Alt.Usage.Spanish.
Skitt
> I recently made my first posting at the AUS. My Spanish is
> God-awful. Has anyone ever come to the AUE with just the most basic
> of English knowledge, and eventually gone on to become fairly fluent
> thanks to the AUE's help?
Not to my knowledge.
> Is it unrealistic of me to think the AUS
> will help my Spanish, after only five years of studying it, in a
> public high school?
You've studied it for five years, and your Spanish is still God-awful, as
you say?
> What about the AUI helping my Italian, after
> only studying it for two semesters in college?
Don't put too much stock in that, espcially in view of your Spanish
"success".
> In order to become
> bilingual or trilingual, fluently, is it necessary to take more
> professional training than this? Or is practical, real,
> person-to-person conversation and use of the language the best way to
> improve after learning the basics? If this is the case, are the AU
> groups the best places to start?
To become fluent in a language the best way is to become totally immersed in
it. That is what I got for my German and English, in that order. My German
fluency is gone, however, as I have not spoken the language in many decades.
Now it is my native tongue that is suffering.
> How are foreigners treated here?
Well, if they are courteous.
> And what have they been able to learn?
Who's to say?
> Comments from anyone, foreign or native-English-speaking, are
> more than welcome.
I'm not a native-English speaker, but I'm the closest thing to it that you
can get. I learned English at around the age of 16 -- some before, some
after. I can do Standard Formal English better than many native speakers,
but that's not unusual for one who has studied the language and not just
grown up with it. On the other hand, I do "colloquial" too. ;-)
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Dena Jo
> Well, if they are courteous.
I think I might have punctuated that like so: "Well -- if they are
courteous."
I initially read the "well" as a throwaway "well," and it wasn't until
I got to end of the sentence that I realize I'd read it completely
wrong and had to go back and read it again.
I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had the same problem with it.
It could be that I've simply grown so accustomed to reading verbatim
deposition transcripts, where every other sentence begins with a
throwaway (well, now, etc.) that it's difficult for me to read it any
other way.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
John DeFiore
news:20030926204208...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> I recently made my first posting at the AUS. My Spanish is God-awful.
Has
> anyone ever come to the AUE with just the most basic of English knowledge,
and
it
> unrealistic of me to think the AUS will help my Spanish, after only five
years
> Italian, after only studying it for two semesters in college? In order to
> become bilingual or trilingual, fluently, is it necessary to take more
> professional training than this? Or is practical, real, person-to-person
> conversation and use of the language the best way to improve after
learning the
> basics? If this is the case, are the AU groups the best places to start?
>
> Comments from anyone, foreign or native-English-speaking, are more than
> welcome.
I also post at AUS from time to time. My Spanish is OK, and I find AUS most
helpful in answering questions when there is some doubt about grammar or a
slang usage. To work toward fluency, I'd recommend listening to Spanish
language radio and news and reading Spanish language newspapers and
magazines. Radio Unica is a talk radio network in Spanish, you can listen
online at www.radiounica.com. Here in the San Francisco bay area there are
several free weekly newspapers in Spanish, there may be some in your area
too, assuming you don't live here. I subscribe to a Spanish language
magazine called QUO, which is an interesting read, see
http://www.quo.wanadoo.es/.
Que tenga buena suerte,
John
Rich Ragan
> >Que tenga buena suerte,
>
> Here's what I mean by "God-awful". I can't even understand this.
Except for
> the "buena suerte" ("good luck") part. The "Que tenga"...???? No
clue.
>
> Thanks for the info though. The radio sounds like a good idea! Would
the AUS
> peeps get pissed at me for just chit-chatting and having them correct
errors
> and make suggestions? I'm guessing that's not really what the AU
groups are
> for.
Take it literally and then guess (though this does not work for all
idiomatic phrases)
Que=That
tenga=you have
buena suerte=good luck
Giving you "That you have good luck" and now rephrase as it might be
said in colloquial English.
"Here's wishing you good luck". At least that's what my 5 years of
Spanish tells me.
Rich
John DeFiore
> >Que tenga buena suerte,
>
> Here's what I mean by "God-awful". I can't even understand this. Except
for
> the "buena suerte" ("good luck") part. The "Que tenga"...???? No clue.
>
> Thanks for the info though. The radio sounds like a good idea! Would the
AUS
> peeps get pissed at me for just chit-chatting and having them correct
errors
> and make suggestions? I'm guessing that's not really what the AU groups
are
> for.
The regulars at AUS are a good bunch for the most part, I don't think anyone
would have a problem with you chit-chatting. If they do, they'll either
ignore your posts or let you know.
As for my good luck wish, Rich has it right in his post. It's pretty common
in Spanish to start a sentence expressing a wish with "Que...". It's short
for "Ojalá que...", which comes from the Arabic "may Allah grant". In
Spanish it just means something like "I wish" or "would that". So "Que
tenga buena suerte" is "Ojalá que tenga buena suerte" or "I wish that you
have good luck". The verb "tener" is in the subjunctive because it's a
wish, and in the formal "you" form because I don't know you.
Regards,
John
Skitt
> Skitt posted thus:
>> Well, if they are courteous.
>
> I think I might have punctuated that like so: "Well -- if they are
> courteous."
>
> I initially read the "well" as a throwaway "well," and it wasn't until
> I got to end of the sentence that I realize I'd read it completely
> wrong and had to go back and read it again.
I can see that without context (which was snipped), and reading one word at
a time, not seeing the whole sentence, that could happen. I, much inclined
as I am to using "well" as Reagan did, did not see a problem in such a
short sentence when supplying an answer to a direct question. Funny,
though, that as much a dashing fellow that I am, the use of a dash there
didn't occur to me. I admit -- your idea has merit, and thus, I may have
been less than dashing. Do you still love me?
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had the same problem with it.
> It could be that I've simply grown so accustomed to reading verbatim
> deposition transcripts, where every other sentence begins with a
> throwaway (well, now, etc.) that it's difficult for me to read it any
> other way.
No matter -- I still like you. (Am I dashing enough now to earn favor with
you?)
--
Carefully avoiding the plural, I am
Skitt
> YAY! I got a reply in the AUS, and the person seemed to have no
> major problem understanding me. Of course, his post is full of
> jargon, similar to the typical AUE post. It's the technical words
> that are confusing me moreso than the actual Spanish! LOL!
Moreso? Is that Spanish?
--
Rich Ragan
"Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bl2smi$7hp5i$1...@ID-61580.news.uni-berlin.de...
> DE781 wrote:
>
> > YAY! I got a reply in the AUS, and the person seemed to have no
> > major problem understanding me. Of course, his post is full of
> > jargon, similar to the typical AUE post. It's the technical words
> > that are confusing me moreso than the actual Spanish! LOL!
>
> Moreso? Is that Spanish?
Well, Moreno is....
Skitt
> Skitt:
>> To become fluent in a language the best way is to become totally
>> immersed in it.
>
> Wouldn't an AU group be a good way to be totally immersed though?
> Short of a trip to Mexico, it's probably the best way, no? It's all
> I can think of. Unless I decide to spend my entire Thanksgiving and
> Christmas breaks hanging out in Paterson or something.
Anything is better than nothing.
> Skitt, I had NO IDEA that English wasn't your first language. Your
> English is flawless!
Thanks.
> What was your native language?
Latvian.
> I'm guessing you live in an English-speaking country now? How did
> you do the immersion for English & German?
Political pressures forced my family to leave Latvia and to live in Germany
for five years. After that, when I was sixteen, my family was able to come
to the USA.
>> I can do Standard Formal English better than many native speakers,
>> but that's not unusual for one who has studied the language and not
>> just grown up with it. On the other hand, I do "colloquial" too.
>> ;-)
>
> You mean you can "do" the forms in typing? Or in speaking? What
> would you consider "standard formal English"? By "colloquial", do
> you mean the different regional dialects and accents?
After a few years in the USA, I have usually been able to pass myself off as
one who was born here, but not necessarily as one of the locals. I did
manage the local bit when given enough time, like the nine months in
Oklahoma. Yeah, the Indian chicks there (Native American to you) never
suspected anything, as I had the local license plates on my car, and all.
Oh, about that picture stuff you mentioned in another thread -- well, do you
have any idea who Skitt is? You can see my face, but does that help?
It's not that I really care. The whole thing started when I was in a
"sensitive job". After that, having established a net identity, I see no
reason to change it, and thus, published picture notwithstanding, I remain
quite incognito, except to those very few who know me in this group.
Skitt
> Dena Jo:
>> I think I might have punctuated that like so: "Well -- if they are
>> courteous."
>>
>> I initially read the "well" as a throwaway "well,"
>
> Good call. I figured Skitt had made some sort of typo. It wasn't
> until reading your post, Dena, that I realized what he'd meant. And,
> no, it wasn't your "Well -- if..." that helped. It was your
> discussing the actual punctuation that tipped me off that I had
> probably misread it. And, then, I went directly back to Skitt's post
> and reread that sentence, and finally got it.
>
> Sure enough, I read both Skitt AND your version of the "well" as
> throwaways. I'd do it: "Well. If they are courteous", or probably
> even "They're treated well. If...", just to make it perfectly clear.
> Even as two separate sentences, the "well" could be misread as
> throwaway, probably.
Fair catch. Read my answer to DJ for *my* thoughts. There's more than one
way to look at it.
Skitt
>> Moreso? Is that Spanish?
>
> Is this not an actual word? Wow...I can't seem to find it in
> dictionaries! How odd! I've been using this for God knows how long!
> I've always assumed "moreso" was a word; I think I've even heard
> others say it. Here's something interesting:
>
> Go to www.dictionary.com. And type in "moreso". It'll say there was
> no entry found for "moreso", and will offer some suggestions. "More
> so" and "more-so" are offered as suggestions. But, if you click on
> either, NO ENTRY comes up! How odd is this?
That's because it is two words -- more so -- and they have their own
meanings that combine well for the thought you wanted to express.
Robert Lieblich
>
> >
> >Moreso? Is that Spanish?
>
> Is this not an actual word? Wow...I can't seem to find it in dictionaries!
> How odd! I've been using this for God knows how long! I've always assumed
> "moreso" was a word; I think I've even heard others say it. Here's something
> interesting:
>
> Go to www.dictionary.com. And type in "moreso". It'll say there was no entry
> found for "moreso", and will offer some suggestions. "More so" and "more-so"
> are offered as suggestions. But, if you click on either, NO ENTRY comes up!
> How odd is this?
Check out <http://www.word-detective.com/back-a2.html#moreso>. I
got to this via <http://www.onelook.com/>, which I find more useful
than dictionary.com.
--
Bob Lieblich
I do this alot. Alright?
Dena Jo
> didn't occur to me. I admit -- your idea has merit, and thus, I
> may have been less than dashing. Do you still love me?
But of course! You could never be less than dashing to me.
Dena Jo
> And, it has to be "tenga", not "tiene", because it's conditional,
> right?
I think tenga is the subjunctive.
--
Dena Jo, whose last course in Spanish was in 1976
R J Valentine
I'm not so sure of that. I read your response to the thread starter,
skipped Dena Jo's (figuring that Young Joey would quote enough of it), and
was AMAZED at Young Joey's perceptiveness (in English usage). I, too,
read it as a throw-away "well" and assumed you just drifted off at the end
as a subtle hint to recent posters.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Dena Jo
> I'm not so sure of that. I read your response to the thread starter,
> skipped Dena Jo's (figuring that Young Joey would quote enough of it)
Yeah. Right.
Admit it. You find me boring.
I'll have to do better.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> It's short for "Ojalá que...", which comes from the Arabic "may
> Allah grant".
Why did that never dawn on me? Actually, looking at the DRAE, you're
off a little. They say it's "law Sa llah", "if God wills" ("si Dios
quiere").
Are there other Muslim religious references in everyday Spanish?
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The skinny models whose main job is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to display clothes aren't hired for
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |their sex appeal. They're hired
|for their resemblance to a
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |coat-hanger.
(650)857-7572 | Peter Moylan
Skitt
I may drift off at times, but that was not the case there. OK, my
punctuation was faulty. I hate it when that happens, but punctuating is not
my strong point, what with there being no set rules, and such, in English.
Now, in Latvian or German -- that's a different story!
Javi
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> in
news:Xns9402BCC9...@130.133.1.4 gave utterance as follows:
> On 26 Sep 2003, Skitt posted thus:
>
>> Well, if they are courteous.
>
> I think I might have punctuated that like so: "Well -- if they are
> courteous."
>
> I initially read the "well" as a throwaway "well," and it wasn't until
> I got to end of the sentence that I realize I'd read it completely
> wrong and had to go back and read it again.
>
> I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had the same problem with it.
I had, but English is not my mother tongue. I think that a period (full
stop) or a semicolon would have made clear what Skitt meant. I believe that
I would had written it enclosing the if clause in brackets.
> It could be that I've simply grown so accustomed to reading verbatim
> deposition transcripts, where every other sentence begins with a
> throwaway (well, now, etc.) that it's difficult for me to read it any
> other way.
--
Saludos cordiales
Javi
Conjunction of an irregular verb:
I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.
Javi
news:20030926214737...@mb-m26.aol.com gave utterance as follows:
> Skitt:
>
>> You've studied it for five years, and your Spanish is still
>> God-awful, as you say?
>>
>
> This was three years ago. I stopped studying it three years ago.
> I'm sure I was better then than I am now. I've probably lost a bit,
> since I haven't really used it since. I don't know if it's really
> God-awful. I guess I'll find out soon enough if anyone's able to
> understand it. I know I don't have all the tenses right. I have a
> so-so vocabulary. We'll see what happens. But I THINK it's pretty
> crappy.
No, it is not crappy at all. I had expected it much worse after reading your
doubts about posting to AUS. I could understand all your message in AUS. You
express yourself quite well in Spanish. You seem to have forgotten some
things, specially verbal conjugation, but your vocabulary is good and your
sintax is very good, you use subordinate clauses almost perfectly, though
you have to learn the usage of the subjunctive and of "ser/estar". Probably
the fact that you have studied Italian is helping you, as both languages are
similar, and their sintaxes are almost indentical.
>> Don't put too much stock in that, espcially in view of your Spanish
>> "success".
>
> Well, I only stopped with the Italian a little over a year ago. So,
> even though I took it for a shorter amount of time, shouldn't I
> probably remember more of whatever I learned now?
>
>> To become fluent in a language the best way is to become totally
>> immersed in it.
>
> Wouldn't an AU group be a good way to be totally immersed though?
It is not exactly the same, but I believe that it is a good way. Don't
forget that Spanish is a language that is written almost as it is
pronounced, so you have a lot less work to do than if you were learning
other languages.
Javi
news:8yoavl...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
> "John DeFiore" <johnd...@yahooxspam.com> writes:
>
>> It's short for "Ojalá que...", which comes from the Arabic "may
>> Allah grant".
>
> Why did that never dawn on me? Actually, looking at the DRAE, you're
> off a little. They say it's "law Sa llah", "if God wills" ("si Dios
> quiere").
>
> Are there other Muslim religious references in everyday Spanish?
I can now think of:
olé, mezquita, faquir, macabro, ataúd, meca, ramadán.
Anyway, I'm not sure about how to understand "Muslim religious references"
nor "everyday Spanish", so maybe these words are not what you are looking
for.
Ross Howard
wrought:
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
>news:8yoavl...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
>
>> "John DeFiore" <johnd...@yahooxspam.com> writes:
>>
>>> It's short for "Ojalá que...", which comes from the Arabic "may
>>> Allah grant".
>>
>> Why did that never dawn on me? Actually, looking at the DRAE, you're
>> off a little. They say it's "law Sa llah", "if God wills" ("si Dios
>> quiere").
>>
>> Are there other Muslim religious references in everyday Spanish?
>
>I can now think of:
>
>olé, mezquita, faquir, macabro, ataúd, meca, ramadán.
>
>Anyway, I'm not sure about how to understand "Muslim religious references"
>nor "everyday Spanish", so maybe these words are not what you are looking
>for.
Could the exclamation of surprise *¡hala!* be a corruption of *Alá*?
(Sorry, no etymological Spanish dic handy.)
***********
Ross Howard
Javi
news:ilkanvg3bbru2o7ra...@4ax.com gave utterance as follows:
Neither do I, but it could be as you say; anyway, there are other plausible
hypotheses:
The DRAE says that it comes from Arabic "hala", used to stir horses up; I
know too little Arabic as to consider it.
Other possibility is that "hala" is the imperative form of "halar", southern
pronunciation of "jalar" (to pull), used by fishermen (pulling the net); the
DRAE says Spanish "jalar" comes from French "haler", and this seems to come
from Germanic.
The problem with your hypothesis is that leaves unexplained the initial "h",
generally mute nowadays, but pronnounced (as in English) until not too long
ago.
Ross Howard
wrought:
> The carbon unit using the name Ross Howard <ggu...@yahoo.com> in
>news:ilkanvg3bbru2o7ra...@4ax.com gave utterance as follows:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 11:03:48 +0200, "Javi" <poziyo...@hotmail.com>
>> wrought:
>>
>>> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum
>>> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in news:8yoavl...@hpl.hp.com gave
>>> utterance as follows:
>>>
>>>> "John DeFiore" <johnd...@yahooxspam.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> It's short for "Ojalá que...", which comes from the Arabic "may
>>>>> Allah grant".
>>>>
>>>> Why did that never dawn on me? Actually, looking at the DRAE,
>>>> you're off a little. They say it's "law Sa llah", "if God wills"
>>>> ("si Dios quiere").
>>>>
>>>> Are there other Muslim religious references in everyday Spanish?
>>>
>>> I can now think of:
>>>
>>> olé, mezquita, faquir, macabro, ataúd, meca, ramadán.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'm not sure about how to understand "Muslim religious
>>> references" nor "everyday Spanish", so maybe these words are not
>>> what you are looking for.
>>
>> Could the exclamation of surprise *Ąhala!* be a corruption of *Alá*?
>> (Sorry, no etymological Spanish dic handy.)
>
>
>Neither do I, but it could be as you say; anyway, there are other plausible
>hypotheses:
>The DRAE says that it comes from Arabic "hala", used to stir horses up; I
>know too little Arabic as to consider it.
>Other possibility is that "hala" is the imperative form of "halar", southern
>pronunciation of "jalar" (to pull), used by fishermen (pulling the net); the
>DRAE says Spanish "jalar" comes from French "haler", and this seems to come
>from Germanic.
>
>The problem with your hypothesis is that leaves unexplained the initial "h",
>generally mute nowadays, but pronnounced (as in English) until not too long
>ago.
That's true. But "Pull the net!" as the equivalent of "Bloody 'ell!"
sounds even less convincing, doesn't it?
And what is *ĄHala, Madrid!* -- rough cultural, equivalent: "Go,
Steelers! (AmE) or "Come on you Reds!" (BrE) -- all about?
[Minor Anniversaries Corner: Alfredo di Stefano joined Real Madrid 50
years ago last week.]
***********
Ross Howard
Evan Kirshenbaum
> The carbon unit using the name Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> in
> news:8yoavl...@hpl.hp.com gave utterance as follows:
>
> > "John DeFiore" <johnd...@yahooxspam.com> writes:
> >
> >> It's short for "Ojalá que...", which comes from the Arabic "may
> >> Allah grant".
> >
> > Why did that never dawn on me? Actually, looking at the DRAE, you're
> > off a little. They say it's "law Sa llah", "if God wills" ("si Dios
> > quiere").
> >
> > Are there other Muslim religious references in everyday Spanish?
>
> I can now think of:
>
> olé, mezquita, faquir, macabro, ataúd, meca, ramadán.
>
> Anyway, I'm not sure about how to understand "Muslim religious
> references" nor "everyday Spanish", so maybe these words are not
> what you are looking for.
I was thinking more of words that aren't considered to refer to
anything religious but that started out that way--references to Allah,
or the Qur`an, or Muslim holidays or prayers that remain in words used
in casual conversation on other topics. The way English "good-bye"
came from "God be with ye". So words like "mezquita", "faquir", and
"ramadán" still seem to mean their Muslim referents. As does "ataúd",
but I'm not sure that even really qualifies as a religious reference.
"Meca", like English "mecca", is a good example. I'm not sure why
"macabro" (from French "danse macabré") is on the list.
"Olé" would be a good example, but the DRAE just says "voz expr." so
they don't seem to think that it came from anything having to do with
Allah.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"The Dynamics of Interbeing and
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Monological Imperatives in 'Dick
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and Jane' : A Study in Psychic
|Transrelational Modes."
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Javi
Because I used my CD version of the DRAE, 1992 ed., not the online version.
It says:
"Del ár. maqabir, tumbas, cementerio."
Earlier editions, from 1914 to 1947 says: "Del ár. macbora .."
In the 2001 ed. the RAE seems to adhere to the Fench hypothesis, which says
that it comes from the biblical Macchabei brothers, through "dance
macab(r)é".
> "Olé" would be a good example, but the DRAE just says "voz expr." so
> they don't seem to think that it came from anything having to do with
> Allah.
Same explanation:
"Del ár. wa-llah, ¡por Dios!, que se emplea en sentido admirativo; o podría
ser creación expresiva."
So it seems that they have now decided that the latter is the most probable
origin. "Olé" seems old: it appears in 16th century's books.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> did not see a problem in such a
> > short sentence when supplying an answer to a direct question. Funny,
> > though, that as much a dashing fellow that I am, the use of a dash there
> > didn't occur to me. I admit -- your idea has merit, and thus, I may have
> > been less than dashing. Do you still love me?
> >
> > > I'd be interested to hear if anyone else had the same problem with it.
> > > It could be that I've simply grown so accustomed to reading verbatim
> > > deposition transcripts, where every other sentence begins with a
> > > throwaway (well, now, etc.) that it's difficult for me to read it any
> > > other way.
> >
> > No matter -- I still like you. (Am I dashing enough now to earn favor with
> > you?)
DE781, will you please start trimming your posts, especially at the end?
It's not just you -- AUE is bad this way -- but your post caught my eye.
--
SML
please remove your hat when sending me e-mail
http://pirate-women.com
Skitt
> Not being any set rules?
Right. There are sentences in which in certain applications commas are
optional and depend on a judgment call concerning the length of a clause, be
it dependent or independent.
> You mean Latvian and German have even STRICTER rules of punctuation?
You betcha! I recall the dread of having to take dictation in class of a
piece by one particular Latvian writer -- one who loved sentences that ran
for half a page or longer. The emphasis was on punctuating it correctly, as
Latvian spelling is fairly straightforward, yet, quite a few students
managed to screw that up too.
I was lucky in that in our Latvian high school in the DP camp in Germany our
teachers were professors who used to teach at the University of Latvia.
They were a very qualified bunch, and I was taught well, but that was for
writing in Latvian. The same rules do not apply in English.
Maria Conlon
>> DE781, will you please start trimming your posts, especially at the
>> end? It's not just you -- AUE is bad this way -- but your post
>> caught my eye
>
> in each post. How do I know how much to quote and how much to leave
> and how much to cut?
As with everything in life, use your intelligence guided by your
experience. Or your experience guided by your intelligence. Either way,
the advice is from Nero Wolfe, and you can't do better than that.
Maria Conlon
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> This is frustrating. I used to get yelled at for not quoting ENOUGH in each
> post. How do I know how much to quote and how much to leave and how much to
> cut?
A post is too long if I have to scroll through it.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
Please be aware that the *in my opinion* lonely & busybodying
pain-in-the-ass St. Padraig Breathnach (a.k.a. "Some") considers
posting your "commercial" Web site link to be "out of order."
To quote that obnoxious busybody:
"Some might also think that posting the website
link in a non-commercial group was out of order."
+ Padraig Breathnach, 26 Sept 2003
--
Reinhold (Rey) Aman, Publisher
MALEDICTA PRESS
P.O. Box 14123
Santa Rosa, CA 95402, USA
http://www.maledicta.ORG/ <---- BUY BOOKS!
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
> DE781 wrote:
>
> > This is frustrating. I used to get yelled at for not quoting ENOUGH in each
> > post. How do I know how much to quote and how much to leave and how much to
> > cut?
> A post is too long if I have to scroll through it.
This is utter nonsense. Attention-span problems, SML?
> --
> SML
> please remove your hat when sending me e-mail
> http://pirate-women.com
Please be aware that the *in my opinion* lonely & busybodying
R J Valentine
} SML:
}
}>
}>A post is too long if I have to scroll through it.
}
} But that's ridiculous. What if someone just so happens to type a novel?
...
Oy!
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@smart.net>
Isn't "so" a negative-polarity item (tm)?
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> SML:
>
> >
> >A post is too long if I have to scroll through it.
>
> But that's ridiculous. What if someone just so happens to type a novel? I
> mean, there are going to be posts that we'll have to scroll through. That's
> just the way it is. I was under the impression that you were saying my posts
> were too long because of QUOTES, though.
Yup -- you had left in a lot of unnecessary material. Again, I hope you
don't think I'm picking on you -- it happens a lot on AUE.
R F
On Sun, 28 Sep 2003, Sara Moffat Lorimer wrote:
> DE781 wrote:
>
> > SML:
> >
> > >
> > >A post is too long if I have to scroll through it.
> >
> > But that's ridiculous. What if someone just so happens to type a novel? I
> > mean, there are going to be posts that we'll have to scroll through. That's
> > just the way it is. I was under the impression that you were saying my posts
> > were too long because of QUOTES, though.
>
> Yup -- you had left in a lot of unnecessary material. Again, I hope you
> don't think I'm picking on you -- it happens a lot on AUE.
I've noticed recently that many of us, me included, are doing a poor job
at snipping quoted material; I'd meant to post something about this, and
am using this opportunity to do so now. We should only include that
portion of the posting being replied to that is directly relevant to the
posting being written. Care should be taken to delete any quoted material
following the newly-posted remarks, unless there is strong justification
for including it (for example, R.J. Valentine sometimes closes with a
quotation from a previous poster's "sig", and I believe that he does so
not due to carelessness but as a way of expressing commentary on some
aspect of the previous poster's inclusion of that "sig" material).
I've noticed that many AUE posters will do the following:
[body of posting, including quoted material and immediate responses to
such material]
followed by
[instant poster's signature]
and *then* followed by a quotation of the previous poster's signature. For
example:
--
cldst rgds
Rev. Thrush Smallrnone
Proximate part of Hertfordshire, Eng.
>Cony Tooper
>Provider of tots, jittles, and Oy!s
>http://www.conytooper.com
Does anyone do this *intentionally*, and if so, what is the justification
for it? The only possible justification I can see is that the instant
poster thinks that including the previous poster's signature makes clear
to the reader who was being replied to. But, if so, it seems like an
awfully silly way to remind the reader of that fact, especially since the
reader should, ideally, be able to go the *beginning* of the posting to
see who the instant poster was responding to.
Surely there's nothing in the canons of netiquette that calls for
preserving a previous poster's signature.
At least one AUE poster has taken me to task for not having a "sig" of any
sort, but I see no reason to have a "sig" when people are engaging in this
sort of questionable posting style. JMTCONTM.
Reinhold (Rey) Aman
[...]
Even though you've been spared the wrath of the obnoxious busybody
quoted below, please be aware that the lonesome pain-in-the-ass
St. Padraig Breathnach (a.k.a. "Some") might consider your posting
of your "commercial" Web site link to be "out of order."
Dena Jo
> [instant poster's signature]
One so seldom sees "instant" used this way outside of legal documents.
Good man.
(P.S. Check your email, please.)
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> Is it acceptable to cut all quotes but the
> stuff by the person who you're replying directly to?
Acceptable, and encouraged!
Skitt
> (SML wrote something about quotes:)
> Here's my problem. I used to access this group through AOL, which is
> what I'm doing now. AOL usually lets me insert a quote (from the
> previous post only) as I am typing, but without any context or
> attribution. I used to get yelled at for not attributing or quoting
> properly. Again, it was AOL's fault, not mine.
Now you should understand why Time Warner is dropping any references to AOL
in their name.
> Ironically, today there seems to be more problems with AOL's
> newsgroup area than usual. I'm not able to quote AT ALL!
That's AOL for you.
> More recently, I started to use Google to access the AUE, and this is
> what I usually do. But Google just keeps ALL previous text (from all
> previous posts) when you respond to something. Is it acceptable to
> cut all quotes but the stuff by the person who you're replying
> directly to? This seems reasonable to me. But, I don't know what
> the general standard is.
Yes, leave the attribution and that part of the attributed person's post
that is necessary to understand what you are responding to. The rest can be
snipped.
> Also, if this is acceptable, why were people annoyed when I used to
> only use AOL, and was not able to quote beyond one post?
As I recall, you were not able to show whom you were answering. Also,
sometimes a couple of previous contributions are necessary to show what is
really going on.
In other words, what you write should not force the reader to go back
through the thread to make sense of your contribution.
Dena Jo
> Is it acceptable to cut all quotes
> but the stuff by the person who you're replying directly to?
That's what I do. I keep only what's necessary for context. Sometimes
that's more than one person's post; sometimes it's just a sentence.
J. W. Love
>DE781 wrote:
>> (SML wrote something about quotes:)
>
>> Here's my problem. I used to access this group through
>>AOL, which is what I'm doing now. AOL usually lets me
>>insert a quote (from the previous post only) as I am
>>typing, but without any context or attribution. I used to get
>>yelled at for not attributing or quoting properly. Again, it
>>was AOL's fault, not mine.
>
>Now you should understand why Time Warner is dropping
>any references to AOL in their name.
>
>>Ironically, today there seems to be more problems with
>>AOL's newsgroup area than usual. I'm not able to quote
>>AT ALL!
>
>That's AOL for you.
It is? Is it for me too?! (See above.)
Skitt
You could explain things to YJ then.
To explain my attitude, AOL left a bitter taste in my mouth, back in the
early days of computer hook-up to the outside world. That's when I had to
pay them a fortune (they used to charge by the hour) for very limited access
to anything outside of their own domain and their chat groups. It was also
very irritating and time-consuming trying to cancel the account (an hour on
the phone, waiting for someone human to respond). They discouraged
cancellations.
I believe that they still charge a couple of bucks more than other
providers, but I could be wrong. AOL is typically the choice of those not
very sure of their computer skills, and that is who AOL targets with their
promotions.
Large numbers of people who subscribed to AOL's services in the past have
left them for other, better and less expensive providers with easier Web
access. Maybe the Web access part has changed now -- I don't know.
My sister still uses AOL, but she is constantly complaining and treatening
to change. She has not followed through on that, however.
Anyway, I should have used the <rant></rant> signs. I'm all better now.
Never mind ...
J. W. Love
>To explain my attitude, AOL left a bitter taste in my mouth,
>back in the early days of computer hook-up to the outside
>world. That's when I had to pay them a fortune (they used
>to charge by the hour) for very limited access to anything
>outside of their own domain and their chat groups.
We seem to have had opposite experiences: I went with AOL because my publisher
used it, recommended it, and, for the first six years or so, paid for my
subscription. I've enjoyed following some of AOL's punk-rock folders.