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
NO.... Please, stop right there! Do NOT connect DC to a transformer!
The electrical engineering can be a deadly minefield for a linguist.
It's called an invertor. (There is some justification for the name
"invertor", but it's too technical). If you connect DC power supply
to a transformer you cause an instantaneous meltdown followed,
within microseconds, by a spectacular explosion with streaks of
blue and red fire.
(Red from burning insulation and blue from vaporised copper winding)
pjk
PS.
Some large to huge DC to AC convertors capable of producing near
perfect three phase sin wave shape are constructed by joining up
a DC motor with an AC alternator.
A vital part of the DC motor is "commutator".
The electrical engineering can be a deadly minefield for a linguist.
It's called an invertor. (There is some justification for the name
"invertor", but it's too technical). If you connect DC power supply
to a transformer you cause an instantaneous meltdown followed,
within microseconds, by a spectacular explosion with streaks of
blue and red fire.
(Red from burning insulation and blue from vaporised copper winding)
pjk
PS.
Some large to huge DC to AC convertors capable of producing near
perfect three phase sin wave shape are constructed by joining up
a DC motor with an AC alternator.
A vital part of the DC motor is "commutator".
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 5:37:37 AM10/1/12
to
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:k4b77...@drn.newsguy.com...
pjk
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 5:46:51 AM10/1/12
to
"Trond Engen" <tron...@engen.priv.no> wrote in message
news:k4bk5j$eem$1...@dont-email.me...
> pauljk:
>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Guy Barry:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to
>>>>> the throne'.
>>>>
>>>> Slang term for "child".
>>>
>>> sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>>
>> On the contrary, the original meaning was a loving term as in:
>> "And this is the picture of my little sprog taking his first steps."
>>
>> However, it can have derogative meaning when used in
>> reference to adult children. I believe, the implication is
>> that such children are still underdeveloped mindless babes.
>> I guess the sound of the word helps, as you've suggested.
>
> 'Sprog' is Danish for language. Finally something linguistic!
Hey, I didn't know that. I guess it's too late to pretend I did.
>
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>
>>> Guy Barry:
>>>
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>
>>>>> What is a "sprog"? Context suggests it's a brooksism for 'heir to
>>>>> the throne'.
>>>>
>>>> Slang term for "child".
>>>
>>> sounds just as rude as "snog" and "shag."
>>
>> On the contrary, the original meaning was a loving term as in:
>> "And this is the picture of my little sprog taking his first steps."
>>
>> However, it can have derogative meaning when used in
>> reference to adult children. I believe, the implication is
>> that such children are still underdeveloped mindless babes.
>> I guess the sound of the word helps, as you've suggested.
>
> 'Sprog' is Danish for language. Finally something linguistic!
But did you know that in Australian slang it's uncountable "semen"?
Having just confirmed it with Wiktionary, I particularly like
the way they go out their way to point out that Australian semen
is uncountable.
pjk
R H Draney
Oct 1, 2012, 5:48:22 AM10/1/12
to
James Hogg filted:
Has anyone ever suggested that "sprog" in English might be an acronym?...r
R H Draney
Oct 1, 2012, 5:57:40 AM10/1/12
to
pauljk filted:
either more or less like some arbitrary shape than does Wyoming?...r
>
>So? I didn't say any of them did look like a roman brick.
>What's there to stop anybody arguing which one looks _more_ like one.
>
>For example, judging the relative roman-brickness of some, Kansas
>looks more like the roman brick than North Dakota which looks
>more like it than Colorado, which looks more like it than Wyoming
>which in turn looks more it than New Mexico. Nothing wrong with
>that, even though none of them, or any other, look quite like a roman
>brick.
Your hierarchy falls down in the middle...how can anyone say that Colorado looks
>So? I didn't say any of them did look like a roman brick.
>What's there to stop anybody arguing which one looks _more_ like one.
>
>For example, judging the relative roman-brickness of some, Kansas
>looks more like the roman brick than North Dakota which looks
>more like it than Colorado, which looks more like it than Wyoming
>which in turn looks more it than New Mexico. Nothing wrong with
>that, even though none of them, or any other, look quite like a roman
>brick.
either more or less like some arbitrary shape than does Wyoming?...r
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 5:59:06 AM10/1/12
to
"James Hogg" <Jas....@gOUTmail.com> wrote in message
news:k4bncp$usq$1...@dont-email.me...
relatively recently quadrupled in size.
pjk
Arnaud F.
Oct 1, 2012, 6:03:18 AM10/1/12
to
Le lundi 1 octobre 2012 11:31:53 UTC+2, pauljk a écrit :
>
> A vital part of the DC motor is "commutator".
***
>
> A vital part of the DC motor is "commutator".
So the motor is actually useless!?
A.
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 6:05:09 AM10/1/12
to
news:k4bot...@drn.newsguy.com...
Oxforddictionaries.com says:
Origin:
1940s (originally services' slang): perhaps from obsolete
sprag 'lively young man', of unknown origin
Origin:
1940s (originally services' slang): perhaps from obsolete
sprag 'lively young man', of unknown origin
Arnaud F.
Oct 1, 2012, 6:05:16 AM10/1/12
to
Le lundi 1 octobre 2012 11:59:12 UTC+2, pauljk a écrit :
>
> Amongst other things, that page tells us that this Danish Language
>
> relatively recently quadrupled in size.
>
***
>
> Amongst other things, that page tells us that this Danish Language
>
> relatively recently quadrupled in size.
>
I wonder if the windmills, they keep setting in the sea, squeak in the Danish sprog or not.
A.
pauljk
Oct 1, 2012, 6:19:04 AM10/1/12
to
"Arnaud F." <fournet...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:5b9cbb9c-9f19-4379...@googlegroups.com...
the common drive shaft. The AC alternator is the one to
generate good quality sine shaped AC power.
The commutator part of the DC motor produces only low
power square shape AC necessary to create flip-flopping
magnetic field of the DC motor. Most of the actual power
input is converted to rotational mechanical movement
which drives the AC alternating generator.
pjk
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages