coon dog - pejorative?
Arne H. Wilstrup
racoons, but I have been told that it is also a pejorative for
a black person - how do you differ from this?
If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I
say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
offensive to him?
HVS
My guess is by calling it a "raccoon dog".
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:Xns9B9DDFE6...@news.albasani.net...
> On 24 Jan 2009, Arne H. Wilstrup wrote
>
>> The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to
>> chase
>> racoons, but I have been told that it is also a pejorative
>> for
>> a black person - how do you differ from this?
>>
>> If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could
>> I
>> say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
>> offensive to him?
>
> My guess is by calling it a "raccoon dog".
You're probably right - but colloquially it is called "a coon
dog". That's why I am asking.
Ian Jackson
Wilstrup <ahw@?.?.invalid> writes
--
Ian
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:f0GkONj1...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
Not at all - I am just asking due to the fact that it seems to
be easy to offend people here even when one have the most
honourable intentions :-)
When we bloody foreigners learn your interesting language, we
rarely are taught anything about pejoratives or what words
that seem to be offensive.
The only way we can get a knowledge of this is to ask native
speakers. And of course we would very much like to escape from
being killed for it. :-)
A Danish comercial for a mobile telephone shows that a
salesman is forced to explain for a group of Hells Angels why
they have to buy such an item. He says: "With this you can
call your fiancy - (then the group moves closer to him,
seeming very unsatisfied with his answer)..er the crow.. (they
move even closer) ... er the broom" (then they are all smiling
appreciatively and he is off the hook.
So words used in wrong situations can be dangerous.
When I as a young man was in Scotland, I said - which I
considered polite - that England has a beautiful nature. A
Scotsmand said with a sarkastic tone: "Then I suggest you go
to England".
I didn't understand his answer until my host explained it to
me.
It might have something to do with the financial crisis, but I
feel that this group has a tendency to be very easy to
offend - this may be me or the questions I ask, I don't know,
but when the hereditary enemy (the Swedes) also attack me in
this group, something must be rotten in the kingdome of
Denmark :-) -
Something fishy is going on here, I think :-O - in short: I
smell a rat!
tony cooper
"Coon dog" is not a pejorative term for a black person. "Coon" is,
but not "coon dog".
If you are intent on avoiding the word "coon", ask for a Redbone, a
Walker, a Black-and-Tan, or a Bluetick hound.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Mark Brader
> When we bloody foreigners learn your interesting language, we
> rarely are taught anything about pejoratives or what words
> that seem to be offensive.
> The only way we can get a knowledge of this is to ask native
> speakers. And of course we would very much like to escape from
> being killed for it. :-)
Picky, picky!
> A Danish comercial for a mobile telephone shows that a
> salesman is forced to explain for a group of Hells Angels why
> they have to buy such an item. He says: "With this you can
> call your fiancy - (then the group moves closer to him,
> seeming very unsatisfied with his answer)..er the crow.. (they
> move even closer) ... er the broom" (then they are all smiling
> appreciatively and he is off the hook.
This one *I* don't get.
> When I as a young man was in Scotland, I said - which I
> considered polite - that England has a beautiful nature. A
> Scotsmand said with a sarkastic tone: "Then I suggest you go
> to England".
Could be worse. You'd have had a longer journey if he'd asked
you to go to Sark!
> something must be rotten in the kingdome of Denmark :-) -
The Kingdome was in Seattle! But it must have been rotten, because
it's been demolished.
[Sorry, just having fun with your typos. I'm sure anything I tried
to write in Danish would be much worse. The words are "sarcastic"
and "kingdom".]
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | WARNING: This Product Warps Space and Time
m...@vex.net | in Its Vicinity. --JIR
My text in this article is in the public domain.
James Hogg
wrote:
>The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to chase
Firstly, it's a wild animal, and nobody has trained the species
to hunt raccoons. They are called that because they look like
raccoons.
Secondly, because it's a wild animal, you won't find it in pet
shops.
Third, if they *did* sell it in pet shops you could go in to your
local pet shop and ask for a "mårhund" without offending
anybody, expect perhaps a "mår".
James
HVS
That's my point, really: you can't use "coon dog" in an
unprovocative way, as "coon" has too much racist baggage associated
with it.
(There's also the aspect that the only accent my mind's ear
associates with a "coon dog" is the stereotype of a white, rural,
southern US drawl.)
-snip-
> It might have something to do with the financial crisis, but I
> feel that this group has a tendency to be very easy to
> offend - this may be me or the questions I ask, I don't know,
The only one I'm aware of was the one where you used "sloppy" without
realising that (a) it's seen as an insulting rather than analytical
comment, and (b) it's associated with long-standing prejudices
against American usage. I don't think taking offence at that was
remotely surprising.
It's true that some of the regulars here are easily offended and a
bit quick to see ill-intent where it's not meant, but I don't think
it's a particular trait of "this group" in general.
Django Cat
> > Go on. Ask for a 'black coon dog'. You KNOW you want to!
>
> Not at all - I am just asking due to the fact that it seems to be easy to offend people here even when one have the most honourable intentions :-)
>
> When we bloody foreigners learn your interesting language, we rarely are taught anything about pejoratives or what words that seem to be offensive.
> The only way we can get a knowledge of this is to ask native speakers.
Michael Swan, Basic English Usage, look up the section on 'taboo language'. It's the Dog's Bollocks.
DC
--
tony cooper
<Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:56:40 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw>
>wrote:
>
>>The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to chase
>>racoons, but I have been told that it is also a pejorative for
>>a black person - how do you differ from this?
>>
>>If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I
>>say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
>>offensive to him?
>
>Firstly, it's a wild animal, and nobody has trained the species
>to hunt raccoons. They are called that because they look like
>raccoons.
If this is a joke, it falls flat.
There most certainly are coon dogs in the US. They are trained to
tree coons. I went on many coon hunts in Indiana when I was young.
They are different from what one normally consider a hunt because no
one carries a gun. No one shoots a raccoon. Like a fox hunt, if the
prey is dispatched it is dispatched by the dogs. Unlike a fox hunt,
the prey is rarely dispatched.
>
>Secondly, because it's a wild animal, you won't find it in pet
>shops.
>
>Third, if they *did* sell it in pet shops you could go in to your
>local pet shop and ask for a "mårhund" without offending
>anybody, expect perhaps a "mår".
>
>James
--
Django Cat
> If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being offensive to him?
Arne, what are the chances of that actually happening?
DC
--
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:st2dnX5pnoS_BubU...@vex.net...
>
>> A Danish comercial for a mobile telephone shows that a
>> salesman is forced to explain for a group of Hells Angels
>> why
>> they have to buy such an item. He says: "With this you can
>> call your fiancy - (then the group moves closer to him,
>> seeming very unsatisfied with his answer)..er the crow..
>> (they
>> move even closer) ... er the broom" (then they are all
>> smiling
>> appreciatively and he is off the hook.
>
> This one *I* don't get.
I understand perfectly why - the "broom" seems to be a
nickname for a fiancy/wife etc. in special groups. Actually
they are referring to the "crane" (the machinery which lifts
up heavy burdens), but it is very difficult to translate this
into another language.
>
>> When I as a young man was in Scotland, I said - which I
>> considered polite - that England has a beautiful nature. A
>> Scotsmand said with a sarkastic tone: "Then I suggest you
>> go
>> to England".
>
> Could be worse. You'd have had a longer journey if he'd
> asked
> you to go to Sark!
:-)
>
>> something must be rotten in the kingdome of Denmark :-) -
>
> The Kingdome was in Seattle! But it must have been rotten,
> because
> it's been demolished.
uhu!
>
> [Sorry, just having fun with your typos. I'm sure anything
> I tried
> to write in Danish would be much worse. The words are
> "sarcastic"
> and "kingdom".]
That's ok! I am probably in a process where I cannot do
anything right in English either: grammar, spelling etc. :-)
A Danish minister said in a speech: "I am in the middle of my
period" - did I spell it right here? I am to see "inspector
Frost" tonight, so I might get some English from a person who
really speaks correct English :-)
James Hogg
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:54:39 +0000, James Hogg
><Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:56:40 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to chase
>>>racoons, but I have been told that it is also a pejorative for
>>>a black person - how do you differ from this?
>>>
>>>If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I
>>>say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
>>>offensive to him?
>>
>>Firstly, it's a wild animal, and nobody has trained the species
>>to hunt raccoons. They are called that because they look like
>>raccoons.
>
>If this is a joke, it falls flat.
>
>There most certainly are coon dogs in the US. They are trained to
>tree coons. I went on many coon hunts in Indiana when I was young.
>They are different from what one normally consider a hunt because no
>one carries a gun. No one shoots a raccoon. Like a fox hunt, if the
>prey is dispatched it is dispatched by the dogs. Unlike a fox hunt,
>the prey is rarely dispatched.
Are we talking about different species? I meant this creature
(the only one you're likely to find on this side of the pond):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_dog
James
Arne H. Wilstrup
So it seems. But I was totally innocent in the matter - I was
referring with another intention and the mere accusation that
I intentionally was in the act of offending somebody made me
really sad. :-(
>
> It's true that some of the regulars here are easily offended
> and a
> bit quick to see ill-intent where it's not meant, but I
> don't think
> it's a particular trait of "this group" in general.
Neither do I - it was just a poor attempt to explain why I did
what I did - I am not keen on annoying people at all as I
really need the nice English people to tell me of my
wrongdoings in the English language in the future.
I must admit I was really surprised of the outcome of the
questions here, though. It was really unintentional.
Well, as one of my Scottish friends said: come off it! - I
will try to do so hoping that I will not in the future be
considered a terrible person in this group. :-O
Happy New Year!
tony cooper
wrote:
That's not really true. In states where coon hunting is a common
practice, the term "coon dog" would not be provocative to anyone. The
sport, if you can call it that, is practiced as much by black people
as it is by whites.
There's really nothing sporting about coon hunting. The hunters take
the dogs out at night, let them loose, and then the hunters sit around
a fire drinking and lying until they hear a dog that has a coon treed.
Then everyone troops out to the tree, shakes the coon out, and then
goes back to the fire. There's more sitting around on coon hunts than
anything else.
>(There's also the aspect that the only accent my mind's ear
>associates with a "coon dog" is the stereotype of a white, rural,
>southern US drawl.)
Coon hunting is big in Indiana; a state not associated with a southern
drawl. My father owned some coon dogs for a while. It's common for
one person who has some rural property to keep dogs for other people.
The dogs my father owned were never brought home. They were not house
dogs. The guy who kept them had a large run and looked over about 30
dogs; all owned by other people.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>
>> If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being offensive to him?
>
>
>Arne, what are the chances of that actually happening?
>
Virtually none. You buy a coon dog from a breeder. They're not the
type of dogs that pet shops carry. The breeder may well be black,
though. He isn't going to be offended if you ask about a coon dog.
They are also called coon hounds, by the way. The breed is a hound.
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:e8Nel.62$_n5...@newsfe20.ams2...
Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
Aha! I have heard the word bollocks before without even
knowing the meaning of the word besides I thought it was the
same as "nonsense". I am glad that I have not yet used it
colloquially. Whew!
So thank you - but I don't own this book, I'm afraid - I am
the possessor of Swain's Practical English usage, but I cannot
find this very word. :-( The book has, however, a chapter of
taboo words which I had overlooked, so I thank you very much
for the information. :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:877nn4d1o8mb8r6k3...@4ax.com...
>
> There most certainly are coon dogs in the US. They are
> trained to
> tree coons. I went on many coon hunts in Indiana when I was
> young.
> They are different from what one normally consider a hunt
> because no
> one carries a gun. No one shoots a raccoon. Like a fox
> hunt, if the
> prey is dispatched it is dispatched by the dogs. Unlike a
> fox hunt,
> the prey is rarely dispatched.
Thank you very much for the information! :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
0 percent! I am just curious! :-)
tony cooper
<Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote:
Yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coonhound
You'll note that the dogs first imported to the US for this purpose
were imported from Jolly Olde.
Since you post with a gmail addy, we have no idea from which side of
which pond you post.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
>
>It's true that some of the regulars here are easily offended and a
>bit quick to see ill-intent where it's not meant, but I don't think
>it's a particular trait of "this group" in general.
If you are going to accidentally and innocently offend someone this is a good
place to do it. Someone, possibly the offended person, will explain why the
word or phrase is offensive.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
alan
"James Hogg" <Jas.H...@SPAM.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bt7nn4dvvceg633tn...@4ax.com...
Other than the fact that you're referring to a "raccoon dog" while everyone
else is discussing a "coon dog", your reference to pondian differences is
fairly puzzling since the "raccoon dog" is found only in East Asia, and
highly unlikely to be found on either side of the "pond" normally referred
to.
Django Cat
> So thank you - but I don't own this book, I'm afraid - I am the possessor of Swain's Practical English usage,
I'll trade your 'Swain' for my 'Basic'.
DC
--
Arne H. Wilstrup
Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
Not a chance! :-)
Raymond O'Hara
"Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote in message
news:497b8e9d$0$15889$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
You buy a hound and then you have to train it yourself.
Hunting dogs are made by training from puppyhood not bought of the the
shelf.
The clerk would think you a rube city-slicker though for asking.
Don Phillipson
> > Go on. Ask for a 'black coon dog'. You KNOW you want to!
>
> Not at all - I am just asking due to the fact that it seems to
> be easy to offend people here even when one have the most
> honourable intentions :-)
You spotted one of the most sensitive features of American
culture today. The words
coon = black person (pejorative = nigger)
coon = racoon
seem to be of wholly separate entomology -- but you can
be sure plenty of Americans relate them in their minds, and
respond emotionally and immediately to that connection.
Notoriously, some public person was excoriated a few
years ago for using the word niggardly, and I'd bet there
are more such examples.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Pat Durkin
news:s59nn4tfvofcigrfq...@4ax.com
I came late to this thread and, uncharacteristically, decided to read
the conversation to the end. It really surprised me that it took this
long for anyone to mention coonhound (coon hound*) to straighten Arne
out. We have a small area in which coon hunting takes place, here in
Wisconsin, but I think it is rather common in the southern reaches of
Indiana.
Tony did mention quite a variety of coon hounds, but never put the word
"hound" together with "coon".
Years ago, I learned that a classmate's husband (living in Indiana) was
working on development of a color refinement of some coon hound strains.
That would have been in the '60s. He called it a Treeing Tennessee
Brindle. It is classified _with Mountain Cur_ and other cur dogs. I
never got around to talking to him (he never came to the class reunions)
For some reason it always brought to mind the horse breed "Tennessee
Walking Horse, or Walker". Of course, that is because there _is_ a
Treeing Walker Hound.
http://www.thebreedsofdogs.com/TREEING_TENNESSEE_BRINDLE.htm
> You'll note that the dogs first imported to the US for this purpose
> were imported from Jolly Olde.
>
> Since you post with a gmail addy, we have no idea from which side of
> which pond you post.
http://tinyurl.com/b4ve3p
(Simon and Schuster Guide to Dogs) facsimile pages
tony cooper
wrote:
Actually, I did. In one post I pointed out that they were also called
"coon hounds".
Hoosiers know that the coon dog is a dog in the hound group, but "coon
dog" is an established term. Anyone who would say "You mean coon
hound" when we referred to a coon dog would get one of those "Duh!"
looks. Hoosiers would interchange "dog" and "hound" without thinking
about it when talking about dogs in this group.
Pat Durkin
news:glgja4$o4n$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca
Love those ents!
Truly, your comments remind us of the difficulty in learning a foreign
culture.
R H Draney
As noted in a number of ways already, a "coon dog" refers to the profession of
the dog, not its ancestry...there is no such breed as a "coon dog", although
some breeds are better suited than others for the purpose of hunting
raccoons...one might still cause offense if the person to whom you are speaking
believes that a "coon dog" is one trained to chase black people, much as some
feel that the word "picnic" comes from "picking a nigger" to lynch...such dogs
have existed, and probably still do in some quarters, but they've never been
called that....
There is, one should note, a breed of *cat* called the "Maine coon cat"...larger
than most housecats, there is no other generally accepted name for the
breed...as the breed is very popular and known for a number of desirable
behavioral traits, it would certainly be possible to approach a pet-store owner
to ask for one....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
Unless we've noticed a local flavour in his posts.
--
Jerry Friedman
tony cooper
wrote:
>Raymond O'Hara filted:
>>
>>
>>"Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote in message
>>news:497b8e9d$0$15889$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>>> The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to chase racoons, but
>>> I have been told that it is also a pejorative for a black person - how do
>>> you differ from this?
>>>
>>> If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I say: "Hello,
>>> I would like to have a coon dog" without being offensive to him?
>>>
>>
>>You buy a hound and then you have to train it yourself.
>>Hunting dogs are made by training from puppyhood not bought of the the
>>shelf.
>>
>>The clerk would think you a rube city-slicker though for asking.
>
>As noted in a number of ways already, a "coon dog" refers to the profession of
>the dog, not its ancestry...there is no such breed as a "coon dog",
Is this site using "breed" incorrectly:
http://www.coondawgs.com/breeds.html ? Or this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
It does call them "coonhounds".
Raymond O'Hara
"R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:glgn5...@drn.newsguy.com...
What is the point of adding Maine Coon cats.
Nobody ever hunted blacks using hows cats and Maine Coons are noted for
their pleasent dispositions anyway.
Also Maine Coon Cats are a recognized breed.
Barbara Bailey
news:Xns9B9DDFE6...@news.albasani.net:
> On 24 Jan 2009, Arne H. Wilstrup wrote
>
>> The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to chase
>> racoons, but I have been told that it is also a pejorative for
>> a black person - how do you differ from this?
>>
>> If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I
>> say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
>> offensive to him?
>
> My guess is by calling it a "raccoon dog".
>
"Coonhound" should do it, or if you wan to be quite clear, by the formal
name of the breed you were interested in: a black-and-tan, blue-tick,
redtick, Walker, or Plott hound.
William
> "Django Cat" <notar...@address.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:L9Nel.63$_n5...@newsfe20.ams2...
>
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
> > If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I
> > say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
> > offensive to him?
>
> Arne, what are the chances of that actually happening?
>
> 0 percent! I am just curious! :-)
Of course, but If you lived in Dorset, you might need one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7849012.stm
--
WH
Barbara Bailey
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:56:40 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw>
> wrote:
>
>>The above mentioned seems to be a dog who is trained to chase
>>racoons, but I have been told that it is also a pejorative for
>>a black person - how do you differ from this?
>>
>>If I go into a pet shop and meet a black person, how could I
>>say: "Hello, I would like to have a coon dog" without being
>>offensive to him?
>
> Firstly, it's a wild animal, and nobody has trained the species
> to hunt raccoons. They are called that because they look like
> raccoons.
Bullshit. Coonhounds or coon dogs are dogs which have a temperament that
makes them effective for hunting racoons. They don't look like racoons at
all. You are apparently confused by the fact that a male raccoon is a
"dog". (A female is a "sow".)
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:Xns9B9E17160F145r...@85.214.105.209...
> "Coonhound" should do it, or if you wan to be quite clear,
by the formal
> name of the breed you were interested in: a black-and-tan,
> blue-tick,
> redtick, Walker, or Plott hound.
I think my questions have changed character.
I asked about how you English differ from being a pejorative
and a simple question without being considered a racist.
I must have been being confused when I wrote the lines as it
has ended up with becoming a question of how to get such a
dog.
It was a mere language question I tried to pose, not a
practical instruction of how to get such a dog. :-)
So even if I am grateful to know too that a coon dog or a coon
hound has many names - and it astonished me that it is the
fact so I am now wiser than before - I was only thinking of
how to differ between the pejorative and the dog.
If I have understood you all correctly, the advice I have been
receiving is to avoid this word. I truly understand this, and
I shall certainly do so if I ever get into a situation where I
must buy such a dog, but for now it is only the attempt to
understand how you English native speakers can understand the
difference between the word coon dog and its pejorative
counterpart in a situation where you are to buy such a dog
from a coloured person.
I understand that you will be aware of it pejorative
connotation and change this very word to another more
acceptable word, but if a bloody foreigner as myself comes
into a shop with a negro salesman, how do you think his
reaction will be? To show me the breed, tell me off or what as
he certainly can hear that I am not a native speaker. Or could
you by changing the tone of your voice let him understand that
you are not a racist. In other words is there a certain way to
say it signalling otherwise than you being in an offensive
intention?
This I should very much like to know.
James Hogg
As I pointed out to Tony, my mind set off in a completely
different direction, towards raccoon dogs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_dogs
Sorry for causing confusion
James
James Hogg
"Found only in East Asia"?
My Collins guide to the Mammals of Britain and Europe shows them
all over Russia, Finland, northern Sweden, Eastern Europe and
Germany.
Their origin is not the same as their current distribution. They
have escaped from Russian fur farms.
James
HVS
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:02:01 GMT, HVS
> <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>> (There's also the aspect that the only accent my mind's ear
>> associates with a "coon dog" is the stereotype of a white,
>> rural, southern US drawl.)
>
> Coon hunting is big in Indiana; a state not associated with a
> southern drawl.
I'm sure that's true, but it doesn't change the fact that my
particular mind's ear associates a stereotypical accent with the
term.
I might be alone in that, but I'd be surprised if that's the case.
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
HVS
> news:Xns9B9DEA50...@news.albasani.net...
-snip-
>>
>> It's true that some of the regulars here are easily offended
>> and a bit quick to see ill-intent where it's not meant, but I
>> don't think it's a particular trait of "this group" in general.
>
> Neither do I - it was just a poor attempt to explain why I did
> what I did - I am not keen on annoying people at all as I
> really need the nice English people to tell me of my
> wrongdoings in the English language in the future.
>
> I must admit I was really surprised of the outcome of the
> questions here, though. It was really unintentional.
That became clear quite quickly, though, and I think most of the
regulars here would view the clash as water under the bridge.
As someone mentioned in that thread (Mike Lyle, perhaps?), it's not
always obvious that you're not writing in your native language, so
the default assumption isthat you're aware of the nuances. At base,
the misunderstanding was a compliment of your facility in English,
rather than something to fret about.
If it was me, I'd not dwell on it -- but I'd be resigned to the
misunderstanding happening from time to time.
Don Phillipson
news:497c26de$0$15872$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
> I understand that you will be aware of it pejorative
> connotation and change this very word to another more
> acceptable word, but if a bloody foreigner as myself comes
> into a shop with a negro salesman, how do you think his
> reaction will be? To show me the breed, tell me off or what as
> he certainly can hear that I am not a native speaker. Or could
> you by changing the tone of your voice let him understand that
> you are not a racist. In other words is there a certain way to
> say it signalling otherwise than you being in an offensive
> intention?
As in so many questions about grammar or syntax,
rephrasing may solve the social problem. Coon hounds
are not a particular breed of dog but are dogs (of any breed)
trained to hunt raccoons. (They locate a raccoon, chase
it up a tree, then bark to attract the hunter to shoot the animal.)
In a pet store, instead of asking for a coon hound, the language
permits us to ask for a dog trained to hunt raccoons.
Arne H. Wilstrup
I was aware of the compliment, but as you have probably read,
a dispute between a Swede and I, deals with the fact that I am
far from being perfect - he mentioned that I made many
mistakes in the use of adverbs and adjectives, which he did
not.
He added that my knowledge of English is far from being at his
level, and I must admit that he is right. Not being an
amateur, I do think that I have a lot to learn and despite of
the compliments I am not so self-centred that I don't think -
when I get compliments for my language - that "flattery will
bring you everywhere". :-)
I am most humble to the fact that I really have problems with
adjectives and adverbs and I am doing my very best to avoid
those mistakes. What is more of my concern is the hidden
agendas in the language: Pejoratives, puns, culture,
pronunciation - so my frequently mistakes with some elementary
grammar might give a clear hint that I am definitely not a
native speaker. Therefore it astonished me: The questions were
loaded of mistakes in this aspect and I therefore could not
understand why I was "attacked" in this way.
On the other hand - it gave me another reminder of how
delicate a specific word can be when using it as a foreigner,
and this I can use when I teach children English as a foreign
language: "Beware of swear words and pejoratives" - they sound
"harder" than one should think.
One day I must definitely make a list of pejoratives and their
counterparts - a kind of contrastive "grammar" to words that
are just as offensive in Danish as in English. :-)
I must thank you in your effort to pour oil on troubled
waters, but I am not easily killed :-) - just a litle
astonished, that is all -
No, by the way, I don't like the attitude that I should not be
an applicable teacher because I make mistakes in this group -
this I detest. But correcting my language? You are all very
welcome - I shall do my very best to follow your advice. :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:glhtfc$jto$2...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
I thank you all for your most welcome contributions to the
subject matter! I have become wiser by these contributions
from you all. Thank you again! :-)
tony cooper
>"Barbara Bailey" <rabr...@yahoo.invalid> skrev i meddelelsen
>news:Xns9B9E17160F145r...@85.214.105.209...
> > "Coonhound" should do it, or if you wan to be quite clear,
>by the formal
>> name of the breed you were interested in: a black-and-tan,
>> blue-tick,
>> redtick, Walker, or Plott hound.
>
>
>I think my questions have changed character.
>I asked about how you English differ from being a pejorative
>and a simple question without being considered a racist.
>
>I must have been being confused when I wrote the lines as it
>has ended up with becoming a question of how to get such a
>dog.
>
>It was a mere language question I tried to pose, not a
>practical instruction of how to get such a dog. :-)
>
>So even if I am grateful to know too that a coon dog or a coon
>hound has many names
"Coon dog" or "coon hound" is a breed or group of the hound family.
There are several types of coon dogs, but the group has one name.
>- and it astonished me that it is the
>fact so I am now wiser than before - I was only thinking of
>how to differ between the pejorative and the dog.
>
>If I have understood you all correctly, the advice I have been
>receiving is to avoid this word. I truly understand this, and
>I shall certainly do so if I ever get into a situation where I
>must buy such a dog, but for now it is only the attempt to
>understand how you English native speakers can understand the
>difference between the word coon dog and its pejorative
>counterpart in a situation where you are to buy such a dog
>from a coloured person.
No, you do not understand. The term "coon dog" or "coonhound" would
not be a pejorative term in asking about a dog when the other person
is at all familiar with types of dogs. A pet store employee would be.
You could talk about coon hunting or anything about coons.
>
>I understand that you will be aware of it pejorative
>connotation and change this very word to another more
>acceptable word,
There really isn't a more acceptable word. "Coon" is short for
"raccoon", but it would be completely unidiomatic to ask about a
raccoon hunting dog.
The problem in your question is that you are using asking for a dog in
a store or place where people know what you mean, and worrying about
the term "coon" used in other places and in other contexts. If you
mix them, you'll never understand.
tony cooper
wrote:
Yes, that might your stereotype. Isn't one of the things we do here
in aue is bust stereotypes?
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:8muon4tenem3vqig2...@4ax.com...
HVS
> On the other hand - it gave me another reminder of how
> delicate a specific word can be when using it as a foreigner,
> and this I can use when I teach children English as a foreign
> language: "Beware of swear words and pejoratives" - they sound
> "harder" than one should think.
This is very true, and even applies between various types of English.
In the circles I grew up in in Canada, for example, the BrE "bloody"
was seen as quaintly exotic -- comic, almost -- and only lightly
offensive. Somewhere above "darn", but below "god-damned".
But it used to be quite offensive in England, and -- in spite of the
fact that expletives up to and including "fuck" can be heard every
day in England -- I'd say that it's still not a word I'd use in front
of my friends' elderly parents.
tony cooper
You will probably never be faced with shopping for a dog that is bred
and trained to hunt raccoons, but you are using words that are
borderline offensive in everyday speech.
>
>situation where you are to buy such a dog from a coloured person.
The term "coloured person" (or "colored person")is not acceptable in
AmE.
>into a shop with a negro salesman,
The term "negro" is not acceptable in AmE.
While the terms "coloured person" and "negro" are not blatantly
pejorative, using them indicates a lack of progressiveness in
terminology. An African-American hearing you use these terms would
think that your views would be as out-moded as your terminology.
When writing for US readership, "African-American" or "black" are the
currently acceptable terms. "Black" or "blacks" can be used, but it
should be used with some care.
Obviously, "African-American" does not work when writing for BrE
viewers. I'll let a BrE contributor fill you in on what is currently
acceptable there.
>if a bloody foreigner as myself comes
This usage indicates - to me - that you have been insulted and are
sarcastically reacting to this. I'll let a BrE speaker comment on
this regarding their view.
Arne H. Wilstrup
It is very true that the word "bloody" is offensive in
England, but I have had a discussion in this group about the
word "foreigners". Even I have heard and seen a lot of films -
documentary as well as feature film - the 'stubborn'
Englishmen will not agree in the fact that the word
"foreigner" has a pejorative connotation ;-)
I have got a book called "Bloody Foreigners - the story of
immigration to Britain" by Robert Winder and the critics in
The Educational Supplement says about it: "Ultimately, this is
not the story of immigration to Britain; it is the story of
Britain itself".
"Winder documents each wave of immigration with clearity and
humour. Immigration, he argues, is the sincerest form of
flattery... Few put the case for immigration as
persuasively... He demonstrates that without it Britain would
be much impoverished and much less interesting" Scotish Sunday
Herald.
And Sunday Times writes, "Our aristocracy was created by a
Frenchman, William the Conqueror, who also created our
medieval architecture, our greatest artistic glory. Our royal
family is German, our language a bizarre confection of Latin,
Sacon and, latterly, Indian and American. Our shops and banks
were created by Jews. We did not stand alone against Hitler;
the empire stood beside us. And our food is, of course,
anything but British... Winder has a thousand stories to tell,
and he tells them well. Topical, formidable and engaging... a
tremendous read."
So why on Earth do the English care so much about what is
offensive and what is not? ;-)
(I know that the language has developed, but I find it very
interesting to observe that there are so many words which are
considered not only offensive, but strongly offensive, even if
their language is derived from the Saxons (and Danes) and
Germans etc. and our Danish words, which are similar to the
English counterparts, do not seem to have the same effect.)
Moreover it is strange that even if the English language have
so many words and varieties of words, need to provide their
words with so many underlying standards and hidden agendas
which makes it almost impossible for a foreigner to say some
words without being offensive in one or another way.
On the other hand: This is the thrill by learning English and
very attractive to my way of thinking: The rich culture
derived from so many contributors to the UK- foundation, is
very - no, i rephrase, is extremely interesting.
The "stiff upperlip"-the "1066 and all that" - the "not out of
the top drawer" and puns as in Shakespeare's play "Julius
Ceasar" with the word "sole", the James Bond character and the
slight rise of the tone in "really" denoting that the person
doesn't agree at all, but is sarkastic in a way that it makes
no doubt of the meaning - that is a thing I am really fond of.
;-) and this is why I am studying English language and
culture - in spite of all persons who might be a tiny bit
offended by the words we "bloody foreigners" can express in
our ignorance of the depth of the meaning of the words similar
to our own language's less offensive character.
No language I know of has so many qualities where just a tone,
a mere exchange of a word put into the right position, can
mean a whole world.
The charming Scottish and Irish accents, the London
posh-spoken accents or the estuary way of speaking English not
to forget.
The Vikings once conquerred England - we can do it again, so
beware : Here we come! ;-)))
John Kane
> When we bloody foreigners learn your interesting language, we
> rarely are taught anything about pejoratives or what words
> that seem to be offensive.
> The only way we can get a knowledge of this is to ask native
> speakers. And of course we would very much like to escape from
> being killed for it. :-)
Good point. I expect it is the same in all languages but long ago I
remember encountering this at work. A Danish-Canadian co-worker mixed
up the expletive "Fuck" with the rude insult "Fuck you".
Given 4-5 years in the British Army in WWII one would have thought
that he would have learned better.
John Kane Kingston ON Canada
John Kane
> On 25 Jan 2009, Arne H. Wilstrup wrote
>
> > On the other hand - it gave me another reminder of how
> > delicate a specific word can be when using it as a foreigner,
> > and this I can use when I teach children English as a foreign
> > language: "Beware of swear words and pejoratives" - they sound
> > "harder" than one should think.
>
> This is very true, and even applies between various types of English.
>
> In the circles I grew up in in Canada, for example, the BrE "bloody"
> was seen as quaintly exotic -- comic, almost -- and only lightly
> offensive. Somewhere above "darn", but below "god-damned".
Still is as far as I can see
>
> But it used to be quite offensive in England, and -- in spite of the
> fact that expletives up to and including "fuck" can be heard every
> day in England -- I'd say that it's still not a word I'd use in front
> of my friends' elderly parents.
Exactly although 'fuck' seems to be becoming a very common work among
the youth of today. At least, I often hear it when walking through
the university quarter though it may be the parties and alchohol that
makes it so common.
John Kane Kingston ON Canad
John Kane
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
> > > Go on. Ask for a 'black coon dog'. You KNOW you want to!
>
> > Not at all - I am just asking due to the fact that it seems to be easy to offend people here even when one have the most honourable intentions :-)
>
> > The only way we can get a knowledge of this is to ask native speakers.
>
I've never seen it but does it deal with the various countries profane
dialects?
Havey's comments about 'bloody' vs 'fuck' seem appropriate here.
I remember having a copy of Merde, lovely book about how to be rude in
French and having a Québec colleague tell me that most of the book's
expressions really didn't have much meaning in Canada.
Wood Avens
>The "stiff upperlip"-the "1066 and all that" - the "not out of
>the top drawer" and puns as in Shakespeare's play "Julius
>Ceasar" with the word "sole", the James Bond character and the
>slight rise of the tone in "really" denoting that the person
>doesn't agree at all, but is sarkastic in a way that it makes
>no doubt of the meaning - that is a thing I am really fond of.
>;-) and this is why I am studying English language and
>culture - in spite of all persons who might be a tiny bit
>offended by the words we "bloody foreigners" can express in
>our ignorance of the depth of the meaning of the words similar
>to our own language's less offensive character.
I think you need to be aware that most of these things are now
outdated or old-fashioned. Many Brits of a certain age would
recognise them, but you'd find people under about 40 were baffled.
You might be perfectly at home in the setting of the classic 1930s
detective story, but if you want a feel for British English as spoken
in 2009, you should also try something more recent.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
John Kane
Some people will keep anything as a pet! Around here they're
generally considered pests.
tony cooper
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>"Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote in message
>news:497c26de$0$15872$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk...
>
>> I understand that you will be aware of it pejorative
>> connotation and change this very word to another more
>> acceptable word, but if a bloody foreigner as myself comes
>> into a shop with a negro salesman, how do you think his
>> reaction will be? To show me the breed, tell me off or what as
>> he certainly can hear that I am not a native speaker. Or could
>> you by changing the tone of your voice let him understand that
>> you are not a racist. In other words is there a certain way to
>> say it signalling otherwise than you being in an offensive
>> intention?
>
>As in so many questions about grammar or syntax,
>rephrasing may solve the social problem. Coon hounds
>are not a particular breed of dog but are dogs (of any breed)
>trained to hunt raccoons.
That simply isn't so. The term "coonhound" refers to a specific breed
or group of dogs. If you train a Border Collie to tree coons, you
don't have coon dog. You have a Border Collie that has been trained
to hunt coons.
>(They locate a raccoon, chase
>it up a tree, then bark to attract the hunter to shoot the animal.)
Coon hunters do not shoot coons. If they carry a weapon at all on a
hunt, it's because they feel they might encounter some other animal.
When the dog trees a coon, the hunters go to the tree and shake down
the coon, or - if the tree is too solid to shake - they merely send
the dogs on to hunt another coon.
When the coon is shaken down, the dogs will attempt to fight and kill
the coon. Most of the time, the hunters stop the dogs from doing so.
The hunters have to let the dogs kill once in a while or the dogs will
lose interest in the hunt.
Most coon hunters are very reluctant to let the dog fight the coon. A
boar coon will usually best even a pack of dogs. They roll over on
their back and claw the dog's bellies. Coons don't fight by biting.
The worst scenario for a coon hunter is when the coon can drag the dog
into water. The coon will drag the dog down and claw him to death.
Coon hunters do not follow the dogs. They wait somewhere and listen
to the dogs. When they hear the dogs have treed a coon, they go to
the place where the coon is treed. Coon hunters can recognize the
sounds the dogs make when on the trail and the sound they make when
the coon is treed.
Coon are not hunted for meat or pelt. Like fox hunting, it's a social
event. Like the fox, the coon is shot only when the coon becomes a
pest around a house or farm. That's not coon hunting. That's
"varmit" control.
I am amazed at this posting of yours. Of all regular posters in aue,
you are usually the most accurate in anything you bring up. Two major
errors in one post must a record for you.
>In a pet store, instead of asking for a coon hound, the language
>permits us to ask for a dog trained to hunt raccoons.
No, ask for a coon dog. Better is to ask for a Redbone or a Walker or
some other specific breed.
Arne H. Wilstrup
I have not been insulted - I have in another posting talked
about "Bloody Foreigners" which I have from a book with the
exact same title.
I find it amusing, so I use it frequently - you may think that
I am sarcastically reacting to this, but I consider it just as
a humouristic approach followed with at smile -
Perhaps I am a little tired of the policitcal correctness the
USA seem to use: Afro American in stead of negro (it is not
always that the negroes come from Africa, and a negro is not
black, but brown - moreover, black seems very offensive in my
way of thinking: blakmail, black out, black melancholy, black
look, black country etc.)
These words seem more offensive to me than using the latin
word "negro". I acknowledge that it is considered offensive to
say anything that reminds us of the slavery which is a /black/
chapter i the US history and you can be assured that I should
never delibrately use it in USA if I once am to travel to this
country (it could be very exiting to see it, though).
But the American influence and especially the moral (we are
talking about culture here), seems to cover Europe as well,
which I am not wholeheartedly in favour of. That is not the
same as saying that the American people are idiots, but I
should like a more easy going attitude from some Americans.
The Americans I have met throughout my life have been nice
persons, though, with one or two vexatious person. So I have
the best reminders of Americans, Canadians, Austtralians,
Scots, Irish and Welsh people. Make no mistake here.
pritsy
(> But correcting my language? You are all very
> welcome - I shall do my very best to follow your advice. )
Well here goes...
> I was aware of the compliment, but as you have probably read,
> a dispute between a Swede and I, deals with the fact that I am
> far from being perfect - he mentioned that I made many
> mistakes in the use of adverbs and adjectives, which he did
> not.
Not "between a Swede and I", but "between a Swede and me"
(with no comma afterward.
>
> He added that my knowledge of English is far from being at his
> level, and I must admit that he is right. Not being an
> amateur, I do think that I have a lot to learn and despite of
> the compliments I am not so self-centred that I don't think -
> when I get compliments for my language - that "flattery will
> bring you everywhere". :-)
Not "despite of the compliments", but "despite the compliments"
>
> I am most humble to the fact that I really have problems with
> adjectives and adverbs and I am doing my very best to avoid
> those mistakes. What is more of my concern is the hidden
> agendas in the language: Pejoratives, puns, culture,
> pronunciation - so my frequently mistakes with some elementary
> grammar might give a clear hint that I am definitely not a
> native speaker. Therefore it astonished me: The questions were
> loaded of mistakes in this aspect and I therefore could not
> understand why I was "attacked" in this way.
>
Not "I am most humble to the fact" but "I am humbled by the fact".
(It is a rather old-fashioned expression.)
> One day I must definitely make a list of pejoratives and their
> counterparts - a kind of contrastive "grammar" to words that
> are just as offensive in Danish as in English. :-)
>
You will be the children's favorite teacher! A handout listing ALL the
dirty words and insults in English! Your classes will be overflowing!
(Note: Colloquial, informal English. sentence fragments).
> No, by the way, I don't like the attitude that I should not be
> an applicable teacher because I make mistakes in this group -
> this I detest. But correcting my language? You are all very
> welcome - I shall do my very best to follow your advice. :-)
As long as you restrict your classes to beginners, you tell your students
that your English is not perfect, and make sure that your students are
exposed to plenty of native or near-native English speakers, there should
be no problem.
Wood Avens
>These words seem more offensive to me than using the latin
>word "negro". I acknowledge that it is considered offensive to
>say anything that reminds us of the slavery which is a /black/
>chapter i the US history and you can be assured that I should
>never delibrately use it in USA if I once am to travel to this
>country (it could be very exiting to see it, though).
Look up the difference betwen "exiting" and "exciting", Arne. You
wouldn't want your accidental prophecy to come true.
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:gli32i$t4e$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>> "HVS" <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:Xns9B9E9091...@news.albasani.net...
>
> (> But correcting my language? You are all very
>> welcome - I shall do my very best to follow your advice. )
> Well here goes...
>
>> I was aware of the compliment, but as you have probably
>> read,
>> a dispute between a Swede and I, deals with the fact that I
>> am
>> far from being perfect - he mentioned that I made many
>> mistakes in the use of adverbs and adjectives, which he did
>> not.
>
> Not "between a Swede and I", but "between a Swede and me"
> (with no comma afterward.
thank you for the comma correction, but why not a Swede and I?
I recall a title The King and I so why not A Swede and I? :-)
>
>>
>> He added that my knowledge of English is far from being at
>> his
>> level, and I must admit that he is right. Not being an
>> amateur, I do think that I have a lot to learn and despite
>> of
>> the compliments I am not so self-centred that I don't
>> think -
>> when I get compliments for my language - that "flattery
>> will
>> bring you everywhere". :-)
>
> Not "despite of the compliments", but "despite the
> compliments"
oh, yes - it is probably because of the word "compliments" -
thank you.
>>
>> I am most humble to the fact that I really have problems
>> with
>> adjectives and adverbs and I am doing my very best to avoid
>> those mistakes. What is more of my concern is the hidden
>> agendas in the language: Pejoratives, puns, culture,
>> pronunciation - so my frequently mistakes with some
>> elementary
>> grammar might give a clear hint that I am definitely not a
>> native speaker. Therefore it astonished me: The questions
>> were
>> loaded of mistakes in this aspect and I therefore could not
>> understand why I was "attacked" in this way.
>>
> Not "I am most humble to the fact" but "I am humbled by the
> fact".
> (It is a rather old-fashioned expression.)
Yes - I am old fashioned in this world :-) - by the fact
instead of to the fact - all right. I'll remember 'by the
fact'.
>
>> One day I must definitely make a list of pejoratives and
>> their
>> counterparts - a kind of contrastive "grammar" to words
>> that
>> are just as offensive in Danish as in English. :-)
>>
>
> You will be the children's favorite teacher! A handout
> listing ALL the dirty words and insults in English! Your
> classes will be overflowing! (Note: Colloquial, informal
> English. sentence fragments).
:-)
- It may not be so good idea after all the way you put it :-/
>
>> No, by the way, I don't like the attitude that I should not
>> be
>> an applicable teacher because I make mistakes in this
>> group -
>> this I detest. But correcting my language? You are all very
>> welcome - I shall do my very best to follow your advice.
>> :-)
>
> As long as you restrict your classes to beginners, you tell
> your students that your English is not perfect, and make
> sure that your students are exposed to plenty of native or
> near-native English speakers, there should be no problem.
Well, I don't teach "beginners", but who are the beginners?
The children of 10 or the children of 15?
I mostly teach children of 13-15 English - so they are not
beginners, but not advanced either :-)
The standard in English is not very advanced in those classes.
I am sure that I can manage to teach children a bit older than
this, but I stick to the teenagers mentioned above.
The children could do worse. I have colleagues with an English
pronunciation and with a very modest understanding of the
language than I, and they teach English - we are not used to
have native speakers in our comprehensive schools.
Trust me - the children are better off with me as an English
teacher than many - but of course, there are some teachers who
are even better - you must understand that with only three
lessons a week there is a limit for how much you can teach
them - and they also have other subjects to deal with.
I am, however, very satisfied that the younger generation
seems to be even better than the people from my generation.
Our generation had to read and translate in our classes, which
is not a good way of learning a foreing language. But this was
the notion at that time. Now and again the teacher brought a
taperecorder in order to let us hear English pronunciation,
but the most of the time we were to be satisfied with the
teacher's more or less well imitation of the English tone.
Film were not many at that time, and Television were still
very expensive. Fortunately the younger generation have
opportunities which we did not have.
Ian Jackson
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:46:16 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw> wrote:
>
>
>You will probably never be faced with shopping for a dog that is bred
>and trained to hunt raccoons, but you are using words that are
>borderline offensive in everyday speech.
>>
>>situation where you are to buy such a dog from a coloured person.
>
>The term "coloured person" (or "colored person")is not acceptable in
>AmE.
>
<http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ88oTITMoM>
<http://www.myths.com/pub/lyrics/loureed_x.html#wildside>
>>into a shop with a negro salesman,
>
>The term "negro" is not acceptable in AmE.
>
"Negro" has the advantage of uniquely identifying a fairly well-defined
race of people. An "African-American" could be quite a range of people.
Unfortunately, "African-American" seems to have been hijacked to mean
specifically a descendant of those who were brought over to the USA to
be slaves. I recently heard it being argued that Barack Obama did not
qualify to be called an "African-American", as none of his ancestors had
been slaves.
>While the terms "coloured person" and "negro" are not blatantly
>pejorative, using them indicates a lack of progressiveness in
>terminology. An African-American hearing you use these terms would
>think that your views would be as out-moded as your terminology.
>
The problem is that "African-American" does sound as if you are trying
desperately simply to be politically correct.
>When writing for US readership, "African-American" or "black" are the
>currently acceptable terms. "Black" or "blacks" can be used, but it
>should be used with some care.
>
In Britain, we have had our share of the PC brigade trying to expunge
the word "black" from the English language, even when its use has
absolutely nothing to do with race. It defies reason. One can only guess
at what their motives are.
>Obviously, "African-American" does not work when writing for BrE
>viewers. I'll let a BrE contributor fill you in on what is currently
>acceptable there.
>
Indeed. Essentially, "negro" is purely a factual description - just like
Celtic, Oriental, Viking, Arab etc. Usually, nothing else is intended.
>>if a bloody foreigner as myself comes
>
>This usage indicates - to me - that you have been insulted and are
>sarcastically reacting to this. I'll let a BrE speaker comment on
>this regarding their view.
>
Unfortunately, 'feeling insulted and oppressed' has become a growth
industry (and may even flourish more because of the depression). OK, I
appreciate that it's easy for me to say that, being of good British
White Anglo-Saxon Protestant stock, and whose race has more often been
the oppressor than the oppressed. However, we aren't going to change
history by changing the 'meaning' of some words. I do wish people would
accept that this is all they are - just words - and stop looking for
offence where absolutely none is intended.
--
Ian
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:vu4pn4di6s0d3373m...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:11:58 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw>
> wrote:
>
>>These words seem more offensive to me than using the latin
>>word "negro". I acknowledge that it is considered offensive
>>to
>>say anything that reminds us of the slavery which is a
>>/black/
>>chapter i the US history and you can be assured that I
>>should
>>never delibrately use it in USA if I once am to travel to
>>this
>>country (it could be very exiting to see it, though).
>
> Look up the difference betwen "exiting" and "exciting",
> Arne. You
> wouldn't want your accidental prophecy to come true.
OOPS! I am still alive :-)
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> Not "between a Swede and I", but "between a Swede and me"
> (with no comma afterward.
<Tevye> Tradition! Tradition! </Tevye>
[ ... ]
> Not "despite of the compliments", but "despite the compliments"
Or, because English is so perverse, "in spite of the compliments" but
not "in spite the compliments."
[ ... ]
No wonder even native speakers err so often (for various values of
"err").
--
Bob Lieblich
Erring as the next person
Lars Enderin
> "pritsy" <pri...@invalid.gmx.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:gli32i$t4e$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>> Not "between a Swede and I", but "between a Swede and me"
>> (with no comma afterward.
>
> thank you for the comma correction, but why not a Swede and I?
> I recall a title The King and I so why not A Swede and I? :-)
Because of grammar. You need the objective form after "between".
>> Not "despite of the compliments", but "despite the
>> compliments"
>
> oh, yes - it is probably because of the word "compliments" -
> thank you.
Or "in spite of ...".
>>> pronunciation - so my frequently mistakes with some
frequent mistakes
>>> loaded of mistakes in this aspect and I therefore could not
>>> understand why I was "attacked" in this way.
loaded with (or full of)
> The children could do worse. I have colleagues with an English
> pronunciation and with a very modest understanding of the
> language than I, and they teach English - we are not used to
modest understanding of the language compared to mine
(if you want to keep the word "modest")
> lessons a week there is a limit for how much you can teach
a limit to how much
> the notion at that time. Now and again the teacher brought a
> taperecorder in order to let us hear English pronunciation,
tape recorder
> but the most of the time we were to be satisfied with the
but most of the time
> teacher's more or less well imitation of the English tone.
more or less good (adverbs and adjectives again)
> Film were not many at that time, and Television were still
We did not have many (English language) films ... television was
> very expensive. Fortunately the younger generation have
> opportunities which we did not have.
Your experience matches mine. I had even less access to spoken English,
being older than you and living in the country, not a city.
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:uxU4v916...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
I couldn't agree more! Hooray for the British! :-)
Robert Lieblich
"Arne H. Wilstrup" wrote:
>
> "pritsy"
[ ... ]
> >
> > Not "between a Swede and I", but "between a Swede and me"
> > (with no comma afterward.
>
> thank you for the comma correction, but why not a Swede and I?
> I recall a title The King and I so why not A Swede and I? :-)
Good question. The answer has to do with "case." Even in English,
there are a few vestigial case forms for pronouns. The subjective, or
nominative (he, she, I, we, etc.), is supposed to be used for the
subject of a sentence and for predicate nominatives (aka subjective
complements). The objective, or accusative (him, her, me, us, etc.),
is supposed to be used for direct and indirect objects and for objects
of prepositions. "Between" is a preposition, so a pronoun following
it is ordinarily the object and is supposed to be in the objective
case.
Confusion arises because locutions that violate those rules are
frequently heard in English at all levels of formality. From such
simple sentences as "It's me" (which the rule says should be "It's
I"), to more complex ones such as "I gave the prize to he who won the
contest" (which the rule says should be "to him who won"), you'll find
that "violations" of these rules are commonplace in both speech and
writing -- to the point where it's questionable whether the violations
are really violations and whether the "rules" are really rules at
all. (Which is why I used "supposed" so often in the preceding
paragraph.) You'll also find a wide range of tolerance for these --
let's call them -- variant usages. Some people delight in them. To
others they are the spawn of Satan.
Okay, what about "between you and I"? The "rules" say it should be
"between you and me," and you'll often see someone commenting that you
wouldn't use "I" in isolation. (There's no good example with
"between," but consider "for you and I" and "for I.") If you're in
the mood to be persuaded, you'll be persuaded.
The point -- if I may finally get to it -- is that the choice between
"you and I" and "you and me" ("you" being both subjective and
objective) depends both on context and on the speaker's ear for the
language. Under the rules, you see whether context makes the phrase
subjective or objective, then use the appropriate form:
You and I were both late to work today.
The two highest scorers are you and I.
The boss chose you and me for the job.
This present is for you and me.
This secret is between you and me.
("The King and I" as the title of a musical is context-less and could
easily have been "The King and Me." Indeed, not long after bringing
"The King and I" to the stage, Rodgers and Hammerstein gave us "Me and
Juliet" (not one of their big hits). That's a special situation and
really proves little if anything.)
Anyway, the inability of so many native English speakers to make these
choices with consistent accuracy can be taken as evidence either of
ignorance or of a natural shift in usage -- or perhaps of both.
Certainly, there is no reason for a non-native speaker still working
toward complete fluency to be sensitive to the traditional grammar and
able to use it in contexts where even many native speakers go astray.
So, yes, pritsy's recommended change is an improvement. But "between
you and I" is, in my opinion, a very minor offense. And you're
certainly entitled to be puzzled about the usage. Many native
speakers are.
--
Bob Lieblich
Whew!
CDB
[hey now, (e)rastus means "beloved", OK?]
>> The term "coloured person" (or "colored person")is not acceptable
>> in AmE.
> Listen to Lou Reed's "Walk on the Wild Side".
> <http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ88oTITMoM>
> <http://www.myths.com/pub/lyrics/loureed_x.html#wildside>
That use was ironic, as to both "colored" and "girls". That whole
song was deeply ironic. Doot doodoot doodoot.
>> The term "negro" is not acceptable in AmE.
> [in praise of "Negro"] I recently heard it being
> argued that Barack Obama did not qualify to be called an
> "African-American", as none of his ancestors had been slaves.
Back when Biden was being pilloried for calling Obama "clean", I
wondered if he might have been thinking, not of "cleancut" but,
politically, that Obama was free of the vendetta relationship, and
therefore more electable than other American blacks. If that was
true, he would not have been able to say so afterwards.
[differently pressed of the earth]
tony cooper
You are approaching this from a logical standpoint, and I do tend to
agree. However, I'm offering advice to a non-native AmE speaker who
seems interested in avoiding English words and terms that might be
considered offensive. My assumption is that the concern extends to
usage beyond alt.usage.english.
Whatever the opinion on the political correctness issue, his use of
"negro" or "colored" would not be found to be acceptable to most
Americans he's likely to come in contact with. Some might take
offense.
The advice is intended to be practical. If he meets an
African-American tourist in Denmark, it's best to avoid using "negro"
or "colored" to that person. Even if that person is not of African
descent, "African-American" is the safe choice.
>>When writing for US readership, "African-American" or "black" are the
>>currently acceptable terms. "Black" or "blacks" can be used, but it
>>should be used with some care.
>>
>In Britain, we have had our share of the PC brigade trying to expunge
>the word "black" from the English language, even when its use has
>absolutely nothing to do with race. It defies reason. One can only guess
>at what their motives are.
In alt.usage.english, we can debate this point. In a real-life
setting where we speak to another person we have to deal with whatever
that person's perception is of the use of "black" or "negro" or
"colored". Since we don't know it in many cases, the practical route
is to be careful.
>>Obviously, "African-American" does not work when writing for BrE
>>viewers. I'll let a BrE contributor fill you in on what is currently
>>acceptable there.
>>
>Indeed. Essentially, "negro" is purely a factual description - just like
>Celtic, Oriental, Viking, Arab etc. Usually, nothing else is intended.
Yeah, OK, but that's here in alt.usage.english. That's not
necessarily something you want to espouse with a stranger. I wouldn't
use "negro" in a face-to-face conversation with a stranger because I'm
prepared to defend it as a factual description. I'm not interested in
using terminology that I can logically defend. Not in a casual
setting.
>I do wish people would
>accept that this is all they are - just words - and stop looking for
>offence where absolutely none is intended.
What are you going to do, though? Many people don't accept it that
way. You want to be right and be a social pariah?
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:497C9D00...@telia.com...
>>
>> thank you for the comma correction, but why not a Swede and
>> I? I recall a title The King and I so why not A Swede and
>> I? :-)
>
> Because of grammar. You need the objective form after
> "between".
That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
Between does not need any objective form, but "between you and
me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I" is a
hypercorrect form.
You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial English
prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of English.
>
>>> Not "despite of the compliments", but "despite the
>>> compliments"
>>
>> oh, yes - it is probably because of the word
>> "compliments" - thank you.
>
> Or "in spite of ...".
Or 'in despite on'
>
>>>> pronunciation - so my frequently mistakes with some
>
> frequent mistakes
yes!
>
>>>> loaded of mistakes in this aspect and I therefore could
>>>> not
>>>> understand why I was "attacked" in this way.
>
> loaded with (or full ofrf)
nope -you can say "a load of responsibility" or "loads
of..."...a load of sheep on their way across Europe" (here the
prefix can be e.g. plane - or -lorry-)
>
>> The children could do worse. I have colleagues with an
>> English pronunciation and with a very modest understanding
>> of the language than I, and they teach English - we are not
>> used to
>
> modest understanding of the language compared to mine
> (if you want to keep the word "modest")
Why? I am not so sure about this.
>
>> lessons a week there is a limit for how much you can teach
>
> a limit to how much
or "a limit of how much"
>
>> the notion at that time. Now and again the teacher brought
>> a taperecorder in order to let us hear English
>> pronunciation,
>
> tape recorder
usually with a space, yes.
>
>> but the most of the time we were to be satisfied with the
>
> but most of the time
yes!
>
>> teacher's more or less wewell imitation of the English
>> tone.
>
> more or less good (adverbs and adjectives again)
Well is both a noun, an adjective and a adverb.
>
>> Film were not many at that time, and Television were still
>
> We did not have many (English language) films ... television
> was
Films were not many at the time - apart from the missing
plural -s - I cannot understand why you think that you cannot
say what I say. Television with small letters? All right.
>
>> very expensive. Fortunately the younger generation have
>> opportunities which we did not have.
>
> Your experience matches mine. I had even less access to
> spoken English, being older than you and living in the
> country, not a city.
I too lived in a country - with less educated school teachers
in English. ;-) - is this a competition?
tony cooper
>Perhaps I am a little tired of the policitcal correctness the
>USA seem to use: Afro American in stead of negro (it is not
>always that the negroes come from Africa, and a negro is not
>black, but brown - moreover, black seems very offensive in my
>way of thinking: blakmail, black out, black melancholy, black
>look, black country etc.)
Let me get this straight. You are concerned about what you should say
to a pet shop owner who is black when you are looking to purchase a
dog that is trained to hunt an animal that is not indigenous to your
country*, but you are not concerned about what you should say to a
person who are very likely to meet this very day.
You are not willing to accept that "coon dog" or "coonhound" does not
have the pejorative attachment that "coon" alone has when referring to
a human, but you are willing to argue that "black" is a misuse but a
perfectly acceptable misuse when applied to a person if it used
instead of a politically correct term because you find the political
correct to be tiresome.
Do I have it right?
*I checked to make sure that the raccoon is not indigenous to Denmark
and found that there are Vaskebjørnens (raccoons) there, but they were
supposedly introduced to Denmark by Baron Sittich Von Berlerpsch at
the urging of Hermann Goering. Fascinating back-story about "Nazi
raccoons"!
Lars Enderin
> "Lars Enderin" <lars.e...@telia.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:497C9D00...@telia.com...
> >>
>>> thank you for the comma correction, but why not a Swede and
>>> I? I recall a title The King and I so why not A Swede and
>>> I? :-)
>> Because of grammar. You need the objective form after
>> "between".
>
> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you and
> me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I" is a
> hypercorrect form.
>
I was afraid you would bring this up, but see Bob Lieblich's reply.
> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial English
> prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of English.
Old hat.
>>>> Not "despite of the compliments", but "despite the
>>>> compliments"
>>> oh, yes - it is probably because of the word
>>> "compliments" - thank you.
>> Or "in spite of ...".
>
> Or 'in despite on'
I don't think so.
>>>>> loaded of mistakes in this aspect and I therefore could
>>>>> not
>>>>> understand why I was "attacked" in this way.
>> loaded with (or full ofrf)
I didn't write ofrf!
> nope -you can say "a load of responsibility" or "loads
> of..."...a load of sheep on their way across Europe" (here the
> prefix can be e.g. plane - or -lorry-)
That's not the same thing. You used the verb "loaded", not the noun "load".
>>> The children could do worse. I have colleagues with an
>>> English pronunciation and with a very modest understanding
>>> of the language than I, and they teach English - we are not
>>> used to
>> modest understanding of the language compared to mine
>> (if you want to keep the word "modest")
>
> Why? I am not so sure about this.
I can't find a proper precedent to "than I", unless you change "very" to
"more", for example.
>>> lessons a week there is a limit for how much you can teach
>> a limit to how much
>
> or "a limit of how much"
Doubtful.
>>> teacher's more or less wewell imitation of the English
What happened to "well"?
>>> tone.
>> more or less good (adverbs and adjectives again)
>
> Well is both a noun, an adjective and a adverb.
Well -- but not so good as an adjective here.
>>> Film were not many at that time, and Television were still
>> We did not have many (English language) films ... television
>> was
>
> Films were not many at the time - apart from the missing
> plural -s - I cannot understand why you think that you cannot
> say what I say. Television with small letters? All right.
It does not sound good, is all. I would at least replace "many" by
"numerous", but it is still awkward.
> I too lived in a country - with less educated school teachers
in the country (you lived in a country, but that was Denmark, not a
rural part of Denmark)
Django Cat
> On Jan 24, 6:04 pm, "Django Cat" <notar...@address.com> wrote:
> > Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
> > > > Go on. Ask for a 'black coon dog'. You KNOW you want to!
> >
> > > Not at all - I am just asking due to the fact that it seems to be easy to offend people here even when one have the most honourable intentions :-)
> >
> > > When we bloody foreigners learn your interesting language, we rarely are taught anything about pejoratives or what words that seem to be offensive.
> > > The only way we can get a knowledge of this is to ask native speakers.
> >
> > Michael Swan, Basic English Usage, look up the section on 'taboo language'. It's the Dog's Bollocks.
>
> I've never seen it but does it deal with the various countries profane
> dialects?
>
No. Swan makes two basic points:
1 - Using taboo language is to claim membership of the group who use it. If you aren't a member of that group (by, for instance, not speaking the language of the country where it is based) you risk seriously hacking people who are off.
2 - It's impossible for outsiders to know the relative strength of various swear words and how offensive they may be.
> Havey's comments about 'bloody' vs 'fuck' seem appropriate here.
Please tell us more.
>
> I remember having a copy of Merde,
'Merde' is an example of Swan's point 2. While 'merde' and 'shit' may essentially refer to the same thing, shit' is a far stronger word than 'merde' - which would probably best be translated as something like 'poo' - a child's word. I've had various French-speaking students who always make this mistake - using 'shit' inappropriately when what they want is something as mild as 'bother'... Germans and Scandanavians meanwhile will tell you they "had a fucking nice night out in the pub last night", but I think this is probably because they think this is a hip way to speak; in fact it rubs up against Swan point 1.
DC
--
Skitt
> "Lars Enderin" skrev:
>>> thank you for the comma correction, but why not a Swede and
>>> I? I recall a title The King and I so why not A Swede and
>>> I? :-)
>>
>> Because of grammar. You need the objective form after
>> "between".
>
> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you and
> me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I" is a
> hypercorrect form.
Did you check what "hypercorrect" means?
I will readily concede that "between you and I" is commonly heard these
days, but it really grates on those who still remember what is the proper
grammatical expression. It is something that marks the speaker as someone
who wishes to be seen as speaking educated English, but has no idea how to
do that.
> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial English
> prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of English.
Right. Well, that's life.
--
Skitt (AmE)
No NESsie, but oh, so close ...
Arne H. Wilstrup
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:11:58 +0100, "Arne H. Wilstrup" <ahw>
> wrote:
>
> You are not willing to accept that "coon dog" or "coonhound"
> does not
> have the pejorative attachment that "coon" alone has when
> referring to
> a human, but you are willing to argue that "black" is a
> misuse but a
> perfectly acceptable misuse when applied to a person if it
> used
> instead of a politically correct term because you find the
> political
> correct to be tiresome.
>
> Do I have it right?
You are not . I am not concerned what I might say, I am
/ASKING/ what words you would use if you were not a native
speaker.
I am tired of PC, but that doesn't implies that I would have a
rude behaviour IF I got into this situation. When in Rome do
as the Romans do.
>
> *I checked to make sure that the raccoon is not indigenous
> to Denmark
> and found that there are Vaskebjørnens (raccoons) there, but
> they were
> supposedly introduced to Denmark by Baron Sittich Von
> Berlerpsch at
> the urging of Hermann Goering. Fascinating back-story about
> "Nazi
> raccoons"!
>
We don't have racoons in Denmark - at least I haven't heard of
such animals here. We have got beavers, which some imported
some years ago. Racoons might be seen at the zoo - I am not
sure.
The story of racoons (=vaskebjørne) deriving from Hitlers
friends? Never heard of this, but they do like robbers so why
not? Racoons are depicted in stories of Uncle Scrooge as his
enemies, aren't they. I mean the -usually - three robbers with
numbers on their sweaters?
Arne H. Wilstrup
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>>
>> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
>> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
>> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you
>> and me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I"
>> is a hypercorrect form.
>>
>
> I was afraid you would bring this up, but see Bob Lieblich's
> reply.
I have seen it - but as I said it is not wrong to say Between
you and I - sorry to have shaken your confidence in yourself
:-)
>
>> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial
>> English prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of
>> English.
>
> Old hat.
??? is it a nickname for me?
> >>
>> Or 'in despite on'
>
> I don't think so.
Oh, yes - it is possible. You can say "in despite on" . Cf.
any major dictionary. I have checked it.
>
>
>
>> nope -you can say "a load of responsibility" or "loads
>> of..."...a load of sheep on their way across Europe" (here
>> the prefix can be e.g. plane - or -lorry-)
>
> That's not the same thing. You used the verb "loaded", not
> the noun "load".
aha!
>
>>>> The children could do worse. I have colleagues with an
>>>> English pronunciation and with a very modest
>>>> understanding of the language than I, and they teach
>>>> English - we are not used to
>>> modest understanding of the language compared to mine
>>> (if you want to keep the word "modest")
>>
>> Why? I am not so sure about this.
>
> I can't find a proper precedent to "than I", unless you
> change "very" to "more", for example.
I am convinced that I can use the sentence ..than I, but if
you can "re-convince" me, I will gladly be listening.
>
>>>> lessons a week there is a limit for how much you can
>>>> teach
>>> a limit to how much
>>
>> or "a limit of how much"
>
> Doubtful.
I am looking for a reference - I'll be back! :-)
>
>>>> teacher's more or less wewell imitation of the English
>
> What happened to "well"?
Dunno! I agree that good is better.
>
>>>> tone.
>>> more or less good (adverbs and adjectives again)
>>
>> Well is both a noun, an adjective and a adverb.
>
> Well -- but not so good as an adjective here.
agreed.
>
>>>> Film were not many at that time, and Television were
>>>> still
>>> We did not have many (English language) films ...
>>> television was
>>
>> Films were not many at the time - apart from the missing
>> plural -s - I cannot understand why you think that you
>> cannot say what I say. Television with small letters? All
>> right.
>
> It does not sound good, is all. I would at least replace
> "many" by "numerous", but it is still awkward.
It sound good to me - only a native speaker can decide.
>
>> I too lived in a country - with less educated school
>> teachers
>
> in the country (you lived in a country, but that was
> Denmark, not a rural part of Denmark)
I lived in Sweden :-) - isn't Sweden a country? :-))
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:glicla$40v$1...@news.albasani.net...
>>
>> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
>> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
>> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you
>> and
>> me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I" is
>> a
>> hypercorrect form.
>
> Did you check what "hypercorrect" means?
yes!
>
> I will readily concede that "between you and I" is commonly
> heard these days, but it really grates on those who still
> remember what is the proper grammatical expression. It is
> something that marks the speaker as someone who wishes to be
> seen as speaking educated English, but has no idea how to do
> that.
Possibly - but it is not incorrect English according to Swan -
in spite of your poor ears :-)
>
>> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial
>> English
>> prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of English.
>
> Right. Well, that's life.
It is - but thank you for the contribution. How on Earth
should the poor foreigners manage to learn your language if
the book says one thing, the teacher another thing and other
native speakers say a third thing? :-O
See e.g. me. I am now corrected by our hereditary enemy - the
Swedes who alway beat us up in European football and who - in
the past - beat us up in several wars and took some of our
land - how petty can you get? :-) - bummer! :-(
Skitt
> "Skitt" skrev:
>>> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
>>> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
>>> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you
>>> and
>>> me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I" is
>>> a
>>> hypercorrect form.
>>
>> Did you check what "hypercorrect" means?
>
> yes!
Hmm. Then perhaps you missed what it says. Here is the M-W Online entry:
================
Main Entry: hy搆er搾or斟ect
[...]
Function: adjective
Date: 1922
: of, relating to, or characterized by the production of a nonstandard
linguistic form or construction on the basis of a false analogy (as "badly"
in "my eyes have gone badly" and "widely" in "open widely")
=================
Note the "nonstandard linguistic form" and "false analogy" terms.
Also, there is this from AHD4:
====================
hypercorrection
SYLLABICATION: hy搆er搾or斟ec暗ion
[...]
NOUN: 1. A construction or pronunciation produced by mistaken analogy with
standard usage out of a desire to be correct, as in the substitution of I
for me in on behalf of my parents and I. 2. The production of such a
construction or pronunciation.
=====================
Need I say more?
>> I will readily concede that "between you and I" is commonly
>> heard these days, but it really grates on those who still
>> remember what is the proper grammatical expression. It is
>> something that marks the speaker as someone who wishes to be
>> seen as speaking educated English, but has no idea how to do
>> that.
>
> Possibly - but it is not incorrect English according to Swan -
> in spite of your poor ears :-)
I'd argue that, but I know that many would oppose me.
>>> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial
>>> English prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of English.
>>
>> Right. Well, that's life.
>
> It is - but thank you for the contribution. How on Earth
> should the poor foreigners manage to learn your language if
> the book says one thing, the teacher another thing and other
> native speakers say a third thing? :-O
It can be difficult, I agree, especially when one is no longer a spring
chicken.
> See e.g. me. I am now corrected by our hereditary enemy - the
> Swedes who alway beat us up in European football and who - in
> the past - beat us up in several wars and took some of our
> land - how petty can you get? :-) - bummer! :-(
Oh, well ...
I was lucky to have arrived in an English-speaking country when I was only
sixteen. I learned the language mostly by total immersion, but I was aware
of traditional grammar, even though many of the younger natives here were
not.
Arne H. Wilstrup
I didn't tell that I am sick for the time being, but I can see
that this has affected me more than I want to admit for
myself - so I stop here for a while. Okay?
Skitt
> "Lars Enderin" skrev:
>>> Or 'in despite on'
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> Oh, yes - it is possible. You can say "in despite on" . Cf.
> any major dictionary. I have checked it.
If you can find and example of this in any major dictionary, please let me
in on that. All I can surmise is that you must be confusing the term "in
despite on" with "in spite of".
M-W Online (a major dictionary):
Main Entry: 3despite
Function: preposition
Date: 15th century
: in spite of <played despite an injury>
--
Skitt (AmE)
Lars Enderin
> "Lars Enderin" <lars.e...@telia.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:497CB202...@telia.com...
>> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
> >>
>>> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
>>> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
>>> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you
>>> and me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I"
>>> is a hypercorrect form.
>>>
>> I was afraid you would bring this up, but see Bob Lieblich's
>> reply.
>
> I have seen it - but as I said it is not wrong to say Between
> you and I - sorry to have shaken your confidence in yourself
> :-)
No, you have not shaken my confidence. Anyway, I only explained why you
got corrected in the first place, and I deplore the widespread use of
"between you and I", which certainly does not render "between you and
me" incorrect.
>>> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial
>>> English prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of
>>> English.
>> Old hat.
>
> ??? is it a nickname for me?
Look it up. It means that it's old knowledge.
>>> Or 'in despite on'
>> I don't think so.
>
> Oh, yes - it is possible. You can say "in despite on" . Cf.
> any major dictionary. I have checked it.
If it is a valid sequence of words, it probably does not mean "despite"
or "in spite of". More context is needed.
>>>>> The children could do worse. I have colleagues with an
>>>>> English pronunciation and with a very modest
>>>>> understanding of the language than I, and they teach
>>>>> English - we are not used to
>>>> modest understanding of the language compared to mine
>>>> (if you want to keep the word "modest")
>>> Why? I am not so sure about this.
>> I can't find a proper precedent to "than I", unless you
>> change "very" to "more", for example.
>
> I am convinced that I can use the sentence ..than I, but if
> you can "re-convince" me, I will gladly be listening.
You don't have a comparison in your sentence. "Than" needs to be part of
a comparison.
>>>>> Film were not many at that time, and Television were
>>>>> still
>>>> We did not have many (English language) films ...
>>>> television was
>>> Films were not many at the time - apart from the missing
>>> plural -s - I cannot understand why you think that you
>>> cannot say what I say. Television with small letters? All
>>> right.
>> It does not sound good, is all. I would at least replace
>> "many" by "numerous", but it is still awkward.
>
> It sound good to me - only a native speaker can decide.
sounds
>>> I too lived in a country - with less educated school
>>> teachers
>> in the country (you lived in a country, but that was
>> Denmark, not a rural part of Denmark)
>
> I lived in Sweden :-) - isn't Sweden a country? :-))
I assumed you lived in Denmark when you went to school, but did you get
my point? You say "in *the* country" when you refer to rural parts of a
country.
jerry_f...@yahoo.com
...
> *I checked to make sure that the raccoon is not indigenous to Denmark
> and found that there are Vaskebjørnens (raccoons) there
...
Means "wash-bear", if I'm not mistaken, like the German "Waschbär".
The French have a less exaggerated idea of them: "raton laveur" or
"washer ratlet".
--
Jerry Friedman
John Varela
> Oh, yes - it is possible. You can say "in despite on" .
Not in my American English.
> Cf. any major dictionary. I have checked it.
I searched several dictionaries including the OED and none of them
has "in despite on". They do, however, have "in despite of".
--
John Varela
Trade OLD lamps for NEW for email
John Varela
> "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
> news:glicla$40v$1...@news.albasani.net...
> >>
> >> That is not true - you can say "between you and I" for
> >> instance. Cf. Michael Swan Practical English Usage.
> >> Between does not need any objective form, but "between you
> >> and
> >> me" is a preferred form in English, "Between you and I" is
> >> a
> >> hypercorrect form.
> >
> > Did you check what "hypercorrect" means?
>
> yes!
Then you failed to understand the definition.
> > I will readily concede that "between you and I" is commonly
> > heard these days, but it really grates on those who still
> > remember what is the proper grammatical expression. It is
> > something that marks the speaker as someone who wishes to be
> > seen as speaking educated English, but has no idea how to do
> > that.
>
> Possibly - but it is not incorrect English according to Swan -
> in spite of your poor ears :-)
I have no idea who or what Swan is, but Skitt is absolutely correct.
> >> You can say in English "It is I", but the colloquial
> >> English
> >> prefers "It is me". Cf. Cambridge Grammar of English.
> >
> > Right. Well, that's life.
>
> It is - but thank you for the contribution. How on Earth
> should the poor foreigners manage to learn your language if
> the book says one thing, the teacher another thing and other
> native speakers say a third thing? :-O
I don't know about quality of the teacher, or the book for that
matter, but as in the case of hypercorrection above you may not be
understanding what is being said. And regarding the native
speakers, when we are all telling you the same thing you really
ought to give heed.
Robert Lieblich
>
> And regarding the native
> speakers, when we are all telling you the same thing you really
> ought to give heed.
Oh, it says "heed." I gotta clean my glasses.
--
Bob Lieblich
Whose mind is as dirty as his glasses
HVS
> John Varela wrote:
>>
>> And regarding the native
>> speakers, when we are all telling you the same thing you really
>> ought to give heed.
>
> Oh, it says "heed." I gotta clean my glasses.
They're all steamed up?
--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed
Robin Bignall
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:02:01 GMT, HVS <use...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>It's true that some of the regulars here are easily offended and a
>>bit quick to see ill-intent where it's not meant, but I don't think
>>it's a particular trait of "this group" in general.
>
>If you are going to accidentally and innocently offend someone this is a good
>place to do it. Someone, possibly the offended person, will explain why the
>word or phrase is offensive.
Or possibly not. As Harvey said in a previous post:
<q>
It's true that some of the regulars here are easily offended and a
bit quick to see ill-intent where it's not meant, but I don't think
it's a particular trait of "this group" in general.
</q>
I am often surprised at the spats that spring forth in this group,
which is supposedly composed of adults.
--
Robin
(BrE)
Herts, England
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:51W5y0sPNk52-pn2-Kmm63jhwTxss@localhost...
> >>
>> Possibly - but it is not incorrect English according to
>> Swan -
>> in spite of your poor ears :-)
>
> I have no idea who or what Swan is, but Skitt is absolutely
> correct.
No, he is not.
Swan says: "Language change over time. Younger people adopt
newer forms of expression, while older people often resist
change; so even people who speak the same standard language do
not speak it in exactly the same way. There are several
reasons for change"
And then he continues to tell about why these changes occur
ending up with this:
"Some forms have always existed in the language, but have been
'driven underground' by prescriptive rules, so that they have
been avoided by careful speakers. People are now more tolerant
of such forms, so they have become more common. Some
examples:
Here's your papers (instead of Here are... ) - Sombody's left
their umbrella behind (instead of ... his or her umbrella.
John and me went to the cinema. Between you and I.
And he also say: Some AmE prepositional uses and phrasal verb
forms are moving into BrE. /The following trains will not run
due to engineering work on weekends. (instead of ... at
weekends)
We met with the unions yesterday (instead of We met the
unions...)
Can I speak with Cathy? (instead of ... speak to...)
We haven't seen Granny in ages (instead of ...for ages)
You have to fill out this form. (instead of ... fill in...)
The AmE use of a past tense with just and already is becoming
common in BrE.
Peter just went out (instead of Peter has just gone out)
I already told Jane about the parti."
And who is Swan?
Well: http://www.oup.com/bios/elt/swan_m/?cc=gb
>
> I don't know about quality of the teacher, or the book for
> that
> matter, but as in the case of hypercorrection above you may
> not be
> understanding what is being said. And regarding the native
> speakers, when we are all telling you the same thing you
> really
> ought to give heed.
You all are not telling me the same thing. I have had a
discussion some time ago where a stubborn American said that
the sentence I wrote "He must have been being interviewed" was
wrong. He claimed that he was well-educated at university etc.
etc., but the majority of the BrE contributors said that I was
right.
I think I will accept what Swan writes in Practical English
Usage - and wait until you have better arguments than this
"..When we are all telling you the same thing...."
Sometimes native speakers are not right. :-)
Arne H. Wilstrup
> Arne H. Wilstrup wrote:
>> "Lars Enderin" skrev:
>
>>>> Or 'in despite on'
>>>
>>> I don't think so.
>>
>> Oh, yes - it is possible. You can say "in despite on" . Cf.
>> any major dictionary. I have checked it.
>
> If you can find and example of this in any major dictionary,
> please let me in on that. All I can surmise is that you
> must be confusing the term "in despite on" with "in spite
> of".
E.g. Kjærullf-Nielsen Engelsk-Dansk Ordbog (the biggest and
most acknowledged dictionary in Denmark)
- you can also find the expression here:
Or how about this:
http://www.meatboard.dk/getMedia.asp?mb_GUID=8ED8821F-BCE7-476F-8D1E-B25222A1C539.pdf
And the dictionary has:
in despite on failing health ...
So I am afraid that you have to yield here. :-)
LFS
I can't think what might make you believe that, although it's true that
some do have quite impressive vocabularies for mixed infants...
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Arne H. Wilstrup
news:64e57080-b916-4318...@q37g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
You might see a racoon here, but this is due to the fact that
they either have moved from Germany to the south of Jutland or
are pets who have escaped. It can easily be mistaken for a
badger apart from its tail which is different from a badger.
It is not a natural animal in this country. I have never seen
such an animal in the nature.
Prai Jei
continuum:
>>As noted in a number of ways already, a "coon dog" refers to the
>>profession of the dog, not its ancestry...there is no such breed as a
>>"coon dog",
>
> Is this site using "breed" incorrectly:
> http://www.coondawgs.com/breeds.html ? Or this one:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_breeds
>
> It does call them "coonhounds".
I have come across "coon hound" - two separate words - though as I am from
the other side of the pond it took a couple of readings to establish what
the meaning was.
<quote>
The young man said, "I was just trying to train Butcher. Butcher," he
explained to Enoch, "is a coon hound pup."
"That is right" said Hank. "He wasn't doing nothing wrong. The boys caught a
young coon the other night. Took a lot of doing. Roy here had staked out
the coon - tied it to a tree. And he had Butcher on a leash. He was letting
Butcher fight the coon. Not hurting anything. He'd pull Butcher off before
any damage could be done and let them rest a while. Then he'd let Butcher
at the coon again."
"It's the best way in the world" said Roy, "to get a coon dog trained."
"That is right" said Hank. "That is why they caught the coon."
"We needed it" said Roy, "to train this Butcher pup."
</quote>
- Clifford D. Simak, "Way Station"
It was clear immediately that a "coon" here was some kind of animal rather
than a human who just happens to be of a dark-skinned breed, but it was a
long while later before the penny dropped that it was a raccoon that was
referred to throughout. Nowhere in the book does the full word appear - or
does an apostrophe get used to indicate letters elided.
In the light of other messages in this thread, note how it is acknowledged
that the coon hound needed to be trained.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly
Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
I'm a native-English-speaker and I believe that dictionary is *wrong*.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Ian Jackson
Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
As standard English, dictionary is definitely wrong.
And I can't think of a regional/local variation where they might say
'despite on'. I reckon it's a self-replicating typo.
--
Ian
tony cooper
>> *I checked to make sure that the raccoon is not indigenous
>> to Denmark
>> and found that there are Vaskebjørnens (raccoons) there, but
>> they were
>> supposedly introduced to Denmark by Baron Sittich Von
>> Berlerpsch at
>> the urging of Hermann Goering. Fascinating back-story about
>> "Nazi
>> raccoons"!
>>
>We don't have racoons in Denmark - at least I haven't heard of
>such animals here. We have got beavers, which some imported
>some years ago. Racoons might be seen at the zoo - I am not
>sure.
There are mentions on the web of raccoons in Denmark:
http://fogtdal.blogspot.com/
http://jonathanturley.org/2008/08/28/blitzkrabs-europe-threatened-by-nazi-raccoons-and-stalin-crabs/
And stories of raccoons in Europe:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/25/AR2007052502272.html
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1390574,00.html
The Danish sightings may be due to excess intake of akvavit or
Carlsberg Elephant beer, but the references are there.
>The story of racoons (=vaskebjørne) deriving from Hitlers
>friends? Never heard of this, but they do like robbers so why
>not? Racoons are depicted in stories of Uncle Scrooge as his
>enemies, aren't they. I mean the -usually - three robbers with
>numbers on their sweaters?
>
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:0nrpn4lnufr2j1jmk...@4ax.com...
I don't agree. The dictionary has been used for generations at
University - it is widely recommended, but of course mistakes
can be made - so I will investigate further in the matter when
I am well again.
When I get a result, I will return with the result. Meanwhile
you could look in one of the Oxford Dictionaries e.g. the one
with about 20 volumes :-) You might be surprised! :-)
Robin Bignall
I've obviously been mislead by someone not much older than 30 claiming
to be the youngest person here. The rest of have reached second
childhood and have earned the right to be cantankerous.
Arne H. Wilstrup
meddelelsen news:MC$ATriVE...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
As I already has stipulated; you might be right here -I have
never heard this expression before. The dictionary is an
volume on CD-rom which surely can have some mistakes in it.
One of these days I shall be able to confront the edition in
the book with this CD-rom edition, just to see whether they
are the same or not.
If I cannot see this, I'll have an opportunity to ask one of
my professors (native speakers) at University - they might
know it, don't you think? :-)
Ian Jackson
Wilstrup <ahw@?.?.invalid> writes
>"Ian Jackson" <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> skrev i
>meddelelsen news:MC$ATriVE...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <0nrpn4lnufr2j1jmk...@4ax.com>,
>> "Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes
>>>I'm a native-English-speaker and I believe that dictionary
>>>is *wrong*.
>>>
>> It's English, but not as we know it.
>> As standard English, dictionary is definitely wrong.
>> And I can't think of a regional/local variation where they
>> might say 'despite on'. I reckon it's a self-replicating
>> typo.
>
>As I already has stipulated; you might be right here -I have
>never heard this expression before. The dictionary is an
>volume on CD-rom which surely can have some mistakes in it.
>
> One of these days I shall be able to confront the edition in
>the book with this CD-rom edition, just to see whether they
>are the same or not.
>
>If I cannot see this, I'll have an opportunity to ask one of
>my professors (native speakers) at University - they might
>know it, don't you think? :-)
>
It's not 'might'. They 'will'. I would be very surprised if they
confirmed that 'despite on' was correct. The 'on' simply doesn't make
sense. Please keep us posted!
--
Ian