FitzGerald/Fitzgerald revisited
Daniel al-Autistiqui
another thread:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:45:26 +0100, Paul Wolff
><boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> said:
>
>[...]
>
>> Writing FitzGerald seems to be in Harmony with the Noun Capitalisation
>> in the Lines quoted by Daniel.
>
See below.
>From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_:
>
> Main Entry: FitzGerald
> Function: biographical name
> Edward 1809-1883 English poet & translator
>
This is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translator whom I talk about from
time to time.
> Main Entry: FitzGerald
> Function: biographical name
> Garret 1926-- prime minister of Ireland (1981-87)
>
[...]
You see, the point seems to be that I can't find any dictionary that
sanctions <Fitzgerald> (without the internal capital) as a variant
form for the Rubaiyat translator, and I have checked a number of
dictionaries of differing brands.
Note that the Merriam-Webster Collegiate cannot merely be averse to
entering variants for personal names, as they have, for example:
Main Entry: Tyn搞ale
Variant(s): or Tin搞al or Tin搞ale /'tin-d&l/
Function: biographical name
William circa 1494-1536 English reformer & translator
(The above is extracted from the online edition of the Collegiate; my
copy of MWCD11 also shows those variants. BTW, according to _Coined
by God_, Tyndale may have been the one who originally invented the
phrase "stranger in a strange land". His translation of the Bible is
said to be the earliest English version to contain that phrase.)
When I first started studying the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam and saw a
passage quoted from "Fitzgerald", I had thought to myself -- "Well,
fine; that's gotta be just a typo." But then, as I started
discovering more and more Rubaiyat books, I noticed that <Fitzgerald>
was used almost as often as <FitzGerald>. There are plenty of books
in which Edward's name appears capitalized the former way only. I had
to wonder about this: like, did some people view <FitzGerald> as just
a fancy "logo" and declare that the prefix "Fitz-" should never take a
following capital letter (and thus also avoiding this form for
Garret's name, which you quoted above)? Or did it just appear that
there was some sort of "controversy" about whether the "g" in Edward's
surname should be capitalized? In any case, it seems that the use of
Edward "Fitzgerald" for the translator of the Rubaiyat has gained
sufficient acceptability that the time has come for it to be listed as
a variant in dictionaries. It would be nice if someone else here will
agree with me on this point. (I should note that I am perfectly
comfortable with the use of a capital letter after "Mc". As a very
small boy I started out writing my last name as "Mcgrath", but
eventually my father started correcting me and tried to tell me
constantly that "the 'G' must be capitalized".)
Regarding Paul Wolff's comment (above): Yes, FitzGerald did capitalize
almost every noun in the Rubaiyat (a few adjectives as well), and it
does seem that one might expect the "G" to be decapitalized only if
the reprint in question also does away with all the initial capitals
that FG chose to put into the poem itself. In fact, this is not true
at all. It turns out that FG's peculiar capitalization of common
nouns is almost always retained in modern Rubaiyat books, in spite of
the fact that the second capital in his name is lost in half of them;
and I guess because of this I sometimes wonder whether, in fact, the
use the <Fitzgerald> form is a "modernization" at all. (But then, I
have also wondered whether this noun-capitalization was really
something that was natural for FG to do, or if it was rather just some
fancy orthography that he decided to put into his poem for effect.
Somehow I cannot be so sure if this "German-style" capitalization of
lots of words in the middle of sentences was not already obsolescent
during the Victorian period.)
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Bob Cunningham
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:54:30 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui
<gove...@hotmail.invalid> said:
> Several weeks ago, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote, in
> another thread:
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:45:26 +0100, Paul Wolff
> ><boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> said:
> >[...]
> >> Writing FitzGerald seems to be in Harmony with the Noun Capitalisation
> >> in the Lines quoted by Daniel.
> See below.
> >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_:
> > Main Entry: FitzGerald
> > Function: biographical name
> > Edward 1809-1883 English poet & translator
> This is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translator whom I talk about from
> time to time.
> > Main Entry: FitzGerald
> > Function: biographical name
> > Garret 1926-- prime minister of Ireland (1981-87)
> [...]
> You see, the point seems to be that I can't find any dictionary that
> sanctions <Fitzgerald> (without the internal capital) as a variant
> form for the Rubaiyat translator, and I have checked a number of
> dictionaries of differing brands.
I believe, in my humble way, that an English dictionary's
job is to report on English as it's used. There is in
general no absolute right and wrong, because there is no
standard for the language.
But the case you're discussing is an exception to that
principle. A person's name must be spelled as the person
wants it spelled, and any other way is properly called
wrong. (If a person--Shakespeare for one--chooses to use
different spellings at different times, then any of those
spellings may be considered correct.)
A dictionary would be remiss to report that an alternative
way to spell Ella Fitzgerald's name is "FitzGerald", and it
would be remiss to report that an alternative way to spell
Edward FitzGerald's name is "Fitzgerald", unless in either
case it can be shown that the person so named has approved
of its being spelled the different way.
> Note that the Merriam-Webster Collegiate cannot merely be averse to
> entering variants for personal names, as they have, for example:
> Main Entry: Tyn搞ale
> Variant(s): or Tin搞al or Tin搞ale /'tin-d&l/
> Function: biographical name
> William circa 1494-1536 English reformer & translator
I hope Merriam-Webster gives those alternative spellings
only because Tyndale used or approved of them.
_Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary_ has two ways
to spell "MacDonald", "MacMillan", and "MacPherson", but any
given person has only one of the spellings.
Scanning the list of names beginning with "Mc" in _Random
House Webster's Unabridged_, I see none of them with a
lowercase letter following the "Mc".
> Regarding Paul Wolff's comment (above): Yes, FitzGerald did capitalize
> almost every noun in the Rubaiyat (a few adjectives as well), and it
> does seem that one might expect the "G" to be decapitalized only if
> the reprint in question also does away with all the initial capitals
> that FG chose to put into the poem itself. In fact, this is not true
> at all. It turns out that FG's peculiar capitalization of common
> nouns is almost always retained in modern Rubaiyat books, in spite of
> the fact that the second capital in his name is lost in half of them;
> and I guess because of this I sometimes wonder whether, in fact, the
> use the <Fitzgerald> form is a "modernization" at all. (But then, I
> have also wondered whether this noun-capitalization was really
> something that was natural for FG to do, or if it was rather just some
> fancy orthography that he decided to put into his poem for effect.
> Somehow I cannot be so sure if this "German-style" capitalization of
> lots of words in the middle of sentences was not already obsolescent
> during the Victorian period.)
Tangentially, the matter of the prefix "Fitz" meaning "son
of" brings to mind "Mac" and "Mc" meaning "son of" and the
"O" in "O'Henry" probably meaning, in effect, the same. This
in turn made me wonder about parallel features in other
languages. I found the following at
http://www.obcgs.com/LASTNAMES.htm#patronymic :
... surnames that are patronymic or matronymic
Names that identify the father are termed
Patronymic surnames. Rarely, the name of the mother
contributed the surname, which is referred to as
Matronymic origin. The Scandinavians added "son" to
identify John's son or Erik's son. The Norman-French
used the prefix "Fitz" to mean child of, as in
Fitzpatrick, for child of Patrick. Many other
cultures had their own prefixes to indicate of the
father('s name), including the Scots (Macdonald),
Irish (O'Brien), Dutch (Van Buren), the French (de
Gaulle), Germans (Von Berger) Spanish/Italian (D'
Tello) and the Arab-speaking nations ('ibn-Saud).
Sometimes the prefixes were attached to places
rather than the father's name, such as traditional
family land holdings or estates.
I think I've also heard that the suffix "-ian" in Armenian
names means "son of".
A passing thought, "=ovitch" in Russian patronymics means
"son of". An etymological dilettante might wonder about the
similarity of "vitch" and "fitz".
-- sxq
Joe Fineman
> You see, the point seems to be that I can't find any dictionary that
> sanctions <Fitzgerald> (without the internal capital) as a variant
> form for the Rubaiyat translator, and I have checked a number of
> dictionaries of differing brands.
It is, after all, a very natural mistake. Fitzgeralds are far more
common than FitzGeralds, and among the famous we find, in addition to
Ella, F. Scott and the F in JFK. I discover to my surprise, however,
that George Francis FitzGerald of the relativistic contraction is a G
man.
In the joke about the two gay Irishmen, Patrick FitzGerald & Gerald
FitzPatrick, the capitals are perhaps to be preferred.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: The vice of the English is not buggery but humbuggery. :||
Father Ignatius
I found out serendipitously the other day that Le Vice Anglais was not
buggery but spanking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellation#Erotic_use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning#Judicial_use (article quotes Ian Gibson,
The English Vice: Beating, Sex and Shame in Victorian England and After,
London, 1978. ISBN 0715612646)
There's something desperately witty to be said about a sense of anti-climax,
but it won't quite come.
J. J. Lodder
> > ||: The vice of the English is not buggery but humbuggery. :||
>
> I found out serendipitously the other day that Le Vice Anglais was not
> buggery but spanking.
The European human rights court regularly has cases
of English children beaten up by their parents.
BTW, it is pseudo-French, used almost exclusively by the English.
It is one of these things that Englishmen tell each other
as being what the French say about them.
In fact the French rarely do.
But let's not wake Mike,
who will come to say that the subject
has already been beaten to death,
Jan
Linz
Lodder) wrote:
>Father Ignatius <FatherI...@ANTISPAMananzi.co.za> wrote:
>
>> > ||: The vice of the English is not buggery but humbuggery. :||
>>
>> I found out serendipitously the other day that Le Vice Anglais was not
>> buggery but spanking.
>
>The European human rights court regularly has cases
>of English children beaten up by their parents.
Regularly? How regularly?
--
Hooray for the differently sane.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Possibly never. My understanding of "beaten up" is that it means a
serious criminal assault. In such a case the parents would be
prosecuted and tried in the normal way -- there would be no reason
for a referral to the ECHR.
Jan is possibly thinking of cases where the traditional right of
parents to physically punish their children is at issue. I would not
think that such punishment could normally be described as "beating
up".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mike Lyle
I was avoiding rising to Jan's fly, partly because I'm not English, but
mainly because it _was_ a fly. But as a lot of people read these
things, Jan mate, I think you should justify "regularly" and "has".
"Beaten up" has already been disposed of.
--
Mike.
Raymond S. Wise
Bob Cunningham wrote:
[...]
> Tangentially, the matter of the prefix "Fitz" meaning "son
> of" brings to mind "Mac" and "Mc" meaning "son of" and the
> "O" in "O'Henry" probably meaning, in effect, the same. This
> in turn made me wonder about parallel features in other
> languages. I found the following at
> http://www.obcgs.com/LASTNAMES.htm#patronymic :
>
> ... surnames that are patronymic or matronymic
>
> Names that identify the father are termed
> Patronymic surnames. Rarely, the name of the mother
> contributed the surname, which is referred to as
> Matronymic origin. The Scandinavians added "son" to
> identify John's son or Erik's son. The Norman-French
> used the prefix "Fitz" to mean child of, as in
> Fitzpatrick, for child of Patrick. Many other
> cultures had their own prefixes to indicate of the
> father('s name), including the Scots (Macdonald),
> Irish (O'Brien), Dutch (Van Buren), the French (de
> Gaulle), Germans (Von Berger) Spanish/Italian (D'
> Tello) and the Arab-speaking nations ('ibn-Saud).
> Sometimes the prefixes were attached to places
> rather than the father's name, such as traditional
> family land holdings or estates.
>
> I think I've also heard that the suffix "-ian" in Armenian
> names means "son of".
>
One patronymic element not mentioned in that article is the Welsh "ap,"
which, when combined with a given name, produced such names as
"Prichard" from "Richard" and "Bevan" from "Evan." See
http://www.amlwchdata.co.uk/welsh_surnames.htm
> A passing thought, "=ovitch" in Russian patronymics means
> "son of". An etymological dilettante might wonder about the
> similarity of "vitch" and "fitz".
The above-mentioned Web page also refers to a Welsh patronymic element
used for women's names:
"'verch' or 'ferch' meaning 'daughter of' and abbreviated to 'vch' or
'vz'"
If unrelated to "vitch," it would still an interesting coincidence.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Graeme Thomas
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>>>The European human rights court regularly has cases
>>>of English children beaten up by their parents.
>>
>>Regularly? How regularly?
>
>Possibly never. My understanding of "beaten up" is that it means a
>serious criminal assault. In such a case the parents would be
>prosecuted and tried in the normal way -- there would be no reason
>for a referral to the ECHR.
That would be my understanding, too.
>Jan is possibly thinking of cases where the traditional right of
>parents to physically punish their children is at issue. I would not
>think that such punishment could normally be described as "beating
>up".
There are many worthy folk who *do* believe that the traditional
physical punishment *is* "beating up". At least, it would appear that
way from various reports that get issued when cases get to the ECHR.
Some years ago I read of a case in Canada. A US family were visiting a
Canadian tourist attraction, when one of the children started acting up.
The father smacked the child. Some passing dog-ooders called the
police, and the father was arrested, the children put into care, and the
mother presumably was left to roam the steets wondering what was
happening. As with all such stories I neer found out what happened at
the end of the affair. But, countering all the "it was only a smack,
innit" comments from those who found the official reaction overbearing,
were the "it's inhumane to beat up a child" comments from those who
found officialdom unduly lenient.
--
Graeme Thomas
Raymond S. Wise
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
> Several weeks ago, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote, in
> another thread:
>
> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:45:26 +0100, Paul Wolff
> ><boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> said:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> Writing FitzGerald seems to be in Harmony with the Noun Capitalisation
> >> in the Lines quoted by Daniel.
> >
> See below.
>
> >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_:
> >
> > Main Entry: FitzGerald
> > Function: biographical name
> > Edward 1809-1883 English poet & translator
> >
> This is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translator whom I talk about from
> time to time.
>
> > Main Entry: FitzGerald
> > Function: biographical name
> > Garret 1926-- prime minister of Ireland (1981-87)
> >
> [...]
>
> You see, the point seems to be that I can't find any dictionary that
> sanctions <Fitzgerald> (without the internal capital) as a variant
> form for the Rubaiyat translator, and I have checked a number of
> dictionaries of differing brands.
The *Century Cyclopedia of Names* at www.century-dictionary.com (late
19th century or early 20th century) has only the version "Fitzgerald"
for the poet.
Mike Lyle
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
> One patronymic element not mentioned in that article is the Welsh "ap,"
> which, when combined with a given name, produced such names as
> "Prichard" from "Richard" and "Bevan" from "Evan." See
>
> http://www.amlwchdata.co.uk/welsh_surnames.htm
>
>
> > A passing thought, "=ovitch" in Russian patronymics means
> > "son of". An etymological dilettante might wonder about the
> > similarity of "vitch" and "fitz".
>
>
> The above-mentioned Web page also refers to a Welsh patronymic element
> used for women's names:
>
>
> "'verch' or 'ferch' meaning 'daughter of' and abbreviated to 'vch' or
> 'vz'"
>
>
> If unrelated to "vitch," it would still an interesting coincidence.
>
of course, rhotic, and has "ch"= /x/ as in Scots English; and "ferch",
with "f" = /v/, is the product of the lenition/soft mutation/treiglad
meddal of the base form "merch". It's notable that this mutation of a
feminine singular is governed by a preceding definite article, which
here is apparently understood, not written or spoken, but still causes
the mutation. I suppose this means that once upon a time the article
was used in these patronymics, unless it's covered by another rule I
don't know. Perhaps the article is still required in formal usage, but
I have no idea.
--
Mike.
J. J. Lodder
And since it is pseudo-French you'll find that
"La Vice Anglaise' means just the same,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
"european court" + "child abuse" + UK (or + england)
drags up 50,000 hits, not all of them relevant of course,
but there will no doubt be enough left after sorting it out
to justify 'regularly'.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
http://www.nospank.net/n-d56.htm for example,
in which the parent was charged with assault,
but acquitted under British law,
Jan
HVS
So I assume your stance is that if someone's charged with
something that you've already decided they're guilty of, and
they're then taken to court are acquitted by that court, either
the court or the law must be at fault.
You may be happy with the intellectual roots of lynch law, but
others aren't quite so certain.
Mike Lyle
J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Peter Duncanson <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 15:55:40 +0100, Linz <sp...@lindsayendell.org.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:52:46 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> > >Lodder) wrote:
> > >>The European human rights court regularly has cases
> > >>of English children beaten up by their parents.
> > >
> > >Regularly? How regularly?
> >
> > Possibly never. My understanding of "beaten up" is that it means a
> > serious criminal assault. In such a case the parents would be
> > prosecuted and tried in the normal way -- there would be no reason
> > for a referral to the ECHR.
> >
> > Jan is possibly thinking of cases where the traditional right of
> > parents to physically punish their children is at issue. I would not
> > think that such punishment could normally be described as "beating
> > up".
>
> http://www.nospank.net/n-d56.htm for example,
> in which the parent was charged with assault,
> but acquitted under British law,
That was in 1998. You said "regularly has" -- present tense, not
perfect. This is 2006. You said "beaten up", not "beaten"; this was a
case of beating. You do not compare with other countries; when you do,
you'll need to adjust for population by number and by age. Other
factors will need to be considered, too: family stability, cultural
readiness to use the legal system in domestic matters, and availability
of legal assistance to take such cases to the Court, for example. (I
haven't the least idea of what the results will be.)
One of the things I notice about the UK is a lack of control of
children, not the reverse.
I do not approve of physical punishment or any other form of child
abuse.
--
Mike.
Raymond S. Wise
I found the following in the *Trésor de la Langue Française
informatisé* at
Under the entry for "vice," shown as a masculine noun:
"· *Vice* + adj. Défaut caractéristique d'un group social, d'une
collectivité. _Chaque peuple a son vice national, et si mes
compatriotes sont cruels, ils rachètent ce grand défaut par mille
qualités estimable_ (CHATEAUBR., _Essai Révol.,_ t. 1, 1797, p.
114.)"
My translation:
"· *Vice* + adj. Flaw characteristic of a social group, of a
community. _Each people has its national vice, and if my countrymen are
cruel, they redeem this great flaw by a million laudable qualities.
(CHATEAUBRIAND, _Essai sur les révolutions,_ vol. 1, 1797, p. 114.)"
I also found the following, by Florence Tamagne, at
http://www.ihtp.cnrs.fr/calendrier/cr_genre_guerres_14_12_01.html
Speaking of historical attitudes among the French, the author says:
"L'homosexuel est traître à la nation. L'homosexualité, après
avoir été considérée comme un vice anglais, italien puis arabe
devient en France le vice allemand."
My translation:
"The homosexual is a traitor to the nation. Homosexuality, after having
been considered as an English, Italian, and then Arab vice, becomes in
France the German vice."
This all suggests to me that "le vice anglais" was indeed coined in
France (at least as far as the homosexuality meaning goes--I've no idea
where the flagellation meaning might have originated), and that the
reason the French don't now use the term is that they had gone on to
consider homosexuality to be a vice of other nations, making "le vice
anglais" an anachronism in French.
If I am correct, this would make "le vice anglais" an example of an
anachronistic French usage still used in English, just as the usual
spelling and pronunciation of "fleur-de-lis" in English represent a
spelling and pronunciation since abandoned in French, rather than an
expression coined in English from French elements, as "nom de plume" is
believed to be.
Mike Lyle
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
> > Several weeks ago, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote, in
> > another thread:
> > >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_:
> > >
> > > Main Entry: FitzGerald
> > > Function: biographical name
> > > Edward 1809-1883 English poet & translator
> > >
> > This is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translator whom I talk about from
> > time to time.
> >
> > > Main Entry: FitzGerald
> > > Function: biographical name
> > > Garret 1926-- prime minister of Ireland (1981-87)
> > >
> > [...]
> >
> > You see, the point seems to be that I can't find any dictionary that
> > sanctions <Fitzgerald> (without the internal capital) as a variant
> > form for the Rubaiyat translator, and I have checked a number of
> > dictionaries of differing brands.
>
>
> The *Century Cyclopedia of Names* at www.century-dictionary.com (late
> 19th century or early 20th century) has only the version "Fitzgerald"
> for the poet.
The old Dictionary of National Biography standardised all "Fitz-" names
of people who died before the 20th century, which includes our poet, by
capitalizing only the "F". But the old Oxford Bk of English Verse uses
"FitzGerald", as does Everyman's Dictionary of Literary Biography --
this is significant, as Everyman's uses only a capital "F" for
F.S.K.Fitzgerald and William Fitzstephen.
I take this as evidence that there was a spelling reform move in the
19th C which disregarded the practice of the names' owners, and that
our poet himself used the FitzGerald form.
--
Mike.
Graeme Thomas
"Raymond S. Wise" <mpl...@my-deja.com> writes
>"· *Vice* + adj. Défaut caractéristique d'un group social, d'une
>collectivité. _Chaque peuple a son vice national, et si mes
>compatriotes sont cruels, ils rachètent ce grand défaut par mille
>qualités estimable_ (CHATEAUBR., _Essai Révol.,_ t. 1, 1797, p.
>114.)"
>
>
>My translation:
>
>
>"· *Vice* + adj. Flaw characteristic of a social group, of a
>community. _Each people has its national vice, and if my countrymen are
>cruel, they redeem this great flaw by a million laudable qualities.
>(CHATEAUBRIAND, _Essai sur les révolutions,_ vol. 1, 1797, p. 114.)"
I know that the confusion, no matter how small, between the billion as
10^9 or 10^12 was caused by the French. But I didn't know that they
were also responsible for a confusion between a thousand and a million.
Perhaps the two are related.
--
Graeme Thomas
Bob Cunningham
<mpl...@my-deja.com> said:
[...]
> The above-mentioned Web page also refers to a Welsh
> patronymic element used for women's names:
I suppose it wouldn't hurt to mention here that the Russian
language adds an "a" to a husband's name to get the wife's
name. Years ago I had a book about measurement of power
spectra whose authors were Fadeev and Fadeeva, husband and
wife.
I've assumed that the "a" may have been originally a
genitive ending, so that adding the "a" was like calling
Smith's wife "Smith's" rather than "Smith".
Dick Chambers
It is deplorably common practice nowadays for the politically-motivated to
support their case by exaggeration to the point of unrecognisability:-
Meat is muder.
The morning-after pill is murder.
Medical research laboratories (using animals) are the Belsen of the medical
world.
A farmer who breeds guinea pigs for medical research laboratories is a
slave-trader.
Prostitution is rape.
Striptease/lap-dancing is watered-down prostitution.
Capitalism is exploitation.
Nationalisation is theft.
Bush is educationally sub-normal.
Homosexuals will pervert all our youth.
It therefore does not surprise me that a smack is equated to the beating up
of a child.
I would be interested to read any additions to my short list of examples of
politically-motivated exaggerations that you might like to suggest.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Father Ignatius
"Dick Chambers" <richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:AmUwg.38651$IU2....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> Prostitution is rape.
All sexual penetration is rape. Do keep up.
> Capitalism is exploitation.
Yes, I think that's about right, innit?
> Homosexuals will pervert all our youth.
"will"? I thought they'd been perverting all our youth since before history
began.
Father Ignatius
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1153689422....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> One of the things I notice about the UK is a lack of control of
> children, not the reverse.
>
> I do not approve of physical punishment or any other form of child
> abuse.
Do you think children should be controlled? If so, by what means?
[This is an earnest seeking-after-truth]
[1] Not all-same controlling parents, it seems.
Father Ignatius
"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1hiy9wm.ga8...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
Maybe this explains why "Le Vice Anglaise" appears so orphan as "La Vice
Anglaise".
Tony Cooper
How many of Bush's reasons to be in Iraq do you want listed?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL
Raymond S. Wise
My bad. Make that "a *thousand* laudable qualities."
By the way, the other day at a coffeeshop, a server who had made an
error told me "My bad." It still seems a bit of a neologism to me,
which is why I noticed it at the time. But the reason I'm mentioning it
here is that when I told a friend of mine what the server had said, my
friend was unfamiliar with it. She's about ten years older than me.
So you have a phrase which continues to be unfamiliar to some people,
yet which a server in a coffeeshop does not hesitate to say to one of
her customers, even one of my age (I'm in my 50s).
Don Aitken
wrote:
Or even one which insisted that an individual's name could have only
one correct spelling, in defiance of centuries of tradition which said
that many people went indiscriminately by any of a variety of
spellings. The name on a 19th century birth or marriage certificate
doesn't tell you the "correct" spelling - it just reflects what the
vicar or registrar thought he heard, and how *he* thought a name that
sounded like that should be spelled.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Graeme Thomas
<j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> writes
>In message <Xns9809DFB2...@80.5.182.99>, HVS
><harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>>You may be happy with the intellectual roots of lynch law, but
>>others aren't quite so certain.
>
>This is the sort of cretinous dumb-fucking with language that we're
>talking about. There is absolutely no correlation between a parent
>smacking a recalcitrant child and the activities of lynch mobs except in
>your sick mind. It's the sort of babblespeak crap that politicians love
>shoving down the eager gullets of the naive.
James, I think that your glue-sniffing episode is not quite over.
Jan gave a pointer to an article on a case where someone smacked a
child, was taken to court charged with assault, and was acquitted. Jan
felt that this was an example of a parent beating up a child.
Harvey, quite rightly, took exception to having Johnnie Foreigner
treating a British acquittal as some sort of proof of guilt. It is
Jan's reaction that is being compared, possibly harshly, with lynch law.
That comparison may be a little over the top, butthat's what this thread
is all about.
--
Graeme Thomas
HVS
Thanks, Graeme; glad my point wasn't entirely opaque.
FWIW, I wasn't comparing Jan's reaction directly with lynch law,
but more as an example of the sort of thinking that mobs use to
justify taking punishments into their own hands.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Dick Chambers
>>It is deplorably common practice nowadays for the politically-motivated to
>>support their case by exaggeration to the point of unrecognisability:-
>>
>>Meat is muder.
>>The morning-after pill is murder.
>>Medical research laboratories (using animals) are the Belsen of the
>>medical
>>world.
>>A farmer who breeds guinea pigs for medical research laboratories is a
>>slave-trader.
>>Prostitution is rape.
>>Striptease/lap-dancing is watered-down prostitution.
>>Capitalism is exploitation.
>>Nationalisation is theft.
>>Bush is educationally sub-normal.
>>Homosexuals will pervert all our youth.
>>
>>It therefore does not surprise me that a smack is equated to the beating
>>up
>>of a child.
>>
>>I would be interested to read any additions to my short list of examples
>>of
>>politically-motivated exaggerations that you might like to suggest.
>
> How many of Bush's reasons to be in Iraq do you want listed?
These are not examples of educational sub-normality or intelligence
deficiency. Nor are the many examples of his inability to find the correct
word, or to pronounce that word correctly, in his speeches. He would have to
be much more afflicted before one could accurately apply the term
"educationally sub-normal" to him. If he would restrict himself to a lesser
job, we would all consider him to be just a guy of average intelligence. He
would make a good living selling second-hand cars in a showroom.
To describe him without exaggeration, taking into account the reasons he
gave us for the invasion of Iraq, the epithet "inadequate intelligence, and
insuffiicient calibre, to be President of the United States" would be more
accurate. By being more accurate, it would also be more hurtful.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
HVS
> Tony Cooper (replying to an earlier posting by myself) wrote:-
>> How many of Bush's reasons to be in Iraq do you want listed?
>
> These are not examples of educational sub-normality or
> intelligence deficiency. Nor are the many examples of his
> inability to find the correct word, or to pronounce that word
> correctly, in his speeches. He would have to be much more
> afflicted before one could accurately apply the term
> "educationally sub-normal" to him. If he would restrict
> himself to a lesser job, we would all consider him to be just
> a guy of average intelligence. He would make a good living
> selling second-hand cars in a showroom.
I could be wrong, but I think you missed Tony's point.
I took him not to be saying "Bush's reasons justify calling him
educationally sub-normal", but that "Bush's reasons are examples of
the 'meat=murder' or 'smack=GBH' types of exaggeration that you
requested".
Dick Chambers
> On 24 Jul 2006, Dick Chambers wrote
>> Tony Cooper (replying to an earlier posting by myself) wrote:-
>
>
>>> How many of Bush's reasons to be in Iraq do you want listed?
>>
>> These are not examples of educational sub-normality or
>> intelligence deficiency. Nor are the many examples of his
>> inability to find the correct word, or to pronounce that word
>> correctly, in his speeches. He would have to be much more
>> afflicted before one could accurately apply the term
>> "educationally sub-normal" to him. If he would restrict
>> himself to a lesser job, we would all consider him to be just
>> a guy of average intelligence. He would make a good living
>> selling second-hand cars in a showroom.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think you missed Tony's point.
>
> I took him not to be saying "Bush's reasons justify calling him
> educationally sub-normal", but that "Bush's reasons are examples of
> the 'meat=murder' or 'smack=GBH' types of exaggeration that you
> requested".
Thank you. I did miss Tony's point, and your interpretation is reasonable.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
T.H. Entity
wrought:
>X-No-Archive: yes
>In message <AmUwg.38651$IU2....@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>, Dick Chambers
><richard....@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>>It is deplorably common practice nowadays for the politically-motivated to
>>support their case by exaggeration to the point of unrecognisability:-
>>
>>Meat is muder.
>>The morning-after pill is murder.
>>Medical research laboratories (using animals) are the Belsen of the medical
>>world.
>>A farmer who breeds guinea pigs for medical research laboratories is a
>>slave-trader.
>>Prostitution is rape.
>>Striptease/lap-dancing is watered-down prostitution.
>>Capitalism is exploitation.
>>Nationalisation is theft.
>>Bush is educationally sub-normal.
>>Homosexuals will pervert all our youth.
>
>An excellent list!
>
>Claire Short, an English MP, once trilled that Page 3 nudes were
>exploitation of women. The 'Sun''s editor challenged her to produce a
>single instance of model not being paid for her work.
>
>Robin Day, a TV newsreader, once upbraided a politician for using the
>term 'Trial by Television'. 'What trial?' the bow-tied front man
>demanded. 'What charge? What conviction? What verdict?'
A TV newsreader, yes (we've been there recently), but also a
barrister,[1] which makes the story even more pointed. I also think
that the "a politician" in question was none other than the then PM,
Margaret Thatcher, also a former barrister. Pointedness abounds.
[1. Ah, them was the days, when a perfectly rational being would say
"Sod the Bar for a game of soldiers -- time to switch to something
less grubby, like TV journalism."]
--
THE
"Incompetence reins." -- Oliver North
Father Ignatius
"HVS" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns980A5580...@62.253.170.163...
> On 24 Jul 2006, Dick Chambers wrote
>> Tony Cooper (replying to an earlier posting by myself) wrote:-
>
>
>>> How many of Bush's reasons to be in Iraq do you want listed?
>>
>> These are not examples of educational sub-normality or
>> intelligence deficiency. Nor are the many examples of his
>> inability to find the correct word, or to pronounce that word
>> correctly, in his speeches. He would have to be much more
>> afflicted before one could accurately apply the term
>> "educationally sub-normal" to him. If he would restrict
>> himself to a lesser job, we would all consider him to be just
>> a guy of average intelligence. He would make a good living
>> selling second-hand cars in a showroom.
>
> I could be wrong, but I think you missed Tony's point.
>
> I took him not to be saying "Bush's reasons justify calling him
> educationally sub-normal", but that "Bush's reasons are examples of
> the 'meat=murder' or 'smack=GBH' types of exaggeration that you
> requested".
Are we in an area characterised by the label "slippery-slope argument"? I
was never too clear about that.
J. J. Lodder
Possibly. However, Petit Robert doesn't list it.
And archaic indeed: the belief that it is current
is exclusively found on English language sites.
Searching for "Le vice Anglais" in sites francophonnes
gives less than 10 hits.
Best,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Right. So the UK was fined for not having it's laws in order.
> You may be happy with the intellectual roots of lynch law, but
> others aren't quite so certain.
Appeal to a superior court is lynch law?
Jan
Tony Cooper
<richard....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>Tony Cooper (replying to an earlier posting by myself) wrote:-
>
>>>I would be interested to read any additions to my short list of examples
>>>of
>>>politically-motivated exaggerations that you might like to suggest.
>>
>> How many of Bush's reasons to be in Iraq do you want listed?
>
>These are not examples of educational sub-normality or intelligence
>deficiency.
I suggested Bush's reasons about being in Iraq as examples of
"politically-motivated exaggerations". There was nothing stated or
implied about the man's intelligence.
Mike Lyle
Father Ignatius wrote:
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1153689422....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One of the things I notice about the UK is a lack of control of
> > children, not the reverse.
> >
> > I do not approve of physical punishment or any other form of child
> > abuse.
>
> Do you think children should be controlled? If so, by what means?
> [This is an earnest seeking-after-truth]
>
mean stuff like doing prep before watching television, and regular
bedtime, and not roaming the park drinking cider and smoking fags at
the age of twelve (that happens outside my window). How to? $64,000 q.
Some kids are easier than others, but I suppose it's as much about
setting habits as anything else; economic sanctions and things like
that when necessary, but never the military option. My old man used
talkings-to of an unbearable kind -- the school cane was less painful,
but I can't imagine my father beating any of us, and I suspect I might
have run away from home if he had. I'll spare you any account of my
failures as guide, philosopher, and commanding officer.
--
Mike.
HVS
> fX-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <12Cm66B2...@graemet.demon.co.uk>, Graeme
> Thomas
><gra...@graemet.demon.co.uk> writes
>> In article <vcwpwKOO...@marage.demon.co.uk>, JF
>> <j...@NOSPAMmarage.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>> In message <Xns9809DFB2...@80.5.182.99>, HVS
>>> <harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>
>>>> You may be happy with the intellectual roots of lynch law,
>>>> but others aren't quite so certain.
>>>
>>> This is the sort of cretinous dumb-fucking with language
>>> that we're talking about. There is absolutely no correlation
>>> between a parent smacking a recalcitrant child and the
>>> activities of lynch mobs except in your sick mind. It's the
>>> sort of babblespeak crap that politicians love shoving down
>>> the eager gullets of the naive.
>>
>> James, I think that your glue-sniffing episode is not quite
>> over.
>
> To equate the murderous behaviour of lynch mobs with a parent
> smacking a misbehaving sprog is inexcusable language mangling
> and manipulation bordering on the obscene.
If that's what I'd done, you'd be right.
But -- as Graeme picked up -- it wasn't anywhere near what was
said.
I compared J.J.Lodder's rejection of the findings of a British
court to the underpinnings of lynch law. Once you say -- as he
did -- that "The court didn't find the parent guilty of something
we *know* he's guilty of", you're on the road to rationalising
people taking punishment into their own hands.
Translating that to comparing the acquitted parent's action to
lynch law is weird.
Father Ignatius
This is taking a rational approach, which is where I think you're going
wrong: the Follett entity, having been caught out doing what he castigates
others for doing, is now going to react as he castigates others for
reacting. See? Nothing rational about that.
--
Nat
"Ignore barracking from the dyspeptic."
--Mike Lyle
HVS
-snip-
>> I compared J.J.Lodder's rejection of the findings of a
>> British court to the underpinnings of lynch law. Once you
>> say -- as he did -- that "The court didn't find the parent
>> guilty of something we *know* he's guilty of", you're on the
>> road to rationalising people taking punishment into their own
>> hands.
>>
>> Translating that to comparing the acquitted parent's action
>> to lynch law is weird.
>
> This is taking a rational approach, which is where I think
> you're going wrong: the Follett entity, having been caught out
> doing what he castigates others for doing, is now going to
> react as he castigates others for reacting. See? Nothing
> rational about that.
Valid point; methinks I shall retire to the sidelines and leave it
there.
Maria
> Father Ignatius wrote:
>
>>>>>> The vice of the English is not buggery but humbuggery. :||
>>
>> I found out serendipitously the other day that Le Vice Anglais was
>> not buggery but spanking.
>
> The European human rights court regularly has cases
I was under the impression that "le vice Anglais" has nothing to do with
children -- just with adult men.
Wrong? (The thread that developed from the above seems to indicate that
I am, but...)
--
Maria
There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
<exw...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 12:54:30 -0400, Daniel al-Autistiqui
><gove...@hotmail.invalid> said:
>
>> Several weeks ago, Bob Cunningham <exw...@earthlink.net> wrote, in
>> another thread:
>
>> >On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:45:26 +0100, Paul Wolff
>> ><boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> said:
>
>> >[...]
>
>> >> Writing FitzGerald seems to be in Harmony with the Noun Capitalisation
>> >> in the Lines quoted by Daniel.
>
>> See below.
>
>> >From _Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate_:
>
>> > Main Entry: FitzGerald
>> > Function: biographical name
>> > Edward 1809-1883 English poet & translator
>
>> This is the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam translator whom I talk about from
>> time to time.
>
>> > Main Entry: FitzGerald
>> > Function: biographical name
>> > Garret 1926-- prime minister of Ireland (1981-87)
>
>> [...]
>
>> You see, the point seems to be that I can't find any dictionary that
>> sanctions <Fitzgerald> (without the internal capital) as a variant
>> form for the Rubaiyat translator, and I have checked a number of
>> dictionaries of differing brands.
>
>I believe, in my humble way, that an English dictionary's
>job is to report on English as it's used. There is in
>general no absolute right and wrong, because there is no
>standard for the language.
>
Yes. The "descriptivist philosophy".
>But the case you're discussing is an exception to that
>principle. A person's name must be spelled as the person
>wants it spelled, and any other way is properly called
>wrong. (If a person--Shakespeare for one--chooses to use
>different spellings at different times, then any of those
>spellings may be considered correct.)
>
[...]
It certainly is the case that most people like to have their names
spelled a particular way. But IMO by doing this they are
"prescribing" too much, thus going against the experts' view that
grammarians should try to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
After all, isn't "Fitzgerald" just an English word that may refer to
singer Ella, writer F. Scott, (with a capital 'G') former Irish prime
minister Garret, and (sometimes with the internal capital)
Persian-poetry translator Edward, among other things? In my mind, it
is. In short, I feel that a person's name does not *belong* to the
person; it only *refers* to them in English (and possibly other
languages as well). And, while we're on the subject, why can't my
caretaker named "K" allow "Kay" to be used as an alternate spelling
for her name? It would probably be convenient if she allowed me to
write it this way.
Like I tried to say before, I hope I am not alone in believing that
the mono-capitalized form <Fitzgerald>, in reference to the
Persian-poetry translator, should be sanctioned by dictionaries as a
variant. If I had seen it in only one _Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam_
book, I would assume simply that whoever composed the text was totally
ignorant of the correct form. (Hey, I can remember some time ago
taking out of the library a (dated) book on the C programming
language. That language was of course created by Brian Kernighan and
Dennis Ritchie, but the latter surname had been misspelled as "Richie"
throughout the entire book.) But in fact, anyone who has seen lots of
different _Rubaiyat_ books will realize that the mono-capitalized form
is all over the place. Surely it can't be possible that *none* of the
publishers that used <Fitzgerald> were aware of the way that Edward
himself wrote the name.
At least we're only dealing here with a de-capitalization of a letter:
it's not like the books are writing "FitsGerald" or "FitzJerrold". I
should note that, as someone who does not usually think of spelling as
the only part of writing, I would not necessarily regard a
capitalization error as a spelling error (besides, what about the form
<FITZGERALD>, which you might see in a heading?).
daniel mcgrath
--
Daniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende":
for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com"
Developmentally disabled;
has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder),
Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,
& periodic bouts of depression.
[This signature is under construction.]
Father Ignatius
news:DF6xg.134219$dW3.1...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> Father Ignatius wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> The vice of the English is not buggery but humbuggery. :||
>>>
>>> I found out serendipitously the other day that Le Vice Anglais was
>>> not buggery but spanking.
>>
>> The European human rights court regularly has cases
>> of English children beaten up by their parents. [...]
>
> I was under the impression that "le vice Anglais" has nothing to do with
> children -- just with adult men.
For certain values of children, maybe. I read somewhere -- in a book, not
the Internet, so it may not be true -- that the English poet Swinburne[1]
had fond memories of the whipping block at Eton and, after he'd left,
incited an acolyte to send him a picture-postcard of it, preferably while in
use.
Any road up, beating at public schools was definitely a [big?] part of it.
[1] Or do I mean the English illustrator Beardsley? It's of little
consequence: they were both English, and therefore slaves to Le Vice
Anglais.
Frank ess
My father was a noted public speaker. One of the anecdotes
incorporated into his spiel told of the time I had earned a punishment
and was asked what I thought it should be. I replied. "How about
another of your long, dull talks?"
--
Frank ess
Mike Lyle
> > > http://www.nospank.net/n-d56.htm for example,
> > > in which the parent was charged with assault,
> > > but acquitted under British law,
> >
> > So I assume your stance is that if someone's charged with
> > something that you've already decided they're guilty of, and
> > they're then taken to court are acquitted by that court, either
> > the court or the law must be at fault.
>
> Right. So the UK was fined for not having it's laws in order.
That's fair comment. It was, because it hadn't.
>
> > You may be happy with the intellectual roots of lynch law, but
> > others aren't quite so certain.
>
> Appeal to a superior court is lynch law?
And that isn't fair comment. You're a good guy, Jan, but just now you
seem to be doing the lynching. And that's sad and puzzling. You cast a
bait implicating an entire country in a form of child abuse. We asked
you to justify your use of a present tense, of the word "regularly",
and of the term "beaten up". You then quoted a law case from eight
years ago; it was a horrible case, and quite a complex one, involving a
desperate dysfunctional family (they don't have those in other
countries, right? Great to know), but at least didn't involve "beating
up". You made no reference to the difficulties of the relevant legal
situation in which the country concerned found itself, or to the work
we've been trying hard to do for years (we're not just sitting around).
A bit like, "Americans regularly shoot one another." Or, "The Dutch, as
a matter of course,...[fill in as appropriate]"
Countries that have been wiped out within living memory and, for all
the appalling tragedy of it, had the opportunity to start again may not
even begin to understand the task of shifting the dead weight. The
Brits have mostly done pretty well -- sometimes a lot too thoroughly.
I could go on; but, instead, I could ask what, exactly, you wanted to
say. Do you mean that the British are a nation of legalised
child-abusers? No, of course you don't. Or do you think this issue is
so trivial that you can just make cheerful AUE chit-chat about it? No,
you mean that even less. So, then, what?
--
In sincere fellowship (and I don't care if that sounds embarrassingly
pious),
Mike.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > HVS <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 23 Jul 2006, J. J. Lodder wrote
> [...]
> > > > http://www.nospank.net/n-d56.htm for example,
> > > > in which the parent was charged with assault,
> > > > but acquitted under British law,
> > >
> > > So I assume your stance is that if someone's charged with
> > > something that you've already decided they're guilty of, and
> > > they're then taken to court are acquitted by that court, either
> > > the court or the law must be at fault.
> >
> > Right. So the UK was fined for not having it's laws in order.
>
> That's fair comment. It was, because it hadn't.
> > > You may be happy with the intellectual roots of lynch law, but
> > > others aren't quite so certain.
> >
> > Appeal to a superior court is lynch law?
>
> And that isn't fair comment. You're a good guy, Jan, but just now you
> seem to be doing the lynching.
'Lynch law' was introduced into this discussion
by HVS <harve...@ntlworld.com>,
who seems to regret it by now.
You are barking up the wrong tree.
Try again, and I may respond more constructively,
Jan
Mike Lyle
Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
[...]
> It certainly is the case that most people like to have their names
> spelled a particular way. But IMO by doing this they are
> "prescribing" too much, thus going against the experts' view that
> grammarians should try to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
> After all, isn't "Fitzgerald" just an English word that may refer to
> singer Ella, writer F. Scott, (with a capital 'G') former Irish prime
> minister Garret, and (sometimes with the internal capital)
> Persian-poetry translator Edward, among other things? In my mind, it
> is. In short, I feel that a person's name does not *belong* to the
> person; it only *refers* to them in English (and possibly other
> languages as well). And, while we're on the subject, why can't my
> caretaker named "K" allow "Kay" to be used as an alternate spelling
> for her name? It would probably be convenient if she allowed me to
> write it this way.
Well, that's the root of the problem. We have to accept that proper
names don't follow grammatical or other rules -- in any language I know
about. There are reasons, of course, but they are not systematic. Names
are a completely separate class, and if they were not we wouldn't give
them capital letters, and we wouldn't have the special term, "proper
names" for them. You and I could be named under any system we could
invent -- let's say, for example, "12345" and "22345" -- but it would
still be different from ordinary language.
There are alphabets, as you know, which don't have capital letters at
all; but, even there, many proper names don't fit into the usual rules
of the language. We can like it or dislike it, but it's a fact.
Personally, I do like it: my name is mine as an individual, and doesn't
belong to anybody else I know. You are Daniel, not "Dan" or "Danny".
Your surname appears in many forms: "McGrath", "MacGrath", "Mac
Craith", "M'crath", "McGraw", "Magraw", etc; but only one is yours.
It's one little bit of control we have: if you like it, don't take it
away from anybody else, because perhaps they like it, too. If you could
take it away from them, maybe they could take it away from you: it's a
sort of exchange.
[...]
> is all over the place. Surely it can't be possible that *none* of the
> publishers that used <Fitzgerald> were aware of the way that Edward
> himself wrote the name.
It may seem absurd, but actually I wouldn't be surprised to find out
that they weren't aware, or didn't care. The poems were extremely
popular at one time, and (as you've seen) numerous editions were
published by people hoping to cash in on that popularity. It was very
common for the book to be given as a present or as a school prize, and
sometimes the attractiveness of the binding would have been more
important to some buyers than the accuracy of the printing.
I've also mentioned in another post that some Victorians were as
interested as you are in standardized spelling. One major reference
book, _The Dictionary of National Biography_, used the "Fitzgerald"
form for everybody of that name; so some publishers of the poems
probably had the same idea.
[...]
--
Mike.
HVS
-snip-
> I could go on; but, instead, I could ask what, exactly, you
> wanted to say. Do you mean that the British are a nation of
> legalised child-abusers? No, of course you don't.
Sorry, Mike: I think that's *precisely* what Jan is saying -- and
has said fairly often in this group.
And -- having read his response to your post -- I still maintain
that his response is not only knee-jerk anglophobia, but that it
gives succour to those who would take punishment into their own
hands on the grounds that British justice is illegitimate justice.
HVS
Indeed it was, and I entirely stand by it.
FWIW, my response to Mike's post gives theh explanation, but this
will be my final direct response to any of your posts which deal
with anything other than usage.
(I'm not kill-filing you, by the way; just ostracising your knee-
jerk xenophobic postings.)
Joe Fineman
> (besides, what about the form <FITZGERALD>, which you might see in a
> heading?).
In my days (1960s) working for a rather fussy journal (The Physical
Review), we would have set Fitzgerald that way in an all-caps running
head, but for FitzGerald we would have made the ITZ small caps. So
also with MacDonald and the like.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: Think of it as evolution in action. :||
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
> On 24 Jul 2006, J. J. Lodder wrote
> > Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >>> Appeal to a superior court is lynch law?
> >>
> >> And that isn't fair comment. You're a good guy, Jan, but just
> >> now you seem to be doing the lynching.
> >
> > 'Lynch law' was introduced into this discussion
> > by HVS <harve...@ntlworld.com>,
> > who seems to regret it by now.
>
> Indeed it was, and I entirely stand by it.
Your choice of course.
However, by dragging in 'lynch law' in this way
you make it clear that you are not interested
in a serious discussion of the subject.
You are just making noise.
> FWIW, my response to Mike's post gives theh explanation, but this
> will be my final direct response to any of your posts which deal
> with anything other than usage.
We are discussing usage, namely the meanings of 'Le Vice Anglais'.
Nowadays the term refers most often
to the excessive liking of British parents
for beating their children, under the pretext
of giving them a sound education,
Jan
--
"This hurts me more than it hurts you!"
J. J. Lodder
> On 24 Jul 2006, Mike Lyle wrote
>
> -snip-
>
> > I could go on; but, instead, I could ask what, exactly, you
> > wanted to say. Do you mean that the British are a nation of
> > legalised child-abusers? No, of course you don't.
>
> Sorry, Mike: I think that's *precisely* what Jan is saying -- and
> has said fairly often in this group.
>
> And -- having read his response to your post -- I still maintain
> that his response is not only knee-jerk anglophobia, but that it
> gives succour to those who would take punishment into their own
> hands on the grounds that British justice is illegitimate justice.
You entirely misunderstood the issues.
Britain has signed certain human rights conventions.
Thereby these conventions take precedence
over pre-existing British law. (By British law)
So Britain has to adapt the laws where necessary.
As happened, following a European court ruling.
Unfortunately the new child abuse act of 2004
is as flawed as the the laws it replaced.
It still allows parents to beat their children
in ways that would amount to assault
when applied to any other person.
And note that these issues are very controversial among Britons.
See <http://www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk> for example.
You might consider joining,
instead of blaming it all on foreign anglophpobia.
You may also note that invoking the strongest party discipline
(three line whip) was needed to force the passage of the 2004 act.
(with many Labour members rebelling nevertheless)
Best,
Jan
Mike Lyle
J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...]
> for beating their children, under the pretext
> of giving them a sound education,
You really do believe it quite unshakably, you poor chap. You were
peaceably offered the chance to support or modify your comments, but
back you come with another deliberately offensive generalisation which
appears to include present company. So it's best to let you wallow in
your misinformation.
--
Mike.
Vinny Burgoo
>You entirely misunderstood the issues.
>Britain has signed certain human rights conventions.
>Thereby these conventions take precedence
>over pre-existing British law. (By British law)
>So Britain has to adapt the laws where necessary.
>As happened, following a European court ruling.
[snip]
When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six months
ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
As recently as July 2005, the European Committee of Social Rights
declared that gaps in Dutch corporal punishment legislation meant that
the Kingdom "cannot be considered to be in conformity with Article 17 of
the [Human Rights] Charter."
Then there's actual behaviour. You can sign up to as many conventions
and pass as many laws as you like, but culture is and always will be a
more important influence on behaviour.
The following is extracted from a study of the maltreatment of children
in seven European countries. The authors were English and Dutch. It was
based on data collected in 1996 and 1997.
% of children affected
Nature of maltreatment Engl. Nether. All 7
Excessive corporal punishment 21 30 20
Persistent caregiver hostility 3 8 14
Sudden violent attack 4 6 9
(That's just the categories of maltreatment related to "le vice
anglais". However, the picture is much the same in the other 14
categories, with the Netherlands coming out worse than England - nearly
four times worse in the case of emotional neglect, which surprised me.
The glaring exception is sexual abuse, which is twice as prevalent in
England.)
<http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/apsocsci/staff/documents/movingtowardseffecti
vechildmaltreatmentpreventionstrategiesineurope.doc>
Now, that data might be no good. It was collected by seven different
bodies in seven different countries. The authors did their best to
standardise things when it came to defining the nature and severity of
maltreatment (they can't have been totally successful: 48% of Dutch
children suffer emotional distress versus 0% of English children) but
they admit that some countries' reports might have been more complete
than others'.
All the same, Jan, I'd have thought that there's enough there to make
you pipe down for a bit about the English and their beastly attitude
towards children. (I actually enjoy your attacks, but then I'm more
anglais than is our Harvey. He's only been here 20 years. You have to
learn le vice at - or, better, across - your nanny's knee. What?)
--
V
Peter Duncanson
Lodder) wrote:
>You entirely misunderstood the issues.
>Britain has signed certain human rights conventions.
>Thereby these conventions take precedence
>over pre-existing British law. (By British law)
>So Britain has to adapt the laws where necessary.
>As happened, following a European court ruling.
You are missing the "democratic deficit" in this procedure.
The (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms has nothing in it regarding the punishment or
disciplining of children by their parents.
The Convention expresses very broad principles. The judges of the
ECHR then make detailed judgements based on these principles. The
court makes, what are in effect, new laws according to the personal
opinions of the judges. The judges are totally outside the
democratic process and can brush to one side democratically made
laws. They are totally unaccountable to either legislators or
citizens. This is a form of dictatorship.
This rule by judges is totally alien the the system of democracy we
have developed in the UK (with considerable difficulty over hundreds
of years. In the UK we have the principle of Parliament Sovereignty.
This means that the UK Parliament is the supreme law-making body
which cannot be overruled by aurocrats: Kings, Queens or Judges.
This democratic system is being steadily eroded by the Court of
Human Rights.
I understand that those British people who took part in the
establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights did so with
the intention of outlawing the atrocious behaviour of Nazis and
others throughout Europe. They never expected the Convention to be
brought into the details of everyday life in countries with
functioning democracies and fair systems of justice.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Vinny Burgoo
>As recently as July 2005, the European Committee of Social Rights
>declared that gaps in Dutch corporal punishment legislation meant that
>the Kingdom "cannot be considered to be in conformity with Article 17 of
>the [Human Rights] Charter."
Whoops! Article 17 of the European Social Charter.
17. Children and young persons have the right to appropriate
social, legal and economic protection.
Still human rights, though.
--
V
HVS
-snip-
> All the same, Jan, I'd have thought that there's enough there
> to make you pipe down for a bit about the English and their
> beastly attitude towards children. (I actually enjoy your
> attacks, but then I'm more anglais than is our Harvey. He's
> only been here 20 years. You have to learn le vice at - or,
> better, across - your nanny's knee. What?)
True, Vinny, true.
FWIW, I didn't perceive any greater use here than in Canada of
corporal punishment by parents. I think it was probably more (or
longer) ingrained in schools here -- or at least certain types of
schools -- but I can't personally vouch for that.
Jan's knee-jerk righteous indignation against pretty well
everything leftpondial and British is tiresomely predictable,
though, and I suspect that he finds my particular combination --
coming from one of cultures he detests, and choosing to live in the
other -- doubly offensive.
Daniel al-Autistiqui
wrote:
>
>Daniel al-Autistiqui wrote:
>[...]
>> It certainly is the case that most people like to have their names
>> spelled a particular way. But IMO by doing this they are
>> "prescribing" too much, thus going against the experts' view that
>> grammarians should try to be descriptive rather than prescriptive.
>> After all, isn't "Fitzgerald" just an English word that may refer to
>> singer Ella, writer F. Scott, (with a capital 'G') former Irish prime
>> minister Garret, and (sometimes with the internal capital)
>> Persian-poetry translator Edward, among other things? In my mind, it
>> is. In short, I feel that a person's name does not *belong* to the
>> person; it only *refers* to them in English (and possibly other
>> languages as well). And, while we're on the subject, why can't my
>> caretaker named "K" allow "Kay" to be used as an alternate spelling
>> for her name? It would probably be convenient if she allowed me to
>> write it this way.
>
>Well, that's the root of the problem. We have to accept that proper
>names don't follow grammatical or other rules -- in any language I know
>about. There are reasons, of course, but they are not systematic. Names
>are a completely separate class, and if they were not we wouldn't give
>them capital letters, and we wouldn't have the special term, "proper
>names" for them. You and I could be named under any system we could
>invent -- let's say, for example, "12345" and "22345" -- but it would
>still be different from ordinary language.
>
I'd suppose that eventually the end result will be that we'll have to
set off personal names in a sentence with curly braces or some other
kind of delimiters. This is ideally the way someone would want to do
it if they were a computer programmer. We may have had the
capital-letter trick at one time, but unfortunately, those kinds of
letters now serve lots of other purposes. And of course, it doesn't
work at all with names like "12345" and "22345".
As someone who became exposed fairly recently to a woman with the
single-letter name "K", I sometimes think we should immediately start
using delimiters and write sentences like "I did what {K} told me to
do.", which looks a little bit neater than "I did what K told me to
do." Moreover, observe that in the second sentence the "I" (which,
remember, would be capitalized even if it didn't begin the sentence!)
could be an additional personal name. Although it probably doesn't
make much logical sense (because of the "me"), it is perfectly
grammatically correct, thus creating an ambiguity. (Of course, it
wouldn't be ambiguous in the present tense, because we would then have
"I do" versus "I does".) This shows that there is a single-letter
name that would be even worse than the one I currently need to deal
with. In short, I think that parents who choose names for their
children need to be careful with names that could create ambiguities
in sentences.
>There are alphabets, as you know, which don't have capital letters at
>all; but, even there, many proper names don't fit into the usual rules
>of the language. We can like it or dislike it, but it's a fact.
>Personally, I do like it: my name is mine as an individual, and doesn't
>belong to anybody else I know. You are Daniel, not "Dan" or "Danny".
Actually, I *am* "Dan". Many people who know me address me by that
name regularly. "Danny" as my name has not been used much for a long
time, though.
>Your surname appears in many forms: "McGrath", "MacGrath", "Mac
>Craith", "M'crath", "McGraw", "Magraw", etc; but only one is yours.
>It's one little bit of control we have: if you like it, don't take it
>away from anybody else, because perhaps they like it, too. If you could
>take it away from them, maybe they could take it away from you: it's a
>sort of exchange.
>
>[...]
>> is all over the place. Surely it can't be possible that *none* of the
>> publishers that used <Fitzgerald> were aware of the way that Edward
>> himself wrote the name.
>
>It may seem absurd, but actually I wouldn't be surprised to find out
>that they weren't aware, or didn't care. The poems were extremely
>popular at one time, and (as you've seen) numerous editions were
>published by people hoping to cash in on that popularity. It was very
>common for the book to be given as a present or as a school prize, and
>sometimes the attractiveness of the binding would have been more
>important to some buyers than the accuracy of the printing.
>
What do you mean, that they "didn't care"? I thought that part of
your point was that everyone would care that the Rubaiyat translator
styled his name "FitzGerald" with two capital letters. (Actually,
according to a couple of Web pages that I found some time ago, Edward
preferred "Fitz Gerald", with a space -- a form that no one uses
today.)
Would you be more surprised than you were about FitzGerald's name if
you discovered that a great many books relating to the poet Alfred
Tennyson had his name spelled as "Tennison"? (That's just an
arbitrary example. I'm not a Tennyson fan, so I have no idea what
they actually do on this matter.)
BTW Mr. Lyle, how much knowledge do you have on the Rubaiyat of Omar
Khayyam? I am the big "expert" on the poem and the story of it. In
fact, I have almost all of the first 20+ stanzas memorized!
>I've also mentioned in another post that some Victorians were as
>interested as you are in standardized spelling. One major reference
>book, _The Dictionary of National Biography_, used the "Fitzgerald"
>form for everybody of that name; so some publishers of the poems
>probably had the same idea.
>[...]
I personally wish that the spellings used in the *text* of the
Rubaiyat would get more standardized. In particular, note that in
stanza XII, the words <Sovranty> and <blest> in the first two lines
are invariably so spelled, yet the end of line 3 varies between <wave
the Rest;> and <waive the Rest;>. The original text of 1859,
published by Quaritch, had "wave" (no "i"). It is sad to see nearly
every modern reprint of the poem changing this to "waive".
Linz
> On this scorchingly hot day, with temperatures nudging 38 deg C, I've
> been given the agreeable task of looking after ten grandchildren and a
> collection of village kids from the posh end. Kids and swimming pools.
> For reasons that elude me, put the two together and the kids start
> screaming -- especially the girls. I've just fed them -- a huge meal
> of sausages and chips and mushy peas, with lashings of coke, and
> several kilos or newtons of Italian ice cream. Two of the village
> kids' eyes lit up when they saw the grub. 'Mummy never lets us have
> chips'. Honestly -- the cruelty of some parents -- denying children
> their natural food.
When I started weaning YoungBloke we were very concerned to discover that
when he ate potato he developed a burning rash around his mouth. Our first
thought was "oh no! No chips!" but luckily he'd grown out of it by the time
he was 1.
> Give a kid a thrashing and you have an enemy for a day; give a kid a
> sprout and you have an enemy for life.
All the more for me!
--
It's alright for you, you're a cheese baron.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [...]
[meaning of 'le vice Anglais']
> > to the excessive liking of British parents
> > for beating their children, under the pretext
> > of giving them a sound education,
>
> You really do believe it quite unshakably, you poor chap.
Poor chap you.
In your anger you are forgetting it is aue here,
and we are discussing -usage-.
For the meaning of 'le vice anglais' it is irrelevant
whether or not an English child has ever been beaten by his parents.
> You were
> peaceably offered the chance to support or modify your comments,
There is no point in that. Wheever I mention a source you snip it
and continue to complain about sources.
> but
> back you come with another deliberately offensive generalisation which
> appears to include present company.
You overlook the fact that it isn't my generalisation.
The genersalisation is present a priori in the use of '...Anglais',
as it is in any general indication of this kind.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> In alt.usage.english, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> >You entirely misunderstood the issues.
> >Britain has signed certain human rights conventions.
> >Thereby these conventions take precedence
> >over pre-existing British law. (By British law)
> >So Britain has to adapt the laws where necessary.
> >As happened, following a European court ruling.
>
> [snip]
>
> When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six months
> ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
The Netherlands never had a law
that said that parents can beat children.
[snip statistics]
> Now, that data might be no good. It was collected by seven different
> bodies in seven different countries. The authors did their best to
> standardise things when it came to defining the nature and severity of
> maltreatment (they can't have been totally successful: 48% of Dutch
> children suffer emotional distress versus 0% of English children) but
> they admit that some countries' reports might have been more complete
> than others'.
Ah, that explains it.
British children are so used to being beaten
that it would distres them not to be.
But you said it: statistics like this
aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
> All the same, Jan, I'd have thought that there's enough there to make
> you pipe down for a bit about the English and their beastly attitude
> towards children. (I actually enjoy your attacks, but then I'm more
> anglais than is our Harvey. He's only been here 20 years. You have to
> learn le vice at - or, better, across - your nanny's knee. What?)
Indeed.
There are indications that 'the vice' is acquired in youth.
Children who have been abused are more likely
to be abusers themselves when grown up.
(with even better statiistics behind it)
It's a vicious circle, isn't it?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:19:25 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >You entirely misunderstood the issues.
> >Britain has signed certain human rights conventions.
> >Thereby these conventions take precedence
> >over pre-existing British law. (By British law)
> >So Britain has to adapt the laws where necessary.
> >As happened, following a European court ruling.
>
> You are missing the "democratic deficit" in this procedure.
Let's not start on the 'democratic deficit' of Britain.
It's on usage here after all.
> The (European) Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
> Fundamental Freedoms has nothing in it regarding the punishment or
> disciplining of children by their parents.
>
> The Convention expresses very broad principles. The judges of the
> ECHR then make detailed judgements based on these principles. The
> court makes, what are in effect, new laws according to the personal
> opinions of the judges. The judges are totally outside the
> democratic process and can brush to one side democratically made
> laws. They are totally unaccountable to either legislators or
> citizens. This is a form of dictatorship.
Right, they are as dictatorial as the Law Lords or the US spreme court.
Any supreme court effectively makes more specific laws by interpreting
general principles in specific cases.
> This rule by judges is totally alien the the system of democracy we
> have developed in the UK (with considerable difficulty over hundreds
> of years. In the UK we have the principle of Parliament Sovereignty.
> This means that the UK Parliament is the supreme law-making body
> which cannot be overruled by aurocrats: Kings, Queens or Judges.
The UK is not so unique in that. The US
(where the supreme court can test laws against the constitution)
seems to be more of an exception.
> This democratic system is being steadily eroded by the Court of
> Human Rights.
You should keep in mind that this whole thing is a very British issue.
This wasn't a conspiracy by some foreigners to make England look bad.
It was Brits complainig about other Brits.
> I understand that those British people who took part in the
> establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights did so with
> the intention of outlawing the atrocious behaviour of Nazis and
> others throughout Europe. They never expected the Convention to be
> brought into the details of everyday life in countries with
> functioning democracies and fair systems of justice.
Sure, I am all in favour of the rule of law,
provided it is understood beforehand
that I will never be charged with anything.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On 25 Jul 2006, Vinny Burgoo wrote
> -snip-
>
> > All the same, Jan, I'd have thought that there's enough there
> > to make you pipe down for a bit about the English and their
> > beastly attitude towards children. (I actually enjoy your
> > attacks, but then I'm more anglais than is our Harvey. He's
> > only been here 20 years. You have to learn le vice at - or,
> > better, across - your nanny's knee. What?)
>
> True, Vinny, true.
>
> FWIW, I didn't perceive any greater use here than in Canada of
> corporal punishment by parents. I think it was probably more (or
> longer) ingrained in schools here -- or at least certain types of
> schools -- but I can't personally vouch for that.
>
> Jan's knee-jerk righteous indignation against pretty well
> everything leftpondial and British is tiresomely predictable,
> though, and I suspect that he finds my particular combination --
> coming from one of cultures he detests, and choosing to live in the
> other -- doubly offensive.
Very good Harvey.
Previous time around I was accused
of prejudices against rightpondia,
anti-Americanism even.
I must be ambipondian.
What we see here of course is something else:
an Anglo-Saxon kneejerk reaction
to start shouting anglophobia or anti-Americanism
at anything that might be less than flattering,
Jan
PS Never a bad word about Canadians in the Netherlands.
They liberated the country in 1945.
J. J. Lodder
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> In message <1hj0yee.1md...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
>
> >You may also note that invoking the strongest party discipline
> >(three line whip) was needed to force the passage of the 2004 act.
> >(with many Labour members rebelling nevertheless)
>
> Good for them. England doesn't need hordes of limp-wristed mincing
> libruls passing judgement on how parents treat their sprogs.
Indeed, it is just the opposite.
England need a law that says
that parents can beat their children,
Jan
Peter Duncanson
Lodder) wrote:
>
>The Netherlands never had a law
>that said that parents can beat children.
Neither has the UK.
There is a fundamental principle that people are free to do anything
unless it is forbidden by law. (The opposite applies to the
government.)
Peter Duncanson
That's OK.
As you have waived your right to trial, go straight to jail.
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:59:52 +0200:
It is the case in the Republic of Ireland also.
> > This democratic system is being steadily eroded by the Court of
> > Human Rights.
>
> You should keep in mind that this whole thing is a very British issue.
> This wasn't a conspiracy by some foreigners to make England look bad.
> It was Brits complainig about other Brits.
>
> > I understand that those British people who took part in the
> > establishment of the European Convention on Human Rights did so with
> > the intention of outlawing the atrocious behaviour of Nazis and
> > others throughout Europe. They never expected the Convention to be
> > brought into the details of everyday life in countries with
> > functioning democracies and fair systems of justice.
>
> Sure, I am all in favour of the rule of law,
> provided it is understood beforehand
> that I will never be charged with anything.
>
> Jan
--
Nick Spalding
Salvatore Volatile
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:59:51 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
>>
>>The Netherlands never had a law
>>that said that parents can beat children.
>
> Neither has the UK.
>
> There is a fundamental principle that people are free to do anything
> unless it is forbidden by law. (The opposite applies to the
> government.)
Maybe Dutch is one of those languages where the words for "freedom" and
"obedience" are the same?
--
Salvatore Volatile
Linz
> Vinny Burgoo <hnN...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> You entirely misunderstood the issues.
>>> Britain has signed certain human rights conventions.
>>> Thereby these conventions take precedence
>>> over pre-existing British law. (By British law)
>>> So Britain has to adapt the laws where necessary.
>>> As happened, following a European court ruling.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six
>> months ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
>
> The Netherlands never had a law
> that said that parents can beat children.
Did Britain?
Vinny Burgoo
>Jan's knee-jerk righteous indignation against pretty well
>everything leftpondial and British is tiresomely predictable,
>though, and I suspect that he finds my particular combination --
>coming from one of cultures he detests, and choosing to live in the
>other -- doubly offensive.
I doubt it very much, Harvey. None of Jan's posts has ever struck me as
being virulently anti-British or anti-(North)American. Isn't it Jan who
is forever quoting from 1066 And All That? It's true that his favourite
bit is about Van Broom blowing his own trumpet up the Medway, but I
still think a fondness for Sellar and Yeatman indicates a certain
fondness for Britain.
I think he's mostly just having fun. The rest of it can be explained by
his congenital Continongtality - high-mindedness, bossiness, a love of
charters, codes and grand proclamations, ja logisch, all that sort of
thing: sort of like the Guardian plus weirdly-trimmed beards, nudity and
bicycles. They never quite recovered from the Enlightenment over there,
you know.
--
V
Vinny Burgoo
>> When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six months
>> ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
>
>The Netherlands never had a law
>that said that parents can beat children.
Is it true what they say about the Napoleonic Code - that everything was
(is?) forbidden unless specifically permitted?
I can't remember where I first heard that. It might have been at school
but equally it might have been at the dentist's or down the pub. I had a
quick look on the Web to see if I could find a credible reference to it
but all I found was various spit-speckled American wackos using it to
justify starving half the world, or complaining that dirty foreigners
were using it to justify starving half of Texas, or something.
[snip]
>But you said it: statistics like this
>aren't worth the paper they are printed on.
I've got more of the same for you. According to UNICEF, the number of
under-15s who die because of maltreatment every year is:
England 0.4 per 100,000
The Netherlands 0.5 per 100,000
Bonus datum:
USA 2.2 per 100,000
--
V
(Very small print: The authors of the report devote page after page after
page to explaining why these figures shouldn't be trusted.)
Mike Lyle
J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [...]
> [meaning of 'le vice Anglais']
> > > to the excessive liking of British parents
> > > for beating their children, under the pretext
> > > of giving them a sound education,
> >
> > You really do believe it quite unshakably, you poor chap.
>
> Poor chap you.
> In your anger you are forgetting it is aue here,
> and we are discussing -usage-.
> For the meaning of 'le vice anglais' it is irrelevant
> whether or not an English child has ever been beaten by his parents.
You chose the words, not I. You quite clearly implied that the practice
was common, and didn't moderate when invited to. Your remark of 22
July, "The European human rights court regularly has cases of English
children beaten up by their parents", was not a usage comment. It was,
as a paragraph of its own, the first part of your message. You made a
usage comment in the following paragraph, and started it with "BTW",
signalling clearly that it wasn't the main part of your message.
The usage comment would have stood on its own: the first statement was,
as you yourself say above, irrelevant to usage. But you chose to make
this irrelevant remark, and to give it prominence.
>
> > You were
> > peaceably offered the chance to support or modify your comments,
>
> There is no point in that. Wheever I mention a source you snip it
> and continue to complain about sources.
I believe that's a false statement. I am under the impression that I,
and others, have commented on the reference you made to an
eight-year-old legal case. I don't believe I have deleted any reference
of yours and then claimed you didn't give a source. I do not regard an
invitation to sort through 50,000 Google hits as a "source".
> > but
> > back you come with another deliberately offensive generalisation which
> > appears to include present company.
>
> You overlook the fact that it isn't my generalisation.
> The genersalisation is present a priori in the use of '...Anglais',
> as it is in any general indication of this kind.
Your English is far too good for you to get away with that. You did not
offer the generalisation as a quotation; if it was a quotation, you
made it your own by referring to "the excessive liking". You did not
use any qualifying expression -- even "an" would have left you some
room for manoeuvre. You made it after being challenged on a previous
generalisation which was clearly your own. It is more severe than the
previous one.
We could be getting somewhere if your "it isn't my generalisation" is
your equivalent of "Sorry: I didn't mean it like that." But if that's
what it is, then it's too grudging to be effective.
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Vinny Burgoo <hnN...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six
>> months ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
>
> The Netherlands never had a law that said that parents can beat
> children.
Did the Netherlands ever have a law that said that parents can feed
their children creamed spinach?
Googling, I find
(Published in Kleintje Muurkrant April 26, 2002)
...
Last March the Dutch House of Representatives debated about a
possible law against beating children. A correcting slap was
completely allowed, all political parties agreed on that. Physical
punishment was pretty much allowed according to them. But from
then on it became more difficult and they didn't know what to
decide. Therefore the Dutch House of Representatives and the
government decided to do more research.
http://www.dennisrodie.com/page34.html
The Netherlands has no law prohibiting spanking children or
physical punishment or other humiliating treatment as a parenting
tool. Severe forms of child abuse are punishable under Dutch
criminal law.
<URL:http://www.violencestudy.org/europe-ca/PDF/NGO/
Violence%20Against%20Children%20in%20the%20Netherlands.pdf>
There are many situations when an occasional smack is given. This
does not necessarily have to be a problem. Smacking or hitting
only becomes child abuse when it happens regularly and out of
proportion to the child's behaviour. Punishment then becomes
excessive and the situation is one of suppression rather than
support. Spanking, which is an offence in Sweden, is permitted in
the Netherlands but it should be pointed out that the debate about
a possible law against hitting children flares up from time to
time.
<URL:http://www.nizw.nl/Docs/Internationaal/Jeugd/
Factsheets/Factsheet%20Chi%E2%80%A6%20abuse%20juni%202.pdf>
While the Netherlands may never have had a law that said that parents
can beat their children, it appears that there are a fair number that
think that it needs a law that says they can't.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Raymond S. Wise
JF wrote:
[...]
> Give a kid a thrashing and you have an enemy for a day; give a kid a
> sprout and you have an enemy for life.
>
> --
> James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
> http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and http://www.marjacq.com
Note for the benefit of speakers of American English: To a Brit,
"sprout" has the default meaning of "Brussels sprout." I learned this
just the other day after having encountered the usage in the British
sitcom *My Hero.*
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
HVS
> JF wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Give a kid a thrashing and you have an enemy for a day; give
>> a kid a sprout and you have an enemy for life.
>> --
>> James Follett. Novelist (Callsign G1LXP)
>> http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk and
>> http://www.marjacq.com
>
> Note for the benefit of speakers of American English: To a
> Brit, "sprout" has the default meaning of "Brussels sprout." I
> learned this just the other day after having encountered the
> usage in the British sitcom *My Hero.*
Well spotted.
There's also a whole British thing about sprouts -- entirely
unfair, of course, but hey: welcome to Britain -- and why they're
the most ridiculed vegetable.
1. They were always boiled to the state of non-flavour ("Is it
November already? I must put the Christmas sprouts on.")
2. They were exclusively encountered -- in that boiled non-
flavoured state -- in (a) school cafeterias, or (b) compulsory
family dinners.
3. They're called "Brussels sprouts". (In the UK hierarchy of
boring European countries, Belgium is the hands-down winner.)
HTH
Graeme Thomas
<harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>1. They were always boiled to the state of non-flavour ("Is it
>November already? I must put the Christmas sprouts on.")
>
>2. They were exclusively encountered -- in that boiled non-
>flavoured state -- in (a) school cafeterias, or (b) compulsory
>family dinners.
WIWAL I had the extreme good fortune to attend a (nay, *the*)
prestigious British University. As part of the conditions there I had
to eat most of my meals in my college dining Hall. I found that the
food was almost as good as that at the factory canteen where I'd been
working for six months. Besides, with terms of eight weeks, I felt sure
that I could survive.
After a couple of terms I learnt that the chap in charge of the kitchen
staff was proud to have hired a sous-chef who specialized in vegetables.
Furthermore, he was, it was said, particularly sound on sprouts. But,
because this chap was so in demand, he was hired only for each weekday
morning.
He would arrive at work, and prepare the day's vegetables. They were
instantly put on to cook.
By dinner time -- 8pm -- these vegetables were pronounced fit to eat.
I'm not sure who so pronounced them, though; we students didn't.
--
Graeme Thomas
J. J. Lodder
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:59:51 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >
> >The Netherlands never had a law
> >that said that parents can beat children.
>
> Neither has the UK.
Indeed, they call it 'reasonable chastisement' instead,
which is of course much more dignified,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
> In message <1hj1gua.jhq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
> >.
> >Children who have been abused are more likely
> >to be abusers themselves when grown up.
>
> That's horribly so. Kids who been fed vegetables are likely to do the
> same thing to their kids.
Somebody must find a way to shut up that Jamie Oliver chap.
If he has his way the next generation of Britons
will be eating food that's fit only for them Froggies.
> Michael Jackson is a typical case: abused as a
> kid who became an abuser of kids.
>
> In England children are venerated untouchables.
[snip examples]
Thanks for clearing that up.
I never understood why canes are used.
Jan
--
[full quote to please the gods of google, who hate X-No-Archive's]
In message <1hj1gua.jhq...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
>.
>Children who have been abused are more likely
>to be abusers themselves when grown up.
That's horribly so. Kids who been fed vegetables are likely to do the
same thing to their kids. Michael Jackson is a typical case: abused as a
kid who became an abuser of kids.
In England children are venerated untouchables. I've watched helplessly
from my window as children play chicken with monster seas crashing down
on a steep shingle beach, knowing that if I were to go down and drag
them to safety, all manner of police budgets would be automatically
triggered enabling Inspector Knacker to pounce on me and find the salary
for someone to spend several days reading out the charges to me.
A local teacher who gave a distressed, crying child a hug was charged
with assault.
The local puffingtons decreed that a bloke operating donkey rides on the
beach for kids had to provide them with crash helmets, but wasn't
allowed to touch the children to adjust the helmets.
Recently a bishop school governor congratulated a little girl by giving
her a kiss on the forehead. Although the deed was in front of witnesses,
the pink and fluffies went ape. The hapless bishop was hauled into
court, forced to resign, and heaven knows what else.
Swimming pool lifeguards mustn't touch drowning children. I went on a
training course where I learned that one can throw a life belt to a
drowning kid and haul 'em to safety if the kid grabs hold of the
leftbelt. But if the kid doesn't surface, then one calls a hotline and
asks for a qualified resuscitation paramedic team, whatever that is.
Police can no longer take a criminally behaving or absconding children
into custody unless there's a qualified child supervisor on duty at the
custody centre. Most delinquents go awol at weekends (they're no longer
locked in!) when budgets to cover the employment of child supervisors
have been slashed.
J. J. Lodder
> In alt.usage.english, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >Vinny Burgoo <hnN...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six months
> >> ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
> >
> >The Netherlands never had a law
> >that said that parents can beat children.
>
> Is it true what they say about the Napoleonic Code - that everything was
> (is?) forbidden unless specifically permitted?
I'm pretty sure the Code Napoleon says nothing of that kind.
> I can't remember where I first heard that. It might have been at school
> but equally it might have been at the dentist's or down the pub. I had a
> quick look on the Web to see if I could find a credible reference to it
> but all I found was various spit-speckled American wackos using it to
> justify starving half the world, or complaining that dirty foreigners
> were using it to justify starving half of Texas, or something.
I heard it as a joke about the Catholic church,
with the addition:
If it isn't explicitly allowed it's forbidden,
and if it -is- allowed it is obligatory,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> There's also a whole British thing about sprouts -- entirely
> unfair, of course, but hey: welcome to Britain -- and why they're
> the most ridiculed vegetable.
>
> 1. They were always boiled to the state of non-flavour ("Is it
> November already? I must put the Christmas sprouts on.")
>
> 2. They were exclusively encountered -- in that boiled non-
> flavoured state -- in (a) school cafeterias, or (b) compulsory
> family dinners.
>
> 3. They're called "Brussels sprouts". (In the UK hierarchy of
> boring European countries, Belgium is the hands-down winner.)
That is a bit surprising though.
Sprouts are eaten all over Western Europe.
Only the English associate them with Brussels.
Any particular reason?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) writes:
>
> > Vinny Burgoo <hnN...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> When did the Netherlands ban all corporal punishment? About six
> >> months ago? Yesterday? Tomorrow?
> >
> > The Netherlands never had a law that said that parents can beat
> > children.
>
> Did the Netherlands ever have a law that said that parents can feed
> their children creamed spinach?
>
> Googling, I find
>
> (Published in Kleintje Muurkrant April 26, 2002)
Good googling.
You won't find much because most of it is in Dutch.
The keyword you need is 'kindermishandeling' (maltreatment of children)
(700 k hits)
> Last March the Dutch House of Representatives debated about a
> possible law against beating children.
As it happens ther is at present a proposal before parliament,
dating from last autumn.
A rather puzzling one, because it proposes an addition to
the 'burgerlijk wetboek' (Napoleonic: 'code civil')
The 'Raad van State' (Coucil of State)
(a body which has to advise on all proposals for laws)
has remarked noted that it is not obvious
what purpose the addition serves,
since there is already an article in the 'wetboek van strafrecht'
(N. code penal) which says practically the same.
This is probably the last we'll hear about it,
for (you no doubt don't want to know it)
the cabinet has fallen over some uninteresting trivialities,
and there will be general elections in november.
This particular minister will probably not return.
Best,
Jan
HVS
The usual process, I'd say: the generic term "sprout" was in use
when the vegetable appeared, so it was just a distinguishing
qualifier for a specific sub-type, presumably taking its name
from the real or perceived origin of the import.
OED1 has them named as "Brussels sprouts" in a gardening work of
1796, by which date the generic "sprout" -- referring to side-
growths of various cabbage-type vegetables -- had been in use for
a couple of centuries. It doesn't identify "sprout" as an
elliptical form for Brussels sprouts until the mid 1800s (by
which date the older generic use had presumably withered).
Vinny Burgoo
[snip]
>> Last March the Dutch House of Representatives debated about a
>> possible law against beating children.
>
>As it happens ther is at present a proposal before parliament,
>dating from last autumn.
>A rather puzzling one, because it proposes an addition to
>the 'burgerlijk wetboek' (Napoleonic: 'code civil')
>
>The 'Raad van State' (Coucil of State)
>(a body which has to advise on all proposals for laws)
>has remarked noted that it is not obvious
>what purpose the addition serves,
>since there is already an article in the 'wetboek van strafrecht'
>(N. code penal) which says practically the same.
[snip]
<http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/netherlands.
html>
Corporal punishment is lawful in the home.
The Civil Code states that parents have the right and duty to
care for and bring up their minor children. There is no defence
in legislation for the use of corporal punishment by parents,
but it is commonly assumed that parents have this right. The
Penal Code (articles 300-304) lists offences of assault in
varying degrees of severity and states that prison sentences can
be lengthened by one third if the perpetrator commits the
assault against his or her mother, father, spouse or child.
However, Dutch case-law suggests that physical punishment does
not constitute assault according to the Penal Code and it is
possible for parents to use even severe forms of violence
without being sentenced (see decisions of the Hoge Raad (Dutch
Court of Cassation) 10 October 2000, NJ (Nederlandse
Jurisprudentie) 2000, no.656 and 10 September 1996, NJB
(Nederlands Juristen Blad) 1996, nr.90 (p.1643)).
--
V
Father Ignatius
news:1hj4m87.11u...@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
I'm just reading _Something to Declare_ by Julian Barnes and it includes an
essay called "The Land Without Brussels Sprouts" which seems to be a
recognised epithet for France.
http://search.ft.com/searchArticle?id=020119001707
Isabelle Cecchini
[...]
> Sprouts are eaten all over Western Europe.
> Only the English associate them with Brussels.
I don't know how similar our own "choux de Bruxelles" are to Brussels
sprouts, but anyway here is the way to cook them:
First blanch them, then boil them, not too long --I'd say 20 minutes--
and finally sauté them --not too long either-- in a little butter. The
texture should be both crispy and melting.
They're a very nice side-dish for guinea-fowl. Almost compulsory in my
family.
--
Isabelle Cecchini
HVS
> J. J. Lodder a écrit :
> [...]
>
>> Sprouts are eaten all over Western Europe.
>> Only the English associate them with Brussels.
>
> I don't know how similar our own "choux de Bruxelles" are to
> Brussels sprouts,
I've just googled some images -- same thing. I guess it's clearly
not the case that the association with Brussels is uniquely
English.
Donna Richoux
"EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY" was a sign at the totalitarian
ant colony visited by Wart (young King Arthur) during his "Sword and the
Stone" education ("The Once and Future King," T.H.White.)
There were two editions of this book, in which the animal adventures
changed slightly, and I think the ant colony was in one edition and not
the other.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Peter Duncanson
Lodder) wrote:
>Sprouts are eaten all over Western Europe.
>Only the English associate them with Brussels.
>
>Any particular reason?
There is a possible clue here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_sprout
Brussels sprouts originate from the area of Afghanistan, Iran
and Pakistan. During the sixteenth century they enjoyed
popularity in Belgium eventually spreading throughout Europe.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)