Re: Mediaeval Courtly Love --- Origins And Reality
D. Spencer Hines
You see, when he concentrates his faculties and focuses on something he
actually knows about and has studied, Gans can post sensibly.
Exitus Acta Probat
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cdotip$179$3...@reader2.panix.com...
[Louis VII And Eleanor Of Aquitaine -- DSH]
| I think the proximate cause of the divorce was the lack of male
| heirs. And if I recall correctly, the King was not described as
| the studliest man around in bed. And she seems to have wanted that.
|
| >There were the attitudes husbands were meant to have towards their
| >wives, his emotions towards his wife, his religious upbringing, and
| >his political responsibility. She also didn't sound like the easiest
| >woman in the world.
|
| She wasn't. That's the problem with liberated women... ;-)
|
| Seriously, the divorce was perhaps the key element in the history
| of western Europe in the last have of the medieval period. (Either
| that or the Norman Conquest, which barely fits into the latter
| half.)
|
| With Louis's marriage to Eleanor, the bulk of the south of France
| was brought under the control of the King and his wife. With
| the divorce, that was broken. Aquitaine was hers, period. And
| it went with her when she married Henry.
|
| The result really entangled England in French affairs since the
| kings of England, starting with Richard I, were also among the
| peers of France. That's an unstable situation.
|
| On top of this we have the rise of chivalry and chivalric
| behavior.
|
| ----- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J
> This is a good, provocative post.
>
> You see, when he concentrates his faculties and focuses on something he
> actually knows about and has studied, Gans can post sensibly.
>
> Exitus Acta Probat
>
> D. Spencer Hines
Your not coming down with something are you, Commander Hines? Please
see to your health soonest! :-)
William Black
"Sheila J" <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:eaWLc.92881$Mr4.44083@pd7tw1no...
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
> > This is a good, provocative post.
> >
> > You see, when he concentrates his faculties and focuses on something he
> > actually knows about and has studied, Gans can post sensibly.
> >
> > Exitus Acta Probat
> >
> > D. Spencer Hines
>
>
> Your not coming down with something are you, Commander Hines? Please
> see to your health soonest! :-)
Actually when the evil old bugger manages to keep on topic and avoid the
nasty comments he can sometimes make a valid contribution, but usually by
being wrong...
--
William Black
------------------
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords
is no basis for a system of government
Mike
news:cdrav5$3uc$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
What's 'on-topic' about posting on 'mediaeval courtly love' on
alt.books.tom-clancy?
Sheila J
Perhaps Mr. Clancy might want to take the subject on? Ken Follett has
done a rather nice job tackling medieval history. In fact...Pillars of
the Earth is one of my all-time favourite fiction novels.
D. Spencer Hines
[N.B. Eleanor of Aquitaine and William Marshal. ---- DSH]
"Rumors Persisted" -- Gans's sterling standard of historical evidence.
There were all SORTS of rumours about Great-Grandfather William Marshal.
That does not make them all true.
Gans should take this one to Oprah.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cdrce9$rbc$1...@reader2.panix.com...
| I agree. They were too unequal in station at that time. But
| nevertheless rumors persisted that she did bed him, and more
| than once.
|
| ---- Paul J. Gans
Mike
I'm too drunk to even try to envisage what TC would come up with.
Perhaps someone else would like to contribute..... 'Red Storm Rising',
'Black Death something-or-other...'
Paul J Gans
I believe you'd have to ask Hines since he's often the one
behind the massive cross-postings. He gets off on that.
---- Paul J. Gans
Dick Wisan
>
>"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote.
>>
>> Actually when the evil old bugger manages to keep on topic and avoid the
>> nasty comments he can sometimes make a valid contribution, but usually by
>> being wrong...
>
>alt.books.tom-clancy?
If you post simultaneously to enough groups, you're bound
to be on-topic in one of them.
--
Richard N (Dick) Wisan
No wit in this SIG (as ordered by DSH)
To reply to me, disHONOR my address
anon
"Dick Wisan" <HONOR....@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cds7j...@news4.newsguy.com...
> Mike thedevil...@hotmail.com says...
> >
> >"William Black" <ab...@hotmail.com> wrote.
> >>
> >> Actually when the evil old bugger manages to keep on topic and avoid
the
> >> nasty comments he can sometimes make a valid contribution, but usually
by
> >> being wrong...
> >
> >What's 'on-topic' about posting on 'mediaeval courtly love' on
> >alt.books.tom-clancy?
>
> If you post simultaneously to enough groups, you're bound
> to be on-topic in one of them.
I seem to remembr something about Monkeys, typewriters and Shakespear.
D. Spencer Hines
William Marshal for YEARS on USENET ---- and has never presented even a
SHRED of PROOF -- when he is repeatedly called out on it.
It's gilt-edged OPRAH material for the aging "Medievalist" set.
I'll bet Gans uses this line for squeaks, giggles and "Reallys!" -- from
his callow young freshmen at NYU.
'Nuff Said.
Gans also obviously doesn't know the details about accusations made
against William The Marshal and Marguerite de France [daughter of Louis
VII], the Queen Consort of Henry 'The Young King' ---- and what
subsequently transpired.
If he DID, Gans would put far less credence in these Oprah-material
RUMORS about Eleanor and William.
"But nevertheless rumors persisted that she did bed him, and more than
once."
P. Jonathan Gans -- Certifiable Dirty Old Man -- Who Has Fantasies About
A Randy, Dominatrix Eleanor of Aquitaine.
------------------------------------------
Gans = Top Banana
Milton Berle on his best day could not be as funny as Gans.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cdrvle$5er$9...@reader2.panix.com...
| In soc.history.medieval D. Spencer Hines <pogue...@hotmail.com>
| wrote:
| Sheila: See what I mean. What I wrote was in fact
| perfectly correct, but Hines doesn't see that. He
| can't read very well.
|
| Had I had proof, I'd have claimed that the evidence
| shows that he did. Even a grammar-school kid can
| figure that out -- but not Hines.
|
| ----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
important figures in the west."
P. Jonathan Gans -- NYU chemist, AKA Gans The Illiterate
Gans The Illiterate strikes again!
The little old NYU chemist, the schlockmeister of Washington Square,
can't even write a grammatical English sentence.
WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
English lessons in fifth grade.
Hilarious!
See below for more laughs.
DSH
---------------------------
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cdsjgl$d25$1...@reader2.panix.com...
| >A protective mother, as well, I think. If I'm remembering
| >what I read correctly, one of those liasons [sic] was with Richard's
| >wife to be, that they were fostering (presumably so that she
| >could become familar [sic] with and to the English people).
|
| Yes. That's a little known bit of history. It put
| Richard and Henry at odds for the rest of their lives
| and fixed it so that Richard would never marry during
| his father's lifetime -- and incidently [sic] led to the modern
| rumors that he was gay.
|
| One has to imagine how mom felt about her husband sleeping
| with her son's betrothed -- while she was technically
| under Henry's protection.
Twaddle!
There is no convincing proof for that hoary rumor either.
Gans is simply retailing Oprah Gossip from a MOVIE, no less -- _The Lion
In Winter_ -- written by a homosexual screenwriter, who WANTED Richard
'The Lion-Hearted' ALSO to be homosexual -- and who had also written the
PLAY from which the film derives -- James GOLDMAN.
Nor is there any proof for an affair between Henry II and Princess Alais
of France -- more Oprah stuff.
Gans probably plays this salacious bit of gossip to his callow and
impressionable young freshmen at NYU too.
Gans can't even provide any reliable quotations and citations for these
RUMORS he's retailing about Eleanor and William The Marshal -- as well
as King Henry II and Princess Alais of France. Gans acts as if the
latter alleged affair is a proven historical fact. No Sale.
| Yes. That's a little known bit of history. It put
| Richard and Henry at odds for the rest of their lives
| and fixed it so that Richard would never marry during
| his father's lifetime -- and incidently [sic] led to the modern
| rumors that he was gay.
P. Jonathan Gans ---- Chemist, Non-Historian
------------------------------------------
Hoisted with his own petard yet again. KAWHOMP!!! KERSPLAT!
Furthermore, Gans portrays Eleanor of Aquitaine as a "Liberated Woman"
or a "Feminist" in the 21st Century sense, although that is completely
ahistorical -- because he wants to hook the WOMEN among his freshmen and
get them interested in Mediaeval History.
It's just a cheap charlatan-educator's trick -- so he has to make the
lecture "relevant" to the 18-year-old NYU mind.
Hilarious!
Tom Clancy, or any reputable writer of "realistic" fiction, would never
retail such vicious rumors -- even in a novel.
Let's leave that to the fraudulent "educators" amongst us.
'Nuff Said.
MG
news:XylMc.52$el3....@eagle.america.net...
> "Whomever [sic] married her automatically became one of the most
> important figures in the west."
>
> P. Jonathan Gans -- NYU chemist, AKA Gans The Illiterate
>
> Gans The Illiterate strikes again!
>
> The little old NYU chemist, the schlockmeister of Washington Square,
> can't even write a grammatical English sentence.
>
> WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
> English lessons in fifth grade.
>
This is getting to be unbelievable. How can a so called professor keep
making the same illiterate mistake, over and over?!
I remember once when our pet goose said something similar, while also
bragging about his supposed proficiency in German. I saw this as a chance to
illustrate the difference between 'who' and 'whom' with reference to the
Nominativ and Akkusativ cases is German - a language with which English
happens to share a basic framework. Apparently it didn't take.
Spencer, don't you think Fat Bastard could be riding us with this? Printing
the same mistake and waiting for you to call him on it? And getting some
kind of weird kick out of being humiliated this way. I mean, NOBODY can be
that stupid!
Hilarious!
Tron Furu
"MG" <morris...@yahbushoo.com> skrev i melding
news:cdt6bs$k79$1...@online.de...
.....
I mean, NOBODY can be
> that stupid!
Oh?
T
Fred J. McCall
:WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
:English lessons in fifth grade.
Lots of people misuse 'whom' in an effort to make their remarks sound
weightier and more educated. Sort of like using a lot of Latin or
legal jargon....
Oh, wait a minute....
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Grey Satterfield
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> :WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
> :English lessons in fifth grade.
>
> Lots of people misuse 'whom' in an effort to make their remarks sound
> weightier and more educated. Sort of like using a lot of Latin or
> legal jargon....
>
> Oh, wait a minute....
Not being that strong a grammarian, I am having a hard time figuring out
whom is right on this issue.
Grey Satterfield -- hoping that whomever knows the relevant rule will
explain it to me.
Fred J. McCall
:On 7/24/04 6:03 AM, in article qcg4g0dckknpvqhi5...@4ax.com,
'Whom' is objective case. It is used when it is the object of a
preposition, for example. "For whom the bell tolled."
'Who' is nominative case. It's used as a subject, for example. "Who
is ringing the bell?" In my prior example, the bell is the subject
and not 'whom'. If I rephrase my current example, I think it winds up
being correctly written as "The bell is being rung by whom?"
Actually, all this never made a lot of sense to me until I took a
foreign language and had to learn their word usage 'the hard way'
(where the easy way is learning to speak it as a baby).
[I believe that both your usages above should be 'who' vice 'whom'.]
--
"Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood. I ain't naming names.
She really worked me over good. She was just like Jesse James.
She really worked me over good. She was a credit to her gender.
She put me through some changes, Lord.
Sort of like a Waring blender."
-- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me"
Mike Harmon
> Not being that strong a grammarian, I am having a hard time figuring out
> whom is right on this issue.
>
> Grey Satterfield -- hoping that whomever knows the relevant rule will
> explain it to me.
Who is a subject. Whom is an object. Who plays first base. First base
is played by whom. So, if the pronoun is the subject of a clause, it
should be who. If it's the object (receives some action), it should be
whom. As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, try substituting he for who/whom
and see if it sounds right. If he sounds correct, use who. If him sounds
correct, use whom.
Both your sentences above should be who.
--
email: mi...@hlclabs.com
D. Spencer Hines
in fifth-grade English class -- unlike our flakey, farblondjet, NYU
college professor.
Would you be willing to take Gans on as a student? Tutor him in Basic
English for a few months? He pays.
I've been urging him to take Remedial English 101, or whatever it's
called up at Columbia -- the Real University in New York City, for
YEARS.
But he is too lazy and too proud to follow through.
DSH
"Mike Harmon" <mi...@hlclabs.com> wrote in message
news:slrncg54b...@hlclabs.com...
Sheila J
Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
D. Spencer Hines
Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
opus.
DSH
--------------------------------------
| >A protective mother, as well, I think. If I'm remembering
| >what I read correctly, one of those liasons [sic] was with Richard's
| >wife to be, that they were fostering (presumably so that she
| >could become familar [sic] with and to the English people).
[DE Wolf]
| Yes. That's a little known [sic] bit of history. It put
| Richard and Henry at odds for the rest of their lives
| and fixed it so that Richard would never marry during
| his father's lifetime -- and incidently [sic] led to the modern
| rumors that he was gay.
|
| One has to imagine how mom felt about her husband sleeping
| with her son's betrothed -- while she was technically
| under Henry's protection.
P. Jonathan Gans -- NYU chemist, non-historian and persistent
gossip-monger, who doesn't understand the differences between Gossip &
History. -- 24 July 2004
-------------------------------------------
Gans is retailing Mediaeval RUMOR, GOSSIP and TWADDLE again, Oprah
Material -- and calling it History.
I'm calling him out on this, as I have many times in the past.
He needs to show us quotations and citations from reputable Mediaeval
Historians that back up what he has presented above as "a little known
[sic] bit of history." HIS WORDS.
The Burden Of Proof is clearly upon Gans to defend his anserine
assertions -- and there are several serious ones in that piece of
gibberish he has written above.
Gans generally runs for the tall grass with his tail between his legs,
whining and whimpering, in situations of this sort.
Then he hides out in the Gansian Fuehrerbunker until he thinks the
danger is past and people have forgotten about his latest pratfall.
Alternatively, he huffs, puffs, waxes indignant and tries to bluster his
way through -- that's what he does in the NYU classroom when he is
caught by the short hairs, with his pants down, in a prevarication or
lie.
Let's see what he does THIS time, Gentle Readers.
Tom Clancy would make this fool into an interesting character in one of
his books -- good for laughs.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"I don't care a twopenny damn what becomes of the ashes of Napoleon
Buonaparte." ---- Attributed to Arthur Wellesley, [1769-1852] Duke of
Wellington
Grey Satterfield
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Grey Satterfield <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote:
>
> :On 7/24/04 6:03 AM, in article qcg4g0dckknpvqhi5...@4ax.com,
> :"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> :
> :> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
> :> :English lessons in fifth grade.
> :>
> :> Lots of people misuse 'whom' in an effort to make their remarks sound
> :> weightier and more educated. Sort of like using a lot of Latin or
> :> legal jargon....
> :>
> :> Oh, wait a minute....
> :
> :Not being that strong a grammarian, I am having a hard time figuring out
> :whom is right on this issue.
> :
> :Grey Satterfield -- hoping that whomever knows the relevant rule will
> :explain it to me.
>
> [I believe that both your usages above should be 'who' vice 'whom'.]
Whom knew?
Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines
Yep...
The overuse of WHOM in place of the correct WHO, as Gans is often wont
to do, is PARTICULARLY amusing.
It demonstrates that Gans is lost in space in Basic English 101, yet
AWARE of the fact that he often screws the pooch on this matter.
So he OVERCORRECTS, afraid to make a mistake, and writes the
INCORRECT -- WHOM or WHOMEVER -- instead of the CORRECT -- WHO or
WHOEVER.
Hilarious!
This is one reason why I say Gans is far and away the Best
Entertainment on USENET.
Billy Crystal should be so lucky.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Grey Satterfield" <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in message
news:BD28293B.BBDF%grey.sat...@oscn.net...
Martin Reboul
"D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gPxMc.76$el3....@eagle.america.net...
> "Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
>
> Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
>
> Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
> opus.
Fellatio et cunnilingus, spirito de Punto....
Now we know where we stand.
> | >A protective mother, as well, I think. If I'm remembering
> | >what I read correctly, one of those liasons [sic] was with Richard's
> | >wife to be, that they were fostering (presumably so that she
> | >could become familar [sic] with and to the English people).
>
> [DE Wolf]
>
> | Yes. That's a little known [sic] bit of history. It put
> | Richard and Henry at odds for the rest of their lives
> | and fixed it so that Richard would never marry during
> | his father's lifetime -- and incidently [sic] led to the modern
> | rumors that he was gay.
> |
> | One has to imagine how mom felt about her husband sleeping
> | with her son's betrothed -- while she was technically
> | under Henry's protection.
>
> P. Jonathan Gans -- NYU chemist, non-historian and persistent
> gossip-monger, who doesn't understand the differences between Gossip &
> History. -- 24 July 2004
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Gans is retailing Mediaeval RUMOR, GOSSIP and TWADDLE again, Oprah
> Material -- and calling it History.
>
> I'm calling him out on this, as I have many times in the past.
Spency, your constant requests to have your wizened backside kicked are becoming
tiresome. The good Professor does need to rest his foot sometimes, don't be so
greedy!
> He needs to show us quotations and citations from reputable Mediaeval
And learn to spell 'medieval', you sad peasant!
> Tom Clancy would make this fool into an interesting character
> in one of his books -- good for laughs.
You seem to appear in every one of his (splendid) books that I've read David -
and end up dead at the end! Sad fellow...
Cheers
Martin
Sheila J
> "D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:gPxMc.76$el3....@eagle.america.net...
>
>>"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."
>>
>>Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]
>>
>>Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat
>>opus.
>
>
> Fellatio et cunnilingus, spirito de Punto....
Martin: That just made me spit the muffin right out of my mouth.
You need to put a warning on some of your responses! :-)
Fred J. McCall
:Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
:get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
:grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
:penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
Except that what Dr Gans generally 'gets down' is his PANTS, not his
POINTS. Applying the phrase "true genius" to such a man is wrong
twice - neither 'true' nor 'genius'.
[Shall I pick on you for using "your" vice "you're" above, Shiela?
:-)]
--
"Then tomorrow we may all be dead. But how is that different
from every other day?"
-- Morpheus
Fred J. McCall
:On 7/24/04 11:26 AM, in article 8135g0d5jbjsinvg2...@4ax.com,
I assume you're referring to Whom Abercrombie, that famous scion of
the House of Abercrombie and Fitch and noted English raconteur?
Sheila J
> Sheila J <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> :Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
> :get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
> :grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
> :penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
>
> Except that what Dr Gans generally 'gets down' is his PANTS, not his
> POINTS. Applying the phrase "true genius" to such a man is wrong
> twice - neither 'true' nor 'genius'.
>
> [Shall I pick on you for using "your" vice "you're" above, Shiela?
> :-)]
>
Pick away, I'm the world's worst speller/grammatician/englisher that
you'll meet!
Sheila J
> Sheila J <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> :Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
> :get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
> :grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
> :penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
>
> Except that what Dr Gans generally 'gets down' is his PANTS, not his
> POINTS. Applying the phrase "true genius" to such a man is wrong
> twice - neither 'true' nor 'genius'.
>
> [Shall I pick on you for using "your" vice "you're" above, Shiela?
> :-)]
>
I just think everyone should be nice/civil to each other here...that's
all. I hear enough bickering here at home with my kids....just hate to
have to put up with it here, my escape, as well.....
Paul J Gans
>Sheila J <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>:Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
>:get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
>:grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
>:penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
>Except that what Dr Gans generally 'gets down' is his PANTS, not his
>POINTS. Applying the phrase "true genius" to such a man is wrong
>twice - neither 'true' nor 'genius'.
>[Shall I pick on you for using "your" vice "you're" above, Shiela?
>:-)]
Gee Fred, aren't you the one who called me idiot and worse
for claiming that the US holding people without charges or
representation was almost certainly unconstitutional?
As I recall you claimed that such a case would be laughed
out of court.
You were dead wrong. And you've gone strangely silent
on the issue.
The court decision must bother you.
---- Paul J. Gans
Sheila J
Have you seen the movie about this..starring Glenn Close. Can't remember
the name of it...
D. Spencer Hines
P. Jonathan Gans
-------------------
Complete Twaddle....
Yep, just as I suspected, Gans has lit out for the tall grass with his
tail between his legs, on this one.
He can't produce any evidence for his warbling gibberish below.
Par for the course with Gans.
He bloviates freely and then retreats in disarray when challenged:
| >A protective mother, as well, I think. If I'm remembering
| >what I read correctly, one of those liasons [sic] was with Richard's
| >wife to be, that they were fostering (presumably so that she
| >could become familar [sic] with and to the English people).
[DE Wolf]
| Yes. That's a little known [sic] bit of history. It put
| Richard and Henry at odds for the rest of their lives
| and fixed it so that Richard would never marry during
| his father's lifetime -- and incidently [sic] led to the modern
| rumors that he was gay.
|
| One has to imagine how mom felt about her husband sleeping
| with her son's betrothed -- while she was technically
| under Henry's protection.
P. Jonathan Gans -- Left-Wing NYU chemist, non-historian and persistent
gossip-monger, who doesn't understand the differences between Gossip,
Rumor & History. -- 24 July 2004
-------------------------------------------
Gans is retailing Mediaeval RUMOR, GOSSIP and TWADDLE again, Oprah
Material -- and calling it History..
The Burden Of Proof is clearly upon Gans to defend his anserine
assertions -- and there are several serious ones in that piece of
vintage gibberish he has written above.
Tom Clancy, or any good thriller writer, would make this fool into an
interesting character in one of his books -- good for laughs -- the
flakey, farblondjet college professor as _Stultus Disarmatus
Reductus_ -- a universal character of justifiable ridicule.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
Fred J. McCall
Ah, but we haven't met!
Besides, you can't possibly be worse than a PhD EE I used to work
with. Very bright man, but couldn't spell AT ALL. We used to check
his papers before they went out to customers.
--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Sheila J
> Sheila J <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Sheila J <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
> :> :get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
> :> :grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
> :> :penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
> :>
> :> Except that what Dr Gans generally 'gets down' is his PANTS, not his
> :> POINTS. Applying the phrase "true genius" to such a man is wrong
> :> twice - neither 'true' nor 'genius'.
> :>
> :> [Shall I pick on you for using "your" vice "you're" above, Shiela?
> :> :-)]
> :
> :Pick away, I'm the world's worst speller/grammatician/englisher that
> :you'll meet!
>
> Ah, but we haven't met!
>
> Besides, you can't possibly be worse than a PhD EE I used to work
> with. Very bright man, but couldn't spell AT ALL. We used to check
> his papers before they went out to customers.
>
Let me rephrase:... That you will ever come across, at any point, in
real or cyber time.....
I remember truly, truly hating grammar in school...and hating it far
more in French. I couldn't conjugate a verb if my life depended on it.
As I got older, I made sure all my cheerleading practices/school civic
duties/skipping classes/rugby games etc...etc...came when I either had
an English vocabulary or any sort of French class. I've never failed a
course in my life, but I failed Grade 11 French 3 times. Now, what does
that tell you?
Fred J. McCall
:I remember truly, truly hating grammar in school...and hating it far
:more in French. I couldn't conjugate a verb if my life depended on it.
:As I got older, I made sure all my cheerleading practices/school civic
:duties/skipping classes/rugby games etc...etc...came when I either had
:an English vocabulary or any sort of French class. I've never failed a
:course in my life, but I failed Grade 11 French 3 times. Now, what does
:that tell you?
That you need more practice Frenching? :-)
[Hard to believe in an ex-cheerleader.]
Andrew Chaplin
Alors, viens à Ottawa, ma chère Sheila, on pourra t'aider. (The Career
Mangler will eventually take care of that for you, I suppose.
Actually, you were supposed to visit Parliament with your son this
past spring; I suspect the dissolution and election got in the way.
Will the trip be back on any time soon?)
> [Hard to believe in an ex-cheerleader.]
Rah! Rah! Sis-boom-bah! :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Paul J Gans
A movie about the Guantanamo decision?
---- Paul J. Gans
Fred J. McCall
Well, most of us are generally civil until we perceive that someone
else hasn't been. And of course, this being Usenet, there are some
folks who take it seriously and are toting about grudges bigger than
their heads, usually as a result of being shown wrong one too many
times or ignored as unimportant.
Dr Gans falls in the first category.
Sheila J
Oh, the pain of the pun!
Sheila J
Actually we did go...I'm sorry, I missed you, if was a last minute
thingy. I'll catch you next time.
We spent a day hanging out with the chappie that was the Black Rod guy
from the Senate. Ex-PSO, I think, but very, very nice gentleman.
Mon francais est tres mal quoique j'ai baise LCol Robert Cantin plus,
plus temps! It never rubbed off!
Sheila J
Well, not so much that, but it was a rather clever concept. Or at least
I thought.
They took an American girl and placed her in China - had her arrested by
Chinese police for no apparent reason- and had her interogated by a male
Chinese.
They then took an Arab chappy and placed him in New York - had him
arrested by American police for no apparent reason - and had him
interrogated by a female American.
They switched back and forth between the scenes, with the dialogue being
exactly the same. But for some stange reason, you felt angry and
sympathetic in the case of the gal in China and not as much so for the
poor Arab chappy. I thought it was quite powerful and brought home
one's biases quite clearly.
D. Spencer Hines
Gans is often "HAMMERED" when he posts -- but it's NOT because he is
tired or "wiped out" from teaching classes.
1. Gans is not teaching at all at NYU NOW -- it's Summer Vacation.
2. Gans never teaches more than two classes in a term these days -- and
he generally has FOUR DAYS off per week -- that gives him PLENTY of time
to get "HAMMERED" and POST GIBBERISH.
3. He tries to weasel out of his ignorance of Basic English 101 by
saying, "I type fast.! Hilarious! He makes the SAME stupid errors over
and over. It's a CONCEPTUAL problem he has -- NOT a MECHANICAL one.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ce1544$nt5$4...@reader2.panix.com...
| >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
| >Also, there are a number of posters who admit to being
| >half asleep or half drunk when they get around to the
| >Net. There is really not much said on either side
| >(of the Atlantic) about random bad grammar
| >or spelling. Quite a few think that Gans is pushing the
| >envelope, being an NYU prof and all. My thinking is that
| >he is so wiped out or so hammered after a day of classes
| >that he can't see straight, much less spell or syntax.
| >"Been there, done that."
| >DAVID H
David B.
>
>Mon francais est tres mal quoique j'ai baise LCol Robert Cantin plus,
>plus temps! It never rubbed off!
I am trying sooooo hard to resist the temptation to ask for the French
Canadian definition of the verb "baiser".
David B.
Fred J. McCall
Ah, there is nothing like a nice set of puns brancing down the street
in tight clothing to turn a young man's fancy.
Now, if only I were a young man....
--
"Now I'm hiding in Honduras.
I'm a desperate man.
Send lawyers, guns and money.
The shit has hit the fan."
-- "Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money", Warren Zevon
Paul J Gans
Yup. That would do it.
One of the tests I do internally over any situation like that
is to switch it around. That is often very revealing.
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
appalled."
P. Jonathan Gans -- Left-Wing NYU chemist and Champion Thumbsucker
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yes...
That's why folks like Gans make terrible leaders -- particularly in
times of crisis.
Like Shakespeare's Hamlet, they are shifty, indecisive, flip-flop, lack
confidence and leadership skills, squander opportunities, dither, dally
and agonize -- and invariably end up badly, carrying many people to
their deaths along with them.
Of course Gans is not being truthful above. He often does NOT "see grey
everywhere and ambiguity ruling the roost."
In fact Gans continually makes quite categorical and absolutist
assertions about matters wherein he cannot possibly be as surely
confident as he wants the reader to think he is, as in this case. Yet
he blusters blindly on, without a hint of doubt:
| >A protective mother, as well, I think. If I'm remembering
| >what I read correctly, one of those liasons [sic] was with Richard's
| >wife to be, that they were fostering (presumably so that she
| >could become familar [sic] with and to the English people).
[DE Wolf]
| Yes. That's a little known [sic] bit of history. It put
| Richard and Henry at odds for the rest of their lives
| and fixed it so that Richard would never marry during
| his father's lifetime -- and incidently [sic] led to the modern
| rumors that he was gay.
|
| One has to imagine how mom felt about her husband sleeping
| with her son's betrothed -- while she was technically
| under Henry's protection.
P. Jonathan Gans -- Left-Wing NYU chemist, non-historian and persistent
gossip-monger, who doesn't understand the differences between Gossip,
Rumor & History. -- 24 July 2004
-----------------------------
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Sheila J
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Actually we did go...I'm sorry, I missed you, if was a last minute
> thingy. I'll catch you next time.
:~( <-- nose slightly out of joint.
> We spent a day hanging out with the chappie that was the Black Rod guy
> from the Senate. Ex-PSO, I think, but very, very nice gentleman.
LCdr Terry Christopher. If you think your French is bad, wait till 5
October when the Speech from the Throne is read. He delivers H.E.'s
summons to the Commons and it is pretty painful to listen to him. He
has to conceal his screed inside his cap and cheat. He is a nice guy,
though, as you say, and cheating in such circumstances is preferable
to the alternatives.
> Mon francais est tres mal quoique j'ai baise LCol Robert Cantin plus,
> plus temps! It never rubbed off!
Reading that, I have to admit I agree. Have you carefully considered
the connotations of the verb "baiser", especially in Quebec? Il vaut
mieux dire "embrasser", même si tu l'a embrassé de tout ton coeur. :^)
Sheila J
You must know Cantin though? ARC?
Connotations, eh? That is what I was always taught was the word, ...or
at least, that is the word Robert always used....
Doesn't 'embrasser' mean more chaste?
It's not like these things get taught in Grade 11 French. All the good
words like 'esti'; 'tabernac' etc...etc....have to be learned the hard
way!!! (By Franco AIG's or those DS from the Cape!)
Gosh, seems I've learned all my best lessons from gunnery officers,
Andrew!! :-)
Yes, of course, Mr. Christopher. I thought he was an absolute
sweetheart. He really took to our children. Picked them up/hugged and
kissed them....very grandfatherly! Jens loved him!
He mentioned that he loved my last children's book, which automatically
made him a huge hit in my book!!!!
Sheila J
> Sheila J wrote:
>
>>Actually we did go...I'm sorry, I missed you, if was a last minute
>>thingy. I'll catch you next time.
>
>
> :~( <-- nose slightly out of joint.
I AM sorry, Andrew. It was a last minute trip that we hooked on to the
tail end of one my husband took to Ottawa. I did ask around that day at
the House for you, but wasn't sure exactly where you worked. Next time I
promise to look you!!
Andrew Chaplin
> You must know Cantin though? ARC?
Pretty well; I served with Bob in 5 RALC, he was in "Q" with André
Harvey and Paul Ouellette, I was in "X" with André Richard, Gord
MacAlpine, Bruce Gallant and Louis Boily. I never kissed Bob, though.
:^)
> Connotations, eh? That is what I was always taught was the word, ...or
> at least, that is the word Robert always used....
> Doesn't 'embrasser' mean more chaste?
Hmm, what was he up to? No, don't venture a guess about that. De toute
façon, "embrasser" is the more typical verb to "embrace" or to "kiss".
"Baiser" is not much used in polite society since it is also a vulgar
equivalent of "to know" in the Bible. Just like mediaeval history, the
context is important (ObSHM).
> It's not like these things get taught in Grade 11 French. All the good
> words like 'esti'; 'tabernac' etc...etc....have to be learned the hard
> way!!! (By Franco AIG's or those DS from the Cape!)
"Hostie" by the way, but you have to string them together to get the
real effect: "saint ciboire du saint sacrement", etc.
> Gosh, seems I've learned all my best lessons from gunnery officers,
> Andrew!! :-)
Gunnery is something usually cleared up with a grain of salt.
Merci, salut la visite! :^)
Sheila J
> Sheila J wrote:
>
>
>>You must know Cantin though? ARC?
>
>
> Pretty well; I served with Bob in 5 RALC, he was in "Q" with André
> Harvey and Paul Ouellette, I was in "X" with André Richard, Gord
> MacAlpine, Bruce Gallant and Louis Boily. I never kissed Bob, though.
> :^)
>
I remember Paul and Bruce but not as sure about the others.
You really missed out not having kissed Robert! :-). Must have been the
mustache! I tried to make a habit of it as often as I could!!!
Actually, I met him my very summer in the army when I was 'tasked' to
him on an ex. I was 17 and he was 29 and the rest is sordid history!
I'm joking, of course. I ADORE Robert.
>
>>Connotations, eh? That is what I was always taught was the word, ...or
>>at least, that is the word Robert always used....
>>Doesn't 'embrasser' mean more chaste?
>
>
> Hmm, what was he up to? No, don't venture a guess about that.
Well, he did teach me that THAT was the correct word for what he was up
to, so who knows! ;-)
De toute
> façon, "embrasser" is the more typical verb to "embrace" or to "kiss".
> "Baiser" is not much used in polite society since it is also a vulgar
> equivalent of "to know" in the Bible. Just like mediaeval history, the
> context is important (ObSHM).
>
>
>> It's not like these things get taught in Grade 11 French. All the good
>>words like 'esti'; 'tabernac' etc...etc....have to be learned the hard
>>way!!! (By Franco AIG's or those DS from the Cape!)
>
>
> "Hostie" by the way, but you have to string them together to get the
> real effect: "saint ciboire du saint sacrement", etc.
Is that how it is spelled. Always wondered. Never actually saw it in
print before. And yes to your comment about stringing it all together.
Ever meet WO DuHammel? The bluest language out of his mouth at such a
speed that one wondered if there was a new world record there...
Always seemed to be 'Hostie Tabernac Ocdt Sheila........'
>
>
>>Gosh, seems I've learned all my best lessons from gunnery officers,
>>Andrew!! :-)
>
>
> Gunnery is something usually cleared up with a grain of salt.
Oh, my apologies everyone for the inside artillery jokes!!!! It's a
small, small world in our military; even smaller in the combat arms!
Andrew Chaplin
>
> Ah yes, of course...now that I think about it. 'Hostie' for the host
> then? For those of you out there who don't speak French-Canadian - our
> French use religious terms as their swear words. Hence some of the
> things mentioned. I wonder if the French-French do that as well?
[I shall suddenly lapse into on-topicness] Are there any study of
French cussing in the mediaeval period? I suspect the Quebec style of
using holy places -- "Calvaire!" -- holy hardware -- "calice!" -- and
bits of the sacraments -- "sacré baptème!" -- is pre-Renaissance in
origin.
Fred J. McCall
:In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>Sheila J <wolse...@shaw.ca> wrote:
:
:>:Because true genius always speaks before it edits? If your trying to
:>:get your points down - to make them salient - you don't worry about
:>:grammar or spelling? (2 subjects, by the way, that I abhor...hence my
:>:penchant for editors!) Just a thought....
:
:>Except that what Dr Gans generally 'gets down' is his PANTS, not his
:>POINTS. Applying the phrase "true genius" to such a man is wrong
:>twice - neither 'true' nor 'genius'.
:
:>[Shall I pick on you for using "your" vice "you're" above, Shiela?
:>:-)]
:
:Gee Fred, aren't you the one who called me idiot and worse
:for claiming that the US holding people without charges or
:representation was almost certainly unconstitutional?
Well, as usual, Paul is perhaps half right. This seems to be
proportional to both his wit and his ass. What he claims above turns
out to not be in exact 1:1 accord with our current reality, insofar as
what my actual position on this issue is.
Dr Gans, I called you an idiot (assuming I did for the moment) because
you ARE one.
As for your apparent contention that your opinion that "the US holding
people without charges or representation was almost certainly
unconstitutional" was vindicated by the Court, I have to ask whether
you have actually READ THE DECISION? If this is what you think it
says, I would suspect you have not and are merely shooting from the
lip, as usual.
:As I recall you claimed that such a case would be laughed
:out of court.
:
:You were dead wrong.
Again, it is obvious that you haven't read the decision. Just as a
hint, all it does is reverse the decision of the District Court and
the Court of Appeals that the District Court HAD NO JURISDICTION TO
HEAR HABEAS CORPUS CASES from internees at Guantanamo.
Unfortunately for you, I am LIVE wrong. You'd no doubt prefer I was
dead, since that would prevent me from pointing out that you have
mischaracterized what the Court said, either through stupidity,
through ignorance, or through deliberate untruth. Given your past
history, it could be ANY of those.
:And you've gone strangely silent
:on the issue.
Well, that might be because no one has brought it up lately. If you
find my silence in non-existent threads to be 'strange' (and you well
might, given the paucity of intellect and reasoning ability you
apparently bring to bear), there's not much to say about that.
:The court decision must bother you.
Why would you think that? I think they're wrong, but then, in that
I'm in good company, since that disagreement leaves me grouped with
the original District Court, the US Court of Appeals, and a full third
of the Justices. Judges making bad decisions doesn't 'bother' me.
Hell, I EXPECT that a certain percentage of their decisions will be
bad. I have no doubt that YOU let such things "bother you". Letting
reality 'bother you' is a usual sign of an immature mind. Adults
recognize that what is is what is and move on.
As for how wrong I am about such a case being laughed out of court,
let's wait until one is actually heard, shall we? All the Supreme
Court did was rule that the District Court actually has jurisdiction
to rule on the habeas corpus petition. Personally, I would think you
would need to wait and see what that ruling is before you start
frothing at the mouth and congratulating yourself on your
'correctness'. However, I understand that waiting for actual outcomes
is difficult for those of limited intellect, so I guess I understand
your current behaviour.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
Paul J Gans
I accept your apology.
----- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
serious man -- but a charlatan and a fraud.
McCall raises some serious points -- worthy of discussion -- Gans ducks
them all, does a buck and wing and spurns McCall.
Par For The Course...
'Nuff Said.
DSH
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ce3g9t$hd4$2...@reader2.panix.com...
D. Spencer Hines
Eve is being reasonable, measured and historical ---- while Gans, our
Left-Wing NYU chemist, is simply spouting salacious GOSSIP about Eleanor
of Aquitaine and William The Marshal.
Gans is also completely misrepresenting the historical facts.
Read the standard works on William The Marshal, which I have often
quoted and cited here [Check the Archives] -- the works of Crouch, Duby
and Painter. None of them lend any credence to Gans's sly assertions
that Eleanor ransomed William because she was hot for his bod and wanted
to bed him.
Once again, Gans has been challenged on the historical facts and cannot
come up with a shred of historical evidence supporting his salacious
fantasies.
Here's the basic problem.
Gans has to keep those callow young freshmen awake in his little
"Mediaeval Technology In Everyday Life" undergraduate Sociology course.
They won't stay awake if he just drones on constantly about TECHNOLOGY.
So, he has to SEX UP the material for them and this "Eleanor of
Aquitaine lusted for William Marshal" bit is one of his favorites.
Naturally, he can't resist pumping it out here on USENET as well.
Tom Clancy can do sexy plots -- Gans cannot.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
"E. C. Lee" <afro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0cfed5b.04072...@posting.google.com...
| Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:<ce166f$odd$1...@reader2.panix.com>...
| > Curiously, Eleanor paid it and then took him into *her* direct
| > service. That's a bit strange because William was not directly
| > in her service when captured. Anyhow that's the period in time
| > when there were rumors. I'm sure you've seen them noted in
| > various places.
| >
| I don't think her coming to his aid was so strange. If I recall, he
| came to her aid, I think it was during the attemped abuduction, but I
| might be wrong. In any case, she saw he had promise as a knight. She
| was right....
|
| ...No reason whatsoever to assume that there was anything going on
| between him and Eleanore. Not that it was impossible. Just, IMHO,
| unlikely. As I said, there were rumors about Eleanore and everyone.
| And I suspect they were mostly just rumors....
| As for rumors, the only thing they prove is that there were rumors.
| Read the damn Owen book already,
| Paul! ;-)
|
| > The best that can be done with them is to attempt to track
| > them down as to when they first surface. If, like the
| > stories of Richard's homosexuality, they are relatively
| > recent, well, that's one thing. On the other hand, if they
| > are contemporary, that's something else.
| >
|
| I think tracking them down is interesting mostly in terms of the
| history of rumor. The age of the rumor doesn't necessarily make it
| more or less true. Just because the rumor of same sex preferences for
| Richard didn't really kick in till recently doesn't mean that it might
| not be true. We just don't know and have no real proof no way or
| another. There is enough circumstantial evidence to make it a
| possiblity but no real evidence. And just because there were rumors
| in her own time about Eleanore sleeping with half the men in the
| Middle Ages doesn't make a single one of them true.
|
|
| JMHO,
| Eve
Fred J. McCall
:In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whatever fantasy you need to get through the day, Dr Gans. All I can
say is I hope you're much more wedded to reality when you're in the
lab than the tenuous umbilical you've demonstrated you have around
here. If not, you're likely to poison or blow up some poor
unsuspecting class by accident.
Given you and Vince and your unreal world-views here, I pretty much
have to despair about the state of higher education in at least your
part of the United States.
Paul J Gans
Gee Fred. You were dead wrong. Stop thrashing about
and move on.
---- Paul J. Gans
Fred J. McCall
:In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>Paul J Gans <ga...@panix.com> wrote:
:
:>:In soc.history.medieval Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
No evidence for that so far. You're rather like the interview with
Michael Moore, where, in the face of evidence that pretty much every
major intelligence service was telling Bush that Iraq had WMDs, he
still insists that "Bush lied".
It's sad, but I've become convinced that you people really ARE this
stupid.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
D. Spencer Hines
from the English one hears around here. When it is used, it usually is
intended to invoke "ancient" times or "ultra-high class [sic] usage"."
P. Jonathan Gans -- 30 July 2004
-----------------------------
[N.B. "Here" is Greenwich Village, New York City -- hardly the place a
discriminating person would go to learn good English. ---- DSH]
And yet GANS DID USE *WHOM* -- INCORRECTLY -- [AND HILARIOUSLY].
"Whomever [sic] married her automatically became one of the most
important figures in the west."
P. Jonathan Gans -- Farblondjet, Left-Wing NYU chemist, AKA Gans The
Illiterate -- 23 July 2004
---------------------------------
[N.B. "Her" is Eleanor of Aquitaine, about whom Gans has prurient
fantasies and continuing wet dreams. She died in 1204. 'Nuff
Said. ---- DSH]
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Now, was Gans, my pet marmot and Top Banana, trying to:
1. "Invoke Ancient Times"?
OR:
2. Demonstrate the NYU version of "Ultra-High-Class Usage."
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans just digs himself a deeper hole with his Clintonian Evasions.
Gans never even worries about being consistent -- ergo he is constantly
self-contradictory -- as we see above.
Gans The Illiterate strikes again!
The little old NYU chemist, the schlockmeister of Washington Square,
can't even write a grammatical English sentence.
WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
English lessons in fifth grade.
Hilarious!
Heinlein would never make a dumbass mistake like this -- because he had
an excellent education at the Naval Academy.
Yep...
The overuse of WHOM in place of the correct WHO, as Gans is often wont
to do, is PARTICULARLY amusing.
It demonstrates that Gans is lost in space in Basic English 101, yet
AWARE of the fact that he often screws the pooch on this matter.
So he OVERCORRECTS, afraid to make a mistake, and writes the
INCORRECT -- WHOM or WHOMEVER -- instead of the CORRECT -- WHO or
WHOEVER.
Hilarious!
This is ONE reason why I say Gans is far and away the Best Entertainment
on USENET.
Billy Crystal should be so lucky.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
D. Spencer Hines
He throws out this sort of tripe as red herrings when he has been caught
by the short hairs and desperately wants to change the subject.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
| "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
| news:cedmlq$9c6$3...@reader1.panix.com...
| > Lecturing in Latin today will not get me very far.
D. Spencer Hines
who/whom in written communication has everything [sic] to do with bad
teaching and the ignorance of the teachers at the lower levels than
[sic] it does with language change or with dispensing with an
anachronism."
Larry Swain
---------------------
Yes, true enough....
However, with Gans, we have a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
about WHO and WHOM.
He even amusingly uses WHOM or WHOMEVER when he should use WHO or
WHOEVER. So he obviously thinks it's a distinction worth making [no
matter how much he denies it] but he STILL screws the pooch.
Clearly Gans SHOULD KNOW better because he was taught correct usage --
but he doesn't -- and he even makes lame, evasive, prevaricative,
whining excuses, which are self-contradictory, as to why it allegedly
"just doesn't matter anymore."
A fish rots from the head ---- it's the same with "EDUCATORS" -- and
Educational Systems.
D. Spencer Hines
He throws out this sort of tripe as red herrings when he has been caught
by the short hairs and desperately wants to change the subject.
No one has made the SLIGHTEST suggestion that Gans "lecture in Latin" --
the suggestion was that he use correct English when he WRITES.
Farblondjet & Evasive On Gans's Part....
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
Paul J Gans
>D. Spencer Hines
>Vires et Honor
>Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
Advice: Next time you think "non-seqitur", stop yourself
and replace it with the word "humor".
You have none, just as you have no human kindness.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>who/whom in written communication has everything [sic] to do with bad
>teaching and the ignorance of the teachers at the lower levels than
>[sic] it does with language change or with dispensing with an
>anachronism."
>Larry Swain
>---------------------
>Yes, true enough....
>However, with Gans, we have a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
>level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
>about WHO and WHOM.
My good sir: Why do you think that I teach only at the
"undergraduate level"? Is that what you would like to
believe?
Or, as is more likely, my graduate course is totally
incomprehensible to you.
---- Paul J. Gans
Fred J. McCall
:>However, with Gans, we have a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
:>level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
:>about WHO and WHOM.
:
:My good sir: Why do you think that I teach only at the
:"undergraduate level"? Is that what you would like to
:believe?
:
:Or, as is more likely, my graduate course is totally
:incomprehensible to you.
You should stick to chemistry, assuming you're better at it than you
are at English, Economics, or Logic.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Paul J Gans
>:>However, with Gans, we have a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
>:>level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
>:>about WHO and WHOM.
>:
>:My good sir: Why do you think that I teach only at the
>:"undergraduate level"? Is that what you would like to
>:believe?
>:
>:Or, as is more likely, my graduate course is totally
>:incomprehensible to you.
>You should stick to chemistry, assuming you're better at it than you
>are at English, Economics, or Logic.
Who was it who said:
"And if Roosevelt hadn't been violating our neutrality to provide aid
to folks fighting the Japanese, it [getting into the second world war]
might not have ever happened."
---- Paul J. Gans
D. Spencer Hines
Gans proves himself to be ILLITERATE in LATIN also.
He's been on a roll in July -- finishing out the month with an absolute
pounding crescendo of pratfalls and egregious gaffes.
The fish rots from the head -- and so do senile educators.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ceejuu$3kk$9...@reader1.panix.com...
D. Spencer Hines" <pogue...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
| This is a typical evasive _non sequitur_ by Gans.
|
| He throws out this sort of tripe as red herrings when he has been
| caught by the short hairs and desperately wants to change
| the subject.
|
| No one has made the SLIGHTEST suggestion that Gans "lecture in
| Latin" -- the suggestion was that he use correct English
| when he WRITES.
|
| Farblondjet & Evasive On Gans's Part....
|
| D. Spencer Hines
|
| Lux et Veritas et Libertas
|
| Vires et Honor
|
| Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
| >| "Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
| >| news:cedmlq$9c6$3...@reader1.panix.com...
|
| >| > Lecturing in Latin today will not get me very far.
|
| Advice: Next time you think "non-seqitur", [sic] stop yourself
Dr. Rufo
D. Spencer Hines and a few others wrote quite a lot that just went on
and on and on . . . .:
< and I'm 'snipping' it >
Folks,
During the past few days, by what seems to be a whim of the Internet's
Fairy Godmother Department, alt.fan.heinlein has been graced with a
number of cross-posts from several other disparate newsgroups.
I do NOT want to seem indelicate or to be deemed to have acted
inappropriately, but I'm moved to suggest that the content of these
cross-postings is not really serving to enhance the atmosphere of ANY of
the listed newsgroups.
The bulk of them seem to document what may be just another instance of
'Grumpy Old Men.' The few that depart from that theme do nothing but
take up bandwidth (whatever THAT is!). We have our own resident
alterkackers, nutters and gits; and we're used to THEM -- and they're
used to US.
Should anyone have a Robert Heinlein-related posting to share, please
feel free to do so at any time. You're always welcome. But, if you
merely wish to demonstrate that 'age doesn't guarantee wisdom,' please,
please, use do it in your own homes -- 'on the down low,' OK? You're
scaring the cats off the Lanai-that's-always-in-Oz.
Should it be necessary, please also be aware that I am not posting this
in order to become engaged in any sort of 'pissing contest.' I'd have to
be 'drunker 'n ole Hooty Brown' to want to cross keyboards with y'all.
Pax,
Dr. Rufo
(P.S. [I know I shouldn't, but] On a point of almost infantile
curiosity, I must ask: Why did you, Dr. Hines, focus your prolix
opprobrium on Professor Gans' probable typographical inadvertence rather
than comment on his clearly-intended commonplace regarding any putative
consort of Alie'nor d’Aquitaine, de Guyenne? That - alone - deserves [at
least the offer of] a rat's ass. <wEg>)
Fred J. McCall
Nobody. Try the English again. The pronoun must have an immediate
predecessor. In this case that immediate predecessor was the Japanese
attack on Pearl Harbor, which was the precipitating event being
pointed out.
Nowhere did I ever remark that we might not have gotten into the thing
anyway. We undoubtedly would have, under some pretext or other if
nothing better presented itself. FDR wanted us in the war. It was
really that simple.
The position I was disagreeing with was that we only got in because
Japan made us.
D. Spencer Hines
He complains, whines and kvetches about posts he doesn't like -- and is
too undisciplined just to ignore and not even read.
Then he is so hypocritical he appends a similar post of his own --
feebly attempting to further the discussion by means of a postscripted
query.
Pathetic!
I've seen hamsters with more smarts than that.
John 5:14
Heinlein would laugh.
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum.
"Dr. Rufo" <bay...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:HmCOc.3774$9Y6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
<baldersnip>
| Pax,
| Dr. Rufo
| (P.S. [I know I shouldn't, but] On a point of almost infantile
| curiosity, I must ask:...<baldersnip>
Dr. Rufo
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
< snip >
> 'Nuff Said.
Amen. And thank you.
Pax.
Nuclear Waste
> Your Typical Rampant Pogue....
>
> He complains, whines and kvetches about posts he doesn't like --
and is
> too undisciplined just to ignore and not even read.
>
> Then he is so hypocritical he appends a similar post of his own --
> feebly attempting to further the discussion by means of a
postscripted
> query.
>
> Pathetic!
>
> I've seen hamsters with more smarts than that.
>
> John 5:14
>
> Heinlein would laugh.
>
> 'Nuff Said.
>
> D. Spencer Hines
All cats are grey after midnight.
NW
Kate Gladstone
>... a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
> level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
> about WHO and WHOM.
What makes the ongoing merger of WHO and WHOM worse than the merger of
YE and YOU (similarly once distinguished as subject vs. object) some
centuries back?
If something necessitates changing a word to indicate subject vs.
object, then why do the WHO/WHOM sticklers not object to the existence
of IT (and of every English noun) since IT and nouns do not change their
forms to specify subject versus object?
What, for that matter, makes
the late-twentieth/early-twenty-first century's merger of WHO and WHOM
somehow worse than the late-eighteenth-century/early-nineteenth-century
merger of WHERE and WHITHER, HERE and HITHER, which we all accept and
use daily even in the most formally correct of our writing?
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Kate Gladstone - Handwriting Repair - ka...@global2000.net
http://www.global2000.net/handwritingrepair
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Fred J. McCall
:D. Spencer Hines notes ...
:
:>... a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
:> level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
:> about WHO and WHOM.
:
:What makes the ongoing merger of WHO and WHOM worse than the merger of
:YE and YOU (similarly once distinguished as subject vs. object) some
:centuries back?
:
:If something necessitates changing a word to indicate subject vs.
:object, then why do the WHO/WHOM sticklers not object to the existence
:of IT (and of every English noun) since IT and nouns do not change their
:forms to specify subject versus object?
:
:What, for that matter, makes
:the late-twentieth/early-twenty-first century's merger of WHO and WHOM
:somehow worse than the late-eighteenth-century/early-nineteenth-century
:merger of WHERE and WHITHER, HERE and HITHER, which we all accept and
:use daily even in the most formally correct of our writing?
Because there is no 'merger'. Last I knew, they still taught the
difference between 'who' and 'whom'. They most certainly did when Dr
Gans was being miseducated.
If Gans wants to hang around another hundred years, perhaps his
misusage will be accepted. Then again, perhaps it won't.
Martin Reboul
"Kate Gladstone" <ka...@global2000.net> wrote in message
news:kate-E09F28.2...@syrcnyrdrs-01-ge0.nyroc.rr.com...
> D. Spencer Hines notes ...
>
> >... a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
> > level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
> > about WHO and WHOM.
>
> What makes the ongoing merger of WHO and WHOM worse than the merger of
> YE and YOU (similarly once distinguished as subject vs. object) some
> centuries back?
Both should really be dropped in favour of Y'... that's how it's said now, and
how 'twas was said back in medieval times. It really is time we escaped from
this nit-picking nonsense about 'correct' grammar, and thought once again about
'style' and readability.
I only say that because I don't care of course - why anyone else would, I have
no idea? As for spelling, it was a sad day that 'standard spelling' came in - we
lost a lot.
The only thing that does (slightly) bother me is the incorrect and inappropriate
use of capital letters. David the Pratt Hines and Seppo the Clown Renfors seem
to consider it akin to 'shouting' somehow, a way of getting irrelevant, tedious
points home forcefully. In fact, it merely looks untidy on the screen and makes
the sorry pair look even more hysterical and incontinent than they are.
> If something necessitates changing a word to indicate subject vs.
> object, then why do the WHO/WHOM sticklers not object to the existence
> of IT (and of every English noun) since IT and nouns do not change their
> forms to specify subject versus object?
>
> What, for that matter, makes
> the late-twentieth/early-twenty-first century's merger of WHO and WHOM
> somehow worse than the late-eighteenth-century/early-nineteenth-century
> merger of WHERE and WHITHER, HERE and HITHER, which we all accept and
> use daily even in the most formally correct of our writing?
Quite. Their heads should hang in shame, whomsoever they may be! Formality leads
to dullness.
Cheers
Martin
Martin Reboul
>
>
> and on and on . . . .:
>
> < and I'm 'snipping' it >
>
> Folks,
> During the past few days, by what seems to be a whim of the Internet's
> Fairy Godmother Department, alt.fan.heinlein has been graced with a
> number of cross-posts from several other disparate newsgroups.
> I do NOT want to seem indelicate or to be deemed to have acted
> inappropriately, but I'm moved to suggest that the content of these
> cross-postings is not really serving to enhance the atmosphere of ANY of
> the listed newsgroups.
> The bulk of them seem to document what may be just another instance of
> 'Grumpy Old Men.' The few that depart from that theme do nothing but
> take up bandwidth (whatever THAT is!). We have our own resident
> alterkackers, nutters and gits; and we're used to THEM -- and they're
> used to US.
D Spencer Hines is not a 'Grumpy Old Man' - he is a Sad Old Git! And a lot of other things, which politeness prevents me mentioning on a civilised public forum...
You have actually just mentioned the reason why the unsavoury, despicable fellow is crossposting to AFH as it happens. The sole purpose of his dreary life appears to be to cause disruption on soc.history.medieval, as a result of his pointless, obsessive quest to try and annoy Paul Gans. One of the devices he uses is extensive cross posting, in attempts to attract kooks, weirdos, netnazis and trolls onto that group, and I daresay he saw some fracas on AFH and thought it might be a good 'recruiting ground'. Despicable!
As it happens, I'm personally rather pleased that he did (which will no doubt infuriate the miserable old sod), as I would probably never have had the pleasure of meeting you all otherwise (or remembered 'The Legion of Time', never mind discovering the title!).
Ignore him and he will go away eventually, and I will trim AFH from my headers in future to avoid annoyance, when replying to the miserable, bad-tempered old fool. I continue to do that (i.e., reply), even though he won't lock horns any more, as I feel it my duty to inform the world about him and irritate him in the process. It goes without saying, I get no pleasure from this sad duty....
> Should anyone have a Robert Heinlein-related posting to share, please
> feel free to do so at any time. You're always welcome. But, if you
> merely wish to demonstrate that 'age doesn't guarantee wisdom,' please,
> please, use do it in your own homes -- 'on the down low,' OK? You're
> scaring the cats off the Lanai-that's-always-in-Oz.
> Should it be necessary, please also be aware that I am not posting this
> in order to become engaged in any sort of 'pissing contest.' I'd have to
> be 'drunker 'n ole Hooty Brown' to want to cross keyboards with y'all.
> (P.S. [I know I shouldn't, but] On a point of almost infantile
> curiosity, I must ask: Why did you, Dr. Hines, focus your prolix
> opprobrium on Professor Gans' probable typographical inadvertence rather
> than comment on his clearly-intended commonplace regarding any putative
> consort of Alie'nor d’Aquitaine, de Guyenne? That - alone - deserves [at
> least the offer of] a rat's ass. <wEg>)
It's no good, I can't resist the temptation to include my attempt at creative writing here, please forgive me all those who have seen it before - and those reading it for the first time (DSH is of course a big Sherlock Holmes fan....)
The Sad Case of the Retired Naval Commander
Part One: A Most Disturbing Engagement
I had seen Holmes engaged by many strange, peculiar and unpleasant people over the years, yet none of his clients ever quite disturbed or put me so ill at ease
as one in particular. As Mrs. Hudson ejected the sorry fellow from the premises,
with sharp words and a broom handle, I breathed a sigh of relief and felt almost
elated. However, the second the door had slammed shut I turned to my old friend
and spoke in no uncertain terms.
"What the devil are you up to, allowing a creature like that into our room
Holmes? As you know very well I am a man of the world, of Bohemian tendencies it has been said, and well familiar with the basest, lowest and most depraved
examples of the human condition, but there are limits!"
A wry smile flashed over his cadaverous features for a second, but I noticed
a slight tremor in his hand as his filled his pipe with slow deliberation.
Holmes had selected his specially imported Afghan mix, and I realised that
despite his affected indifference he was badly rattled. Nevertheless, he
appeared calm and collected as he struck a match and took a deep lungful of
aromatic smoke.
"I take it you found him somewhat distasteful?" he said coolly, raising his
eyebrows and fixing me with a stare. Before I could reply he continued
offhandedly.
"Well, what do you think? A most disgusting and singularly unsavoury specimen. Verminous is a word that comes to mind! Surely you have no intention of offering the fellow your services?"
Holmes was silent for a moment, thoughtfully staring out of the windowwith a dark frown, at something obviously repulsive to him on the street below, .
"I quite agree old chap. One of the most *revolting* specimens I have ever had
the displeasure to meet in my life, no question about it. But what did you
notice about him?"
"Well... I noticed he was arrogant, uncouth... and rude to a degree?" Holmes
nodded encouragingly.
"And?"
"Somehow... pathetic in a way? Yet absolutely loathsome at the same time. Quite
beyond the pale really! All that stuff about 'goosing' and 'bottoms' - absolutely appalling! The sort of chap who used to get soundly thrashed with wet towels then have his fat head shoved down a lavatory at school."
degree.
"Precisely Watson! But apart from the obvious, consider what he said and the way in which he acted. What would you judge his character to be based on that?" I considered the matter carefully.
"Character? The man has no 'character' that I can see. A noxious, bitter,
twisted, whingeing, unpolished oaf, affecting a thin veneer of gentility to
cover his disgraceful, perverted, corrupt and depraved inner being. A liar, a
cheat, a charlatan, a fraud and I daresay far worse than that as well!"
dismay, produced a mirror from his inner pocket. That could mean but on thing,
it was going to be a long night...
"Well done Watson. You are learning I see. Tell me however, what else did you
deduce? What of his profession, his background and his likely habits?" I
shuddered.
"I'd rather not think about the man's 'habits' if you don't mind Holmes! I did
notice that he had a rather unusual gait I suppose?"
In truth, I had noticed nothing that might have given me any indication of the
man's background, since I had been so revolted by his presence. Holmes was
enthusiastic however, toying with a pile of white powder that had appeared as if
by magic on the mirror, cutting geometrical shapes with a razor sharp, antique
pinking knife. I watched his strong, skilled fingers as they guided the pearl
encrusted handle across the glass with delicate precision, the gilded brass
inlay contrasting sharply with the ebony handle as it flashed menacingly in the
gaslight.
"Indeed. What conclusion did you draw from that?" he asked evenly. I said
nothing and huffed, knowing full well he was about to reveal astonishing facts
his brilliant mind and incredible powers of observation had ascertained
concerning our unpleasant visitor.
"I'll just say one word: 'nautical'...?" He gave me a sinister wink.
"What on earth d'you mean Holmes? Nautical...? That could mean several things,
but the most obvious seems irrelevant? Granted, the chap showed signs of
discomfort when he sat, which could perhaps explain his unusual gait too I
suppose, but in a man of his years nothing remarkable, surely?"
no idea you were familiar with the nuances of speech known as 'Cockney rhyming
slang' even so? Well done. True, his 'Chalfont St. Giles' were obviously
troubling him, but are unlikely to be responsible for his peculiar and obnoxious
obsession with things anal. No, I was using the word in a more 'aqueous'
context... if you get my drift?" Holmes produced that disgusting device from his
pocket, inserted in his enormous nostril and proceeded to inhale a large
quantity of the powder he had been arranging on the mirror with such care. I
felt a trace of annoyance as well as my usual revulsion.
"Must you do that so noisily Holmes, at seven o' clock on a Tuesday evening? It
will lead to disaster, you mark my words!" He merely smiled and repeated the
ghastly process for the other nostril with indecent relish.
"Nonsense old friend. Sharpens the wits and enlivens the mind. Fancy a toot?"
"Certainly not. Filthy stuff!" I replied sharply, but my friend was oblivious. Clearly his thoughts had moved on to the case.
"Nautical... any other ideas?" I thought long and hard, almost tempted to accept
his offer as my mind went blank.
"Do you mean he's a sailor? Why the devil should you think that?"
"He is, or rather was indeed a sailor in a manner of speaking, though a rather
unusual one. A 'sailor' who has never been to sea, an American naval man in
fact."
"You really do astonish me sometimes Holmes. 'An American sailor who never went to sea'? It sounds completely pointless - what on earth led you to such an
extraordinary conclusion?"
"Quite simple my boy. You know my methods." Holmes stood up and began to pace the room. "His tiresome and almost obsessive use of the word 'pogue' gave it away. A 'rear echelon' warrior in more than one way I suspect. His painful
condition was no doubt caused by many long years sitting in an office, probably
pushing papers around and flicking paper clips with rubber bands. Obviously the
man could never have gone to sea, for his shipmates would unquestionably have
thrown him overboard within days, and he would not have been here today to tell
his sorry tale."
I could see the point only too clearly once Holmes had mentioned it, but he
interjected before I could voice my appreciation..
"There is more. He went to Yale University - an American establishment of some
repute - and was at some time a naval officer, but his career was ruined through
his ineptitude and intransigence. He spends an inordinate amount of time playing
with his computer, lives in Hawaii and is loathed, ridiculed and despised
throughout the world."
always, had to ask.
"Remarkable Holmes, you never cease to amaze me! The last part is plainly
obvious, but how the deuce can you know of the rest?" Holmes smiled, this time
with a trace of smugness I have to say.
"Simple my boy. The callouses on his hands, together with what I thought was a
repetitive strain injury in one elbow can only result from excessive use of a
'mouse' as I believe it is called. Slovenly speech patterns and colloquialisms
reveal him as an American, which he pretentiously seeks to hide by adding the
letter 'u' to words such as 'color' and 'honor' as I believe they are spelt in
his native country. The nauseating and clearly fraudulent references to his
forbears and ancestors, added to that absurd and irritating affected accent mark
him down as a 'Wannabe Limey' as I believe his type are known by their fellow
Americans - loathsome. I see your look of alarm Watson, but fear not. I have had
words with Mycroft and the dreadful man will not be granted another visa, never
mind naturalisation papers."
"I am glad to hear that." I breathed a great sigh of relief before my old friend
continued.
"That utterly revolting tie marks him as a 'Yalie', which means, since the man
obviously has no talent, ability or intelligence, he must have been a 'legacy'
and therefore came from good stock, despite the fact that a superficial glance
at his behaviour, manner and demeanor is enough to show he is certainly no
gentleman."
"Quite. Even I spotted that!"
"Sarcasm really does not become you Watson. Lastly, he has changed his name.
Surely you noticed that?"
"I fear I must have missed something? And why Hawaii for Heavens sake?" I said
lamely. Holmes chuckled. He could be a patronising bugger sometimes....
tradition to say those words at least once in tales such as this? I noticed an
unmistakable odour of coconuts despite his cheap aftershave, and there were
clearly visible pineapple stains on that shockingly loud shirt. Combined with
those appalling trousers, neither long shorts nor short longs, only usually worn
in one part of the world, could only lead to one conclusion. As for his name, is
it not staring you in the face man? Only a cheap, foolish, inadequate American
'pogue' would be stupid enough to add 'Spencer' to their name as a vanity
surely, when we have been trying to get rid of the bastards for centuries,
without success?"
I was flabberghasted. It was all so obvious if one had the genius of my
remarkable friend. However, although many things were now clear thanks to
Holmes' incisive intelligence and sharp wit, to me the greatest mystery of all
still remained.
"I have to ask Holmes, why you would be tempted even to cross the road in order
to urinate on that man were he burning to death, never mind investigate anything
whatsoever on his behalf? It beggars belief!"
A sinister smile crossed Holmes deathly features as he tapped his nose with a
long finger.
"So close Watson, if only you knew! You said the word 'beggars'... sounds like?
No? Well, how about 'pogue' then - it has another meaning? I see you don't, but
then I suppose it isn't commonly known in this country." I took a deep breath
and feared the worst.
"Well all I can say is that I sincerely hope we don't get shafted this time
Holmes?" I said uneasily.
"Not us Watson... not us..."
Kate Gladstone
> ...
>
> Because there is no 'merger'. Last I knew, they still taught the
> difference between 'who' and 'whom'.
And "they" still taught the difference between "where" and "whither" for
decades after nobody used "whither" except when teaching other people to
say "whither" -
just as 300 years ago "they" taught"jumpeth" as the only correct and
intelligent spelling for a word that, even then, people pronounced
"jumps."
(You can see this in textbooks written at the time for
foreign-born learners of English - they discuss "-eth" verb-forms among
the spelling-irregularities of the language, and caution the foreign
reader to remember that third-person verbs ending in "-eth" always sound
as if they ended in "-s."
Pretending that a merger (or any other event) has not happened
does not cause the event not to have happened.
"Who" versus "whom" of course
continues to matter greatly
in exactly the way, and to exactly the extent that
rubbing blue mud into one's navel matters greatly if the guardians of
tribal tradition teach this, require this, and punish all deviationists
who use some other color or skip the mud-rubbing ritual entirely.
If more and more members of the tribe
gradually dropped the blue-mud-rubbing custom,
while nevertheless still teaching all the tribe's children that
"blue mud in the navel is correct and required,"
this would constitute miseducation
because it would provide children with false-to-fact and unreliable data
about the customs of the tribe.
The verbal statement would have started out accurate -
'way back when all the tribe did, in fact, rub blue mud into the navel,
so that "we all rub blue mud" accurately reported the tribe's behavior,
if anyone needed such a report made - just as "we use WHOM for the
object and WHO for the subject" once accurately reported the verbal
behavior of the "tribe" called "English-speakers."
But as more and more people discarded or changed the blue-mud rites of
their ancestors,
the statement that "we rub blue mud into our navels" would fall further
and further out of correspondence with observable facts.
To my mind, presenting false-to-fact verbal statements as accurate
reports of observable facts and behaviors (and requiring/encouraging
belief in those statements) constitutes miseducation.
Therefore, it seems to me, presenting false-to-fact verbal statements
about the observable facts regarding when we use WHO or WHOM
similarly constitutes miseducation.
At best, we can - and indeed, we must - inform children that following
the current majority usage will still get them disliked and disfavored
by a shrinking but still influential number of people ... just as (in
the "blue mud" tribal society) following the majority usage of quietly
skipping the blue mud will get them disliked and disfavored by whatever
shrinking but still influential body of tribal shamans continues to
practice and insist on the blue-mud ritual.
If Fred dislikes any changes in our language (as it seems he does), why
settle for the "corruptions" of 2004 - or 1904, or 1704, or 1404, for
that matter? Why not go back to speaking Anglo-Saxon (or
Proto-Indo-European, perhaps), for in those days people still
differentiated case-endings on pronouns and nouns and adjectives: a way
of speaking which, I suppose, he would approve.
(Down, down - I suppose - with this modern nonsense of spelling and
pronouncing words the same way whether they serve as object or as
subject! Bring back the Anglo-Saxon accusative! Heck, bring back the
Anglo-Saxon dative!
And down with everybody in Italy because they've dropped
case-endings from their nouns, too, and so much else: so that they no
longer speak Latin as their ancestors did!
If acknowledging change in a language constitutes "miseducating"
people about that language, does that mean that Italian schoolteachers
should teach kids that Italian differs in no way from the language of
Julius Caesar?)
Fred J. McCall
:If Fred dislikes any changes in our language (as it seems he does),
Too stupid a troll to bother with.
<plonk>
Simon Jester UK
> Your Typical Rampant Pogue....
>
> He complains, whines and kvetches about posts he doesn't like
KERSPLAT!!
WHOMPF!!!
WIBBLEWIBBLEWIBBLE!!!!
WHAT a PRATFALL!!!!!
HINES - a man who appears to regard prolixity in his own writings as
evidence of intellectual superiority (though superior to what is unclear,
given the cliched, pretentious and repetitive nature of his widely and
inappropriately cross-posted gibberish, as well as the affected pseudery of
his random and apparently irrelevent latinisms; perhaps a retarded amoeba?)
and who lives solely to whine about other usenet posters - makes a post
complaining about another correspondent's criticism of his post.
Hilarious.
Congratulations are in order - after some years online, Hines is the first
to impel me to the following action:
PLONK!
I feel so much better.
I et lox et bagels.
Non illegitimus carborundum.
Simon Jester (UK)
Grey Satterfield
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Yep, and loooong winded, too.
Grey Satterfield
David Wright Sr.
news:hohmg05m9c4prho6g...@4ax.com:
I've really been impressed with the quality of the cross-posters from all
of those other groups, such as D. Spencer Hines, Paul Gans and now J Fred
Muggs.
<plonk> to all of them.
David Wright.
David Wright Sr.
news:BD30EB21.C016%grey.sat...@oscn.net:
--
David Wright
'Tis a fine morning for plonking!
Nuclear Waste
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hohmg05m9c4prho6g...@4ax.com...
Interesting, rather than discuss the merits of her position, or
possible flaws in her reasoning, you resort to name calling. Kate
has many flaws, IMO, but stupidity does not number among them. As
to charges of being a troll, I would laugh if it were not apparent
that you believe it to be so.
NW
Larry Swain
Kate Gladstone wrote:
>
> D. Spencer Hines notes ...
>
> >... a teacher at the undergraduate COLLEGE
> > level, a 71-year-old no less, who gets totally confused and bollixed up
> > about WHO and WHOM.
>
> What makes the ongoing merger of WHO and WHOM worse than the merger of
> YE and YOU (similarly once distinguished as subject vs. object) some
> centuries back?
I don't think its a matter of "better" or "worse." It is about
effective and good written communication which depends more on
what is written since it can not use gesture, intonation, or
expression to assist conveying meaning. What does it cost you
to add that "m"? Why so stringently opposed to something so
simple that assists in getting your meaning across better? Why
is good communication, good use of language, knowledge of the
way the English language works a bad, negative thing? Why are
those who wish to inculcate a good command of the language, and
if of one language then many, seen as "sticklers" and
"pedants"? Whence ;) comes all the negativity to using an "m"
on "who" when in the objective case? What makes ignoring that
"m" better?
> If something necessitates changing a word to indicate subject vs.
> object, then why do the WHO/WHOM sticklers not object to the existence
> of IT (and of every English noun) since IT and nouns do not change their
> forms to specify subject versus object?
IT was always an objective form as well as subjective. It was
the neuter nominative and accusative form in Old English of the
third person pronoun. That "it" also took over the dative and
genitive functions actually aided in communication since those
forms were "his" and "him" which are identical to the masculine
forms. As for other nouns, that's a good question and
challenge. Word order is the chief method employed by English
to establish relationships in the elements of a sentence.
However, unlike the normal SVO clause, the relative clause
begins with its relative pronoun regardless of the role the
pronoun plays in the clause. Thus, greater specificity is
desireable to communicate that role more effectively. Why is
that such an evil?
> What, for that matter, makes
> the late-twentieth/early-twenty-first century's merger of WHO and WHOM
> somehow worse than the late-eighteenth-century/early-nineteenth-century
> merger of WHERE and WHITHER, HERE and HITHER, which we all accept and
> use daily even in the most formally correct of our writing?
This isn't an analogous situation. hwider and hwaer, etc share
significantly overlapping semantic fields. The early modern
distinctions between them were enforcements in order to express
similarity to Latin constructions. The surprise with these
words is that the semantic fields took so long to merge, rather
than they did merge---they were largely the same in most uses in
Old as well as Middle English.
Fred J. McCall
:Fred J. McCall <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in
Coming from someone who changes followups without notice, this is
actually something of a compliment.
Hot for Katie, are we, Davie? She elected to mix in and got what she
had coming. If your aim was to try to 'terminate' threads by your
'clever' removal of everything but a.f.h from the followup-to line,
you would have been better served to just be quiet.
But you couldn't quite manage that, could you?
--
"So many women. So little charm."
-- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing
Fred J. McCall
:Grey Satterfield <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in
:news:BD30EB21.C016%grey.sat...@oscn.net:
:
:> On 7/31/04 2:16 AM, in article
:> hohmg05m9c4prho6g...@4ax.com, "Fred J. McCall"
:> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:>
:>> Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
:>>
:>> :If Fred dislikes any changes in our language (as it seems he does),
:>>
:>> Too stupid a troll to bother with.
:>>
:>> <plonk>
:>
:> Yep, and loooong winded, too.
And not even a comment from you; just a repeat of the article? You
really are an immature little git, aren't you?
Again, coming from someone who changes followups without notice, this
is actually something of a compliment.
Hot for Katie, are we, Davie? She elected to mix in and got what she
had coming. If your aim was to try to 'terminate' threads by your
'clever' removal of everything but a.f.h from the followup-to line,
you would have been better served to just be quiet.
But you couldn't quite manage that, could you? And this one makes it
apparent that your aim is more along the lines of "let's piss in that
newsgroup over there".
Yeah, I'm REAL impressed by you now.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
:news:hohmg05m9c4prho6g...@4ax.com...
:> Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
:>
:> :If Fred dislikes any changes in our language (as it seems he
:does),
:>
:> Too stupid a troll to bother with.
:
:Interesting, rather than discuss the merits of her position,
Which I consider to be nonexistent. I gave up on arguing the
whichness of the why on Usenet a LONG time ago.
:or possible flaws in her reasoning,
Reasoning? I'm not interested in long screeds that start off with
incorrect premises.
:you resort to name calling.
I calls 'em like I seez 'em.
:Kate has many flaws, IMO,
Mine too.
:but stupidity does not number among them.
Ah, you have slightly misread my comment, which explains much. You
need to read the 'troll' in my original remark above as coming from
the verb form rather than referring to the person doing the trolling.
:As
:to charges of being a troll, I would laugh if it were not apparent
:that you believe it to be so.
Again, you need to read 'troll' as coming from "she trolled and it was
a stupid troll" rather than from "she is a stupid troll". Non-trolls
can still troll and non-stupid people can say stupid things. At a
minimum, this qualifies as both and is pretty much the only exposure
to dear Katie I've had, so this is how opinions are formed. However,
it takes a much longer exposure than a couple of articles before I'll
make a judgment about an individual rather than about a particular
thing they're saying.
Paul Gans is stupid. What Katie posted in defense of his misuse of
'whom' was stupid, at least insofar as the timing of it went if for no
other reason (and I disagree with her, by the way).
There is a distinct difference there.
Katie's characterization of my opinions was also pretty stupid and is
merely one way to take little swipes at people; a game I'm not
particularly interested in. If she really wants civil discourse, she
needs to learn that such is required on BOTH sides.
I didn't miss her when I'd never heard of her before she decided to
mix in. I won't miss her for the next 30 days. If she's still around
anywhere I read at the end of the usual 30 day cycle through my
personal bit bucket that I give as a 'first award', then we can start
over.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer
Grey Satterfield
I agree with Mr. Swain's conclusion that the word "whom" still has its uses.
I would add to his comments by reminding everyone that Ms. Gladstone's
spirited dismissal of the word "whom" in her looong post was misplaced
because Dr. Gans had used that very word -- but, alas, had misused it. This
goes to show, I suggest, that it's always a good idea to read and understand
a thread before posting to it at remarkable length in a way that shows one
has failed to do just that.
Grey Satterfield
Grey Satterfield
Wright Sr." <dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
On 7/31/04 6:45 AM, in article Xns95374EEDB...@130.133.1.4, "David
Wright Sr." <dwri...@alltel.net> wrote:
> Grey Satterfield <grey.sat...@oscn.net> wrote in
> news:BD30EB21.C016%grey.sat...@oscn.net:
>
>> On 7/31/04 2:16 AM, in article
>> hohmg05m9c4prho6g...@4ax.com, "Fred J. McCall"
>> <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Kate Gladstone <ka...@global2000.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> :If Fred dislikes any changes in our language (as it seems he does),
>>>
>>> Too stupid a troll to bother with.
>>>
>>> <plonk>
>>
>> Yep, and loooong winded, too.
>>
>> Grey Satterfield
Not that this idiot will see this, but this was the first time anybody ever
*PLONKED* me.
Grey Satterfield -- wondering if the loooong winded Kate Gladstone is the
short tempered David Wright's girlfriend
The slippery twit, Wright, snipped all but one of the NGs to which I had
posted, so in the interests of full disclosure I am adding them and
reposting my earlier remarks, which, due to Wright's perfidy and my
inattention, only went to alt.fan.heinlein.
Grey Satterfield
D. Spencer Hines
uses. I would add to his comments by reminding everyone that Ms.
Gladstone's spirited dismissal of the word "whom" in her looong post was
misplaced because Dr. Gans had used that very word -- but, alas, had
misused it. This goes to show, I suggest, that it's always a good idea
to read and understand a thread before posting to it at remarkable
length in a way that shows one has failed to do just that."
Grey Satterfield
---------------
Bingo!
Gans WROTE _WHOMEVER_ -- when he should have WRITTEN _WHOEVER_. It was
definitely not a "typo" -- it was a gaffe.
THEN Gans tried to con folks into thinking that actually no one in his
venue, Gotham City, no enlightened, serious person, even USES _WHOM_
anymore -- note the awkward segue to the SPOKEN language -- a patently
obvious red herring.
Hilarious!
Gans The Flakey & Incoherent.
If he were a dog, his master would have shot him by now.
---------------------------
PROOF:
Gans wrote as follows:
"I don't know what to say except that "whom" is esssentially [sic] gone
from the English one hears around here. When it is used, it usually is
intended to invoke "ancient" times or "ultra-high class [sic] usage"."
P. Jonathan Gans -- 30 July 2004
-----------------------------
[N.B. "Here" is Greenwich Village, New York City -- hardly the place a
discriminating person would go to learn good English. ---- DSH]
And yet GANS DID USE *WHOM* -- INCORRECTLY -- [AND HILARIOUSLY].
"Whomever [sic] married her automatically became one of the most
important figures in the west."
P. Jonathan Gans -- Farblondjet, Left-Wing NYU chemist, AKA Gans The
Illiterate -- 23 July 2004
---------------------------------
[N.B. "Her" is Eleanor of Aquitaine, about whom Gans has prurient
fantasies and continuing wet dreams. She died in 1204 -- 800 years ago.
'Nuff Said. ---- DSH]
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
Now, was Gans, my pet marmot and Top Banana, trying to:
1. "Invoke Ancient Times"?
OR:
2. Demonstrate the NYU version of "Ultra-High-Class Usage."
Hilarious!
Pogue Gans just digs himself a deeper hole with his Clintonian Evasions.
Gans never even worries about being consistent or logical -- ergo he is
constantly, risibly, self-contradictory -- as we see above.
Gans The Incoherent strikes again!
The little old NYU chemist, the schlockmeister of Washington Square,
can't even write a grammatical English sentence.
WHO and WHOM completely throw him -- he must have fallen asleep during
English lessons in fifth grade.
Hilarious!
The overuse of WHOM in place of the correct WHO, as Gans is often wont
to do, is PARTICULARLY amusing.
It demonstrates that Gans is lost in space in Basic English 101, yet
AWARE of the fact that he often screws the pooch on this matter.
So he OVERCORRECTS, afraid to make a mistake, and writes the
INCORRECT -- WHOM or WHOMEVER -- instead of the CORRECT -- WHO or
WHOEVER.
How Sweet It Is!
This is ONE reason why I say Gans is far and away the Best Entertainment
on USENET.
Billy Crystal should be so lucky.
A fish rots from the head -- and so do senile educators.
D. Spencer Hines
"Whomever [sic] married her automatically became one of the most
important figures in the west." [sic]
P. Jonathan Gans -- AKA Gans The Illiterate -- 23 July 2004
------------------------
Then, having been caught by the short hairs, Gans makes an awkward segue
to the SPOKEN language -- a very lame attempt at throwing out a red
herring.
"I don't know what to say except that "whom" is esssentially [sic] gone
from the English one hears around here. When it is used, it usually is
intended to invoke "ancient" times or "ultra-high class [sic] usage"."
P. Jonathan Gans -- 30 July 2004 -- AKA Gans The Incoherent
-----------------------------
Hilarious!
Gans = Best Entertainment On USENET.
D. Spencer Hines
P. Jonathan Gans -- 1 August 2004
-------------------
DEAD WRONG...
There he goes again.
Gans is LYING.
Gans used WHOMEVER rather than WHOEVER -- which was Dead Wrong and very
funny. Here is what he wrote:
"Whomever [sic] married her automatically became one of the most
important figures in the west." [sic]
P. Jonathan Gans -- AKA Gans The Illiterate -- 23 July 2004
Yet NOW he tries to state the opposite of the truth.
He says he used WHO and could care less about WHOM -- and he also
insists we don't need to use WHOM or WHOMEVER at all.
Hoist with his own petard yet again.
PRATFALL!!!
KAWHOMP!!!
KERSPLAT!!!
A fish rots from the head -- and so do senile, lying educators.
Kate Gladstone
> I don't think its a matter of "better" or "worse." It is about
> effective and good written communication which depends more on
> what is written since it can not use gesture, intonation, or
> expression to assist conveying meaning.
Please give me examples of sentences in which the use of WHOM makes the
sentence somehow "more effective" and/or "better" than the use of WHO.
Please show how the WHOM version makes that sentence somehow "more
effective" and/or "better" - what measuring-rod (so to speak) do you use
to determine the "effectiveness" and/or "goodness" in a sentence, and
how does the presence or absence of "that 'm' " affect that
"effectiveness," that "goodness"?
> What does it cost you
> to add that "m"? Why so stringently opposed to something so
> simple that assists in getting your meaning across better?
I don't oppose it. People who read what I've written (here or elsewhere)
know that I follow the "who/whom" blue-mud directive. (See analogy used
in previous message.) My recognition that this directive has no inherent
advantage (beyond the advantage of rubbing blue mud in one's navel if
Folks In Charge won't like a refusal to do so) does not dictate a
refusal to follow that directive.
> Why
> is good communication, good use of language, knowledge of the
> way the English language works a bad, negative thing?
I never called them "bad, negative things."
I observed merely that "the way the English language works" (to use your
excellent phrase) makes less use of case-endings now than "the way the
English language worked" in decades and centuries gone by. Listing a
"WHO-versus-WHOM" distinction as part of "the way the English language
works now" resembles giving residents of New York a map of the city 300
years ago and asking them to accept this as a map of the city today.
> Why are
> those who wish to inculcate a good command of the language,
The language changes. A good command of the language includes knowing
how it has changed (and continues to change) as well as how it has not
changed (yet).
> and
> if of one language then many, seen as "sticklers" and
> "pedants"? Whence ;) comes all the negativity to using an "m"
> on "who" when in the objective case? What makes ignoring that
> "m" better?
If that "m" has such grand virtue, why stop with retaining it in
"who[m]"? Why not add it to "you[m]"?
;-)
>
>
>
> IT was always an objective form as well as subjective. It was
> the neuter nominative and accusative form in Old English of the
> third person pronoun. That "it" also took over the dative and
> genitive functions actually aided in communication since those
> forms were "his" and "him" which are identical to the masculine
> forms.
Then shouldn't "a good command of the language" to "aid in
communication" necessitate establishing new inflectional forms for each
and every one of the pronouns, to give each one its very own
nominative/accusative/dative/genitive forms?
And why stop there? If you really think that inflected case-endings
matter so much, why not give English as many as fifteen cases (which
Finnish has)? Why stop as a measly Anglo-Saxon four?
;-)
> As for other nouns, that's a good question and
> challenge. Word order is the chief method employed by English
> to establish relationships in the elements of a sentence.
> However, unlike the normal SVO clause, the relative clause
> begins with its relative pronoun regardless of the role the
> pronoun plays in the clause. Thus, greater specificity is
> desireable to communicate that role more effectively. Why is
> that such an evil?
In "I saw the man who dated Jane" and "I saw the man who Jane dated,"
does any English-speaker anywhere (except for you) actually think that
the second sentence might mean the same as the first?
If WHO as a relative pronoun benefits from an accusative form,
then why haven't you (and the other devotees of WHOM) similarly demanded
an accusative form for other English relative pronouns (THAT and WHICH)?
Since English does perfectly well with "I saw the rock that Jane
hit" and "I saw the rock that hit Jane" (we all understand that in the
first sentence the rock hit Jane but in the second sentence Jane hit the
rock) what makes it so important to differentiate in the matter of WHO
but not in the matter of THAT?
D. Spencer Hines
important figures in the west." [sic]
P. Jonathan Gans -- AKA Gans The Illiterate -- 23 July 2004
Hilarious!
That is just as dumb a mistake as writing:
"Dad took Roger and I to the ball game."
Perhaps Gans uses that one too.
David Holiman
Everytime I see this famous Gans quote "Whomever
married her became one of the most important figures
in the West" I cannot help but think Gans is merely
quoting a remark made by someone else. Is the issue
actually that Gans refuses to provide a source for
this sentence? If Paul Gans HAD given the historical
source, would that not clear up the endless fuss
over this one statement ?
DAVID H
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fred J. McCall
:Everytime I see this famous Gans quote "Whomever
:married her became one of the most important figures
:in the West" I cannot help but think Gans is merely
:quoting a remark made by someone else.
While I don't pay a lot of attention to Dr Gans, I believe *HE* is the
origin of this little quote.
:Is the issue
:actually that Gans refuses to provide a source for
:this sentence?
No, the 'issue' is that it is incorrect English emitted by someone
trying to 'sound' educated.
:If Paul Gans HAD given the historical
:source, would that not clear up the endless fuss
:over this one statement ?
So far as I can tell from watching, the 'historical source' is Dr Paul
Gans, the English-ignorant. Then he makes excuses for why his poor
English is actually 'good'.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
D. Spencer Hines
important figures in the west." [sic]
P. Jonathan Gans -- AKA Gans The Illiterate -- 23 July 2004
----------------------
No, Gans is not quoting anyone.
It is his own sentence.
Clearly the mistake is not a mechanical error -- a "typo" -- but a
conceptual error.
He thought the "WHOM" form was correct in this case, so he used it.
Gans was trying to be on his best behavior and sound educated in Basic
English -- but he is not, so he committed egregious pratfall.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"David Holiman" <dcho...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:4315ddc6.04080...@posting.google.com...
Larry Swain
Kate Gladstone wrote:
>
> Larry writes:
>
> > I don't think its a matter of "better" or "worse." It is about
> > effective and good written communication which depends more on
> > what is written since it can not use gesture, intonation, or
> > expression to assist conveying meaning.
>
> Please give me examples of sentences in which the use of WHOM makes the
> sentence somehow "more effective" and/or "better" than the use of WHO.
We've already had an example: the clause that began this whole
discussion.
> Please show how the WHOM version makes that sentence somehow "more
> effective" and/or "better" - what measuring-rod (so to speak) do you use
> to determine the "effectiveness" and/or "goodness" in a sentence, and
> how does the presence or absence of "that 'm' " affect that
> "effectiveness," that "goodness"?
The measuring rod that says that normal English usage is that
the "m" marker is the objective case marker, not the subjective,
and that this rule is easy to understand if one knows and
practices the most basic of English grammatical practices: the
SVO clause. Or do you think that in written speech
ungrammatical clause structures are more desirable for
communication?
>
> > What does it cost you
> > to add that "m"? Why so stringently opposed to something so
> > simple that assists in getting your meaning across better?
>
> I don't oppose it. People who read what I've written (here or elsewhere)
> know that I follow the "who/whom" blue-mud directive. (See analogy used
> in previous message.) My recognition that this directive has no inherent
> advantage (beyond the advantage of rubbing blue mud in one's navel if
> Folks In Charge won't like a refusal to do so) does not dictate a
> refusal to follow that directive.
Ah, the worst of the possibilities. I oppose it, but I'll do it
anyway. Your recognition needs adjusting however. It has the
inherent advantage of being the way English works based on
observation. That certain dialects of spoken language,
particularly by Americans, have begun to leave "whom" behind
does not mean that the "language has changed": it means that
certain dialects have made the change in oral speech. The
question is whether a change in formal written speech should
imitate oral speech on this issue and what advantages or
disadvantages that may have.
>
> > Why
> > is good communication, good use of language, knowledge of the
> > way the English language works a bad, negative thing?
>
> I never called them "bad, negative things."
But your attitude, and Gans' among others, certainly suggests
that this is your position.
> I observed merely that "the way the English language works" (to use your
> excellent phrase) makes less use of case-endings now than "the way the
> English language worked" in decades and centuries gone by.
Except in the pronouns. I, mine, me; you, yours; he, his, him;
she, hers, her; it, its; we, our, us; they, their, them. Lots
of case endings there to choose from. And lest we forget the 's
for possessives is a case ending as well, the possessive case
being the genitive and the old ending generally was an -es; we
simply didn't pronounce the "e", so we now simply use an
apostrophe where the "e" was. As for the dative, we mark that
to. Here though we no longer use a specific form for the dative
nor do we use a post-position marker (i.e. an ending), we
instead use a pre-position marker ( i. e. a preposition) to/for
to mark the dative. So, sure, English is no longer an inflected
language. But we use plenty of the old inflections in certain
parts of the language, including and especially in the
pronouns. And we are here talking about a pronoun after all.
Listing a
> "WHO-versus-WHOM" distinction as part of "the way the English language
> works now" resembles giving residents of New York a map of the city 300
> years ago and asking them to accept this as a map of the city today.
Nope. As noted above, it is as current as using "her" or "our"
grammatically. Unless of course you are advocating that we do
away with all forms altogether and write something like: "The
Germans conquered they." Now Paul would claim that since
communication has happened, and we know what was meant, that
such a sentence is perfectly acceptable. And while Paul has
taken refuge in his principle field of chemistry, one wonders
how he would treat such a statement in medieval technology
course--a course where I note that papers are due. Written
communication. While certainly the sense is open to us native
speakers, I would correct this to the proper form "them" and
explain to the student why, just as I explain to them the roots
of fonts, punctuation, spelling etc.
>
> > Why are
> > those who wish to inculcate a good command of the language,
>
> The language changes. A good command of the language includes knowing
> how it has changed (and continues to change) as well as how it has not
> changed (yet).
See below.
> > and
> > if of one language then many, seen as "sticklers" and
> > "pedants"? Whence ;) comes all the negativity to using an "m"
> > on "who" when in the objective case? What makes ignoring that
> > "m" better?
>
> If that "m" has such grand virtue, why stop with retaining it in
> "who[m]"? Why not add it to "you[m]"?
Why would you want to create new forms? On the other hand, if
you feel it has no value, why not stop using "them", "yours",
"mine" and other pronominal forms and use only the subjective?
> >
> > IT was always an objective form as well as subjective. It was
> > the neuter nominative and accusative form in Old English of the
> > third person pronoun. That "it" also took over the dative and
> > genitive functions actually aided in communication since those
> > forms were "his" and "him" which are identical to the masculine
> > forms.
>
> Then shouldn't "a good command of the language" to "aid in
> communication" necessitate establishing new inflectional forms for each
> and every one of the pronouns, to give each one its very own
> nominative/accusative/dative/genitive forms?
As mentioned, they already do have forms. See above.
> And why stop there? If you really think that inflected case-endings
> matter so much, why not give English as many as fifteen cases (which
> Finnish has)? Why stop as a measly Anglo-Saxon four?
Well we could. But as discussed in the last message, English
depends greatly on word order, and even in Old English we see
word order playing a rather significant role in the construction
of clauses. The difference with who/whom is that the relative
always begins its clause regardless of its relationship within
the clause. The who/whom distinction simply aids in immediately
identifying the role of the pronoun in the sentence in the same
way that we use "her" rather than "she". It is the way the
language works--currently.
> ;-)
>
> > As for other nouns, that's a good question and
> > challenge. Word order is the chief method employed by English
> > to establish relationships in the elements of a sentence.
> > However, unlike the normal SVO clause, the relative clause
> > begins with its relative pronoun regardless of the role the
> > pronoun plays in the clause. Thus, greater specificity is
> > desireable to communicate that role more effectively. Why is
> > that such an evil?
>
> In "I saw the man who dated Jane" and "I saw the man who Jane dated,"
> does any English-speaker anywhere (except for you) actually think that
> the second sentence might mean the same as the first?
Haven't worked with many ESL students have you? So, the answer
is yes. MOre to the point however, if comprehension is the sole
goal why observe any rules at all? Paul's example "This
sentence no verb" or "Ay us gut gramer" are intelligible and
understandable. Is either "good" or "correct" or the best way
to communicate? No, and I think you'll agree. There is value
in expressing oneself beyond mere intelligibility. Why bother
teaching children to speak when going "mmmm mmmmm" and pointing
to a glass of water is as effective a method of communication as
"Could I have some water, please?"
>
> If WHO as a relative pronoun benefits from an accusative form,
> then why haven't you (and the other devotees of WHOM) similarly demanded
> an accusative form for other English relative pronouns (THAT and WHICH)?
Oh my! Well, for one thing, THAT is the ACCUSATIVE form and the
subjective form of the pronoun and has been since the language
was first recorded and written 1400 years ago. That's why there
is no demand for an accusative form of that. As for "which",
first one must distinguish between adjectival "which" and
pronominal "which". If we are here speaking of the pronoun
only, it should be observed that any genitive and dative uses
are marked already by the pre-position markers, as in most cases
in English. Accusative "which" is not common, most examples of
"which" are subjective. But why not demand an ending for those
situations that an accusative "which" is used? The answer is a
simple one: English phonology. After a "ch" one must have a
vowel, and by rules of English phonology it is a short vowel.
Historically, that vowel was a short -u for masculine and a
short -e for neuter. We know these sounds in modern education as
the schwa--the uh sound. Naturally, the uh sound drops out as
unnecessary leaving an indeclinable which for those few
instances that an accusative which occurs. But I think you'll
note that almost all of the examples of an accusative "which"
will be adjectival, not pronominal.
Wasn't it you who said that "A good command of the language
includes knowing how it has changed (and continues to change) as
well as how it has not changed (yet)?" I agree, and perhaps you
should review how it has changed before prescribing and
describing current usage? Just a thought.