When I take office

[Quinn C]

On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:

Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!

I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".

--
If the aeroplane industry had advanced at the same rate as the
computer industry, today's planes could circumnavigate the world
in ten seconds, be two inches long, and crash twice a day.
Peter Moylan in alt.usage.english

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <rlfqyxyc...@mid.crommatograph.info>,

Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>
> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>
> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".

So, the future is set and immutable? There is no possibility of not
taking office, of being rejected by the voters?

[Paul Carmichael]

So the wonderfully elegant English subjunctive "if and when" comes in to play.

I don't understand "than I would be when" in the future. "than I might be if and when I
take office" - it just keeps getting nicer :-)

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:01:46 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:

But talking to the mayor of South Bend, Indiana?

> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>
> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".

The "when I take office", "Ladies, and gentleman, our next Senator!"
thing is so common that I'm surprised to see someone remark on
it.

For me, the "would" doesn't go with the "when". If Mr. Buttigieg
wants to say "when", he should say, "younger than I'll be when I
take office". More realistically, he could add, "if I do", or say
something such as "younger than I'd be at the start of my term, if
I'm elected". But I didn't go to Harvard.

--
Jerry Friedman

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

On this subject, I'd prefer that Buttigieg drop out of the race. He's
a very impressive person, and my preference is not at all based on any
problem with him or his credentials.

One of the newspapers ran a survey on support of the various Democrats
in the running and found that there is a group of voters who rate the
candidates more on their ability to beat Trump than on the perceived
attributes of that candidate as President.

I'm in that group. At this point, defeating Trump is more important
to me than *who* is nominated to run against him. The "who" must be
someone who can attract the independents and Republicans who might be
willing to shift to a Democrat in 2020. I don't think Buttigieg is
that "who". Or O'Rourke, and I'm not sure about most of the others.

It's a sad day when the consideration is not "Would he/she be a good
President?" but "Can he/she be elected?".








--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 12:54:22 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:01:46 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:

> > On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>
> But talking to the mayor of South Bend, Indiana?
>
> > Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> > Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
> >
> > I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
> > because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
> > expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
>
> The "when I take office", "Ladies, and gentleman, our next Senator!"
> thing is so common that I'm surprised to see someone remark on
> it.

Perhaps "Trevor N." is Trevor Noah, notoriously South African, and
they don't say that there.

> For me, the "would" doesn't go with the "when". If Mr. Buttigieg
> wants to say "when", he should say, "younger than I'll be when I
> take office". More realistically, he could add, "if I do", or say
> something such as "younger than I'd be at the start of my term, if
> I'm elected". But I didn't go to Harvard.

He has confidence!

(Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant.) No apology for STS.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 2:02:29 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> It's a sad day when the consideration is not "Would he/she be a good
> President?" but "Can he/she be elected?".

That obviously wasn't a concern for the Democrats in 1956. Or 1896,
1900, or 1908.

[David Kleinecke]

I'd've said "When I take office, fingers crossed.|

[Ross]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 1:01:46 AM UTC+12, Quinn C wrote:
> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>
> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>
> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
>
> --

But if he wants to include the next clause in the conditionality, it
should be "...when I took office".

(Sorry, I have no idea who these people are, so don't know if Pete
is actually a candidate for anything. If so, he might have slipped
into anticipation-of-victory mode between clauses.)

[Sam Plusnet]

On 30-Apr-19 20:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 12:54:22 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:01:46 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
>
>>> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>>
>> But talking to the mayor of South Bend, Indiana?
>>
>>> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
>>> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>>>
>>> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
>>> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
>>> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
>>
>> The "when I take office", "Ladies, and gentleman, our next Senator!"
>> thing is so common that I'm surprised to see someone remark on
>> it.
>
> Perhaps "Trevor N." is Trevor Noah, notoriously South African, and
> they don't say that there.
>

(Why "notorious"? Is John Oliver notoriously British?)

To my British ear, that use of "When I take office" sounds rather
boastful.
Electorates who are taken for granted have a habit of biting the hand
which patronises them.


--
Sam Plusnet

[CDB]

On 4/30/2019 3:08 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> Quinn C wrote:

[if wishes would be horses]

>> For me, the "would" doesn't go with the "when". If Mr. Buttigieg
>> wants to say "when", he should say, "younger than I'll be when I
>> take office". More realistically, he could add, "if I do", or say
>> something such as "younger than I'd be at the start of my term, if
>> I'm elected". But I didn't go to Harvard.

You can always tell a Harvard man.

> He has confidence!

> (Whoops, there goes another rubber tree plant.) No apology for STS.

En garde, Professeure! Bouchez-vous les oreilles!

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <36b92b2d-7dcf-4b9d...@googlegroups.com>,

Mayor Pete of South Bend, Indiana, presently candidate for the
Democratic nomination for president in 2020. His surname Buttigieg is
the source of consternation for practically every reporter and
interviewer.

[Quinn C]

* Ross:

> On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 1:01:46 AM UTC+12, Quinn C wrote:
>> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>>
>> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
>> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>>
>> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
>> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
>> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
>>
>> --
>
> But if he wants to include the next clause in the conditionality, it
> should be "...when I took office".

But that doesn't work, because we're talking about a hypothetical
future event, not the past.

Part of the problem may be that English lacks the German distinction
between "als" (at an actual - past - point in time) and "wenn" (at a
hypothetical point in time). English speakers struggle with that
distinction, but it allows "wenn" to suggest "if and when" in many
contexts. Not that it's not better to additionally clarify it in the
verb.

> (Sorry, I have no idea who these people are, so don't know if Pete
> is actually a candidate for anything. If so, he might have slipped
> into anticipation-of-victory mode between clauses.)

That's the thing, I don't think he did at all. I'm pretty sure he just
meant what Jerry rephrased as "at the start of my term". That's why I
found the interviewer's reaction odd.

<https://youtu.be/r26ZvVs0K5A?t=199>

I wanted to make sure I remembered right, so I'll share it.

--
... their average size remains so much smaller; so that the sum
total of food converted into thought by women can never equal
[that of] men. It follows therefore, that men will always think
more than women. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)

[Quinn C]

* Horace LaBadie:

I already said that: If so, it should have been "younger than I'll be
when ..." The "I'd be" made clear to me that it's a hypothetical. But
"younger than I'd be if I am/was elected" doesn't make sense, because
your age doesn't depend on the outcome of the election. It does depend
on the timing of the election, though.

So even if you use "if" (or "should" etc.), you still need the "when"
(or "at the time" etc.) on top.

--
Learning the rules that govern intelligible speech is an
inculcation into normalized language, where the price of not
conforming is the loss of intelligibility itself.
-- Judith Butler

[Quinn C]

* Horace LaBadie:

The instruction I heard several times recently was to say
"boot-edge-edge" quickly.

--
Strategy: A long-range plan whose merit cannot be evaluated
until sometime after those creating it have left the organization.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 21:45:42 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

>On 30-Apr-19 20:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 12:54:22 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:01:46 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>>> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>>>
>>> But talking to the mayor of South Bend, Indiana?
>>>
>>>> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
>>>> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>>>>
>>>> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
>>>> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
>>>> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
>>>
>>> The "when I take office", "Ladies, and gentleman, our next Senator!"
>>> thing is so common that I'm surprised to see someone remark on
>>> it.
>>
>> Perhaps "Trevor N." is Trevor Noah, notoriously South African, and
>> they don't say that there.
>>
>
>(Why "notorious"? Is John Oliver notoriously British?)

I was wondering the same thing, but I'm over-quota today on PTD
clangers. "Notorious" is usually reserved for describing something
bad. Perhaps PTD has an internalized bias against South Africans.

>To my British ear, that use of "When I take office" sounds rather
>boastful.

At one time in the US it would have been described as "The Power of
Positive Thinking", but Pete was born 30 years after Peale's book was
first published.

[Tony Cooper]

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:23:43 -0700 (PDT), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
wrote:

I admire your ability to completely tune out the news. It's mostly
depressing and even frightening.

[Mark Brader]

Oliver Cromm:

> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!

I consider the first words to be a natural shortening of "younger
actually than I would be when I take office, if I win". The "would
be" expresses the conditionality and it's obvious what the relevant
condition is.

And I don't have a problem with the second speaker poking fun at
the choice of not expressing the condition, but of course if it
was being expressed, substituting "if" would be a correct way to
do it.

In short, nothing to see here, move along.
--
Mark Brader | "I doubt that many people have changed their views...
Toronto | If you'd like to continue, please take both sides,
m...@vex.net | arguing with yourself." --Charles Bishop

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[David Kleinecke]

It's a perfectly ordinary adjective to stick in when repeating
a fact that should be well-known.

No implication of blame.

[Tony Cooper]

Dunno about that. "Notable" or "notably" would be free of blame, but
"notorious" has a negative connotation. Take a look at the synonyms
listed at thesaurus.com: https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/notorious

There are a few positive words, but most are negative.

Most of the hits at the Corpus of Contemporary American English are
negative.

https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/

Martin Shkreli is "notorious for price-gouging", for example. Not
all, though. Gov John Kasich is described as "a notorious budget
hawk". You could go either way on that.

I'll stick with "usually something bad". I wouldn't refer to
Christiaan Barnard or Nelson Mandela as a "notorious South African".
(Especially the latter. You know who would call me a you know what if
I did)

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <paohcel2bjgmdr71c...@4ax.com>,

Notorious RBG !

[Tony Cooper]

I think you mean the late Christopher George Latore Wallace. Wrong
initials, though.

[Horace LaBadie]

In article <1b0icepr8onvu09gr...@4ax.com>,

Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 01 May 2019 00:34:18 -0400, Horace LaBadie

Damn. I missed that completely. No excuses, but the title was "a
riff on rapper Notorious B.I.G." according to
http://time.com/4093354/heres-why-ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-notorious/

That has to be a favorable use of "notorious". I can't imagine anyone
dissing RBG.

[RH Draney]

On 4/30/2019 3:04 PM, Horace LaBadie wrote:
>
> Mayor Pete of South Bend, Indiana, presently candidate for the
> Democratic nomination for president in 2020. His surname Buttigieg is
> the source of consternation for practically every reporter and
> interviewer.

How hard can it be to remember "booty judge"?...r

[Ross]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:09:13 AM UTC+12, Quinn C wrote:
> * Ross:
>
> > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 1:01:46 AM UTC+12, Quinn C wrote:
> >> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
> >>
> >> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> >> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
> >>
> >> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
> >> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
> >> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > But if he wants to include the next clause in the conditionality, it
> > should be "...when I took office".
>
> But that doesn't work, because we're talking about a hypothetical
> future event, not the past.

It's what (my) English grammar requires when operating in conditional
mode. "If I won the election, I would..." does not refer to a past event.
But of course it is way too reflective for a serious candidate.
It suggests pessimism. What a serious candidate needs to say is
"If I win the election, I will..." or better "When I win...".
(That's a present form referring to a future event. "If/when I will
win..." is a foreignism.)

[Ross]

Don't forget I'm living in a small country way on the other end of the world.
Most of the filtering is done for me. In the course of a typical day's
news broadcasts that I listen to, there might be two items from the USA --
a noteworthy Trump idiocy, a natural disaster, a mass shooting, a new
announced Democratic nomination contender.(I understand there are
maybe 20 of these -- I don't think I could name more than two. Are
Pete and Trevor among them?)

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

Well, yah, because it took a turn through the world of rap, where it's
good to be baad.

--
But I have nver chosen my human environment. I have always
borrowed it from someone like you or Monk or Doris.
-- Jane Rule, This Is Not For You, p.152

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 1 May 2019 02:59:39 -0700 (PDT), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 10:23:13 AM UTC+12, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 13:23:43 -0700 (PDT), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 1:01:46 AM UTC+12, Quinn C wrote:
>> >> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
>> >>
>> >> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
>> >> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
>> >>
>> >> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
>> >> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
>> >> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> >But if he wants to include the next clause in the conditionality, it
>> >should be "...when I took office".
>> >
>> >(Sorry, I have no idea who these people are, so don't know if Pete
>> >is actually a candidate for anything. If so, he might have slipped
>> >into anticipation-of-victory mode between clauses.)
>>
>> I admire your ability to completely tune out the news. It's mostly
>> depressing and even frightening.
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
>Don't forget I'm living in a small country way on the other end of the world.

Actually, I don't remember where you post from. That's why I'm in
favor of sig lines that identify the poster's location and, in some
cases, the poster's native language.

>Most of the filtering is done for me. In the course of a typical day's
>news broadcasts that I listen to, there might be two items from the USA --
>a noteworthy Trump idiocy, a natural disaster, a mass shooting, a new
>announced Democratic nomination contender.(I understand there are
>maybe 20 of these -- I don't think I could name more than two. Are
>Pete and Trevor among them?)

Pete yes, Trevor, no. Trevor Noah is a late-night television show
host. His monologues are political zingers with Trump and the Trump
administration the usual butt of his jokes. He usually has a guest on
the couch who is interviewed.

I'm not a Trevor Noah fan. He can be bitingly funny, and his
political views are the same as mine, but he just doesn't impress me.
When he interviews a guest, the guest can barely get a word in. Noah's
questions run longer than the possible answers.

[CDB]

On 4/30/2019 6:09 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * Horace LaBadie:

>> Quinn C <lispa...@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>>> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New
>>> Zealand:

>>> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
>>> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!

>>> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when"
>>> here, because he was talking about a point in time. The
>>> conditional was expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will
>>> be".

>> So, the future is set and immutable? There is no possibility of
>> not taking office, of being rejected by the voters?

> I already said that: If so, it should have been "younger than I'll
> be when ..." The "I'd be" made clear to me that it's a hypothetical.
> But "younger than I'd be if I am/was elected" doesn't make sense,
> because your age doesn't depend on the outcome of the election. It
> does depend on the timing of the election, though.

You can ditch the confusing tenses if you like. "Younger than I would
be on taking office"; "younger than I'd be when elected".

[Paul Carmichael]

On 01/05/2019 14:37, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2019 02:59:39 -0700 (PDT), Ross <benl...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:

>> Don't forget I'm living in a small country way on the other end of the world.
>
> Actually, I don't remember where you post from. That's why I'm in
> favor of sig lines that identify the poster's location and, in some
> cases, the poster's native language.

Look up there. Email address .co.nz. There's a clue there, is there not?

--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/
https://asetrad.org

[David Kleinecke]

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 2:59:42 AM UTC-7, Ross wrote:

> Don't forget I'm living in a small country way on the other end of the world.
> Most of the filtering is done for me. In the course of a typical day's
> news broadcasts that I listen to, there might be two items from the USA --
> a noteworthy Trump idiocy, a natural disaster, a mass shooting, a new
> announced Democratic nomination contender.(I understand there are
> maybe 20 of these -- I don't think I could name more than two. Are
> Pete and Trevor among them?)

I get no "mainline" news at all (by choice, here in the USA). I
do use the internet. I start with Google News which even
provides a significant local news section and take it from there
on the web. I'm partisan enough to read Wonkette.

The internet seems better informed than all those "experts".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 4:45:45 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 30-Apr-19 20:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 12:54:22 PM UTC-4, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:01:46 AM UTC-6, Quinn C wrote:

> >>> On The Today Show, talking about the prime minister of New Zealand:
> >> But talking to the mayor of South Bend, Indiana?
> >>> Pete B: ... younger actually than I would be when I take office.
> >>> Trevor N.: "When I take office." Not if, when. I like it!
> >>> I found that odd. To me, there was no choice of "if" and "when" here,
> >>> because he was talking about a point in time. The conditional was
> >>> expressed by saying "would be" rather than "will be".
> >> The "when I take office", "Ladies, and gentleman, our next Senator!"
> >> thing is so common that I'm surprised to see someone remark on
> >> it.
> > Perhaps "Trevor N." is Trevor Noah, notoriously South African, and
> > they don't say that there.
>
> (Why "notorious"? Is John Oliver notoriously British?)

His memoir is titled *I Am a Crime*. (A mixed-race individual born
into apartheid.)

My main impression of John Oliver is the magnitude of his nose.

> To my British ear, that use of "When I take office" sounds rather
> boastful.

In context, it was meant to be. After just a few weeks, he's polling
in the top five of the field of 20.

[Peter T. Daniels]

? It's perfectly standard Maltese orthography.

[Peter T. Daniels]

The person who never heard of Notorious RBG chastises the New Zealander
for not knowing of a recent Democratic candidate for US president?

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

Trevor Noah had a take on that part, too (not when having him as a
guest):

Maltese-American? Does that mean he's part little dog?

[Tony Cooper]

I recommend subscribing to Politico:

https://www.politico.com/

I also read Google News, but it's frustrating to see an interesting
headline, but it's an article from one of the many paywalled sources
(New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) that allow
free access only a few times a month.

[Tony Cooper]

Rather like someone who wants to know the organizational structure of
"Healthy Start" to understand the role of a nurse in that program, but
has no compunctions about blathering on about some lecture at the
Oriental Institute as if everyone knows what it is and where it is?

Don't bother telling me. Unlike you, I know how to Google.

[David Kleinecke]

By just reading the headlines you can get all the content that
matters. Well 98% of it.

[Madhu]

* David Kleinecke <eb510816-a0df-40cc...@googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Wed, 1 May 2019 16:06:13 -0700 (PDT):

> By just reading the headlines you can get all the content that
> matters. Well 98% of it.

Just reading the url is enough. If the URL says all opening it only
invites advertising/surveillance.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

It is if you write it as Buttiġieġ.


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

No one asked about "organizational structure."

The conjecture was offered that it was some sort of visiting nurse
service, which eventually you conceded was correct.

> to understand the role of a nurse in that program, but
> has no compunctions about blathering on about some lecture at the
> Oriental Institute as if everyone knows what it is and where it is?
>
> Don't bother telling me. Unlike you, I know how to Google.

What the bloody hell does the OI have to do with *Notorious RBG*, which
is a movie, a book, and a meme?

[Peter T. Daniels]

There you go, showing off again.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 2 May 2019 14:45:46 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> Rather like someone who wants to know the organizational structure of
>> "Healthy Start"
>
>No one asked about "organizational structure."
>
>The conjecture was offered that it was some sort of visiting nurse
>service, which eventually you conceded was correct.

Eventually conceded? When the initial appearance referred to a nurse
visiting the home of a client? How many clues do you need?

Never mind. I know the problem. I didn't put "nurse", "visit", and
"home" in all-caps.

>
>> to understand the role of a nurse in that program, but
>> has no compunctions about blathering on about some lecture at the
>> Oriental Institute as if everyone knows what it is and where it is?
>>
>> Don't bother telling me. Unlike you, I know how to Google.
>

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

No. Just showing that I know how to use Google, something you should
try some time.

But were you not showing off when you (wrongly) wrote "perfectly
standard Maltese orthography"?


--
athel

[Peter T. Daniels]

No, his Maltese background has been well publicized.

Why do you need Google to type a g-dot?

[bebe...@aol.com]

How would that help non-Maltese reporters and interviewers know how to
pronounce his name anyway?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Basic knowledge of one of the most fascinating languages of Europe.

[bebe...@aol.com]

But people with basic knowledge of /Malti/ would pronounce "Buttigieg"
with two [g]s, so Athel is right that it _must_ be spelled "Buttiġieġ",
in order to indicate the correct Maltese pronunciation of the name, i.e.
with [dz] for the first g and [tʃ] for the second.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

What got me was the "perfectly standard", coming as it did from the
world's expert on writing systems. I don't have any trouble accepting
that the dots are omitted in the USA, but they're not in any way
"perfectly standard Maltese orthography".

>>
>>>> Why do you need Google to type a g-dot?

I didn't go to Google for that (but once having got there it was the
easiest way to write it), but to confirm the surprising statement that
it's a Maltese name -- one that doesn't much resemble other Maltese
names I've encountered -- Agius, Vella, Zammit, Zarb, for example.


--
athel

[bebe...@aol.com]

Agreed, they're just the opposite of that.

> >>
> >>>> Why do you need Google to type a g-dot?
>
> I didn't go to Google for that (but once having got there it was the
> easiest way to write it), but to confirm the surprising statement that
> it's a Maltese name -- one that doesn't much resemble other Maltese
> names I've encountered -- Agius, Vella, Zammit, Zarb, for example.

Zarb sounds very odd (hint: verlan).

>
>
> --
> athel