English is losing its sense of number
Dr. Jai Maharaj
AB <ds...@sf.net> posted:
>
> Many people would consider this a correct sentence:
>
> The third study, by British scientists, suggests the risks of
> developing schizophrenia are highest for those people who use
> the drug when they are a teenager.
>
> from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498493.stm
> I think we are moving toward a radically new description of English.
> Forget about case, number, and agreement. In the future, the function of
> any word will be determined only by its position in the sentence.
I would rewrite the text as: The third study by British scientists
suggests that schizophrenia risks are higher in people who used
the drug in their teen years.
Jai Maharaj
A native Sanskrit and Hindi speaker
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Robert Lieblich
>
> In article <pan.2003.06.24....@sf.net>,
> AB <ds...@sf.net> posted:
> >
> > Many people would consider this a correct sentence:
> >
> > The third study, by British scientists, suggests the risks of
> > developing schizophrenia are highest for those people who use
> > the drug when they are a teenager.
> >
> > from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2498493.stm
>
> > I think we are moving toward a radically new description of English.
> > Forget about case, number, and agreement. In the future, the function of
> > any word will be determined only by its position in the sentence.
>
> I would rewrite the text as: The third study by British scientists
> suggests that schizophrenia risks are higher in people who used
> the drug in their teen years.
Once again, you have butchered the langauge (and ignored the point
the postger wanted discussed). Here are some of your errors:
1. The commas around the phrase "by British scientists" in the
original served to indicate that *only* the third study was
performed by British scientists. By removing them you have change
the meaning, and the reader will now infer, incorrectly, that all
three studies were performed by British scientists.
2. "Schizophrenia risks" is unclear. It may mean "risks of
developing schizophrenia," as the original had it, but it might also
mean "risks associated with having schizophrenia." You have made
unclear what was clear.
3. You changed "highest," an unanbiguous superlative, to "higher."
"Higher" than what, please? Whatever comparison you are getting at,
if any, is left for the reader to guess at. The only correct
comparison is, of course, to everything else, as the superlative
made clear.
Three plain errors in a single sentence. I'm sure I could find more
if I could be bothered.
[ ... ]
>
> Jai Maharaj
> A native Sanskrit and Hindi speaker
I am a native speaker of English. You plainly are not. You miss
many of the subtleties and nuances of the langauge, and your
feckless efforts to contribute to the discussion will either confuse
or appall the reader, depending the reader's state of knowledge.
No one is forcing you to make a fool of yourself. You can quit any
time you like.
And your little stunt of snipping everything I post and pretending
that my text is worthless fools nobody.
--
Bob Lieblich
Native speaker of American English
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> posted:
>
> Once again, you have butchered the langauge . . .
I like what I wrote. The dissatisfacton of an incompetent
such as yourself icing on the cake. But, are you aware of
what the Brit saveges did? They butchered millions of people
around the world -- here's one instance:
"Australia
"British settlement began in 1788, with the landing
party of transported convicts. Australia remained a
penal colony. during the first half of the 19th
century,during which time the continent was explored
and separate colonies were established in the various
states. Aboriginal populations were displaced and
decimated' in some areas (e.g., Tasmania), they
were totally exterminated...."
- The Universal Almanac; Andrews and McMeel; ISBN: 0-8362-7977-8.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Doctor Worm
news:3EF9088A...@Verizon.net...
> 3. You changed "highest," an unanbiguous superlative, to "higher."
> "Higher" than what, please? Whatever comparison you are getting at,
> if any, is left for the reader to guess at. The only correct
> comparison is, of course, to everything else, as the superlative
> made clear.
I think that the meaning that most readers would derive is that the risks
are higher among users of the drugs than of people who did not use the
drugs. At any rate, it seems that this ambiguity is not solved entirely by
using "highest," because the different classifications of study subjects are
not made clear. To be explicit, it could read "...risks are higher in people
who used the drug in their teen years than in people who never used the
drug" or "...than in people who used the drug later in their lives" or
whatever the case may be. In my opinion, this would be optimum, but I also
think that either "higher" or "highest" would generally be understood.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Doctor Worm" <docto...@cox.net> posted:
The mission of the news media is to deliver the
news as quickly as possible without having to
please some outdated language-control freaks
sitting in their armchairs, expelling hot air.
Jai Maharaj
English is Munglish
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Doctor Worm
fine. I was simply pointing out that if he was going to try to make it less
ambiguous, he could go even further to be explicit, though I think that your
use of "higher" is satisfactory.
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:Munglish-00h9...@news.mantra.com...
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Doctor Worm" <docto...@cox.net> posted:
>
> fine. I was simply pointing out that if he was going to try to make it less
> ambiguous, he could go even further to be explicit, though I think that your
> use of "higher" is satisfactory.
I appreciate the clarification, but I didn't misunderstand you. My
comment was "to the thread", so to speak, and not really a response.
Another comment: there are innumerable versions of what used to be
English in the US. Why, right here in Hawaii there must be half a
dozen or so. Now let's wake up that Lieblich fella with "Eh, you
still stay sleeping or what!"
Namaste, and Aloha from Hawaii,
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
Robert Lieblich
>
> Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> posted:
> >
> > Once again, you have butchered the langauge . . .
>
> I like what I wrote.
Of course you do. You don't know any better. You prance around in
front of your little metaphorical mirror admiring your
English-language finery even though the rest of us can see that you
are dressed in rags.
> The dissatisfacton of an incompetent
> such as yourself icing on the cake.
Does your grammar slip when you get angry?
> But,
Comma superfluous.
> are you aware of
> what the Brit saveges did? They butchered millions of people
> around the world
Talk about changing the subject! I am dealing with English usage.
That is the topic of the group in which I participate, and which is
one of those to which you post your demonstrations of your feeble
command of English. I have no intention of discussing politics with
you -- or anything else other than English usage. Do try to keep
up.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> posted:
> . . .I am dealing with English usage.
I know that it's beyond you, but DEAL WITH IT!
John Smith
>
> I know that it's beyond you, but DEAL WITH IT!
Are you finished whining now?
\\P. Schultz
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Stewart Gordon <smjg...@yahoo.com> posted:
>
> [choice of 'groups seems random - followups trimmed]
It isn't -- followups restored.
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>> The third study, by British scientists, suggests the risks of
> >>> developing schizophrenia are highest for those people who use
> >>> the drug when they are a teenager.
> <snip>
>>> I would rewrite the text as: The third study by British scientists
>>> suggests that schizophrenia risks are higher in people who used
>>> the drug in their teen years. - Jai Maharaj
> > Once again, you have butchered the langauge (and ignored the point
> > the postger wanted discussed). Here are some of your errors:
> >
> > 1. The commas around the phrase "by British scientists" in the
> > original served to indicate that *only* the third study was
> > performed by British scientists.
> In which dialect of English is that the case? And in that dialect, what
> phrasing would be correct if only one of the first two studies was by
> British scientists?
I removed the extraneous commas. The text looks better.
> > By removing them you have change
> > the meaning, and the reader will now infer, incorrectly, that all
> > three studies were performed by British scientists.
> <snip>
> Here is how it works where I come from.
>
> "The third study by British scientists" means that, of the set of
> studies that were carried out by British scientists, this is the third.
>
> "The third study, by British scientists" means the third study carried
> out by anybody from anywhere, which happens to be by British scientists,
> and says absolutely nothing about who did the first two.
>
> So suppose that there have been three studies, of which the first and
> third were by British scientists but the second wasn't.
>
> Then the third of these studies is either "the third study, by British
> scientists" or "the second study by British scientists".
>
> Stewart.
Your input is appreciated, Stewart.
andrew
> I like what I wrote. The dissatisfacton of an incompetent
> such as yourself icing on the cake. But, are you aware of
> what the Brit saveges did? They butchered millions of people
> around the world -- here's one instance:
>
The real savages are the ugly, filthy Arabs, with their terrorism. The
hearts of Muslims are filled with hate and that's why most of them go to
hell.
Luke Maynard
> The hearts of ... are filled with hate and
> that's why most of them go to hell.
Written a first-person travelogue, have you?
rewboss
IFIKa.2199$dk.225...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>
> The real savages are the ugly, filthy Arabs, with their terrorism. The
> hearts of Muslims are filled with hate and that's why most of them go to
> hell.
Oh, bravo. And I suppose Mr Khan is only here to fly an airliner into this
newsgroup, right?
Good grief, I thought people who said things like this only existed in those
weird sects that periodically poison themselves.
Professor Redwine
We live in hope.
--
Redwine, Berlin
We cross our bridges when we come to them and burn them behind us, with
nothing to show for our progress except a memory of the smell of smoke,
and a presumption that once our eyes watered. --Tom Stoppard
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"andrew" <and...@wicked.as> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote in message
> news:Munglish-00hj...@news.mantra.com...
>
> > I like what I wrote. The dissatisfacton of an incompetent
> > such as yourself icing on the cake. But, are you aware of
> > what the Brit saveges did? They butchered millions of people
> > around the world -- here's one instance:
> >
> > "Australia
> > "British settlement began in 1788, with the landing
> > party of transported convicts. Australia remained a
> > penal colony. during the first half of the 19th
> > century,during which time the continent was explored
> > and separate colonies were established in the various
> > states. Aboriginal populations were displaced and
> > decimated' in some areas (e.g., Tasmania), they
> > were totally exterminated...."
> > - The Universal Almanac; Andrews and McMeel; ISBN: 0-8362-7977-8.
> >
> > Jai Maharaj
> The real savages are the ugly, filthy Arabs, with their terrorism. The
> hearts of Muslims are filled with hate and that's why most of them go to
> hell.
When Brit savages die their mortal death, perhaps
they are reborn as Muslim terrorists. Here's more
information about terrorist Islam and Muslims:
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> posted:
> We live in hope.
Or in Hope, Arkansas?
Professor Redwine
> In article <pan.2003.06.26....@privacy.net>,
> "Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> posted:
>> We live in hope.
>
> Or in Hope, Arkansas?
I wondered where she had moved to.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> posted:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 22:31:02 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > In article <pan.2003.06.26....@privacy.net>,
> > "Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> posted:
> >> We live in hope.
> > Or in Hope, Arkansas?
> I wondered where she had moved to.
Who is it, and why are her motions of interest?
Are they not regular?
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I removed the extraneous commas. The text looks better.
But you've changed the meaning. If you really prefer aesthetics to
meaning, you should stop annoying the usage groups.
--
Bob Lieblich
Ta
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> [ ... ]
Hey, what happened to you -- gave up being vulgar? Good for you!
>> I removed the extraneous commas. The text looks better.
> But you've changed the meaning. . . .
Evidently, only for you.
> If you really prefer aesthetics to
> meaning, you should stop annoying the usage groups.
People who prefer aesthetics to meaning in certain
circumstances annoy you? Are you a group? If so, do
you have lice or worms? Do you also refer to yourself
as "we"?
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
> The real savages are the ugly, filthy Arabs, with their terrorism. The
> hearts of Muslims are filled with hate and that's why most of them go to
> hell.
And where do *you* live, my dead ... I mean good friend?
--
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
Yours Forever in,
Cyberspace.
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
> Oh, bravo. And I suppose Mr Khan is only here to fly an airliner into this
> newsgroup, right?
Since you have spoilt my plan, which I have had been
desperately planning through thick and thin for the last two months, I
have nothing else to say. Anyway, where exactly in Germany do you
live? Name of the City? Street No.?
david56
Nope they travel around Usenet, choosing different groups to shout
in, moving on once everybody in the group has finally killfiled them.
There's a similar one at the moment in the Radio 4 group.
--
David
I say what it occurs to me to say.
=====
The address is valid today, but I change it periodically.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> > People who prefer aesthetics to meaning in certain
> > circumstances annoy you?
Got hypertension? Have you though about consulting
a duly trained and licensed health care professional
for treatment?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Robert Lieblich <Robert....@Verizon.net> posted:
> > > Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> > > > People who prefer aesthetics to meaning in certain
> > > > circumstances annoy you?
> > > Yes, in certain circumstances they do. . . .
> > Got hypertension? Have you though about consulting
> > a duly trained and licensed health care professional
> > for treatment?
> Once again you ignore -- indeed snip -- the point of the posting and
> rspond with something irrelevant. Such conduct is contemptible . . .
Good health is important -- don't ignore it. Have
yourself checked out.
mb
>>The third study, by British scientists, suggests the risks of
developing
>> schizophrenia are highest for those people who use the drug when
they are
>> a teenager.
> I think that the meaning that most readers would derive is that the risks
> are higher among users of the drugs than of people who did not use the
> drugs.
The reader who knows his statistics would derive that risk for those
users who started drug usage in their teens is higher than in any of
the other unspecified age groups examined, including non-users.
> At any rate, it seems that this ambiguity is not solved entirely by
> using "highest," because the different classifications of study subjects are
> not made clear.
"Highest" makes very clear that there are at least two strata being
compared by the age group at which drug use occurred: teen-agers and
unspecified others. The sentence does not state that the main
comparison is between users and non-users, although the habitual
reader of abstracts will assume that such was the case as long as not
explicitly rejected. In other words, if there was a non-drug control
group, as per standard practice, you needn't state it and make your
summary longer.
> To be explicit, it could read "...risks are higher in people
> who used the drug in their teen years than in people who never used the
> drug" or "...than in people who used the drug later in their lives" or
> whatever the case may be. In my opinion, this would be optimum,
Certainly not. Paper abstracts are generally limited to 200-250 words
for all the relevant information; considerably less is available for a
summary sentence like this one. If all the relevant info is that users
and non-users were compared in a stratified way and the only
difference in the tests was between teen users and others, then the
sentence doesn't need any other words --and has used just the ones it
needed (some may want to revise the "when they were a teenager" part
to suit their taste). The irrelevant parts can stay in the main body.
The unrevised sentence being discussed is a nice piece of professional
medical writing. Except, of course, if study design or conclusion are
different from the suggested but unstated content (absence of control,
factors other than age proved important), in which case it would be
competently written disinformation copy.
> but I also
> think that either "higher" or "highest" would generally be understood.
Not in the same way by all. "Higher" would require additional blah to
specify the comparisons; it doesn't make clear if teen users were
checked against all others or non-users only. All those "higher,
better, longer" without "than" usually sound an alarm for trick
advertising copy. Reviewers of commercial literature at the FDA are
getting very good at spotting this kind of stuff.
Dave Swindell
Maharaj <use...@mantra.com> writes
>
>The mission of the news media is to deliver the
>news as quickly as possible without having to
>please some outdated language-control freaks
>sitting in their armchairs, expelling hot air.
>
characters as possible, in order to pack as much "information" into a
headline as possible. In doing this they use the grammatical rules cery
precisely, better than the vast majority of newsgroup contributors, so
as to eliminate ambiguity. A good example of this is their non-use of
the apostrophe-S plural with abbreviations, a habit which I for one
applaud vociferously.
--
Dave OSOS#24 dswindel...@tcp.co.uk Remove my gerbil for email replies
Yamaha XJ900S & Wessex sidecar, the sexy one
Yamaha XJ900F & Watsonian Monaco, the comfortable one
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> posted:
>
> In article <Munglish-00h9...@news.mantra.com>,
> >
> >The mission of the news media is to deliver the
> >news as quickly as possible without having to
> >please some outdated language-control freaks
> >sitting in their armchairs, expelling hot air.
> Yes and no! Their method for achieving this is to use as few lexical
> characters as possible, in order to pack as much "information" into a
> headline as possible. In doing this they use the grammatical rules cery
> precisely, better than the vast majority of newsgroup contributors, so
> as to eliminate ambiguity. A good example of this is their non-use of
> the apostrophe-S plural with abbreviations, a habit which I for one
> applaud vociferously.
In my opinion, the better news headline conveys the main
ingredient of the story while encouraging the reader to
dive into it.
rewboss
0H4F8KA6K3$+M...@tcp.co.uk...
> Yes and no! Their method for achieving this is to use as few lexical
> characters as possible, in order to pack as much "information" into a
> headline as possible. In doing this they use the grammatical rules cery
> precisely, better than the vast majority of newsgroup contributors, so
> as to eliminate ambiguity. A good example of this is their non-use of
> the apostrophe-S plural with abbreviations, a habit which I for one
> applaud vociferously.
There is a huge number of extremely ambiguous newspaper headlines that have
been used in the past, some of them quite funny.
"Police rape claim woman in court" -- Intended to mean that a woman went to
court claiming she had been raped by a police officer, but could also be
read to mean that one or more police officers raped a woman in court as she
was trying to make a claim.
"Oil slick talks" -- I wonder what the oil slick said.
"McArthur flies back to front" -- one of the most famous headlines of all.
Part of the problem is the flexibility of the English language, normally a
virtue, but here very much a curse. Words that can function either as nouns
or as verbs are especially tricky: "talks" as a synonym for "discussions" is
especially prone to this.
Mike Day
"rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdos57$uapmt$3...@ID-185204.news.dfncis.de...
> Dave Swindell <dswindel...@tcp.co.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 0H4F8KA6K3$+M...@tcp.co.uk...
>
> > Yes and no! Their method for achieving this is to use as few lexical
> > characters as possible, in order to pack as much "information" into a
> > headline as possible. In doing this they use the grammatical rules cery
> > precisely, better than the vast majority of newsgroup contributors, so
> > as to eliminate ambiguity. A good example of this is their non-use of
> > the apostrophe-S plural with abbreviations, a habit which I for one
> > applaud vociferously.
>
> There is a huge number of extremely ambiguous newspaper headlines that
have
> been used in the past, some of them quite funny.
>
> "Police rape claim woman in court" -- Intended to mean that a woman went
to
> court claiming she had been raped by a police officer, but could also be
> read to mean that one or more police officers raped a woman in court as
she
> was trying to make a claim.
>
> "Oil slick talks" -- I wonder what the oil slick said.
>
> "McArthur flies back to front" -- one of the most famous headlines of all.
>
"Queen in brawl at Palace". This actually referred to a professional
footballer by the name of Queen who was playing at Crystal Palace and got
involved in a fight on the pitch.
Mike
david56
> One of my favourites from many years ago:
>
> "Queen in brawl at Palace". This actually referred to a professional
> footballer by the name of Queen who was playing at Crystal Palace and got
> involved in a fight on the pitch.
"Aliens land on Jupiter" - a group of illegal immigrants set foot on
Jupiter Island in New York harbour.
I hope it's true.
Marion Gevers
> "rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bdos57$uapmt$3...@ID-185204.news.dfncis.de...
>> "Police rape claim woman in court" -- Intended to mean that a woman went
> to
>> court claiming she had been raped by a police officer, but could also be
>> read to mean that one or more police officers raped a woman in court as
> she
>> was trying to make a claim.
>>
>> "Oil slick talks" -- I wonder what the oil slick said.
>>
>> "McArthur flies back to front" -- one of the most famous headlines of all.
>>
> One of my favourites from many years ago:
>
> "Queen in brawl at Palace". This actually referred to a professional
> footballer by the name of Queen who was playing at Crystal Palace and got
> involved in a fight on the pitch.
Also from many years ago:
"Flies to have twins in Ireland"
"Sunsuit Girl Suspended by Head"
"Eighth Army Push Bottles up Germans"
--
Peter Moylan http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> posted:
English is Munglish -- "Remember Bernard Shaw's word ghoti
with the gh from laugh, the o from women and the ti from nation
and pronounced 'fish'? . . ."
http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/phono.html
Stewart Gordon
<snip>
> English is Munglish -- "Remember Bernard Shaw's word ghoti with the
> gh from laugh, the o from women and the ti from nation and pronounced
> 'fish'? . . ." http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/phono.html
That's strange - when I went to school it was the gh from enough, the o
from women and the ti from station.
Pstschiouxpreth.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Stewart Gordon <smjg...@yahoo.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> <snip>
> > English is Munglish -- "Remember Bernard Shaw's word ghoti with the
> > gh from laugh, the o from women and the ti from nation and pronounced
> > 'fish'? . . ." http://www.facstaff.bucknell.edu/rbeard/phono.html
> That's strange - when I went to school it was the gh from enough, the o
> from women and the ti from station. Pstschiouxpreth.
Do you pronounce the "gh" in "Ghana" and "enough" the same way?
Do you pronounce the "o" in "women" and "cot" the same way?
Do you pronounce the "ti" in "station" and "static" the same way?
*--=== English is Munglish ===--*
rewboss
Munglish-03u...@news.mantra.com...
> Do you pronounce the "gh" in "Ghana" and "enough" the same way?
> Do you pronounce the "o" in "women" and "cot" the same way?
> Do you pronounce the "ti" in "station" and "static" the same way?
Oh, this is nothing new.
And English isn't the only language to suffer from this sort of thing. Take
German, an otherwise phonetically-spelt language:
Titel ['tit@l]
Station [,Statsi'o:n]
Gummi ['gumi]
gucken ['kuk@n]
Christ [krist]
Chip [Sip]
Pfeife ['pfaIf@]
pfui ['fui]
Teufel ['tOif@l]
Pfui Teufel! ['fui 'daIv@l]
Samuel Johnson must bear much of the blame for the idiosyncracies of English
orthography. It is he who insisted we write "deign" but "disdain",
"moveable" but "immovable" and so on. But a lack of any coherent spelling
reform is also a major contributary factor. German remains (more-or-less)
phonetic because it undergoes regular spelling reforms, often in the teeth
of popular opposition (as with the reform that is currently being
implemented).
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> Munglish-03u...@news.mantra.com...
>
> > Do you pronounce the "gh" in "Ghana" and "enough" the same way?
> > Do you pronounce the "o" in "women" and "cot" the same way?
> > Do you pronounce the "ti" in "station" and "static" the same way?
> Oh, this is nothing new.
Anything can be new to a lot of people. Do you know how many
people are born every day, and how many more fall
of the turnip truck?
> And English isn't the only language to suffer from this sort of thing. Take
> German, an otherwise phonetically-spelt language:
>
> Titel ['tit@l]
> Station [,Statsi'o:n]
> Gummi ['gumi]
> gucken ['kuk@n]
> Christ [krist]
> Chip [Sip]
> Pfeife ['pfaIf@]
> pfui ['fui]
> Teufel ['tOif@l]
> Pfui Teufel! ['fui 'daIv@l]
>
> Samuel Johnson must bear much of the blame for the idiosyncracies of English
> orthography. It is he who insisted we write "deign" but "disdain",
> "moveable" but "immovable" and so on. But a lack of any coherent spelling
> reform is also a major contributary factor. German remains (more-or-less)
> phonetic because it undergoes regular spelling reforms, often in the teeth
> of popular opposition (as with the reform that is currently being
> implemented).
Uh, all these young languages . . .
Professor Redwine
> Uh, all these young languages . . .
If you dislike English as much as you make out, then why not stick to the
older languages and stop bothering us?
We are here to discuss English usage. Intelligent discussion is not
furthered by such comments as "English is Munglish". What is that supposed
to contribute to a conversation?
I suggest you try alt.neandertal.usage
Padraig Breathnach
>I suggest you try alt.neandertal.usage
Ugh! My server doesn't carry it. Or alt.usage.neandertal.
PB
Dr. Jai Maharaj
"Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> posted:
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 07:16:50 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > Uh, all these young languages . . .
Incorrect assumption, above. I have a lot of fun
with Eng . . . er . . . Munglish.
Munga-manga-moonga . . . moong daal, that's what
for lunch today.
rewboss
es26gvohvf173mabj...@4ax.com...
> "Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >I suggest you try alt.neandertal.usage
>
> Ugh! My server doesn't carry it. Or alt.usage.neandertal.
Well, it's spelt "Neanderthal", but if I were you I'd try neanderthal.ug.og
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Padraig Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> posted:
Have you tried to read newsgroups on Google?
Professor Redwine
That's the idea. Get him posting somewhere a long way away. Ugh Ugh Ugh.
Professor Redwine
Of course it is. That's why Australians normally pronounce the "th" as
such. Overcorrection since living in Germany. I'm not doing too well on
the spelling today. Think I should stick to verbal(defn.2) communication
instead of verbal(defn.1) from now on.
Robert Bannister
German remains (more-or-less)
> phonetic because it undergoes regular spelling reforms, often in the
> teeth of popular opposition (as with the reform that is currently
> being implemented).
German was more or less phonetic when I first started learning it in the
1950s, apart from a few borrowed French words. Now, when there are so
many words borrowed from other languages, particularly English, I would
suggest that it is no longer phonetic.
--
Rob Bannister
Odysseus
--Odysseus
Professor Redwine
Closed down for lack of interest, almost 30000 years ago.
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
> Munga-manga-moonga . . . moong daal, that's what
> for lunch today.
It actually is `moong ki daal'. I had the black one today, the name of
which I don't know.
--
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
Yours Forever in,
Cyberspace.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Ayaz Ahmed Khan <ayaz...@hotmail.com> posted:
> Dr. Jai Maharaj typed:
>
> > Munga-manga-moonga . . . moong daal, that's what
> > for lunch today.
> It actually is `moong ki daal'.
No, the "ki" ought to be "kee". That's
how it is pronounced. But, moong daal
is acceptable to signify moong kee daal.
Compare with "evening show" and "show of the evening".
> I had the black one today, the name of
> which I don't know.
Do you usually ingest unknown substances?
Snoopy
Johnny Judas Jay "Are you my daddy?" Maharaj wrote:
> In article <MPG.196ecd1cb...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> Ayaz Ahmed Khan <ayaz...@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>
>
>
>>I had the black one today, the name of
>>which I don't know.
>
>
> Do you usually ingest unknown substances?
He had black gram, you stupid illegitimate jyotishit. It's not an
"unknown substance" if he doesn't know the Hindi name of the stuff. Got
that, you retard?
Got mangoes, boya?
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
> No, the "ki" ought to be "kee". That's
> how it is pronounced. But, moong daal
> is acceptable to signify moong kee daal.
No, it is not. `ki' is the standard was of representing it in English.
I pronounce it also that way, and so I wrote---and still write---it
thus.
> Compare with "evening show" and "show of the evening".
Wrong comparison. That is English.
> > I had the black one today, the name of
> > which I don't know.
>
> Do you usually ingest unknown substances?
My mother cooks a number of daals. Some yellow in colour, some black,
some orange, and other brown. I cannot remember their names, and most
of which I do know I forget easily, given my senility.
Dr. Jai Maharaj
> > No, the "ki" ought to be "kee". That's
> > how it is pronounced. But, moong daal
> > is acceptable to signify moong kee daal.
> No, it is not.
No, it's the long maatraa: kee.
> > > I had the black one today, the name of
> > > which I don't know.
> > Do you usually ingest unknown substances?
> My mother cooks a number of daals. Some yellow in colour, some black,
> some orange, and other brown. I cannot remember their names, and most
> of which I do know I forget easily, given my senility.
That explains a lot.
Ayaz Ahmed Khan
> No, it's the long maatraa: kee.
Well, okay! You can pronounce it the way you prefer it. Only that
doesn't make it globally acceptable.
> That explains a lot.
Decidedly! But the question is: How much of it, or what, did you
understand?
Dr. Jai Maharaj
>
> > No, it's the long maatraa: kee.
Good.
Chrysi Cat
> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 07:16:50 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
>> Uh, all these young languages . . .
>
> If you dislike English as much as you make out, then why not stick to the
> older languages and stop bothering us?
>
> We are here to discuss English usage. Intelligent discussion is not
> furthered by such comments as "English is Munglish". What is that supposed
> to contribute to a conversation?
>
> I suggest you try alt.neandertal.usage
>
nothing including the electronic computer has actually been invented, as
opposed to rediscovered, since the time of the Mahabharata and that thus
the world would be so much better off if the only writing system were
Devanagari as perfected by Krishna and it were used to write only Hindi.
So he keeps spamming our groups so that we'll realise how much his gods
despise everything else and convert--even though we'd ALL be Dalit if we
were to do so.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On 7/2/2003 8:47 AM, Professor Redwine wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 07:16:50 +0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
>>
>>> Uh, all these young languages . . .
>>
>> If you dislike English as much as you make out, then why not stick to the
>> older languages and stop bothering us?
>>
>> We are here to discuss English usage. Intelligent discussion is not
>> furthered by such comments as "English is Munglish". What is that supposed
>> to contribute to a conversation?
>>
>> I suggest you try alt.neandertal.usage
>>
>
>I'll lay money he's one of the Hindu supremacists who believe that
>nothing including the electronic computer has actually been invented, as
>opposed to rediscovered, since the time of the Mahabharata and that thus
>the world would be so much better off if the only writing system were
>Devanagari as perfected by Krishna and it were used to write only Hindi.
Note the date of the post. He hasn't posted for several months now,
not even in alt.fan.jai-maharaj so perhaps he's dead or gone away.
Some have said his real name was Jay Stevens and he lived in the USA,
but nevertheless supported Hindutva, which is an analog(ue) of
Islamism, Zionism, Hellenism and Christianism.
>
>So he keeps spamming our groups so that we'll realise how much his gods
>despise everything else and convert--even though we'd ALL be Dalit if we
>were to do so.
--
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com