UK English !
Rushtown
>From: address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
>Date: 6/5/2001 6:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <English-1976...@news.mantra.com>
>
>In article <9fhcu1$cqa$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> "Dbc" <Db...@active.com> posted:
>> An amusing use of English is when software houses say "UK English" when
>they
>> really mean "English".
>>
>> The choice of "US English" or "UK English" is to be found in most software
>> applications.
>>
>> If people insist on saying "UK English" then the American 'version' must
>> logically be "US UK English".
>>
>> This might mean that when we Brits use American expressions we are actually
>> using "UK US UK English", so it gets a bit stoopid.
>>
>> So to all you Yankee programmers - please refer to our language as
>> "English". You will still be welcome to make use of it especially as we
>> Brits can't use it properly anyway.
>>
>> Regards to all.
>> UK Dave from UK England, UK.
>
>Forget it! There is almost nothing that is "UK's". Everything
>there has been stolen or otherwise acquired from somewhere else.
>And tell that Lizzy woman who goes around calling herself a queen
>to return the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond she wears in her hat, and
>numerous other treasures to Bharat.
>
>Jai Maharaj
>http://www.mantra.com/jai
The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
"American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to that
minority dialect.
Matti Lamprhey
>
> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
> "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to
> that minority dialect.
Can you just clarify whether "US English" is the same all over the US,
Rush? I'm just worried that it might turn out to be a lot of minority
little dialects, whereupon your idea would not be quite so brilliant after
all.
Just a thought.
Matti
Fabian
<address....@web.site hi kitbet
> > So to all you Yankee programmers - please refer to our language as
> > "English". You will still be welcome to make use of it especially as we
> > Brits can't use it properly anyway.
> Forget it! There is almost nothing that is "UK's". Everything
> there has been stolen or otherwise acquired from somewhere else.
> And tell that Lizzy woman who goes around calling herself a queen
> to return the stolen Koh-i-Noor diamond she wears in her hat, and
> numerous other treasures to Bharat.
Hey! She won it fair and square in a game of cards!
--
--
Fabian
For entertaining gas contamination I always liked concentrated sulphuric
acid and elemental iodine. The result of mixing these is a mixture of
gaseous iodine, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide, so it stinks, stains
everything, is poisonous and corrosive.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Matti Lamprhey <matti-...@totally-official.com> wrote in message
news:9fiprl$cl0$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk...
--
"Reflect with a clear mind, man by man for
himself," Zoroaster
Tomaz Cedilnik
> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
> "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to that
> minority dialect.
No way. UK English is the real one, US English is something defaced. For
people speaking UK English, I say they speak English, but for people
speaking US English, I say they speak American.
Mind that the word "English" comes from "England"; the people from
England are called English, and the source of the language is there. The
USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
language names should be different because of the differences then the
one spoken by English people should be called English and the one spoken
by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
--
_______
/__ __/___ __ __
/ / __ \ `_ `_ \
/ / /_/ / // // /
/_/\____/_//_//_/
anna
>Mind that the word "English" comes from "England"; the people from
>England are called English, and the source of the language is there. The
>USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
>English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
>language names should be different because of the differences then the
>one spoken by English people should be called English and the one spoken
>by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
Using your logic, what language do they speak in Switzerland?
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Tomaz Cedilnik
If we want to distinct between Swiss version of languages, then I would
say Swiss French and Swiss German.
Tomaz Cedilnik
Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
American.
And don't forget, Anna, that I'm defending *your* language (if I can
rely on demon.co.uk in your email address).
anna
>anna wrote:
>> In soc.culture.british, Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote:
>>
>> No way. UK English is the real one, US English is something defaced. For
>> people speaking UK English, I say they speak English, but for people
>> speaking US English, I say they speak American.
>>
>> >Mind that the word "English" comes from "England"; the people from
>> >England are called English, and the source of the language is there. The
>> >USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
>> >English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
>> >language names should be different because of the differences then the
>> >one spoken by English people should be called English and the one spoken
>> >by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
>>
>> Using your logic, what language do they speak in Switzerland?
>
>If we want to distinct between Swiss version of languages, then I would
>say Swiss French and Swiss German.
I would think the Germans and most definitely the French would claim the
Swiss have 'defaced' their languages, not to mention the Italians, since
that's the third language of Switzerland. But you're arguing that
Americans can't claim to be speaking 'American English', yet you're willing
to go with 'Swiss French' and 'Swiss German'. Your logic would dictate if
Americans are speaking American, then all the people of Switzerland speak
Swiss, everyone in Canada speaks Canadian, everyone in Peru speaks Peruvian
and so forth.
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Skitt
"Tomaz Cedilnik" <t...@x0.org> wrote in message
news:3B1D28D4...@x0.org...
Did you evict the Italian-speaking crowd?
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
harmony
Worse, they think it is cute.
Worse, they are flag wavers; they wave british flag in USA - in their
offices, on their cars in USA!!! Once, the police in Houston almost took the
chief of our british client company in for flying the british flag higher
than american flag despite warning. It was embarrassing for our company
having to get the police to go easy.
Then they have their funny game called soccer that has no time outs!!! How
can you have a game wihtout timeouts, for god's sake? And another funny game
called cricket - imagine playing all day long the slowest game on earth
with a funny looking bat; the team occupying lot of space to do so little.
It is more interesting to watch that insect hop.
<address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote
in message news:English-198...@news.mantra.com...
> In article <3B1D2AB2...@x0.org>,
> Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> posted:
> I like the name "Americanese" for the English used in the US,
> The Brits try to speak and write in "Puritanese", in my opinion,
> and fail to communicate well with the world community.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
anna
>And don't forget, Anna, that I'm defending *your* language (if I can
>rely on demon.co.uk in your email address).
I'm half English (born here) and half Polish. I was also a stewardess for
many years so my 'world view' is based on having seen a lot of it and as a
result, I'd like to think I'm less parochial and with my split heritage,
perhaps a little less nationalistic than some.
One of the interesting things about my former occupation is I worked for
British Airways, an airline which evolved in part from 'Empire Airways' and
the route structure still reflects those close Commonwealth links.
Consequently, I got to hear English spoken by people of many different
nationalities. For some it was the only language they spoke (e.g. North
America, Caribbean, Oceana) and for others, it was the only means of
communicating with others in their own country where different languages
and dialects are spoken (e.g Nigeria, India, South Africa).
I found that in each of those countries, the people had taken the English
language and 'customised' it, for want of a better word, and made it their
own, just as the English did as they forged it from other in-coming
languages. To me, that is its beauty -- already very much a 'mongrel'
language it can easily be adapted and to be shaped, evolving to fit the
needs of the people who use it. Isn't that what language should do? Or do
you feel that the French are right in attempting to halt the forward
momentum of natural language evolution?
Personally, I have no problem with the term 'US English' or 'UK English',
particularly as there are so many spelling differences between the two, or
even 'NZ English' (is there such a thing?) as each *is* distinctly
different and, I believe, each has a right to exist.
I also love the fact that English is so widely spoken amongst the young
online community -- when I'm on Napster, it's rare that I'm unable to
converse with someone about the music they're sharing. I just feel very
glad that I didn't have to go to the trouble of learning it!
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Tomaz Cedilnik" <t...@x0.org> wrote in message
> news:3B1D28D4...@x0.org...
> > anna wrote:
> > >
> > > In soc.culture.british, Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Mind that the word "English" comes from "England"; the people from
> > > >England are called English, and the source of the language is there.
> The
> > > >USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
> > > >English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
> > > >language names should be different because of the differences then the
> > > >one spoken by English people should be called English and the one
> spoken
> > > >by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
> > >
> > > Using your logic, what language do they speak in Switzerland?
> >
> > If we want to distinct between Swiss version of languages, then I would
> > say Swiss French and Swiss German.
>
> Did you evict the Italian-speaking crowd?
Why not? He threw out several hundred million English-speakers at
the start of the thread. Words mean what the users of them make
them mean. English is the language of several hundred million
people, a small percentage of whom actually live in England. This
is so because when people, including the English people, use the
word "English" to mean a language, they mean the language spoken by
all those, world-wide, who claim to speak it. One can use an
adjective to specify the kind of English meant, and for that reason
the English spoken in England is, odd as this may sound, "English
English" -- or, better, "the English of England." That one
particular poster doesn't like this is of no significance
Indeed, a posting of the "Your definition is wrong because it
doesn't fit my logical construct" variety accomplishes nothing. As,
I suspect, does this, my response to one such.
anna
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>In article <03eqhtsh9ec9ojt38...@4ax.com>,
> an...@warman.demon.co.uk posted:
>
>> In soc.culture.british, Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote:
>>> And don't forget, Anna, that I'm defending *your* language
>>> (if I can rely on demon.co.uk in your email address).
>
>> I'm half English (born here) and half Polish. I was also a stewardess for
>> many years so my 'world view' is based on having seen a lot of it and as a
>> result, I'd like to think I'm less parochial and with my split heritage,
>> perhaps a little less nationalistic than some.
>
>Permit me to suggest that you have a "combined" heritage,
>instead of "split",
Yes, combined is better.
>and the potential to be nationalistic
>about more countries than most people.
That's a very cynical way to view it. You don't know me or what I'm like
-- I would have hoped that from reading what I've written that you will see
that I'm *not* nationalistic. I happen to have been born in England but
have no particular ties or allegiance to it.
>> I also love the fact that English is so widely spoken amongst the young
>> online community -- when I'm on Napster, it's rare that I'm unable to
>> converse with someone about the music they're sharing. I just feel very
>> glad that I didn't have to go to the trouble of learning it!
>
>Napster is again in the news today. It seems that
>major labels will sell their music through it.
Really? I don't watch or read the news so I hadn't heard, though I'm about
to log onto it and daresay I would have found out.
>The language of money -- everyone understands and puts up
>with it.
Doesn't it make the 'world go round'?
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Tomaz Cedilnik
> I would think the Germans and most definitely the French would claim the
> Swiss have 'defaced' their languages, not to mention the Italians, since
> that's the third language of Switzerland. But you're arguing that
> Americans can't claim to be speaking 'American English', yet you're
I didn't say that. Sorry for repeating myself... What I said is that if
we name the languages differently then the English people speak English
and the Americans speak something else. But that something else, as I
said, can be called American English, US English; but since it's the
only language there it could also be simply called American.
Of course, we can call both English and say that the Americans speak
dialects. ;-)
meirm...@erols.com
<a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>British talk funny.
>Worse, they think it is cute.
>Worse, they are flag wavers; they wave british flag in USA - in their
>offices, on their cars in USA!!! Once, the police in Houston almost took the
>chief of our british client company in for flying the british flag higher
>than american flag despite warning. It was embarrassing for our company
>having to get the police to go easy.
That's pretty sad. Did they leave just to be nice, or did you
convince them it wasn't actually against the law.
>
>Then they have their funny game called soccer that has no time outs!!! How
>can you have a game wihtout timeouts, for god's sake? And another funny game
>called cricket - imagine playing all day long the slowest game on earth
>with a funny looking bat; the team occupying lot of space to do so little.
>It is more interesting to watch that insect hop.
>
>
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
Nyal Williams
"anna" <an...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1mhqht02kr9asgi01...@4ax.com...
No, it makes it go all lopsided.
Dbc
meirm...@erols.com
<t...@x0.org> posted:
>anna wrote:
>
>> I would think the Germans and most definitely the French would claim the
>> Swiss have 'defaced' their languages, not to mention the Italians, since
>> that's the third language of Switzerland. But you're arguing that
>> Americans can't claim to be speaking 'American English', yet you're
>
>I didn't say that. Sorry for repeating myself... What I said is that if
>we name the languages differently then the English people speak English
>and the Americans speak something else. But that something else, as I
>said, can be called American English, US English; but since it's the
>only language there it could also be simply called American.
>
>Of course, we can call both English and say that the Americans speak
>dialects. ;-)
I see this only went to one ng. I thought you'd find it interesting.
From: meirm...@erols.com
In alt.english.usage on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 09:45:00 +0100 someone posted:
>
>To explain simply - because I am simple; Elvis Presley was Elvis and there
>are imitations of him in the UK so I suppose you could call them UK variants
>but that doesn't make the original Elvis "US Elvis". So please, the
>original Elvis is Elvis and the original English is English.
Elvis imitators have only limited prominence in the US too. But if
you took jazz, or cajun food, or southern fried chicken or Chicago
pizza and did something distinctive to it that caught on and was very
well known, it would reasonably be preceded by UK, and if it was very
very well known, clarity might require that the original be preceded
by US.
There is a word for this. The big example is the acoustic guitar,
which never existed until electric guitars were so popular that when
one merely said "guitar", people weren't sure what was meant.
Before there was UK English, there was Elizabethan English and that
stuff Beowolf is written in. Didn't discussions of Eliz. English or
something earlier occasionally require the use of Modern English for
the sake of clarity?
Other examples on request, but I bet you can think of them too.
>And just to keep the record straight, I am not anti American,
No. But if you were talking about Modern v. Elizabethan English,
either you wouldn't feel like complaining or you'd have no one to
complain to, their being dead and all.
Mark Wallace
> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
> "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to
that
> minority dialect.
The majority of whom?
The majority of US residents, perhaps, but the rest of the English-spoken
world speaks English.
<Jaded Marzipan's crossposting un-crossposted>
--
Mark Wallace
____________________________________________
For the intelligent approach to nasty humour, visit
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://funny.as/anything
____________________________________________
Mark Wallace
> Tomaz Cedilnik wrote:
> >
> > anna wrote:
> > >
> > > In soc.culture.british, Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Mind that the word "English" comes from "England"; the people from
> > > >England are called English, and the source of the language is there.
The
> > > >USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
> > > >English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
> > > >language names should be different because of the differences then
the
> > > >one spoken by English people should be called English and the one
spoken
> > > >by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
> > >
> > > Using your logic, what language do they speak in Switzerland?
> >
> > If we want to distinct between Swiss version of languages, then I would
> > say Swiss French and Swiss German.
>
> Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
> called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> American.
Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
country is perched. Suggesting that your language be named after a pair of
continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
European languages should be called 'European'.
270,000,000 supposedly creative people, but they can't even come up with a
name for their language.
*sigh*
<Jamrag Marzipan's crossposting un-crossposted>
Aaron J Dinkin
Somebody said that it's done by everybody minding their own business!
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
N.Mitchum
----
> > If we want to distinct between Swiss version of languages, then I would
> > say Swiss French and Swiss German.
>
> Did you evict the Italian-speaking crowd?
And the Romansch! The only Swiss crowd with its own language.
----NM
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:21:55 -0500 "harmony"
> <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> >British talk funny. Worse, they think it is cute. Worse, they are
> >flag wavers; they wave british flag in USA - in their offices, on
> >their cars in USA!!! Once, the police in Houston almost took the
> >chief of our british client company in for flying the british flag
> >higher than american flag despite warning. It was embarrassing for
> >our company having to get the police to go easy.
>
> That's pretty sad. Did they leave just to be nice, or did you
> convince them it wasn't actually against the law.
It's an interesting part of the federal law in that it says what
you're not supposed to do, but doesn't actually seem to make doing it
illegal:
4 USC 7 ... (c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or,
if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States
of America, except during church services conducted by naval
chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the
flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. ...
That "should" seems weird in a statute. Going back a couple of
sections
4 USC 5 The following codification of existing rules and customs
pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States
of America is established for the use of such civilians or civilian
groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with
regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments of the
Government of the United States.
This doesn't *seem* to establish a punishable offense. It may,
however, have been that the state of Texas had made it specifically
illegal. Although this doesn't seem to be the case now, I see that
section 42.11 of the Penal Code there makes destruction of the US flag
a Class A misdemeanor.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The General Theorem of Usenet
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |Information: If you really want to
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |know the definitive answer, post
|the wrong information, and wait for
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |someone to come by and explain in
(650)857-7572 |excruciating detail precisely how
|wrong you are.
| Eric The Read
Bill McCray
In what dialect of English is "distinct" a verb?
Bill McCray
Lexington, KY
Odysseus
>
> Mind that the word "English" comes from "England"; the people from
> England are called English, and the source of the language is there. The
> USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
> English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
> language names should be different because of the differences then the
> one spoken by English people should be called English and the one spoken
> by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
>
from the "Angles" -- their language and their country respectively. Note
that the language now known as Scots was called "Inglis" in the middle
ages for this reason (distinguishing it from the language of the Gaels)
but the people who spoke it, living in Angus or Lothian for example,
were certainly not English by nationality.
--Odysseus
Robert Lieblich
[ . . . ]
> > Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
> > called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> > language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> > American.
>
> Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
> country is perched.
C'mon, Mark. Haven't you ground that axe into powder by now?
> Suggesting that your language be named after a pair of
> continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> European languages should be called 'European'.
<yawn>
> 270,000,000 supposedly creative people, but they can't even come up with a
> name for their language.
Well, America (whatever that is) was named for a fellow whose
surname was Vespucci, so let's call it Vespuccian. Or do you think
the Italians will complain?
No, wait! I've got it!! -- USese!!! (or does Mark have that one
copyrighted?)
Raymond S. Wise
Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote in message news:<3B1D5417...@x0.org>...
[snip]
>
> I didn't say that. Sorry for repeating myself... What I said is that if
> we name the languages differently then the English people speak English
> and the Americans speak something else. But that something else, as I
> said, can be called American English, US English; but since it's the
> only language there it could also be simply called American.
>
> Of course, we can call both English and say that the Americans speak
> dialects. ;-)
Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote in message news:<3B1D5417...@x0.org>...
[snip]
>
> I didn't say that. Sorry for repeating myself... What I said is that if
> we name the languages differently then the English people speak English
> and the Americans speak something else. But that something else, as I
> said, can be called American English, US English; but since it's the
> only language there it could also be simply called American.
>
> Of course, we can call both English and say that the Americans speak
> dialects. ;-)
Well, looking at it from a linguistic point of view (where linguists
go, lexicographers follow):
(1) English is clearly one language. You cannot make it into two or
more just by wishing it to be so.
(2) Standard British English is a dialect just as much as Standard
American English.
(3) Usage has long sanctioned the terms _British English_ and
_American English._ They are the standard terms in American English to
distinguish the two dialects. The two terms are also used to
distinguish the two dialects by David Crystal in his book _The
Cambridge Encyclopedia of The English Language,_ Cambridge University
Press, (C) 1995, which leads me to suspect that these terms are
standard in British English as well.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Robert Lieblich
>
> In alt.usage.english anna <an...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > In soc.culture.british, address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish
> > (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
> >
> >>The language of money -- everyone understands and puts up
> >>with it.
> >
> > Doesn't it make the 'world go round'?
Kander and Ebb (*Cabaret*) certainly thought so. So, apparently,
does someone known as R. Kelly. Check the Web.
>
> Somebody said that it's done by everybody minding their own business!
No chance.
Robert Lieblich
Then they should call it "Swiss." Are they trying to confuse
everybody?
N.Mitchum
-----
> > And the Romansch! The only Swiss crowd with its own language.
>
> Then they should call it "Swiss." Are they trying to confuse
> everybody?
Absolutely. They leave the banks to the Germans, the hotels to
the French, and the arguing to the Italians, while they rest
anonymously snug in their mountain cottages and raise goats.
----NM
Aaron J Dinkin
> Aaron J Dinkin wrote:
>>
>> In alt.usage.english anna <an...@warman.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > In soc.culture.british, address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish
>> > (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>> >
>> >>The language of money -- everyone understands and puts up
>> >>with it.
>> >
>> > Doesn't it make the 'world go round'?
>
> Kander and Ebb (*Cabaret*) certainly thought so. So, apparently,
> does someone known as R. Kelly. Check the Web.
Well, they're certainly sitting pretty.
>> Somebody said that it's done by everybody minding their own business!
>
> No chance.
'Tis love, 'tis love that makes the world go round?
news
"Mark Wallace" <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
news:9fjprf$4erte$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
> country is perched. Suggesting that your language be named after a pair
of
> continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> European languages should be called 'European'.
Incredible!! People are still spouting this nonsense. Every dictionary I've
ever seen whether published in the US, UK, NZ or Nigeria defines the word,
"American" firstly as "adj...of or pertaining to The United States of
America", secondly as "n...an native or citizen of the US", and thirdly as
"the English language as spoken or written in the US". Although it might
look the same to those who don't look carefully enough, the word "Americas"
is a different word - a word use far less often. The use of the adjective
"American" to refer to the two continents, say by geologist in a discussion
of continental drift, is rarer still. The word "America" to refer to the two
continents may be considered obsolete - being used only by pedants with this
particular axe to grind. The words "America" and "American" (in their
overwhelmingly accepted senses) may actually be the world's best-understood
words. It's truly amazing how people can choose to redefine them for their
own biased purposes.
M. Ranjit Mathews
Would the Ticinese agree that the Romansch are the only Swiss with their own language?
Mark Wallace
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B1D896E...@erols.com...
> > > Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also
be
> > > called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> > > language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> > > American.
> >
> > Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
> > country is perched.
>
> C'mon, Mark. Haven't you ground that axe into powder by now?
We haven't had this discussion for at least six weeks. It's almost a
novelty.
> > Suggesting that your language be named after a pair of
> > continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> > European languages should be called 'European'.
>
> <yawn>
>
> > 270,000,000 supposedly creative people, but they can't even come up with
a
> > name for their language.
>
> Well, America (whatever that is) was named for a fellow whose
> surname was Vespucci, so let's call it Vespuccian. Or do you think
> the Italians will complain?
Would you have to sprinkle chocolate powder on it, before speaking in it?
> No, wait! I've got it!! -- USese!!!
What an extremely good idea!
How often do you have these flashes of genius[1]?
The name of a language generally follows either the name of the country
where it is spoken or the name of the tribe (e.a.) which speaks it.
Unitedstatesofamericanese would be a bit of a mouthful, but it might qualify
as the longest name for a language. Are there no Texans here, to advocate
its adoption?
[1] Newbies will now blame my use of 'USese' on you.
Mark Wallace
"news" <lo...@ihug.co.nl> wrote in message
news:9fkbcq$d6u$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> "Mark Wallace" <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
> news:9fjprf$4erte$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
> > country is perched. Suggesting that your language be named after a pair
> of
> > continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> > European languages should be called 'European'.
>
> Incredible!! People are still spouting this nonsense. Every dictionary
I've
> ever seen whether published in the US, UK, NZ or Nigeria defines the word,
> "American" firstly as "adj...of or pertaining to The United States of
> America", secondly as "n...an native or citizen of the US", and thirdly as
> "the English language as spoken or written in the US".
First dictionary I pick up (OUP):
*America* _n._ Continent of the New World or western hemisphere, consisting
of two land-masses, _North ~_ and _South ~_, joined by the narrow isthmus of
_central ~_; N. America comprises Canada, the United States, and Mexico;
Central and S. America are divided into a number of independent states. N.
America was prob. visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th c., but for the
modern world the continent was discovered by Christopher Columbus, who
reached the W. Indies in 1492 and the S. American mainland in 1498. [names
after _Amerigo_ Vespucci]
No second nor third definitions. To find the definition of 'United States
of America', I have to look it up separately.
Second dictionary I pick up (Longman's):
*America* /e'merike/
1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western
hemisphere
2 also the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North,
Central, and South America and the West Indies
3 - see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
It appears that there is some distinction between 'America' and 'United
States of America', wouldn't you say?
Third dictionary i pick up (American Heritage):
*A·mer·i·ca * 1. The United States. 2. also the A·mer·i·cas(-kz) The
landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.
Well, there's a surprise. A USese dictionary puts itself first.
Don't believe the hype.
> Although it might
> look the same to those who don't look carefully enough, the word
"Americas"
> is a different word - a word use far less often.
True. I, myself, very rarely have discussions about more than one continent
at a time.
> The use of the adjective
> "American" to refer to the two continents, say by geologist in a
discussion
> of continental drift, is rarer still.
I take it you don't talk to many non-USese geologists.
The USese ones will have been brainwashed, just like you have, into
believing that the US is all there is.
> The word "America" to refer to the two
> continents may be considered obsolete - being used only by pedants with
this
> particular axe to grind.
And by any dictionary, encyclopaedia, or other text which was not produced
by the USese propaganda machine.
> The words "America" and "American" (in their
> overwhelmingly accepted senses) may actually be the world's
best-understood
> words.
Yes. Brainwashing is, by its nature, overwhelming.
The world's best understood words will most likely all be Chinese. They
outnumber the rest of us.
Failing that, I'll go for 'the' -- which I would also suggest as a good
candidate for the world's most mispronounced word.
> It's truly amazing how people can choose to redefine them for their
> own biased purposes.
Not bias -- common sense and lack of USese programming.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
> called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> American.
"American" might be ambiguous; it could conceivably also mean
Quebecois French, Mexican Spanish or Brazilian Portugese.
Mark Wallace
"Bill McCray" <BillM...@MindSpring.com> wrote in message
news:3b1d7a52...@news.mindspring.com...
Give him a break. With a name like Tomaz Cedilnik, it's reasonably unlikely
that English is his native tongue.
'To distinguish'.
Of course, were his name Kowalski he would almost certainly be an 'other
rank' in the USese armed forces.
Odysseus
Not to mention any of dozens of "Native American" languages ...
--Odysseus
Sheldon Simms
<an...@warman.demon.co.uk>:
> In soc.culture.british, address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish
> (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>
>>and the potential to be nationalistic about more countries than most
>>people.
>
> That's a very cynical way to view it. You don't know me or what I'm
> like -- I would have hoped that from reading what I've written that you
> will see that I'm *not* nationalistic. I happen to have been born in
> England but have no particular ties or allegiance to it.
Why not? It's quite a nice thing to actually like the country one is
born in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nationalistic,
within limits.
--
she...@semanticedge.com "The term (denotation t) denotes the object denoted
by the object denoted by t." -- KIF
meirm...@erols.com
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> posted:
>meirm...@erols.com writes:
>
>> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:21:55 -0500 "harmony"
>> <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>>
>> >British talk funny. Worse, they think it is cute. Worse, they are
>> >flag wavers; they wave british flag in USA - in their offices, on
>> >their cars in USA!!! Once, the police in Houston almost took the
>> >chief of our british client company in for flying the british flag
It didn't sound like this was long ago?
>> >higher than american flag despite warning. It was embarrassing for
>> >our company having to get the police to go easy.
>>
>> That's pretty sad. Did they leave just to be nice, or did you
>> convince them it wasn't actually against the law.
>
>It's an interesting part of the federal law in that it says what
>you're not supposed to do, but doesn't actually seem to make doing it
>illegal:
>
> 4 USC 7 ... (c) No other flag or pennant should be placed above or,
> if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States
> of America, except during church services conducted by naval
> chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the
> flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. ...
>
>That "should" seems weird in a statute. Going back a couple of
>sections
Someone point out the flag statutes earlier this year. Was that in
this group? But we have other groups now. I'd never seen this before
either, and it does seem wierd, something in the US Code that wasn't
actually a law. I guess there is no reason why not. They wanted to
give a little more honor than just having the American Legion pass out
a pamphlet.
>
> 4 USC 5 The following codification of existing rules and customs
> pertaining to the display and use of the flag of the United States
> of America is established for the use of such civilians or civilian
> groups or organizations as may not be required to conform with
> regulations promulgated by one or more executive departments of the
> Government of the United States.
>
>This doesn't *seem* to establish a punishable offense. It may,
>however, have been that the state of Texas had made it specifically
>illegal. Although this doesn't seem to be the case now, I see that
>section 42.11 of the Penal Code there makes destruction of the US flag
>a Class A misdemeanor.
You're right. Texas is a wierd state, even for the south. May have had
some effect on GWB. I can imagine leaving things in their statute
books, but the police should know that those laws are voided (a
violation of free speech), and they shouldn't try to enforce them.
J Cheung
> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
> "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to
that
> minority dialect.
Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a population of one
billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in America.
John
Sheldon Simms
<stche...@yysingnet.com.sg>:
The question is how many in India speak English as a first language,
not how many have learned it later in life.
anna
>schrieb "anna" <an...@warman.demon.co.uk>:
>> address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
>>
>>>and the potential to be nationalistic about more countries than most
>>>people.
>>
>> That's a very cynical way to view it. You don't know me or what I'm
>> like -- I would have hoped that from reading what I've written that you
>> will see that I'm *not* nationalistic. I happen to have been born in
>> England but have no particular ties or allegiance to it.
>
>Why not? It's quite a nice thing to actually like the country one is
>born in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nationalistic,
>within limits.
I didn't say I don't *like* the country I live (and was born) in and I
understand why people are nationalistic or patriotic. It's just that
nationalism and patriotism are almost always divisive (perhaps when people
go beyond those 'limits' -- though I've no idea how one would go about
defining them).
I see a form of nationalism in the fascist movement here and even in the
general intolerance towards and ignorance shown to ethnic minorities, I see
it in the thuggery at international football matches, I saw it when
Thatcher decided to re-take the Falkland Islands and when Bagdhad was
bombed. When I think of nationalism, these are the things I'm reminded of
and I feel very uncomfortable with it.
I see it on usenet all the time, too. For example, I'm also uncomfortable
with the use of 'we' to mean one's country, particularly, for example, in
the way Ratty uses it.
I'm sorry, I'm probably not expressing myself very well -- I'm trying to
describe a 'feeling' that I've never really tried to articulate before.
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Mark Wallace
"Sheldon Simms" <she...@semanticedge.com> wrote in message
news:9fl1hv$4obi7$1...@ID-76872.news.dfncis.de...
> Im Artikel <1mhqht02kr9asgi01...@4ax.com> schrieb "anna"
> <an...@warman.demon.co.uk>:
>
> > In soc.culture.british, address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish
> >
> >>and the potential to be nationalistic about more countries than most
> >>people.
> >
> > That's a very cynical way to view it. You don't know me or what I'm
> > like -- I would have hoped that from reading what I've written that you
> > will see that I'm *not* nationalistic. I happen to have been born in
> > England but have no particular ties or allegiance to it.
Marzipan wrote that? It's more literate and less fascistic than his usual
rants.
btw: If you hold a passport, and therefore demand the protection of a
country, then you do indeed owe allegiance to that country. Nothing in this
life is free.
> Why not? It's quite a nice thing to actually like the country one is
> born in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nationalistic,
> within limits.
I agree absolutely. A love for one's homeland, along with a sense of
belonging to and being part of a nation, can only be good for the spirit.
However, being _belligerently_ nationalistic, as are so many Usenet users
(mostly hailing from the US, FME), does no-one any good -- it only gives
idiots like me a chain to yank.
<Marzipanic crossposts un-crossposted>
meirm...@erols.com
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl> posted:
>
>The name of a language generally follows either the name of the country
>where it is spoken or the name of the tribe (e.a.) which speaks it.
There are 30 or 40 countries in the Western Hemisphere. Name one
country for which that is true. In addition name any Arab country
except Saudi Arabia (named after the language was settled) for which
that is true.
In addition name one African country for which that is true. If you
can find one, count the number of countries for which it is not true.
Oh, I see you say tribe. Maybe then you can find some, but such a
phenomenon would have no relevance to us. We're more than one tribe.
Also Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Israel, many
countries of the FSU, Slovakia, most countries of the former
Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia, and others I'm not sure of or can't remember.
Your comment sounds very Eurocentric to me.
>Unitedstatesofamericanese would be a bit of a mouthful, but it might qualify
>as the longest name for a language. Are there no Texans here, to advocate
>its adoption?
Mark Wallace
> Im Artikel <9fl2nl$2b4$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg> schrieb "J Cheung"
> <stche...@yysingnet.com.sg>:
>
> > "Rushtown" <rush...@aol.com> wrote
> >> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English"
> >> mean "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when
> >> refering to
> > that
> >> minority dialect.
> >
> > Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a population of
> > one billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in America.
>
> The question is how many in India speak English as a first language,
> not how many have learned it later in life.
Rather, how many of them speak better English than most Britons/USese?
<Jammy Marzipan's crossposts un-crossposted>
meirm...@erols.com
<lo...@ihug.co.nl> posted:
>
>"Mark Wallace" <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
>news:9fjprf$4erte$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
>
>> Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
>> country is perched. Suggesting that your language be named after a pair
>of
>> continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
>> European languages should be called 'European'.
>
>Incredible!! People are still spouting this nonsense. Every dictionary I've
>ever seen whether published in the US, UK, NZ or Nigeria defines the word,
You go around looking up American in every dictionary you see?????
>"American" firstly as "adj...of or pertaining to The United States of
Not firstly. Probably secondly after the broader meaning.
>America", secondly as "n...an native or citizen of the US", and thirdly as
>"the English language as spoken or written in the US". Although it might
If listed, these would be third and fourth.
>look the same to those who don't look carefully enough, the word "Americas"
>is a different word - a word use far less often.
People who use the plural for this purpose are emphasizing something
else. Have you considered that your reading is not representative of
all writing?
> The use of the adjective
>"American" to refer to the two continents, say by geologist in a discussion
>of continental drift, is rarer still. The word "America" to refer to the two
>continents may be considered obsolete - being used only by pedants with this
This is nonsense and you're posting from the Netherlands. America is
most of the land in the western hemisphere. It's divided into South
America and North America and by some Central America. I'm not sure
where the Carribean fits in but it's certainly in America.
America to refer to the USA is a very popular colloquialism. I use it
too.
Even the most chauvinist people from the US know that America also
refers to North and South America. Maybe the most stupid people
don't, but only a few of them.
You can consider these meanings obsolete, as you put it, but you'd be
totally wrong.
>particular axe to grind. The words "America" and "American" (in their
>overwhelmingly accepted senses) may actually be the world's best-understood
>words. It's truly amazing how people can choose to redefine them for their
>own biased purposes.
>
>
Murray Arnow
Nope. 'Tis the conservation of angular momentum.
Murray Arnow
>No, wait! I've got it!! -- USese!!! (or does Mark have that one
>copyrighted?)
A question to thee of legal training: wouldn't Mark be better served if
he had it trademarked?
Murray Arnow
Oh shit! This is one of those pains-in-the-ass threads that get started
because of cross-posts. This subject has been covered all too frequently
in AUE. It is even answered, in part, by the FAQ.
Please hear a humble request from this AUEer. If an AUE article is
cross-posted all over the place, please consider the consequences of
proliferating the cross-post before replying.
obFuckwit: You may cross-post this article.
Sheldon Simms
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl>:
However, being _belligerently_ nationalistic, as are so many
> Usenet users (mostly hailing from the US, FME), does no-one any good --
> it only gives idiots like me a chain to yank.
Or a yank to chain.
Sheldon Simms
<an...@warman.demon.co.uk>:
> In soc.culture.british, "Sheldon Simms" <she...@semanticedge.com>
> wrote:
>
>>schrieb "anna" <an...@warman.demon.co.uk>:
>>> address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>and the potential to be nationalistic about more countries than most
>>>>people.
>>>
>>> That's a very cynical way to view it. You don't know me or what I'm
>>> like -- I would have hoped that from reading what I've written that
>>> you will see that I'm *not* nationalistic. I happen to have been born
>>> in England but have no particular ties or allegiance to it.
>>
>>Why not? It's quite a nice thing to actually like the country one is
>>born in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nationalistic,
>>within limits.
>
> I didn't say I don't *like* the country I live (and was born) in and I
> understand why people are nationalistic or patriotic. It's just that
> nationalism and patriotism are almost always divisive (perhaps when
> people go beyond those 'limits' -- though I've no idea how one would go
> about defining them).
Well in my view, the limits are pretty much so that "within limits" goes
so far as the belief that one's native country is somehow better than
all those other ones, but not so far as the belief that everyone else
is required to agree.
Sheldon Simms
<mwallacee...@noknok.nl>:
> "Sheldon Simms" <she...@semanticedge.com> wrote in message
> news:9fl349$4lf26$1...@ID-76872.news.dfncis.de...
>> Im Artikel <9fl2nl$2b4$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg> schrieb "J Cheung"
>> <stche...@yysingnet.com.sg>:
>>
>> > "Rushtown" <rush...@aol.com> wrote
>> >> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English"
>> >> mean "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when
>> >> refering to
>> > that
>> >> minority dialect.
>> >
>> > Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a population
>> > of one billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in
>> > America.
>>
>> The question is how many in India speak English as a first language,
>> not how many have learned it later in life.
>
> Rather, how many of them speak better English than most Britons/USese?
What is better supposed to mean? Better is quite subjective.
Tara O.
> Rushtown wrote:
>
> > The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
> > "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to
that
> > minority dialect.
>
> people speaking UK English, I say they speak English, but for people
> speaking US English, I say they speak American.
I distinguish the two as English and American English. I think the main
differences are the slang and different spellings of words ie. specialise
to specialize.
I think we're all taught 'proper' English in school but rarely ever speak it
or write it.
Tara O.
anna
wrote:
>"Sheldon Simms" <she...@semanticedge.com> wrote
>> schrieb "anna" <an...@warman.demon.co.uk>:
>> > address....@web.site www.mantra.com/jyotish Jay Marzipan) wrote:
>> >
>> >>and the potential to be nationalistic about more countries than most
>> >>people.
>> >
>> > That's a very cynical way to view it. You don't know me or what I'm
>> > like -- I would have hoped that from reading what I've written that you
>> > will see that I'm *not* nationalistic. I happen to have been born in
>> > England but have no particular ties or allegiance to it.
>
>Marzipan wrote that? It's more literate and less fascistic than his usual
>rants.
>btw: If you hold a passport, and therefore demand the protection of a
>country, then you do indeed owe allegiance to that country. Nothing in this
>life is free.
That's fair enough. I guess if I ever had to do 'my bit' for my country, I
would. As things stand now, I feel completely neutral about this country.
I'd emigrate tomorrow without a single feeling of sorrow at leaving my
birthplace, if I could find better circumstances to live in than I have
now.
>> Why not? It's quite a nice thing to actually like the country one is
>> born in. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being nationalistic,
>> within limits.
>
>I agree absolutely. A love for one's homeland, along with a sense of
>belonging to and being part of a nation, can only be good for the spirit.
Maybe that's where I'm going wrong.
>However, being _belligerently_ nationalistic, as are so many Usenet users
>(mostly hailing from the US, FME), does no-one any good -- it only gives
>idiots like me a chain to yank.
I have a theory as to why Merkans are so nationalistic compared to others.
I think it's because the US is made up of such a melting pot of
nationalities and cultures that to prevent society breaking down completely
into warring factions, each immigrant was told to give up all other
passports and pledge allegiance and told they should be proud to be
American, thus uniting the people in one nation. This was and is
continually reinforced in schools and other national institutions and were
I to be given US citizenship, even today I would have to read the pledge of
allegiance out loud.
I can only think the equivalent of that would be someone getting British
citizenship and having to go to the passport office and singing God Save
The Queen before they could call themselves British.
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Robert Lipton
Mark Wallace wrote:
>
> "Sheldon Simms" <she...@semanticedge.com> wrote in message
> news:9fl349$4lf26$1...@ID-76872.news.dfncis.de...
> > Im Artikel <9fl2nl$2b4$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg> schrieb "J Cheung"
> > <stche...@yysingnet.com.sg>:
> >
> > > "Rushtown" <rush...@aol.com> wrote
> > >> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English"
> > >> mean "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when
> > >> refering to
> > > that
> > >> minority dialect.
> > >
> > > Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a population of
> > > one billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in America.
> >
> > The question is how many in India speak English as a first language,
> > not how many have learned it later in life.
>
> Rather, how many of them speak better English than most Britons/USese?
>
Not a valid criterion. After all, how many people think that the
President of the United States uses American English at all well?
Using a language well calls for knowing clearly what you wish you said
and choosing the words -- and punctuation marks -- that will best
communicate it to your chosen audience. As most Indian speakers of
Indian English are communicating to other Indians, I have no doubt that
they are using Indian English as well as most Americans use American
English to speak to Americans or Britons use British English to speak to
Britons.
Bob
James Silverton
In 1992, I.C.B Dear's "Oxford English" put the English-speaking
population of India at 3%. That would make the current number of Indian
English speakers about 30 million but, given the prominence of Indians
in the computer industry, I suspect the number might be greater.
Jim.
--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland.
meirm...@erols.com
Silverton <jim.si...@erols.com> posted:
Certainly both computers and the internet have prompted a lot of
people to learn or improve their English, and they have had most of
their effect since 1992. AFA India goes a lot of them work customer
service lines for USA companies, and they are told not to say where
they are, so that we'll think there in the USA somewhere. They work
especially on the night shift when it's daytime for them, so they
don't mind being awake, and phone rates are probably low, at least in
the US and I think we probably have a large effect on international
rates. (Put better, the fact that most Americans are sleeping frees up
a bunch of lines.)
I actually got one of these girls on the phone one time and she had a
trace of an accent and I asked her about it (That I think brings up
one difference regarding Americans. I think we are far more likely to
have a personal conversation with the operator or the custormer
service person than people from a lot of countries, with no ulterior
motive.) We talked for 3 or 4 minutes and she never did tell me where
she was sitting at the moment. It wasn't until later I read about how
many were doing this.
This call was totatlly technical and it didn't bother me, but
it's annoying when you call the New York office of tourism and get
someone in North Dakota. It's annoying when you call the operator for
a phone number and she lives half way across the country, so when I
say Cottage Forest Ave., she doesn't know enough to tell me it's
probably Cottage Grove, she doesn't know the name of the museum I'm
looking for, because she's probably never even been to the city she's
representing.
On one occasion I needed info about a little town in Ohio. Even 40
years ago, I wouldn't have expected an operator who actually knew that
town. I asked the operator for the New Straightsville Post Office,
the NS Library, and a couple other and I finally found the NS Fire
Department, where the guy nicely answered my questions.
>Jim.
Tomaz Cedilnik
> That's fair enough. I guess if I ever had to do 'my bit' for my country, I
> would. As things stand now, I feel completely neutral about this country.
> I'd emigrate tomorrow without a single feeling of sorrow at leaving my
> birthplace, if I could find better circumstances to live in than I have
> now.
Same for me. Of course, I have my own interpretation of "doing my bit".
> I have a theory as to why Merkans are so nationalistic compared to others.
> I think it's because the US is made up of such a melting pot of
> nationalities and cultures that to prevent society breaking down completely
> into warring factions, each immigrant was told to give up all other
> passports and pledge allegiance and told they should be proud to be
> American, thus uniting the people in one nation. This was and is
> continually reinforced in schools and other national institutions and were
> I to be given US citizenship, even today I would have to read the pledge of
> allegiance out loud.
I wonder if my sister had / will have to do that. She married an
American.
> I can only think the equivalent of that would be someone getting British
> citizenship and having to go to the passport office and singing God Save
> The Queen before they could call themselves British.
Oh right, thanks for reminding me... Where can I get the lyrics of it?
I'm going to move to England and I think I should know it, too. (I only
know the melody and the part "God save the queen".)
--
_______
/__ __/___ __ __
/ / __ \ `_ `_ \
/ / /_/ / // // /
/_/\____/_//_//_/
meirm...@erols.com
<an...@warman.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
>I have a theory as to why Merkans are so nationalistic compared to others.
>I think it's because the US is made up of such a melting pot of
>nationalities and cultures that to prevent society breaking down completely
>into warring factions, each immigrant was told to give up all other
>passports and pledge allegiance and told they should be proud to be
>American, thus uniting the people in one nation. This was and is
How long have Europeans been able to become citizens of another
country without giving up other citizenship. Maybe this is only an
issue if people want to vote. There are many people who stay here for
decades as permanent residents.
>continually reinforced in schools and other national institutions and were
>I to be given US citizenship, even today I would have to read the pledge of
>allegiance out loud.
>
>I can only think the equivalent of that would be someone getting British
>citizenship and having to go to the passport office and singing God Save
>The Queen before they could call themselves British.
Well what are the procedures in England?.
How long have European countries permitted multiple citizenship?
What are the naturalization procedures in other countries?
The Pledge of Allegiance wasn't a part of Am. life until the 1920's or
30's, and was iirc a reaction to immigration. Of course until 1924 we
had far more immigration than any toher country, even in percentage
term I believe. In the 1910's it went up to 2,000 a day iirc in New
York alone. (I think there were 2 or four other ports of entry, all
much smaller)
WE didn't even have a national anthem until the late 19th century
iirc, although the one we have now and the lyrics were popular.
Tomaz Cedilnik
> In addition name one African country for which that is true. If you
> can find one, count the number of countries for which it is not true.
> Oh, I see you say tribe. Maybe then you can find some, but such a
> phenomenon would have no relevance to us. We're more than one tribe.
>
> Also Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Israel, many
> countries of the FSU, Slovakia, most countries of the former
Slovaks speak Slovakian, don't they?
> Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia, and others I'm not sure of or can't remember.
If you want to know about former Yugoslavia: it used to have the inner
division (let's call it states); there were 4 languages: Slovenian
(named from Slovenia), Croatian (named from Croatia), Serbian (named
from Serbia), Macedonian (named from Macedonia). In every state the main
language was the one named by the state, I'm not so sure what they spoke
(speak) in BiH; I think they speak Serbian in Monte Negro. Anyway, the
languages were called by the parts in major division.
Now UK: there are 2 languages, English (named from England) and Welsh
(named from Wales). Same thing. There is no UKean or Britainean (or
-ish), is there?
Mike Lyle
Cedilnik wrote:
[...]
>
>Oh right, thanks for reminding me... Where can I get the lyrics of it?
>I'm going to move to England and I think I should know it, too. (I only
>know the melody and the part "God save the queen".)
>
Quite right! This is really important: whenever you hear the tune you must stand
up and sing all the verses word perfect. While doing so, you must put your hand
over your heart: if you don't, everybody will know you're foreign.
It's best to get a picture of the Queen and hang it in a prominent position in
your sitting room.
When you take a picture of anybody in official uniform such as one of the
guardsmen outside Buckingham Palace, you should always slip a pound or two into
one of his pockets: they aren't well paid, and depend on this extra income.
If you have difficulty finding somewhere to live, there's a Government
Department waiting to help you find one: it's called the Home Office, and the
number is in the telephone book.
I'm sure other readers will have helpful advice to add to mine.
Mike.
Mike Lyle
Cedilnik wrote:
[...]
>
>Now UK: there are 2 languages, English (named from England) and Welsh
>(named from Wales). Same thing. There is no UKean or Britainean (or
>-ish), is there?
>
(English isn't really named after England, but we shan't quarrel about it.)
Mike.
harmony
assurance, more time to do so, and police had the discretionary power, I
guess, to allow it.
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4tjqht4p4ufkj1q9f...@4ax.com...
> In alt.english.usage on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 15:21:55 -0500 "harmony"
> <a...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
> >British talk funny.
> >Worse, they think it is cute.
> >Worse, they are flag wavers; they wave british flag in USA - in their
> >offices, on their cars in USA!!! Once, the police in Houston almost took
the
> >chief of our british client company in for flying the british flag
higher
> >than american flag despite warning. It was embarrassing for our company
> >having to get the police to go easy.
>
> That's pretty sad. Did they leave just to be nice, or did you
> convince them it wasn't actually against the law.
> >
> >Then they have their funny game called soccer that has no time outs!!!
How
> >can you have a game wihtout timeouts, for god's sake? And another funny
game
> >called cricket - imagine playing all day long the slowest game on earth
> >with a funny looking bat; the team occupying lot of space to do so
little.
> >It is more interesting to watch that insect hop.
Frances Kemmish
>
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 06 Jun 2001 15:47:16 +0100 anna
> <an...@warman.demon.co.uk> posted:
>
> >
> >I have a theory as to why Merkans are so nationalistic compared to others.
> >I think it's because the US is made up of such a melting pot of
> >nationalities and cultures that to prevent society breaking down completely
> >into warring factions, each immigrant was told to give up all other
> >passports and pledge allegiance and told they should be proud to be
> >American, thus uniting the people in one nation. This was and is
>
> How long have Europeans been able to become citizens of another
> country without giving up other citizenship. Maybe this is only an
> issue if people want to vote. There are many people who stay here for
> decades as permanent residents.
>
> >continually reinforced in schools and other national institutions and were
> >I to be given US citizenship, even today I would have to read the pledge of
> >allegiance out loud.
> >
> >I can only think the equivalent of that would be someone getting British
> >citizenship and having to go to the passport office and singing God Save
> >The Queen before they could call themselves British.
>
> Well what are the procedures in England?.
> How long have European countries permitted multiple citizenship?
> What are the naturalization procedures in other countries?
>
I know that rules regarding Dutch citizenship have changed, but I
don't know what they are now. When my mother married my father, she
automatically lost her Dutch citizenship and became a British
citizen by default. When she applied for a British passport, all she
had to do was present a copy of her marriage certificate.
Fran
Aaron J Dinkin
> If you want to know about former Yugoslavia: it used to have the inner
> division (let's call it states); there were 4 languages: Slovenian
> (named from Slovenia), Croatian (named from Croatia), Serbian (named
> from Serbia), Macedonian (named from Macedonia).
Well, three languages really: Serbo-Croatian is a single language,
although the Serbs and Croats don't want to admit it.
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Aaron J Dinkin
> Second dictionary I pick up (Longman's):
>
> *America* /e'merike/
> 1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western
> hemisphere
> 2 also the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North,
> Central, and South America and the West Indies
> 3 - see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
I've got to say, I think that first definition is a poor one. Does anybody
actually say "America" when they mean 'North America' or 'South America' -
that is to say, when they're referring specifically to one of the two
continents? The second definition seems sensible, but would anyone here
say that the first definition reflects how they use the word "America" or
have heard it used?
> Third dictionary i pick up (American Heritage):
>
> *A·mer·i·ca * 1. The United States. 2. also the A·mer·i·cas(-kz) The
> landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.
>
> Well, there's a surprise. A USese dictionary puts itself first.
The _American Heritage Dictionary_, as its name suggests, is a dictionary
of American English aimed at an American audience, and the order of its
definitions reflects the order of how usual the two definitions are in
American English.
> The world's best understood words will most likely all be Chinese. They
> outnumber the rest of us.
> Failing that, I'll go for 'the' -- which I would also suggest as a good
> candidate for the world's most mispronounced word.
I doubt it. The word "the" is almost certain to be poorly understood by
non-English speakers. Certainly by speakers of languages with no definite
articles, or of languages whose definite articles don't match the
distribution of definite articles in English (e.g., Spanish).
My nominee for the world's best understood word is "Coca-Cola".
meirm...@erols.com
meirm...@erols.com posted:
>
>The Pledge of Allegiance wasn't a part of Am. life until the 1920's or
>30's, and was iirc a reaction to immigration. Of course until 1924 we
>had far more immigration than any toher country, even in percentage
>term I believe. In the 1910's it went up to 2,000 a day iirc in New
My words are ambiguous. I don't mean it went up to 2000 and stayed
there. I meant it was 2000 on some days and fewer on others. And
1200 might have been the number anyhow. (I can't find the source I had
last week.)
>York alone. (I think there were 2 or four other ports of entry, all
>much smaller)
meirm...@erols.com
<t...@x0.org> posted:
Thank you for correcting me. I made some mistakes and I regret that.
(I may have gotten really mixed up regarding Slovakia) But so far
all my mistakes are in Europe.
Atanu Dey
> Im Artikel <9fl2nl$2b4$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg> schrieb "J Cheung"
>>
>> one billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in America.
> The question is how many in India speak English as a first language,
> not how many have learned it later in life.
My back of the envelope calculations:
urban population of India: 300 million
literate urban population: 200 million
literate urban population
with sufficient fluency in
english to read a newspaper: 100 million
literate urban population with
good english language skills: at most 30 million
Atanu
Al in Dallas
> [snip] [H]ow many people think that the
> President of the United States uses American English at all well?
After living in the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area for
nineteen years, my observation is that he talks (sounds)
like a Texan. For example, when speaking slowly and
enunciating clearly[1] "to" (at normal speed [t@]) becomes [tV]
instead of [tu].
[1] insert "relatively" before "clearly" if you insist he never
enunciates clearly
Al in Dallas
anna
>anna wrote:
>
>> I would think the Germans and most definitely the French would claim the
>> Swiss have 'defaced' their languages, not to mention the Italians, since
>> that's the third language of Switzerland. But you're arguing that
>> Americans can't claim to be speaking 'American English', yet you're
>
>I didn't say that. Sorry for repeating myself... What I said is that if
>we name the languages differently then the English people speak English
>and the Americans speak something else. But that something else, as I
>said, can be called American English, US English; but since it's the
>only language there it could also be simply called American.
>
>Of course, we can call both English and say that the Americans speak
>dialects. ;-)
Actually, you're not far off how I perceive it. There are plenty of places
I could go in the US and not be able to follow what's being said. In the
Caribbean I can barely understand when I've listened to two locals talking.
One of our scb'ers is an EnZedder. Couldn't understand a word he said, but
he seemed like a nice enough chap.
--
LP&L
Anna D.
Donna Richoux
Nolo Press says, in its section on defining "trademark," that
"Manufactures and merchants use trademarks for the sole purpose of
distinguishing their products from those of others in the
marketplace..."
So, which is Mark going to be, a manufacturer or a merchant of USese?
There's no way to claim dibs on a word and make people pay you for the
right to say it. Not through trademark registration, not through
copyright, not through patents. Thank heavens (tm).
--
Best --- Donna Richoux (Reg. US Pat. Pending)
Tomaz Cedilnik
> First dictionary I pick up (OUP):
> Second dictionary I pick up (Longman's):
> Third dictionary i pick up (American Heritage):
>
> *A·mer·i·ca * 1. The United States. 2. also the A·mer·i·cas(-kz) The
> landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.
>
> Well, there's a surprise. A USese dictionary puts itself first.
> Don't believe the hype.
Hehehe, what else did you expect?
I've got 2 English dictionaries (not counting English-Slovene ones).
Haven't found "America" in either, but have found "American" in both:
Pocket (Mandarin):
American n a) an inhabitant of the continents of North or South America.
b) an inhabitant of the United States of America. c) the English
language as spoken in the United States of America.
[after Amerigo Vespucci ...]
Longman:
American n, adj (a person) from North, Central, or South America, esp.
the United States of America
Just for fun I also checked The Great English-Slovene Dictionary (not a
very good one; I explained the Slovene parts in brackets):
American I adj ameriski (not obvious whether it talks about the
--------
continents or about the USA); American cloth - povosceno platno (waxed
linen/canvas); American Indian - Indijanec (that's what we call them;
the inhabitant of India is called Indijec)
American II n American, -nka (in Slovene this word only means the
inhabitant of America - not obvious whether the continent or the USA);
ameriska anglescina (American English)
--------
(Both underlined words are different forms of the same adjective.)
> The USese ones will have been brainwashed, just like you have, into
> believing that the US is all there is.
Many already are. (Hehe, just remembered an article from years ago -
lately Microsoft is figuring out that other than Californian American
there are a few more languages...)
> Failing that, I'll go for 'the' -- which I would also suggest as a good
> candidate for the world's most mispronounced word.
Hehehe, it's the reason for some jokes in Slovenia - we have a word
"teh" (used in a direct object, means "these"; sometimes it also means
"them") which word processors with spell checking enabled keep changing
into "the" (as "the" -> "teh" is the most common error).
Murray Arnow
I'm not quite sure about that. Michael Buffer, the ring announcer,
trademarked his "Let's get ready to rumble" to prevent others using it
for commercial purposes.
R J Valentine
Well, there's really and there's really. There's some Albanian going on
there, among other things, and I have a bit of a problem with Serbian that
I don't seem to have with Croatian (in contrast with Flemish, which seems
to be a lot closer to Dutch). Yet when I was looking for Petar II's grave
and the groundskeeper apparently spoke only Serbian, he directed me right
to it. (It's inside the church in front of the souvenir stand.)
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Donna Richoux
The difference there is that you add the three words, "for commercial
purposes." If someone printed it on a T-Shirt and sold the T-shirt, they
would be infringing on his trademark. If he never used it in that manner
himself -- for commercial purposes -- then he would lose the trademark
eventually, I forget how many years.
Is Mark thinking of printing "USese" on T-shirts, mugs, coasters, etc?
R J Valentine
In alt.usage.english Aaron J Dinkin <din...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
} In alt.usage.english Mark Wallace <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote:
}
}> Second dictionary I pick up (Longman's):
}>
}> *America* /e'merike/
}> 1 either continent (North America or South America) of the western
}> hemisphere
}> 2 also the Americas the lands of the western hemisphere including North,
}> Central, and South America and the West Indies
}> 3 - see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
}
} I've got to say, I think that first definition is a poor one.
Well, yeah, but the second is no prize, either. If the first is right,
what's the "Central" and "West Indies" doing in the second. And what
about Hawaii. And the third stinks as definition.
} Does anybody
} actually say "America" when they mean 'North America' or 'South America' -
} that is to say, when they're referring specifically to one of the two
} continents?
Well, not me, but I might say "America" to refer to either continent of
the western hemisphere (or to both). There's a certain ambiguity in
saying "Canada is America's back yard."
} The second definition seems sensible, but would anyone here
} say that the first definition reflects how they use the word "America" or
} have heard it used?
I think that's mainly in how you read it. If you mean to be specific,
your point is of course correct. But that specificity isn't required by
the definition.
Definition 3 is the weakest, because they don't out and say it means
that; they just Chevrolet it.
}> Third dictionary i pick up (American Heritage):
}>
}> *A搶er搏搾a * 1. The United States. 2. also the A搶er搏搾as(-kz) The
}> landmasses and islands of North America, Central America, and South America.
}>
}> Well, there's a surprise. A USese dictionary puts itself first.
}
} The _American Heritage Dictionary_, as its name suggests, is a dictionary
} of American English aimed at an American audience, and the order of its
} definitions reflects the order of how usual the two definitions are in
} American English.
And by extension in the order of how usual the two definitions are in
English as used by native speakers of the language. There are mighty few
usualities in American English that aren't usualities in English as a
whole, native-speaker-wise.
}> The world's best understood words will most likely all be Chinese. They
}> outnumber the rest of us.
}> Failing that, I'll go for 'the' -- which I would also suggest as a good
}> candidate for the world's most mispronounced word.
}
} I doubt it. The word "the" is almost certain to be poorly understood by
} non-English speakers. Certainly by speakers of languages with no definite
} articles, or of languages whose definite articles don't match the
} distribution of definite articles in English (e.g., Spanish).
}
} My nominee for the world's best understood word is "Coca-Cola".
Could be, But I think Chinese is overrated as a widespread language.
Sure, there are a lot of Chinese people, but I'm not sure they can
understand each other, and I don't know how many "words" are in a typical
person's vocabulary. I suspect that English is more widely known, if
only as a second language.
But the "Coca Cola" guess is a good one. I watched a Chinese movie the
other day ("Not One Less" on the DVD), and there was a shameless product
placement of a can of Coca Cola in a village where they could barely
afford a box of chalk for the school. Sure enough, in the end credits,
there was Coca Cola.
India has almost as many people as China, and there's a lot of English
going on there. We've got an Indian video store around the corner, and a
good chunk of the movies are subtitled in English (maybe independently of
the fact that they're sold here), but in the ones I've seen, you don't
have to rely on the subtitles, because the actors will break into English
for some reason at critical points. (They'll also break into song in the
middle of a murder mystery, but that's neither here nor there.)
Tomaz Cedilnik
> > people speaking UK English, I say they speak English, but for people
> > speaking US English, I say they speak American.
>
> I distinguish the two as English and American English. I think the main
So do I, but I simplify "American English" by shortening it into
"American" (also (when joking) suggesting that it might not be English).
> differences are the slang and different spellings of words ie. specialise
> to specialize.
Yea right! Swapped "underground" and "subway"; "crisps" vs. "chips" vs.
"fries" [1]; "tap" vs. "faucet"; "blind" vs. "window shade"; "fish
slice" vs. "slotted spatula" and so on...
> I think we're all taught 'proper' English in school but rarely ever speak it
> or write it.
At school I've learned English (although there was also a bit of
American English). But later I got Americanised by comics and even more
by IRC. Now I'm re-learning to speak English and (since it's useful to
understand American, too) to distinguish between both languages (as I'm
going to marry an English girl). I used to type "color" and "math" a
lot; now I make sure I strictly type "colour" and "maths". Also making
sure of -re vs. -er.
[1] More about "crisps" vs. "chips" vs. "fries" - I actually use all 3
words. Since what e.g. McDonalds calls "fries" is thinner and harder
than chips so that stuff doesn't deserve the name "chips" - therefore I
call it "fries". I say "chips" when I mean the thick and soft ones which
are much nicer. Although crisps sold in Slovenia are called "chips" I
avoid using the word in this meanning.
I wonder - how come the Americans (US people) started calling crisps
"chips"?
I really must get the English-American dictionary (also to make fun of
American English).
Tomaz Cedilnik
>
> J Cheung wrote:
> >
> > "Rushtown" <rush...@aol.com> wrote
> > > The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English" mean
> > > "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when refering to
> > that
> > > minority dialect.
> >
> > Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a population of one
> > billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in America.
The Longman dictionary mentions the existence of these: American
English, Australian English, British English, Canadian English,
Caribbean English, Indian English, Irish English, New Zealand English,
Pakistani English, South African English and Scottish English. Now check
each exotic English how many people speak it. ;-)
> In 1992, I.C.B Dear's "Oxford English" put the English-speaking
> population of India at 3%. That would make the current number of Indian
> English speakers about 30 million but, given the prominence of Indians
> in the computer industry, I suspect the number might be greater.
1992??? For computers it's almost prehistoric.
harmony
Sheldon Simms <she...@semanticedge.com> wrote in message
news:9fl349$4lf26$1...@ID-76872.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > "Rushtown" <rush...@aol.com> wrote
> >> The majority speak US English. It would seem proper that "English"
> >> mean "American English" and that "UK English" only be used when
> >> refering to
> > that
> >> minority dialect.
> >
> > Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a population of
> > one billion by now, this may one day overtake the number in America.
>
> not how many have learned it later in life.
One more factor to consider: Although the first language of many Indians may
not be English, their schooling is 100pct english. They learn the state
language as an added course, but halfheartedly, like one would learn a
foreign language in an Iowa school. These kids when grown up, most of them
are severely deficient in Hindu culture, and are said to belong to no place,
think religion is a conspiracy, and are said to have little reason to exist
other than to party. They love america, and are Clinton voters.
>
> --
> she...@semanticedge.com "The term (denotation t) denotes the object
denoted
> by the object denoted by t." -- KIF
Evan Kirshenbaum
> My nominee for the world's best understood word is "Coca-Cola".
I don't know if they considered brand names, but I think I've seen it
argued that "okay" is the most widely understood word.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |about science. One gets such
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out
|of such a trifling investment of
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |fact.
(650)857-7572 | Mark Twain
Fabian
"Aaron J Dinkin" <din...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote in message
news:9flor4$f6l$3...@news.fas.harvard.edu...
iirc, the difference in the written language is significant; Croatian is
routinely written in Latin script, Serbian in Cyrillic script.
--
--
Fabian
For entertaining gas contamination I always liked concentrated sulphuric
acid and elemental iodine. The result of mixing these is a mixture of
gaseous iodine, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide, so it stinks, stains
everything, is poisonous and corrosive.
Murray Arnow
>>
>> I'm not quite sure about that. Michael Buffer, the ring announcer,
>> trademarked his "Let's get ready to rumble" to prevent others using it
>> for commercial purposes.
>
>The difference there is that you add the three words, "for commercial
>purposes." If someone printed it on a T-Shirt and sold the T-shirt, they
>would be infringing on his trademark. If he never used it in that manner
>himself -- for commercial purposes -- then he would lose the trademark
>eventually, I forget how many years.
>
>Is Mark thinking of printing "USese" on T-shirts, mugs, coasters, etc?
>
I'm out of my element here, Donna. Can we talk about thermodynamics?
Evan Kirshenbaum
> In article <9fl349$4lf26$1...@ID-76872.news.dfncis.de>,
> "Sheldon Simms" <she...@semanticedge.com> posted:
>
> > Im Artikel <9fl2nl$2b4$1...@violet.singnet.com.sg> schrieb "J Cheung"
> > <stche...@yysingnet.com.sg>:
> >
> > > Just curious. How many in India speak English? With a
> > > population of one billion by now, this may one day overtake the
> > > number in America.
> >
> > The question is how many in India speak English as a first
> > language, not how many have learned it later in life.
>
> Whose question?
> There are more English speakers in Bharat than in any other country.
Based on whose numbers? The numbers I've seen bandied about range
from 3% to 5%, which would put them behind the UK and well behind the
US.
See, for example
http://landow.stg.brown.edu/post/india/hohenthal/5.2.html
where the number, 4%, taken from Crystal, is for those who merely "use
English", not those who are native speakers. The number who can
understand some English may well be higher, but I would be surprised
if there was any reasonable measure that would take it up to the 30%
or so that would be needed to challenge the US.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The flags were adjusted for compliance
with what law?
> after requesting, with a credible assurance, more time to do so, and
> police had the discretionary power, I guess, to allow it.
The question is, did the police have the power to do anything else?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |On a scale of one to ten...
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |it sucked.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Joe Manfre
>Aaron J Dinkin <din...@fas.harvard.edu> writes:
>
>> My nominee for the world's best understood word is "Coca-Cola".
>
>I don't know if they considered brand names, but I think I've seen it
>argued that "okay" is the most widely understood word.
The Van Buren Boys must be proud.
JM
--
Joe Manfre, Hyattsville, Maryland.
Robert Lieblich
>
> meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > In addition name one African country for which that is true. If you
> > can find one, count the number of countries for which it is not true.
> > Oh, I see you say tribe. Maybe then you can find some, but such a
> > phenomenon would have no relevance to us. We're more than one tribe.
> >
> > Also Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Israel, many
> > countries of the FSU, Slovakia, most countries of the former
>
> Slovaks speak Slovakian, don't they?
I found a site whose content seemed reasonably reliable:
<http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Czech.htm?CalledFrom=5002>,
and here's what is said there:
"Czech is the offical language of the Czech Republic, spoken by
virtually the entire population of 10 million people. It is closely
related to Slovak, spoken in Slovakia, the two languages in fact
being mutually intelligible."
I'm not sure *how* mutually intelligible they are and whether the
separation occurred before or after Czechoslovakia broke up (and I'm
not sufficiently curious to find out). Is this another case like
Norse and Swedish, or is it more like Spanish and Portuguese?
harmony
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:ug0ddb...@hpl.hp.com...
JB
>
> Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote in message news:<3B1D2AB2...@x0.org>...
> > Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
> > called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> > language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> > American.
>
> "American" might be ambiguous; it could conceivably also mean
> Quebecois French, Mexican Spanish or Brazilian Portugese.
Have you heard any Quebecois, Mexicans, or Brazilians refer to
themselves or their languages as American? --JB
JB
>
> > > Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
> > > called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> > > language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> > > American.
> >
> > country is perched.
>
> C'mon, Mark. Haven't you ground that axe into powder by now?
>
> > Suggesting that your language be named after a pair of
> > continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> > European languages should be called 'European'.
>
> <yawn>
>
> > 270,000,000 supposedly creative people, but they can't even come up with a
> > name for their language.
>
> Well, America (whatever that is) was named for a fellow whose
> surname was Vespucci, so let's call it Vespuccian. Or do you think
> the Italians will complain?
>
> No, wait! I've got it!! -- USese!!! (or does Mark have that one
> copyrighted?)
USese is no good - both Brazil and Mexico have United States in their
formal names. --JB
JB
>
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 6 Jun 2001 16:26:02 +1200 "news"
> <lo...@ihug.co.nl> posted:
>
> >
> >"Mark Wallace" <mwallacee...@noknok.nl> wrote in message
> >news:9fjprf$4erte$1...@ID-51325.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> >> Not 'American', because the Americas are the continents upon which your
> >of
> >> continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> >> European languages should be called 'European'.
> >
> >ever seen whether published in the US, UK, NZ or Nigeria defines the word,
>
> You go around looking up American in every dictionary you see?????
>
> >"American" firstly as "adj...of or pertaining to The United States of
>
> Not firstly. Probably secondly after the broader meaning.
>
> >America", secondly as "n...an native or citizen of the US", and thirdly as
> >"the English language as spoken or written in the US". Although it might
>
> If listed, these would be third and fourth.
The dictionaries I have checked list word senses in order of
chronological appearance, not in frequency of use. --JB
news
The only two dictionaries published in the UK I have are the Collins Concise
and WordWeb - both of which list the USA sense of America first.
> It appears that there is some distinction between 'America' and 'United
> States of America', wouldn't you say?
Of course. There is a distinction between any two words of simnilar meaning.
USA is less ambiguous, certainly. The problem is that you consider the USA
usage of America to be WRONG, even though it is a sense of the which I
believe to be in contention for one of the most widely-understood words in
the world. (Okay then "Okay" has probbly got it, as may Coca-Cola. (Any more
nominations for the most widely-understood word? How could that be
measured?))
Picture a nomad camped in the steppes of Asia. Will he know the word
"American"? I think so. When using that word, will he be thinking of two
continents on a map or will he be thinking of the industrial giant that puts
so many new stars in his night sky. Like you, he probably hates America, but
he surely knows what the word means.
Picture a businessman in London speaking about an American computer company.
Does his colleague ask him which country in America?
> Yes. Brainwashing is, by its nature, overwhelming.
Your bigotry is astounding. Perhaps you'd have more luck peddling your
hatred in some political or flame newsgroup. AUE discusses English usage.
The use of the word "American" is well understood. You'd have a hard time
changing that. Nor will it happen by trying to spread ameriphobia.
Robert Lipton
R J Valentine wrote:
>
> Well, not me, but I might say "America" to refer to either continent of
> the western hemisphere (or to both). There's a certain ambiguity in
> saying "Canada is America's back yard."
Canada is America's mother-in-law apartment.
Bob
Mike Oliver
What's a mother-in-law apartment? Those little illegal garage
conversions in the backyard? I call those "Kato Kaelins".
JB
>
> "Tomaz Cedilnik" <t...@x0.org> wrote in message
> news:3B1D2AB2...@x0.org...
> > Tomaz Cedilnik wrote:
> > >
> > > anna wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In soc.culture.british, Tomaz Cedilnik <t...@x0.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >England are called English, and the source of the language is there.
> The
> > > > >USA people are Americans; it seems stupid to say that Americans speak
> > > > >English and English people speak something else, doesn't it? If the
> > > > >language names should be different because of the differences then
> the
> > > > >one spoken by English people should be called English and the one
> spoken
> > > > >by Americans should be called something else (e.g. American).
> > > >
> > > > Using your logic, what language do they speak in Switzerland?
> > >
> > > If we want to distinct between Swiss version of languages, then I would
> > > say Swiss French and Swiss German.
> >
> > Oh... Before you ask... Of course, what the Americans speak can also be
> > called US English or American English. But since they only speak that
> > language (as a main language, of course) it could be simply called
> > American.
>
> country is perched. Suggesting that your language be named after a pair of
> continents is tantamount to declaring any one of the Western or Eastern
> European languages should be called 'European'.
If you think a language should bear the name of its country, as you do
(I wonder what they speak in, say, Costa Rica), then 'American' should
be your preference for USA English. No other country has America in
its name, and citizens of no other country describe themselves, their
language or their country as American. --JB
Evan Kirshenbaum
It does seem to happen. I posted one URL yesterday of a Mexican
writing to a Mexican newspaper to complain of Mexicans doing that.
Here's another, which seems to say it, incendentally, while talking
about the way newspapers refer to men and women in Spanish:
A la dualidad de sujetos diferentes, deberá corresponder también
dualidad de adjetivos y verbos. Así, ya no deberá decirse, por
ejemplo, "Los mexicanos y las mexicanas somos americanos", y ni
siquiera basta con agregar "y americanas" -un adjetivo para cada
sujeto-, sino "los mexicanos y las mexicanas somos y son
americanos y americanas", o bien, "los mexicanos somos y las
mexicanas son americanos y americanas"
http://www.elsoldezacatecas.com.mx/v270401/op2000.htm
But I couldn't find any actual examples.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If you think health care is
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |expensive now, wait until you see
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |what it costs when it's free.
| P.J. O'Rourke
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
Robert Lieblich
[all attributions were missing when the posting arrived]
> Picture a businessman in London speaking about an American computer company.
> Does his colleague ask him which country in America?
>
> > Yes. Brainwashing is, by its nature, overwhelming.
>
> Your bigotry is astounding.
Aha! He's responding to Mark Wallace. (I cheated and checked the
reference line.)
Assuming news = newbie, please understand that Mark's postings are
laden with irony, sarcasm, satire ... and the occasional straight
remark. He only does it to annoy, because he knows it teases
> Perhaps you'd have more luck peddling your
> hatred in some political or flame newsgroup.
Okay, Mark. Time to break out the smileys.
> AUE discusses English usage.
When we get bored with food, sheep, movies, and politics.
> The use of the word "American" is well understood. You'd have a hard time
> changing that.
He knows that. If it weren't such a fat target he wouldn't bother.
> Nor will it happen by trying to spread ameriphobia.
Please reread my last remark.
Skitt
"Robert Lieblich" <lieb...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3B1EAAD9...@erols.com...
> Tomaz Cedilnik wrote:
> > Slovaks speak Slovakian, don't they?
>
> I found a site whose content seemed reasonably reliable:
> <http://www.worldlanguage.com/Languages/Czech.htm?CalledFrom=5002>,
> and here's what is said there:
>
> "Czech is the offical language of the Czech Republic, spoken by
> virtually the entire population of 10 million people. It is closely
> related to Slovak, spoken in Slovakia, the two languages in fact
> being mutually intelligible."
>
> I'm not sure *how* mutually intelligible they are and whether the
> separation occurred before or after Czechoslovakia broke up (and I'm
> not sufficiently curious to find out). Is this another case like
> Norse and Swedish, or is it more like Spanish and Portuguese?
A quick search of the Web seems to indicate that the Czech and Slovak
languages were separate in olden times.
http://members.tripod.com/~mihu2/micro/language.htm
I had a Slovak co-worker in Florida, and he could translate Czech to
English, but said that he could not guarantee the finer nuances of his
translation.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://i.am/skitt/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).