Brit-Am Spelling Crankiness
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> Day"?
>
> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> offensive, I recall.
In an article in today's Times, concerning what the recent polls mean
for fortune-telling concerning who'll win in November, they refer four
times to "Labour Day" and twice to "Labor Day". They Know The Truth,
and still can't get it right.
--
Lis Carey
This post is copyright 2000 by Elisabeth Carey. Permission to
insert links when displaying it is available for $100. Use in
this fashion constitutes acceptance of these terms.
Johan Anglemark
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Gary Farber wrote:
>>
>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>> Day"?
>>
>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>> offensive, I recall.
Why?
It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
-j
--
johan.a...@bahnhof.se --- www.bahnhof.se/~anglemar/
***** Upsala Science fiction-sällskap:
***** http://sfweb.dang.se/
iain.coleman
Gary Farber wrote:
> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> Day"?
>
For the same reason that US media refer to the British Labor Party,
I imagine.
Iain
D. Potter
>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
distinguish?
--
D. Potter
"The tabloids have failed the American electorate by neglecting to reveal
whom the space aliens are endorsing for president this year." -R. Nash, MD-
mike weber
Anglemark) typed
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>> Day"?
>>>
>>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>> offensive, I recall.
>
>Why?
>
>It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>
>I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>
It *is* a proper noun as part of the name of a national holiday here
in the States.
In this case, "Labor Day" is the correct, official,
part-of-the-legislature spelling.
--
"It's not what you don't know that can hurt you -- it's the things that
you do know that AREN'T true..." ("The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"?)
================================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
half complete website of Xeno--http://weberworld.virtualave.net
mike weber
>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
>
>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>distinguish?
>
Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
Johan Anglemark
weber) wrote:
>johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan Anglemark) typed
>
>>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>>> Day"?
>>>>
>>>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>>> offensive, I recall.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>>Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>>
>>I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>>
>It *is* a proper noun as part of the name of a national holiday here
>in the States.
>
>In this case, "Labor Day" is the correct, official,
>part-of-the-legislature spelling.
But that's in the US. For comparison, should I take offense if I read
a reference to the Swedish "Midsummer's Eve" holiday, and require that
you spell it "Midsommarafton"? Same words, spelled differently in the
two countries, and of course, "Midsommarafton" is a proper noun, the
name of one of our holidays.
Labor/Labour should be 100% interchangeable, shouldn't they?
I still don't understand why this is a touchy subject, I'm afraid.
John Richards
>
> On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
>
> >Gary Farber wrote:
> >
> >>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
> >not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
> >
> >And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
> >publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
> >distinguish?
> >
> Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
Isn't what properly "Times of London"?
--
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth
Lucy Kemnitzer
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>> Day"?
>>>
>>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>> offensive, I recall.
>
>Why?
>
>It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>
>I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Dorothy J Heydt
Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
September "Labour Day"]
>
>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
Or because it's an American-only holiday? I mean, if there were
some traditional* British holiday that had a variant spelling
(sorry, can't think of any alternate way of spelling "Guy Fawkes")
then I think I might try to spell it their way too.
Wandering not too far afield, I have a copy of Betty MacDonald's
_Anybody Can Do Anything_ which was printed in Britain. All the
-or endings are changed to -our, no biggie. But somebody
monkeyed with the vocabulary as well, and I jump a little bit
every time I see MacDonald speaking of her journey home in 1930,
talking about petrol stations.
I still don't find it offensive, just weird.
-----
*I don't suppose Labor Day is a century old yet, but for
Americans it's traditional. Remember that America is the place
where a hundred miles is a short distance and a hundred years is
a long time.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
http://www.kithrup.com/~djheydt
Amanda Baker
On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
wrote:
>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?
I've really no idea - it is my belief that all such proper
nouns should be spelled the way the native users spell them (even when
that's a bit difficult in email e.g. Muenchen) because otherwise,
there is a crazy proliferation of alternative Anglicizations,
Francophonisms etc.
>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>offensive, I recall.
Heh. Something like that :-)
>Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>not what it's called. That's just a URL.
Indeed. They were presumably too slow off the mark to get
www.times.com (or www.times.co.uk?).
Have a day, every one.
Amanda
Alison Scott
>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?
Because they're ignorant. In particular, because all reasonable
standards of copyediting disappeared when journos started inputting
their own articles. You often find articles where a large letter O is
used for zero throughout, or a lowercase l instead of the numeral one.
>
>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>offensive, I recall.
Yes, it is; they shouldn't do it. But there are plenty of other things
to criticise the Times for.
--
Alison Scott ali...@kittywompus.com & www.kittywompus.com
Please remember that I was probably sleep deprived, or weirdly hormonal,
when composing this post.
James Nicoll
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <39b4fe6...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>Lucy Kemnitzer <rit...@cruzio.com> wrote:
>
>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
>September "Labour Day"]
>>
>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>
>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
See
www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
Although [despite the hideous typo which claim the
US didn't have a Labor day until the 1980s] the US Labor
Day predates the Canadian Labour Day IMS.
We also share Thanksgiving [on different days], Christmas
and New Years with the US. Don't think the US does Boxing Day,
though.
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
James Nicoll
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.
Rob Hansen
wrote:
>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?
Because this is actually hidden political advertsing for our own
Labour Party. If the editor of _The Times_ gets enough mentions of
Labour in the paper, Tony Blair gives him a toaster oven.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Andrew Plotkin
> In article <G0FA...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>
>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
> See
> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
> for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
Just because you have a Labor Day, doesn't mean it's the same holiday
as *our* shiny, pure, local Labor Day. I mean, it's not even on the
same *day*. And -- very relevantly to this round of nitpicking -- you
spell it differently.
Next someone will be saying that Chanukkah is not a Jewish holiday,
because it's the same as Christmas. Sheesh.
> We also share Thanksgiving [on different days], Christmas
> and New Years with the US. Don't think the US does Boxing Day,
> though.
Thanksgiving is clearly two different holidays in Canada and the US;
Christmas and New Years are shared holidays.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
borogoves..."
iain.coleman
Amanda Baker wrote:
Their more usual URL is www.the-times.co.uk. www.times.com was
taken by the New York Times, and www.times.co.uk is owned by
someone selling domain names, amusingly enough.
Iain
James Nicoll
Andrew Plotkin <erky...@eblong.com> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>> In article <G0FA...@kithrup.com>,
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
>
>> See
>> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
>> for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
>
>Just because you have a Labor Day, doesn't mean it's the same holiday
>as *our* shiny, pure, local Labor Day. I mean, it's not even on the
>same *day*.
No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
shopping season way short.
> And -- very relevantly to this round of nitpicking -- you
>spell it differently.
Same word, though. Same reason for the holiday. Same date.
>Next someone will be saying that Chanukkah is not a Jewish holiday,
>because it's the same as Christmas. Sheesh.
Well, I am just not getting dragged into -that- argument. That's
completely different.
>> We also share Thanksgiving [on different days], Christmas
>> and New Years with the US. Don't think the US does Boxing Day,
>> though.
>
>Thanksgiving is clearly two different holidays in Canada and the US;
>Christmas and New Years are shared holidays.
I suppose you could argue that the different choice in dates
makes them different holidays. You could eat cheese with bread and call
youself a philosopher, too. I won't do it myself, of course. Claiming
that the holiday we both celebrate for the same reasons on the same day
through a linked process is different on the basis of one letter so as
to argue it is purely American seems weak at best. Why not claim every
denomination of Christian who celebrate Christmas on Dec 25 celebrates a
different holiday because the version of Christ varies slightly from
sect to sect?
Understand, I respect your right to an opinion on this, no matter
how fundementally flawed.
Marilee J. Layman
>Gary Farber wrote:
>
>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
>
>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>distinguish?
Oh, and there's always the Washington Times, Moony-ridden as it is.
--
Marilee J. Layman The Other*Worlds*Cafe
HOSTE...@aol.com A Science Fiction Discussion Group.
AOL Keyword: OWC http://www.webmoose.com/owc
Del Cotter
mike weber (The Higher United Nations Defence and Enforcement Reserve)
wrote:
>On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>>>not what it's called. That's just a URL."
>>
>>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased
>>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>>distinguish?
>
>Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
No, the "Times" of London, or the London "Times". London appears
nowhere in the newspaper's actual name, which is "The Times", as shown
on the top of the front page.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:abanBadLand:EricIdleTheRoadToMars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&Apostrophes
MichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodbye:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit
ToRead:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPip
Del Cotter
>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?
Ignorant, I expect.
Where've you been?
William Burns
>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?
>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>offensive, I recall.
Are you certain they weren't referring to Canada's 'Labour Day'? That
is also in America and, iirc, held on the same day. Besides, as far
as the US of A is concerned, "noone looses the meaning."
(Gods -- that hurt.)
--
William
Only 118 days, then it's "Welcome to the Third"
Bob Webber
As is "Labour Day", in Canada.
--
And Sharkey says: All of nature talks to me.
If I could just figure out
what it was trying to tell me.
-- Laurie Anderson
Richard Horton
On 5 Sep 2000 19:38:22 GMT, jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James
Nicoll) wrote:
> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>shopping season way short.
Having Thanksgiving in late November hasn't stopped U. S. merchants
from starting the Christmas shopping season at Halloween.
--
Rich Horton | Stable Email: mailto://richard...@sff.net
Home Page: http://www.sff.net/people/richard.horton
Also visit SF Site (http://www.sfsite.com) and Tangent Online (http://www.sfsite.com/tangent)
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Gary Farber wrote:
> >>
> >> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> >> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> >> Day"?
> >>
> >> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> >> offensive, I recall.
>
> Why?
>
> It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
> Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>
> I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
Firstly, Gary wrote the words you're responding to, not me.
Secondly, Gary's referring to the (often somewhat huffy) corrections
received every time some American is incautious enough to refer to
Britain's "Labor Party".
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Lucy Kemnitzer (rit...@cruzio.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:23:23 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se
> > (Johan Anglemark) wrote:
>
> > >On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> > ><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Gary Farber wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> > >>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> > >>> Day"?
> > >>>
> > >>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> > >>> offensive, I recall.
> > >
> > >Why?
> > >
> > >It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
> > >Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
> > >
> > >I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>
> > I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>
> As is "Labour Day", in Canada.
And if the Times articles in question were not referring specifically
to the _US_ Labor Day, that would be a highly relevant fact. As it is,
though, no, it's not relevant. They referred to the American holiday,
and spelled it wrong.
Elisabeth Carey
I wouldn't call it touchy, but it's worthy of comment because of the
annoyed corrections every time an American refers to Britain's "Labor
Party".
--
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> >_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> >Day"?
>
> >We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> >offensive, I recall.
>
> Are you certain they weren't referring to Canada's 'Labour Day'? That
> is also in America and, iirc, held on the same day. Besides, as far
> as the US of A is concerned, "noone looses the meaning."
>
> (Gods -- that hurt.)
The Times article that I saw (six mentions, four of them spelled
"Labour", two spelled "Labor") explicitly referred to the US holiday.
The article was about the US presidential election, and how to use the
most recent polls in fortune-telling to predict the outcome. (Okay,
they didn't say "fortune-telling".)
mike weber
Anglemark) typed
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:33:18 GMT, kras...@mindspring.com (mike
Because it was *our* holiday they were referring to.
Let'sa try a slightly different approach:
If i transliterated your name (if i knew how -- "John", i assume for
the first, and i can't guess at "Anglemark") every time i typed it
becuase it was the same as that name in English-speaking countires,
would that be okay with you?
Or, if i decided (as an editor Over Here actually did, once,
apparently) to change every reference to the "City of London" to "city
of London", would that not matter? After all, it's the same word.
Alan Woodford
<rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>On 5 Sep 2000 19:38:22 GMT, jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>>shopping season way short.
>
>Having Thanksgiving in late November hasn't stopped U. S. merchants
>from starting the Christmas shopping season at Halloween.
>
Bah. Three weeks ago, one of the TV shopping channels was advertising
Christmas Trees.
Alan "at least it was the right side of the summer solstice!" Woodford
Men in Frocks, protecting the Earth with mystical flummery!
Ray Radlein
>
> Why not claim every denomination of Christian who celebrate
> Christmas on Dec 25 celebrates a different holiday because the
> version of Christ varies slightly from sect to sect?
You can never step in the same manger twice.
- Ray R.
--
**********************************************************************
"LOS ANGELES: A city of millions; thousands more are born each day.
Some in maternity wards, some in creche incubators. The Artificial
ones don't have civil rights, but they still need the law. That's
why they turn to me. My name is Friday. I carry a badge."
-- Robert A. Heinlein's "Dragnet"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
**********************************************************************
Ray Radlein
>
> mike weber wrote:
> >
> > dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
> >
> > >Gary Farber wrote:
> > >
> > >"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the
> > >way. That's not what it's called. That's just a URL."
> > >
> > >And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of
> > >course, ceased to publish, so there is no longer any possibility
> > >of confusion or need to distinguish?
> > >
> > Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
>
> Isn't what properly "Times of London"?
The Guardian, of course.
Johan Anglemark
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>Johan Anglemark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
>> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Gary Farber wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>> >> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>> >> Day"?
>> >>
>> >> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>> >> offensive, I recall.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two countries.
>> Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
>>
>> I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>
>Firstly, Gary wrote the words you're responding to, not me.
Yes, I noticed I forgot to snip the attribution to you. I'm sorry.
>Secondly, Gary's referring to the (often somewhat huffy) corrections
>received every time some American is incautious enough to refer to
>Britain's "Labor Party".
Which seems quite OK to me as well. Well, you're only being fair,
then.
Johan Anglemark
weber) wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 14:57:25 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan
>Anglemark) typed
>
>>But that's in the US. For comparison, should I take offense if I read
>>a reference to the Swedish "Midsummer's Eve" holiday, and require that
>>you spell it "Midsommarafton"? Same words, spelled differently in the
>>two countries, and of course, "Midsommarafton" is a proper noun, the
>>name of one of our holidays.
>>
>>Labor/Labour should be 100% interchangeable, shouldn't they?
>>
>>I still don't understand why this is a touchy subject, I'm afraid.
>>
>Because it was *our* holiday they were referring to.
>
>Let'sa try a slightly different approach:
>
>If i transliterated your name (if i knew how -- "John", i assume for
>the first, and i can't guess at "Anglemark") every time i typed it
>becuase it was the same as that name in English-speaking countires,
>would that be okay with you?
But that's not a good paralell. Proper nouns and personal names are
not the same thing. I would expect you to call me Johan, but I would
also expect you to refer to Sweden as Sweden, and to Gothenburg as
Gothenburg. Don't tell me you talk of the capital of Greece as being
Athinai?
But labor and labour are not cognate words, they are variant spellings
of exactly the same word in the same language.
>Or, if i decided (as an editor Over Here actually did, once,
>apparently) to change every reference to the "City of London" to "city
>of London", would that not matter? After all, it's the same word.
But then he alters the meaning also in UK English. That's not a US
spelling adaptation, that's ignorance of how the noun phrase is
constituted. Different thing.
But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
"Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...
John Richards
>
> John Richards wrote:
> >
> > mike weber wrote:
> > >
> > > dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
> > >
> > > >Gary Farber wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the
> > > >way. That's not what it's called. That's just a URL."
> > > >
> > > >And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of
> > > >course, ceased to publish, so there is no longer any possibility
> > > >of confusion or need to distinguish?
> > > >
> > > Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
> >
> > Isn't what properly "Times of London"?
>
> The Guardian, of course.
>
--
JFW Richards South Hants Science Fiction Group
Portsmouth, Hants 2nd and 4th Tuesdays
England. UK. The Magpie, Fratton Road, Portsmouth
Elisabeth Carey
But "Labor Day" *is* a proper noun, just as "Labour Party" is a proper
noun--and, as you point out, the English aren't even speaking a
different language. Unlike the French quite reasonably saying "Les
Etats-Unis" rather than "United States", there's no reason for them to
not be using the correct spelling of that proper noun, especially when
so many are so free with corrections when Americans incorrectly say
"Labor Party".
> >Or, if i decided (as an editor Over Here actually did, once,
> >apparently) to change every reference to the "City of London" to "city
> >of London", would that not matter? After all, it's the same word.
>
> But then he alters the meaning also in UK English. That's not a US
> spelling adaptation, that's ignorance of how the noun phrase is
> constituted. Different thing.
>
> But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
> British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
> "Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
> take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...
Yes, we should both, and Gary was just (rather sarcastically, as is
sometimes his wont) suggesting that the respect should go both ways.
Avedon Carol
<ali...@kittywompus.com> wrote:
>Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>Day"?
>
>Because they're ignorant. In particular, because all reasonable
>standards of copyediting disappeared when journos started inputting
>their own articles. You often find articles where a large letter O is
>used for zero throughout, or a lowercase l instead of the numeral one.
How 'bout the disappearing italics for titles? I hate that.
>>We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
>>offensive, I recall.
>
>Yes, it is; they shouldn't do it. But there are plenty of other things
>to criticise the Times for.
I can't believe people still read it.
Chris Malme
<39B6235F...@mediaone.net>:
>But "Labor Day" *is* a proper noun, just as "Labour Party" is a proper
>noun--and, as you point out, the English aren't even speaking a
>different language. Unlike the French quite reasonably saying "Les
>Etats-Unis" rather than "United States", there's no reason for them to
>not be using the correct spelling of that proper noun, especially when
>so many are so free with corrections when Americans incorrectly say
>"Labor Party".
I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
On the other hand, I don't read every thread, and Deja is a somewhat
unreliable source.
Who were these pedants, Lis, and roughly when did the thread occur?
>Yes, we should both, and Gary was just (rather sarcastically, as is
>sometimes his wont) suggesting that the respect should go both ways.
Spoiling for an argument, I would say.
Chris
Kip Williams
>
> James Nicoll wrote:
> >
> > Why not claim every denomination of Christian who celebrate
> > Christmas on Dec 25 celebrates a different holiday because the
> > version of Christ varies slightly from sect to sect?
>
> You can never step in the same manger twice.
Ever have one of those days when you want to show your admiration
for one of Ray's jokes, but can't come up with a suitable rejoinder
as tribute? I guess I'll just have to send cash this time.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
Ed Dravecky III
> I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
> Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
> search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
The snarkiness, such as it was, was more than six months ago.
RASFF has a long collective memory. Some things, like Ulrika's
hovering bosoms (for which joke web page I seemed to have somehow
escaped her wrath at Chicon) never quite fade from RASFF memory.
--
Ed Dravecky III
(ed3 at panix.com)
Bernard Peek
<mins...@filklore.com> writes
>I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
>Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
>search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
I recall PNH spelling it Labor Party and then apologising. Or should
that be apologizing?
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
b...@shrdlu.co.uk
Alison Hopkins
Alan Woodford wrote in message <39b5d5bc....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 21:09:26 -0500, Richard Horton
><rrho...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>On 5 Sep 2000 19:38:22 GMT, jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>>>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>>>shopping season way short.
>>
>>Having Thanksgiving in late November hasn't stopped U. S. merchants
>>from starting the Christmas shopping season at Halloween.
>>
>
>
>Bah. Three weeks ago, one of the TV shopping channels was advertising
>Christmas Trees.
>
I bought a multi pack of Kit Kat in Sainsbury's yesterday. Bleeding Chrimbo
trees and cute Santas all over the wrappers!
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Bernard Peek wrote in message <62aU3KAF...@btinternet.com>...
>In article <8fa77206...@filklore.com>, Chris Malme
><mins...@filklore.com> writes
>
>
>>I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
>>Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
>>search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
>
>I recall PNH spelling it Labor Party and then apologising. Or should
>that be apologizing?
>
Only if he really *meant* to say sorry. :)
Ali
Niall Hedderley
<jo...@panorama.panorama.com> wrote:
>Shouldn't that be The Manchester Guardian of London?
Which, despite their reputation for spelling mistakes, I notice referred to
"Labor Day electoral surveys". See? We don't all get it wrong.
Unless that was just a spelling error on their part.
Niall H.
--
Niall Hedderley
(Ni...@Tourmaline.demon.co.uk)
Del Cotter
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
>>September "Labour Day"]
>>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>>
>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
>
> See
>
> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
>
>for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
How much is "not very"?
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:Mars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&ApostrophesMichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodby
e:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings
ToRead:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPiperSpaceViking:VernorVingeADee
William Burns
<lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>The Times article that I saw (six mentions, four of them spelled
>"Labour", two spelled "Labor") explicitly referred to the US holiday.
>The article was about the US presidential election, and how to use the
>most recent polls in fortune-telling to predict the outcome. (Okay,
>they didn't say "fortune-telling".)
I sit corrected vis-à-vis which country the Times was talking about.
Have noticed an interesting trend wrt the polls though. Every
politician in Canada has been saying 'the polls don't mean a thing'.
OK, not a new trend. The predicted losers have always said it. But
this year, for the first time in my memory, the predicted winners are
also saying it.
They've lost their faith, I take it.
--
William
Only 117 days, then it's "Welcome to the Third"
James Nicoll
Del Cotter <d...@branta.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
>James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
>>>September "Labour Day"]
>>>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
>>>
>>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
>>
>> See
>>
>> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
>>
>>for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
>
>How much is "not very"?
As in 'axe to grind' and 'not proof read'.
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.
mike weber
Anglemark) typed
>But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
>British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
>"Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
>take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...
>
In this context, "Brit" and "USAn" should be considered two similar
but not exactly cognatre languages.
Del Cotter
The thread is over, but the mammary lingers on.
<looks nervously over shoulder to see if Ailsa is within hearing>
Elisabeth Carey
<snip>
> I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
> Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
> search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
>
> On the other hand, I don't read every thread, and Deja is a somewhat
> unreliable source.
>
> Who were these pedants, Lis, and roughly when did the thread occur?
It was some months ago, longer ago than Deja's newly-limited memory
now stretches to. And it was more mildly annoying than anything else;
it's just that the sight of a British newspaper doing the same thing
with "Labor Day", merits some comment.
Not necessarily Gary's crankiness on the subject, but some comment.
> >Yes, we should both, and Gary was just (rather sarcastically, as is
> >sometimes his wont) suggesting that the respect should go both ways.
>
> Spoiling for an argument, I would say.
Well, that's sometimes his wont, too, unfortunately.
Elisabeth Carey
>
> In article <8fa77206...@filklore.com>, Chris Malme
> <mins...@filklore.com> writes
>
> >I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
> >Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
> >search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up zero.
>
> I recall PNH spelling it Labor Party and then apologising. Or should
> that be apologizing?
I don't think anyone has established crankiness rights over
apologizing/apologising.
Apologizing/saying "I'm sorry", maybe, but not the other.
Elisabeth Carey
It's more creeping Americanization, is all. American politicians have
been downplaying any lead they might have in the polls for years, lest
overconfidence should accidentally depress turnout, and produce a
surprise.
Vicki Rosenzweig
>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>Day"?
I hadn't noticed that they did. Of course, I prefer the Guardian, but
I don't recall them mentioning it at all this past Monday, or in anything
I read recently.
--
Vicki Rosenzweig | v...@redbird.org
r.a.sf.f faq at http://www.redbird.org/rassef-faq.html
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
>Understand, I respect your right to an opinion on this, no matter
>how fundementally flawed.
May I have this for a sig quote?
Elisabeth Carey
>
> Quoth Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com> on Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT:
>
> >Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> >_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> >Day"?
>
> I hadn't noticed that they did. Of course, I prefer the Guardian, but
> I don't recall them mentioning it at all this past Monday, or in anything
> I read recently.
Tuesday's had an article about the US presidential election, and what
the polls do or don't mean for the outcome in November. Labor Day was
mentioned six times; four of those times, it was spelled "Labour Day".
Vicki Rosenzweig
GMT:
>On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
>
>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>
>>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>>not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
>>
>>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased to
>>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>>distinguish?
>>
>Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
I think it's properly "The Times (London)" when you need to
distinguish from other newspapers of that name.
Vicki Rosenzweig
16:58:25 GMT:
>Morning, all!
>
>On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 04:40:30 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
>>_http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
>>Day"?
>
> I've really no idea - it is my belief that all such proper
>nouns should be spelled the way the native users spell them (even when
>that's a bit difficult in email e.g. Muenchen) because otherwise,
>there is a crazy proliferation of alternative Anglicizations,
>Francophonisms etc.
Sometimes that's just impossible, though. I can't spell Teheran
or Tokyo the way the natives do, and while I can spell Athens the
way the natives do, I'd need to change the encoding for my post,
and most of you wouldn't be able to read it.
And sometimes the names are pretty well entrenched: I don't expect
English-speakers to start referring to Napoli, Lisboa, or Deutschland,
for example. There's no rule on this, but in practice we use
easier-to-pronounce Anglicizations where they're well-established,
and do our best to pronounce newer names.
Mitch Wagner
<8p3i3e$424$1...@watserv3.uwaterloo.ca>:
> No, I think the US got this one right. First Monday in September,
>right? It's Thanksgiving they got tragically wrong, cutting the Xmas
>shopping season way short.
The Christmas shopping season starts here in the U.S. the day after
Halloween. It USED to start on Thanksgiving, as is decent.
As it is now, we start getting catalogs with Christmas stuff in them at the
end of friggin JULY.
--
Mitch Wagner
Allan Beatty
>
> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I read on
> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's "Labour
> Day"?
Of course it's not just a Britain versus the USA thing; it's the
rest of the anglophone world versus the USA. The contractors in
India that I work with emailed me "Have a happy Labour Day."
--
Allan Beatty
Too much to click on? http://listen.to/whitenoise
Allan Beatty
bother to untangle wrote:
>
> James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > In article <G0FA...@kithrup.com>,> Thanksgiving is clearly two different holidays in Canada and the US;
> Christmas and New Years are shared holidays.
>
> --Z
>
> "And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the
> borogoves..." [Which I guess means that it's Andrew Plotkin I'm quoting after all.]
Of course Thanksgiving is two different holidays in Canada and
the USA, because the USA name for Canadian Thanksgiving is
Columbus Day weekend.
Katie Schwarz
>johan.a...@bahnhof.se (Johan Anglemark) typed
>
>>But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
>>British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
>>"Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
>>take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...
>>
>In this context, "Brit" and "USAn" should be considered two similar
>but not exactly cognatre languages.
<Pedant>"Cognate" means they derive from a common ancestor, so they
are 100% cognate. Of course, you just meant they're not the same.
</Pedant>
Since a language is a dialect with an army and a navy, and the US and
UK each have an army and a navy, therefore British and American are
different languages.
--
Katie Schwarz
"There's no need to look for a Chimera, or a cat with three legs."
-- Jorge Luis Borges, "Death and the Compass"
Ray Radlein
> >
> > www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
> >
> >for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
>
> How much is "not very"?
He left out all the vowels.
- Ray R.
--
**********************************************************************
"LOS ANGELES: A city of millions; thousands more are born each day.
Some in maternity wards, some in creche incubators. The Artificial
ones don't have civil rights, but they still need the law. That's
why they turn to me. My name is Friday. I carry a badge."
-- Robert A. Heinlein's "Dragnet"
Ray Radlein - r...@learnlink.emory.edu
homepage coming soon! wooo, wooo.
**********************************************************************
Amanda Baker
On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:37:26 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
wrote:
>Quoth ama...@treaclemine.cix.co.uk (Amanda Baker) on Tue, 05 Sep 2000
>16:58:25 GMT:
>> it is my belief that all such proper
>>nouns should be spelled the way the native users spell them (even when
>>that's a bit difficult in email e.g. Muenchen) because otherwise,
>>there is a crazy proliferation of alternative Anglicizations,
>>Francophonisms etc.
>
>Sometimes that's just impossible, though. I can't spell Teheran
>or Tokyo the way the natives do, and while I can spell Athens the
>way the natives do, I'd need to change the encoding for my post,
>and most of you wouldn't be able to read it.
Of course, I was talking minor rubbish. What I really _meant_
to say, was that such proper nouns should be _pronounced_ the same
way as the native users pronounce them. I think that should mean, the
same spelling in written English if one of the variations the Roman
alphabet is being used, and in standard transliteration otherwise.
(After all, Paris and Paris are _spelled_ the same, but the
pronounciation of one in my dialect of English (P_aaaaa_r-is... sorry,
I never grokked pronounciation symbols), and the pronounciation of the
other in the local dialect of French (Pah-ri)).
>And sometimes the names are pretty well entrenched: I don't expect
>English-speakers to start referring to Napoli, Lisboa, or Deutschland,
>for example. There's no rule on this, but in practice we use
>easier-to-pronounce Anglicizations where they're well-established,
>and do our best to pronounce newer names.
I do find that rather confusing, and an unnecessary
distinction (_and_ absolutely no help whatsoever in getting the idea
through to recalcitrant speakers of any of the many variants of
English that there _are_ huge numbers of other vibrant languages out
there which deserve study!)
So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
Thanks,
Amanda
Johan Anglemark
Baker) wrote:
> So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
>speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
>After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
What you would hear, though, would be Keerdid, Naypouli, Kimroo and
Dootchland. I don't exactly love hearing foreign words mangled in
people's mouths. No thanks, let the English-speakers use the English
names.
(The final vowel in Cymru isn't even available in English...]
--
johan.a...@bahnhof.se --- www.bahnhof.se/~anglemar/
***** Upsala Science fiction-sällskap:
***** http://sfweb.dang.se/
Avedon Carol
>But I will not argue further. It seems clear that both you and the
>British think you should respect the spelling differences in the names
>"Labor Day" and "New Labour", so I guess I'll just scratch my head and
>take note. As a linguistically trained person I'm puzzled, but...
Thanks, Johann.
Avedon Carol
Baker) wrote:
>On Wed, 06 Sep 2000 20:37:26 -0400, Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org>
>wrote:
>>And sometimes the names are pretty well entrenched: I don't expect
>>English-speakers to start referring to Napoli, Lisboa, or Deutschland,
>>for example. There's no rule on this, but in practice we use
>>easier-to-pronounce Anglicizations where they're well-established,
>>and do our best to pronounce newer names.
>
> I do find that rather confusing, and an unnecessary
>distinction (_and_ absolutely no help whatsoever in getting the idea
>through to recalcitrant speakers of any of the many variants of
>English that there _are_ huge numbers of other vibrant languages out
>there which deserve study!)
>
> So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
>speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
>After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
I actually agree with this, but I don't see how I can break myself of
the habit of saying "Paris" rather than "Paree" or "Germany" rather
than "Deutschland" unless everyone else will play.
I would probably have less trouble with "Caerdydd" and "Cymru" because
I'm so used to seeing them together with "Cardiff" and "Wales" on
signs anyway, and besides, I think they are neat. I have to admit,
though, that I'm less comfortable with the idea of standardizing them,
since, let's face it, these Celtic spellings are a complete pain in
the ass.
(Things to ponder: Souix, Iraquoi, Illinois.)
Kip Williams
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 08:02:17 GMT, ama...@treaclemine.cix.co.uk (Amanda
> Baker) wrote:
>
> > So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
> >speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
> >After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
>
> What you would hear, though, would be Keerdid, Naypouli, Kimroo and
> Dootchland. I don't exactly love hearing foreign words mangled in
> people's mouths. No thanks, let the English-speakers use the English
> names.
>
> (The final vowel in Cymru isn't even available in English...]
And within a generation, they'd all have new Amurcan names, based on
our mispronunciation of the words. So we'd be spelling it Dutchland
or some such. Remarkably like what already happened, in many cases.
--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/
David G. Bell
johan.a...@bahnhof.se "Johan Anglemark" wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 08:02:17 GMT, ama...@treaclemine.cix.co.uk (Amanda
> Baker) wrote:
>
> > So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
> >speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
> >After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
>
> What you would hear, though, would be Keerdid, Naypouli, Kimroo and
> Dootchland. I don't exactly love hearing foreign words mangled in
> people's mouths. No thanks, let the English-speakers use the English
> names.
>
> (The final vowel in Cymru isn't even available in English...]
And what about the change from Peking to Beijing?
As I've had it explained to me, the old Wade-Giles transliterations are
based on Cantonese, while the modern Pin-Yin system is based on
Mandarin. The name of the place is written the same, whichever of the
Chinese languages one might be speaking, but the sounds, and hence the
transliterations, are different.
--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
Copyright 2000 David G. Bell
The right to insert advertising material in the above text is reserved
to the author. The author did not use any form of HTML in the above text.
Any text following this line was added without the author's permission.
Johan Anglemark
;-)
-j
Jo Walton
ama...@treaclemine.cix.co.uk "Amanda Baker" writes:
> So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
> speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
> After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
Except that, unlike your other examples, Caerdydd and Cymru aren't the
names most local inhabitants call them. In a bi-lingual country, some
things have two names. Two _local_ equally valid names. No big deal,
except when someone tries to demand that _either_ one be imposed on
everyone.
Something that really _really_ annoys me is English people who come
to live in Wales and insist that Welsh people who speak English ought
to start calling places by Welsh names, many of which were made up in
the 1970s. Then there's English people learning Welsh and learning
North Wales Welsh (because that's what's usually taught) and then
correcting local people's pronunciation of their own language, which
is even more annoying. (13% of the population of Wales have Welsh as
a first language. Meeting someone who doesn't speak English is a rare
event. Meeting someone speaks bad English and hearing them being
corrected like that and them meekly apologising is appalling.)
I was born within twenty miles of Cardiff, I've had family living there
all my life, and Caerdydd is just _not_ what it's called when speaking
English. I feel this even more strongly about Swansea/Abertawe because
I live here.
When you have a place with two names, use each one according to the
language you're speaking. That is what local people do. An example of
this outside Wales would be the name of the Republic of Ireland, which
is Eire in Irish and The Republic of Ireland in English - and this is
a deeply touchy issue there.
Demanding that people call Cardiff Caerdydd and Wales Cymru (pronounced,
for people who have never seen the word before, not as you might imagine,
but Come-ree) is to take a very political position that the last thousand
years of history didn't happen, and most especially that the last two
hundred years of industrial revolution didn't happen.
OK. Fine. But I'm going to be out there with my purple spray can altering
road-signs that replace the "English" word Abergavenny with the "Welsh"
Y Fenni, which nobody has ever called it, ever, and I'm going to be
spraying "Gobannium" on them. If you demand I ignore the last thousand
years, I can demand you ignore the last two thousand. Furthermore, I
can demand this for the whole of Britain. Let's call London Londinium
and Lancaster Lune Castra, the same way we call Cardiff Caerdydd and
Pendine Pentwyn, taking the words that have been changed and softened by
time and wrenching them back to their roots.
And seriously, this is why the vote for a Welsh Assembly was only 50.5%
in favour, and _look_ at the linguistic area split on that vote! English
speaking Welsh people are terrified that this sort of thing is going to
be forced on them and their culture will be turned upside-down.
--
Jo - - I kissed a kif at Kefk - - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk - UPDATED Interstichia; Poetry; RASFW FAQ;
THE KING'S PEACE, Tor Books, October 2000 - can be ordered now from Amazon
sample chapters on http://www.tor.com/sampleKingsPeace.html
mike weber
typed
>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>In this context, "Brit" and "USAn" should be considered two similar
>>but not exactly cognatre languages.
>
><Pedant>"Cognate" means they derive from a common ancestor, so they
>are 100% cognate. Of course, you just meant they're not the same.
></Pedant>
>
I have no idea why i typed "cognate" (more or less) there, when i
meant "identical".
mike weber
>Johan Anglemark wrote:
>>
>> What you would hear, though, would be Keerdid, Naypouli, Kimroo and
>> Dootchland. I don't exactly love hearing foreign words mangled in
>> people's mouths. No thanks, let the English-speakers use the English
>> names.
>>
>> (The final vowel in Cymru isn't even available in English...]
>
>And within a generation, they'd all have new Amurcan names, based on
>our mispronunciation of the words. So we'd be spelling it Dutchland
>or some such. Remarkably like what already happened, in many cases.
>
"Pennsylvania Dutch"
Alison Hopkins
mike weber wrote in message <39b80fb8...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:17:15 +0100, ave...@thirdworld.uk (Avedon
>Carol) typed
>
>>(Things to ponder: Souix, Iraquoi, Illinois.)
>>
Yep.
>
>Iroquoi
>
I thought it was Iriquois, but it's late and I'm tired. I do like Iraquoi.
Cue vision of generic Arab looking chaps, with full Plains Indian outfits,
yelling "Death to the American Infidel"!
Ali
Elisabeth Carey
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 00:28:05 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >William Burns wrote:
>
> >> OK, not a new trend. The predicted losers have always said it. But
> >> this year, for the first time in my memory, the predicted winners are
> >> also saying it.
>
> >been downplaying any lead they might have in the polls for years, lest
> >overconfidence should accidentally depress turnout, and produce a
> >surprise.
>
Of course I have! I'm a librarian; on alternate Thursdays, Melvil
Dewey's one of my culture heroes.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Since I was teaching about the Iroquois Confederacy, among other
things, this week, I can confirm the o in the second syllable.
Lucy Kemnitzer
mike weber
*sigh*
Right. I was looking back to make sure that the first "o" beloneged
to be there and forgot the final "s".
Pooh.
mike weber
typed
>It's Iroquois, rhymes with "joy", although we got that name from the
>French and they would have pronounced it "Irrakwa" (that's how Orson
>Scott Card spells it in _Red Prophet_). Looking it up, I found that
>the French got that name not from the Iroquois themselves but from
>their Algonquin enemies, in whose language it means "rattlesnakes".
>
As a matter of fact, based on various texts i've read here and there,
virtually every tribal name used by the white-eyes types seems to have
meant "enemy" or "stranger" or "<something very bad>" in the labguage
of a tribe we had previously met.
I am sure it's apocraphyl, but i once was told that "kangaroo"
basically means "How the hell would I know what it is I'm not from
these parts"...
Kip Williams
>
> On 8 Sep 2000 01:02:39 GMT, k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz)
> typed
>
> >It's Iroquois, rhymes with "joy", although we got that name from the
> >French and they would have pronounced it "Irrakwa" (that's how Orson
> >Scott Card spells it in _Red Prophet_). Looking it up, I found that
> >the French got that name not from the Iroquois themselves but from
> >their Algonquin enemies, in whose language it means "rattlesnakes".
> >
> As a matter of fact, based on various texts i've read here and there,
> virtually every tribal name used by the white-eyes types seems to have
> meant "enemy" or "stranger" or "<something very bad>" in the labguage
> of a tribe we had previously met.
>
> I am sure it's apocraphyl, but i once was told that "kangaroo"
> basically means "How the hell would I know what it is I'm not from
> these parts"...
According to Ripley, it meant "What is this man saying?" Heh. I used
to regard Ripley as a final authority. Nowadays I know that this
means the same as "I am sure it's apocryphal..." But at least he
gave us a choice.
Rob Hansen
wrote:
>And seriously, this is why the vote for a Welsh Assembly was only 50.5%
>in favour, and _look_ at the linguistic area split on that vote! English
>speaking Welsh people are terrified that this sort of thing is going to
>be forced on them and their culture will be turned upside-down.
This was one of the reasons why I voted against when it was first put
to a vote in 1977.
--
Rob Hansen
=============================================
Home Page: http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/rob/
Lucy Kemnitzer
weber) wrote:
>On 8 Sep 2000 01:02:39 GMT, k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz)
>typed
>
>
>>It's Iroquois, rhymes with "joy", although we got that name from the
>>French and they would have pronounced it "Irrakwa" (that's how Orson
>>Scott Card spells it in _Red Prophet_). Looking it up, I found that
>>the French got that name not from the Iroquois themselves but from
>>their Algonquin enemies, in whose language it means "rattlesnakes".
>>
>As a matter of fact, based on various texts i've read here and there,
>virtually every tribal name used by the white-eyes types seems to have
>meant "enemy" or "stranger" or "<something very bad>" in the labguage
>of a tribe we had previously met.
Not "every" by a long shot. A few examples should suffice. The
Lenape are called Delaware after the English name for the river
valley they owned before the Susquehannok and the Iroquois League
and the Quakers and the Dutch squished them out of it. The Creek
are named after, oddly, a creek. The Seminole are named from a
Spanish descriptive term -- cimarron, runaway -- which is not
pejorative but accurate (they are a nation that formed from an
amalgamation of escaped slaves of various origins and Creeks).
The Costanoans (Ohlone) are named from living along the coast.
Algonquin is an Algonquin word, not pejorative, though it was used
by the French first, probably through misunderstanding. Catawba
means "river people," so isn't pejorative. :Wyandotte" means "us
guys who live on the islands." Illinois is from an Illini name
meaning "the people." Menominee is another self-name for "good
seed" or "wild rice people."
There are lots of names which we use for Native American people
which are not pejoratives.
Oh, and there's a lovely site I've been visiting a lot lately, the
"compact histories:"
http://www.dickshovel.com/Compacts.html
Lucy Kemnitzer
Vicki Rosenzweig
08:02:17 GMT:
>
> So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
>speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
>After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
>
It wouldn't, though. The settlers of English-speaking North
America cheerfully recycled names, so we have cities named London,
Athens, Syracuse, Moscow, and Sebastopol.
Vicki Rosenzweig
13:30:28 +0100 (BST):
>
>And what about the change from Peking to Beijing?
>
>As I've had it explained to me, the old Wade-Giles transliterations are
>based on Cantonese, while the modern Pin-Yin system is based on
>Mandarin. The name of the place is written the same, whichever of the
>Chinese languages one might be speaking, but the sounds, and hence the
>transliterations, are different.
No. It's worse than that.
The city's name was *always* pronounced Beijing (except for the few
decades when it was renamed Peiping). The Wade-Giles transliteration
is, shall we say, less than intuitive for most English speakers.
For a simple t sound, it writes t' (the t without the apostrophe
is a d). Similarly for p and b, and g and k.
The letter k signifies a /j/ sound, more or less. And the letter
j is an /r/.
Really.
Beth Friedman
wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Sep 2000, in rec.arts.sf.fandom,
>mike weber (The Higher United Nations Defence and Enforcement Reserve)
>wrote:
>
>>On 05 Sep 2000 13:04:44 GMT, dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) typed
>>>Gary Farber wrote:
>>>>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way. That's
>>>>not what it's called. That's just a URL."
>>>
>>>And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course, ceased
>>>publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
>>>distinguish?
>>
>>Isn't it properly "Times of London"?
>
>No, the "Times" of London, or the London "Times". London appears
>nowhere in the newspaper's actual name, which is "The Times", as shown
>on the top of the front page.
As long as this subject has resurfaced, what about the Sunday version
of the paper? Is it the _Sunday Times_ of London? Or something else?
This is actually relevant (to me, at least), since it's a query for a
book I'm copyediting.
--
Beth Friedman
b...@wavefront.com
Gary Farber
Elisabeth Carey <lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> Chris Malme wrote:
> > lis....@mediaone.net (Elisabeth Carey) wrote in
> > <39B6235F...@mediaone.net>:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I have to say, I don't recollect any snarkiness in rasff over "Labor
> > Party". In fact, I don't even recall it ever being discussed, and a
> > search on Deja for "Labor Party" in rec.arts.sf.fandom comes up
> > zero.
> >
> > On the other hand, I don't read every thread, and Deja is a somewhat
> > unreliable source.
> >
> > Who were these pedants, Lis, and roughly when did the thread occur?
>
> It was some months ago, longer ago than Deja's newly-limited memory
> now stretches to. And it was more mildly annoying than anything else;
> it's just that the sight of a British newspaper doing the same thing
> with "Labor Day", merits some comment.
>
> Not necessarily Gary's crankiness on the subject, but some comment.
>
> > >Yes, we should both, and Gary was just (rather sarcastically, as is
> > >sometimes his wont) suggesting that the respect should go both
> > >ways.
> >
> > Spoiling for an argument, I would say.
>
> Well, that's sometimes his wont, too, unfortunately.
You know, I'm a very flawed person, but I have trouble seeing how anyone
rereading my post which started this thread would see me as crankier
than the self-mocking of the title, or more sarcastic, or "spoiling for
an argument" on this obviously deathly important issue about which all
our lives revolve around. Goodness knows that I've thought of nothing
else in the days since.
(BTW, Chris, Rob Hansen, whom I'd still like to think of as a friend,
needled me about this terrribly critical point; quick, let's have a
foofooraw over another difference between British and American
spelling!; act now, act without thinking!)
--
Gary Farber New York
gfa...@panix.com 2000
garyf...@juno.com
gfa...@my-deja.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
James Nicoll
Vicki Rosenzweig <v...@redbird.org> wrote:
>Quoth ama...@treaclemine.cix.co.uk (Amanda Baker) on Thu, 07 Sep 2000
>08:02:17 GMT:
>>
>> So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
>>speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
>>After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
>>
>It wouldn't, though. The settlers of English-speaking North
>America cheerfully recycled names, so we have cities named London,
>Athens, Syracuse, Moscow, and Sebastopol.
Renaming Berlin, Ontario after an odious man who was a pioneer
in the field of concentration camps seems to have resulted in a unique
place name. I can see a downside but naming cities after unpleasant
politicians might work. I mean, who's going to want to name a second
city Thatchergrad?
--
Much apologies but my return path is temporarily broken. Please
use jdni...@home.com instead.
Gary Farber
dpot...@aol.com (D. Potter) wrote:
> Gary Farber wrote:
>
> >>"Please don't call this newspaper the "London Times," by the way.
> That's
> not what it's called. That's just a URL."<<
>
> And the _New York Times_ and the _Los Angeles Times_ have, of course,
> publish, so there is no longer any possibility of confusion or need to
> distinguish?
This is what you British folk call "irony," right?
Gary Farber
jam...@nyquist.uwaterloo.ca (James Nicoll) wrote:
> In article <zKa99hB5...@branta.demon.co.uk>,> >James Nicoll <jam...@babbage.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> >>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>>[Americans complaining about Brits spelling the first Monday in
> >>>September "Labour Day"]
> >>>>I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
> >>>
> >>>Or because it's an American-only holiday?
> >>
> >> See
> >>
> >> www.perf.bc.ca/cep1092/labday.htm
> >>
> >>for a not very written essay on this 'American-only' holiday.
> >
> >How much is "not very"?
>
So, it is, like, sketched, or crayoned, or kinda clay-molded?
Gary Farber
rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 11:23:23 GMT, johan.a...@bahnhof.se
> (Johan Anglemark) wrote:
> >On Tue, 05 Sep 2000 10:38:41 GMT, Elisabeth Carey
> ><lis....@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>Gary Farber wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Okay, why do British newspapers, such as Monday's Times, which I
read on
> >>> _http://www.londontimes.com/_, refer, endlessly, to America's
> >>>"Labour
> >>> Day"?
> >>>
> >>> We all know that such incorrect spelling across the Atlantic is
> >>> offensive, I recall.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> >It's the same word, and it's spelled differently in the two
> >countries.
> >Why is that offensive? "Labor" isn't a proper noun, after all.
> >
> >I'm not really taking sides, I'm curious as to why you take offence.
>
> I imagine it's because "Labor Day" is a proper noun.
For the record, it was my carelessly referring to the "Labor Party" that
earned me my pounding on by various British posters. Alas for poor poor
pitiful me (;-)) that Johan wasn't around then to explain his take to
British fandom.
Gary Farber
ama...@treaclemine.cix.co.uk (Amanda Baker) wrote:
[. . .]
> So yes, I would like to hear English, French, Russian etc.
> speakers refering to Caerdydd and Napoli and Cymru and Deutschland.
> After all, that means everything would have one unique name!
Which is the absolutely finest kind of unique name.
Gary Farber
kras...@mindspring.com wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 12:24:13 GMT, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> typed
> >Johan Anglemark wrote:
> >And within a generation, they'd all have new Amurcan names, based on
> >our mispronunciation of the words. So we'd be spelling it Dutchland
> >or some such. Remarkably like what already happened, in many cases.
> >
> "Pennsylvania Dutch"
But did they make shoo-fly pie in the Old Country, and if not, how did
it come about?
And what about egg noodles, anyway? Was there a surfeit of chickens, or
what?
Not to mention, what made oats Qaker?
An inquiring mind,
Del Cotter
wrote:
>I am sure it's apocraphyl, but i once was told that "kangaroo"
>basically means "How the hell would I know what it is I'm not from
>these parts"...
The story goes that 'kangaroo' means 'I dunno', while 'budgerigar' means
'good to eat'.
--
. . . . Del Cotter d...@branta.demon.co.uk . . . .
JustRead:ars:JohnBarnesApocalypses&Apostrophes:MichaelConeyHelloSummerGoodby
e:WalterMMillerJrStLeibowitz&TWHW:IainBanksWhit:DorothyDunnettTheGameOfKings
ToRead:SMStirlingAgainstTheTideOfYears:HBeamPiperSpaceViking:VernorVingeADee
Alison Hopkins
Lucy Kemnitzer wrote in message <39b86e63...@enews.newsguy.com>...
<snipped>
>There are lots of names which we use for Native American people
>which are not pejoratives.
>
And some interesting ones that they use themselves; Anasazi means something
like "those who lived here before and went away for some reason", in Navajo,
iirc.
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Lucy Kemnitzer wrote in message <39b82e97...@enews.newsguy.com>...
>Since I was teaching about the Iroquois Confederacy, among other
>things, this week, I can confirm the o in the second syllable.
>
Oh, that's much better - I knew what I typed looked not quite right.
Ali
Eimear Ni Mhealoid
mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39b85bfe...@news.mindspring.com...
> On 8 Sep 2000 01:02:39 GMT, k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz)
> typed
>
>
> >It's Iroquois, rhymes with "joy", although we got that name from the
> >French and they would have pronounced it "Irrakwa" (that's how Orson
> >Scott Card spells it in _Red Prophet_). Looking it up, I found that
> >the French got that name not from the Iroquois themselves but from
> >their Algonquin enemies, in whose language it means "rattlesnakes".
> >
> As a matter of fact, based on various texts i've read here and there,
> virtually every tribal name used by the white-eyes types seems to have
> meant "enemy" or "stranger" or "<something very bad>" in the labguage
> of a tribe we had previously met.
>
> I am sure it's apocraphyl, but i once was told that "kangaroo"
> basically means "How the hell would I know what it is I'm not from
> these parts"...
ObTerryPratchett: I Don't Know, Just A Hill, and Your Finger You Fool.
--
Eimear Ni Mhealoid
Joel Rosenberg
>>>>> Alison Hopkins
>>>>> from the organization of UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET WorldCom
>>>>> who can be reached at: fn...@dial.pipex.com
>>>>> (whose comments are cited below with " Alison> "),
>>>>> had this to say in article <8pbcir$pk5$5...@lure.pipex.net>
>>>>> in newsgroups rec.arts.sf.fandom
>>>>> concerning the subject of Re: Brit-Am Spelling Crankiness
>>>>> (see <8p1tft$gto$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> <2v0frsohdnv9ga4ns...@4ax.com> <39b80fb8...@news.mindspring.com> <8p959r$lpl$1...@lure.pipex.net> <8p9drf$e8p$1...@agate.berkeley.edu> <39b85bfe...@news.mindspring.com> <39b86e63...@enews.newsguy.com> for more details)
Alison> Lucy Kemnitzer wrote in message
Alison> <39b86e63...@enews.newsguy.com>... <snipped>
>> There are lots of names which we use for Native American people
>> which are not pejoratives.
>>
Alison> And some interesting ones that they use themselves;
Alison> Anasazi means something like "those who lived here before
Alison> and went away for some reason"
"... after, apparently, eating some folks."
mike weber
typed
>Not to mention, what made oats Qaker?
>
>An inquiring mind,
>
I believe that that was the same wind that shook the barley.
mike weber
typed
>On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 03:27:17 GMT, kras...@mindspring.com (mike
>weber) wrote:
>
>>On 8 Sep 2000 01:02:39 GMT, k...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU (Katie Schwarz)
>>typed
>>
>>
>>>It's Iroquois, rhymes with "joy", although we got that name from the
>>>French and they would have pronounced it "Irrakwa" (that's how Orson
>>>Scott Card spells it in _Red Prophet_). Looking it up, I found that
>>>the French got that name not from the Iroquois themselves but from
>>>their Algonquin enemies, in whose language it means "rattlesnakes".
>>>
>>As a matter of fact, based on various texts i've read here and there,
>>virtually every tribal name used by the white-eyes types seems to have
>>meant "enemy" or "stranger" or "<something very bad>" in the labguage
>>of a tribe we had previously met.
>
Sorry -- i should have been a little more precise or something; i was
thinking mostly of some of the western/plains tribes whose names in
English seem to mean "enemy" or "<badnasty thing." or whatever because
we learnt them from different tribes.
I *did* mean to specifically exclude the Cheregoyans, Iroquoisans and
so forth in the Eastern half of the country, but forgot to.
mike weber
<eime...@eircom.net> typed
>
>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:39b85bfe...@news.mindspring.com...
>> I am sure it's apocraphyl, but i once was told that "kangaroo"
>> basically means "How the hell would I know what it is I'm not from
>> these parts"...
>
>ObTerryPratchett: I Don't Know, Just A Hill, and Your Finger You Fool.
>
Obviously TP heard the same stories i did.
Then there's the bridge in "Phoenix Guards" which, being in an are
which has seen several changes of languae, is named something like
"Fordfordfordford Bridge"
Alison Hopkins
Joel Rosenberg wrote in message ...
Yes, I'd read that. The Anasazi are viewed rather askance by the Navajo, I
believe, for that alleged habit. They built wonderful houses, though.
Ali
Alison Hopkins
mike weber wrote in message <39b94bd7...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 15:46:06 GMT, Gary Farber <garyf...@juno.com>
>typed
>
>
>>Not to mention, what made oats Qaker?
>>
>>An inquiring mind,
>>
>I believe that that was the same wind that shook the barley.
>--
For some insane Friday reason, I now have the score of Oklahoma running
through my mind. It's been a long weird week.
Ali
Thomas Womack
> Renaming Berlin, Ontario after an odious man who was a pioneer
> in the field of concentration camps seems to have resulted in a unique
> place name.
I had a vague feeling there was another Churchill somewhere in Australia or
New Zealand ...
Tom