[OT] A funny thing happened on the way to the forum...
Steve Elliott
might like it
> Steve,
> This is something that is being forwarded around. I showed it too
> my family over Thanksgiving and they found it really funny. My husband
> was offended by the American Football part, but I thought that was the
> funniest part. Are you sure you didn't write it? It sounds like
something you
> would do.
>
> Jenny
>
> >From: "Debbie Bryant" <dlbr...@teleport.com>
> >Subject: notice of revocation of independence
> >Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 08:25:18 -0800
> >
> > Guys,This is from a friend who's from England. Very funny...
> > Jerry Taratoot Engineer-E911 Services Galaxy Engineering Svcs.
> > An American Tower Company
> >
> > NOTICE OF REVOCATION OFINDEPENDENCE
> > To the citizens of the United States of America.In the light
> > of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern
> > yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence,
> > effective today.
> > Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume
> > monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other
territories.
> > Except Utah, which she does not fancy.
> > Your new prime minister (The rt. hon. Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85%
of
you who
> > have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your
borders)
will
> > appoint a minister for America without the need for further
elections.
Congress
> > and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated
next year
> > to determine whether any of you noticed.To aid in the transition to a
> > British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with
> > immediate effect:
> > 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look
> > up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at
just how
> > wrongly you have been pronouncing it. Generally, you should raise
your
> > vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same
twenty
> > seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you
know" is an
> > unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up
"interspersed".
> > 2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know
on your
> > behalf.
> > 3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian
accents.
It really
> > isn't that hard.
> > 4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as
the good
> > guys.
> > 5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The
Queen", but
> > only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get
confused and > > give up half way through.
> > 6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one
kind
of
> >football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good
> >game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside
your
> >borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football.
You
> >will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper
> >football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It
is
> >a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed
to
> >play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not
involve
> >stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body
> >armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US
rugby
> >sevens side by 2005.
> > 7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons
if
they
> > give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is
a
world
> > outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have
never been
> > the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "sh*t".
> > 8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a
> >new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called
"Indecisive
> >Day".
> > 9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for
> >your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what
we
> >mean.
> > 10. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.Thank
> >you for your co-operation.
> >
Graybags
"John Flynn" <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A29781A...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk...
> Laury Walkey wrote:
>
> > John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> John Flynn
> >>
> >>> YADJ wrote, in part:
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
> >>>
> >>> There's a difference???
> >>
> >> USian: ah-bowt
> >>
> >> Canadian: ah-boot
> >
> > Um, no. That's such an urban myth that we Canadians have a
> > television commercial that mocks how the USians think we speak. The
> > only time I've ever heard a Canadian say "no doot ah-boot it" is when
> > we're having a laugh about how the USians think they're having a
> > laugh at us.
>
> So.......... there isn't even THAT difference, according to a native
> Canadarian.
>
> That means my original question still stands: there's a difference???
>
Although, it does seem thay syereotypical Canadians hailed from the
North-East of England.
Graybags
Graybags
"Laury Walkey" <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3A2965F5...@my-deja.com...
> YADJ wrote, including:
>
> > 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents, and then
we'll
> > talk about the English and Australian accent issue.
>
> Ah-ha! The Voice of Reason, eh?
>
>
We have a wrod for those struggling to tell an English accent from an Ozzie
accent - deaf.
Graybags
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
wrote:
> Here's an email I received from a friend in the States... I thought you
> might like it
I've seen a couple of versions of it floating around.
However, many use a bad example, which is also in this one:
> 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look
> up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how
> wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
Brits: look up "aluminium". Check the etymology. You will be amazed at the fact
that the American version is the original, and how wrongly *you* have been
pronouncing its discoverer's name.
Here're some quotes from OED:
Aluminium (ć:liumi·niam). [a modification of ALUMINUM, the name given by its
discoverer, Sir H. Davy c. 1812 (for which he had first of all used ALUMIUM), f.
ALUMINA. The termination _-ium_ now preferred harmonizes best with other names
of elements, as _sodium_, _potassium_, _magnesium_, _lithium_, _selenium_, etc.
Both _alumium_ and _aluminum_ lived for some time.] ...
1812 _Q. Rev._ VIII. 72 Aluminium, for so we shall take the liberty of writing
the word, in preference to aluminum, which has a less classical sound.
Aluminum (aliu·minam). _Chem._ = ALUMINIUM ; being the name given by Davy in
1812.
1812 Sir H. Davy _Chem. Philos._ I. 355 As yet Aluminum has not been obtained in
a perfectly free state.
+ Alumium (aliu·miam). _Chem._ _Obs._ The name first suggested by Davy for the
metal which he finally called ALUMINUM, a name eventually furtzher changed to
ALUMINIUM.
1808 Sir H. Davy in _Phil. Trans._ XCVIII. 353 Had I been so fortunate as .. to
have procured the metallic substances I was in search of, I should have proposed
for them the names of slicium, alumium, zirconium, and glucium.
(The word "alumina" comes from "alum", which comes from Latin. The "+" in front
of "Alumium" is supposed to represent the dagger symbol, for "obsolete".)
Hm, OK, after having looked up these definitions, I suppose that "aluminium" is
a decent spelling. However, one can't accuse Americans of pronouncing it
"wrongly" -- maybe "less classically" or "unharmoniously". But "aluminum" is a
valid spelling of the word, and older than "aluminium", at that.
Perhaps "specialty" ("SPE-shul-tee") would have been a better example, with the
exhortation to look up "speciality" ("spe-shi-AHL-i-tee") and pronounce it
correctly.
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
YADJ
Steve Elliott <S.R.E...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:909b1l$eo3$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Here's an email I received from a friend in the States... I thought you
> might like it
New Subscriber Alert (please be gentle)
And here's the reply :-) (Checked with Steve before posting, as I've only
read the OT FAQ once, and not really been reading for, what I would call,
enough time before diving in....)
To the Citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland:
We welcome your concern about our electoral process. It must be exciting for
you to see a real Republic in action, even if from a distance. As always
we're amused by your quaint belief that you're actually a world power. The
sun never sets on the British Empire! Right-o chum!
However, we regretfully have to decline your offer for intervention. On the
other hand, it would be amusing to see you try to enforce your new policy
(for the 96.3% of you that seem to have forgotten that you have little to no
real power). After much deliberation, we have decided to continue our
tradition as the longest running democratic republic. It seems that
switching to a monarchy is in fact considered a "backwards step" by the
majority of the world.
To help you rise from your current anachronistic status, we have compiled a
series of helpful suggestions that we hope you adopt:
1. Realize that language is an organic structure, and that you aren't always
correct in your pronunciation or spelling. Let's use your "aluminium"
example. Sir Humphrey Davy (an Englishman) invented the name "aluminum"
(note spelling) for the metal. However, in common usage the name evolved
into "aluminium" to match the naming convention of other elements. In 1925
the United States decided to switch back to the original spelling and
pronunciation of the word, at which point we dominated the aluminum
industry. We'd also like to point out that the process of actually producing
aluminum was developed by an American and a Frenchman (not an Englishman).
However, we'd like to thank you for the Oxford English Dictionary. It's an
interesting collection, considering that over 10,000 of the words in the
original edition were submitted by a crazy American civil-war veteran called
Dr. William Charles Minor.
2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents, and then we'll
talk about the English and Australian accent issue.
3. Review your basic arithmetic. (Hint 100 - 98.85 = 1.15 and 100 - 97.85 =
2.15)
4. If you want English actors as good guys, then make your own movies. Don't
rely on us for your modern popular culture. We liked "Lock, Stock, and Two
Smoking Barrels", "Trainspotting", and "The Full Monty". We've also heard
good things about this "Billy Elliot". But one good movie a year doesn't
exactly make a cultural powerhouse. However, you're doing pretty well with
music, so keep up the good work on that front.
5. It's inefficient to have a national anthem that changes its title
whenever your monarch dies. Let's not forget that your national anthem has
an extremely boring tune. We suggest switching to that Rule Brittania ditty,
it's toetapping. Or maybe Elton John could adapt "Candle In The Wind" again
for you guys.
6. Improve at your national sport. Football? Soccer? This just in: United
States gets fourth place in men's soccer at the 2000 Summer Olympics. United
Kingdom? Not even close. By the way, impressive showing at Euro 2000. You
almost managed to get through the tournament without having your fans start
an international incident.
7. Learn how to cook. England has some top notch candy. Salt 'n' Vinegar
chips are quite yummy. However, there's a reason why the best food in your
country is Indian or Chinese. Your contributions to the culinary arts are
soggy beans, warm beer, and spotted dick. Perhaps when you finally realize
the French aren't the spawn of Satan they'll teach you how to cook.
8. You're doing a terrible job at understanding cars. The obvious error is
that you drive on the wrong side of the road. A second problem is pricing,
it's cheaper to buy a car in Belgium and ship it to England than to buy a
car in England. On the other hand, we like Jaguars and Aston Martins. That's
why we bought the companies.
9. We'll tell you who killed JFK when you apologize for "Teletubbies".
Thank you for your time. You can now return to watching bad Australian soap
operas.
PS: regarding WW2: You're Welcome.
YADJ
(New persona under construction for this NG. Possibly Belgarion, I've
always fancied carrying a big sword, or even Mandorallen, then any flames
can bounce off the armour. ;-) )
John Flynn
> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
There's a difference???
--
johnF
"And if the sun comes in your room And awakes you from your vanity You
won't find me 'cause I'll be On top a mountain pissing on your grave."
-- _The Last One Alive_, Vast
Ray Heindl
<3A28F71B...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk>:
>YADJ wrote, in part:
>
>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
>
>There's a difference???
Of course; the USan accent doesn't usually include "eh?".
--
Ray Heindl
Ben Wolfson
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton <nospam...@gmx.li> wrote:
>On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:08:26 -0000, "Steve Elliott" <S.R.E...@btinternet.com>
>wrote:
>
>> might like it
>
>
>However, many use a bad example, which is also in this one:
>
>> 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look
>> up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how
>> wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
>
>Brits: look up "aluminium". Check the etymology. You will be amazed at the fact
>that the American version is the original, and how wrongly *you* have been
>pronouncing its discoverer's name.
Not only that, but nearly all so-called American spellings are the older,
original, and hence more goodly spellings of the words in question. So
nyah.
--
BTR | So... I want to thank you for the box full of cockroaches. They are my
favorite. And thanks for the ziploc bag of semen, because, well ... you
can't have too much DNA. -- Joe Frank, "Prison Songs"
John Flynn
> Not only that, but nearly all so-called American spellings are the
> older, original, and hence more goodly spellings of the words in
> question. So nyah.
Were you one of those that took the Bignall position on singular
"their", saying that what we did a hundred years and more ago doesn't
count because we no longer speak or write like that?
If so, I am returning your "nyah" completely unused.
--
johnF
"Grammar is there to help, not hinder."
-- Mark Wallace, APIHNA, 2nd December 2000
John Larkin
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>YADJ wrote, in part:
>
>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
>
>There's a difference???
USian: ah-bowt
Canadian: ah-boot
That's it!
John
Laury Walkey
> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents, and then we'll
> talk about the English and Australian accent issue.
Ah-ha! The Voice of Reason, eh?
[snip]
> YADJ
> (New persona under construction for this NG. Possibly Belgarion, I've
> always fancied carrying a big sword, or even Mandorallen, then any flames
> can bounce off the armour. ;-) )
I'd nominate you for the role of Silk after reading this submission.
--
Polgara, Your Sorceress
"But since it's the story in me, the story I am compelled to unfold--my life, my
tragedy, my triumph and its price--I have no choice but to attempt this record."
_Violin_, Anne Rice
Laury Walkey
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:20:27 +0000, John Flynn
> <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >YADJ wrote, in part:
> >
> >> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
> >
> >There's a difference???
>
> USian: ah-bowt
>
> Canadian: ah-boot
Um, no. That's such an urban myth that we Canadians have a television
commercial that mocks how the USians think we speak. The only time I've
ever heard a Canadian say "no doot ah-boot it" is when we're having a
laugh about how the USians think they're having a laugh at us.
--
Laury <who has never seriously said 'no doot ah-boot it' - EVER!>
Ben Wolfson
John Flynn <joh...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Ben Wolfson wrote:
>
>> Not only that, but nearly all so-called American spellings are the
>> older, original, and hence more goodly spellings of the words in
>> question. So nyah.
>
>Were you one of those that took the Bignall position on singular
>"their", saying that what we did a hundred years and more ago doesn't
>count because we no longer speak or write like that?
>
>If so, I am returning your "nyah" completely unused.
I don't know; what was the Bignall position? If the it's that we shouldn't
use singular "their" because it is not a singular word and the English
language already provides a pronoun to use (namely, "he" and ilk) in cases
in which the gender is unknown, and that if "he" is offensive, "he or she"
is an option, then, sir, then and only then, is it one and the same with my
position; otherwise, I expect the "nyah" to be back in its proper place in
*your* country, hard at work.
John Flynn
> John Larkin wrote:
>
>> John Flynn
>>
>>> YADJ wrote, in part:
>>>
>>>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
>>>
>>> There's a difference???
>>
>> USian: ah-bowt
>>
>> Canadian: ah-boot
>
> Um, no. That's such an urban myth that we Canadians have a
> television commercial that mocks how the USians think we speak. The
> only time I've ever heard a Canadian say "no doot ah-boot it" is when
> we're having a laugh about how the USians think they're having a
> laugh at us.
So.......... there isn't even THAT difference, according to a native
Canadarian.
That means my original question still stands: there's a difference???
--
johnF
"'My dear Miss Sharp!' Osborne ejaculated."
-- _Vanity Fair_, William Thackeray
John Flynn
> I don't know; what was the Bignall position? If the it's that we
> shouldn't use singular "their" because it is not a singular word and
> the English language already provides a pronoun to use (namely, "he"
> and ilk) in cases in which the gender is unknown, and that if "he"
> is offensive, "he or she" is an option, then, sir, then and only then,
> is it one and the same with my position; otherwise, I expect the
> "nyah" to be back in its proper place in *your* country, hard at
> work.
The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response) goes
something like the following.
Me: Singular "their" has been around in one form or another for
centuries. It can be found in literature of every generation all
the way back to at least Chaucer's time. It all stems from an old
variation that WAS epicene.
Bignall Response: But we don't talk like Chaucer's or Shakespeare's
or even Jane Austen's characters anymore, so
therefore it's wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!
Dan and Connie
Laury Walkey <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:3A2965F5...@my-deja.com...
> YADJ wrote, including:
>
we'll
> > talk about the English and Australian accent issue.
>
> Ah-ha! The Voice of Reason, eh?
Surprisingly, I think the difference is the LACK of an accent in Canadian
english. Most of us Amurkins (texan) can be placed geographically within
500 miles by our differing accents. (The melting pot thing again) e.g.
Michael J. Fox's clean-cut speech vs. my sister from Upper Michigan (more
nort' den most of da pop-yewlayshun a' Candada, yah-hey).
Dan C.
"Most people stumble across the truth, then pick themselves up, dust
themselves off, and go on about their business." -paraphrased W.C.?
Graybags
> The gorgeous Laury wrote...
> > Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> > actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors,
> people
> > related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the
> infamous
> > criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the
> most
> > people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>
> Hmm, a few come to mind... they were all *born* in Canada, even if not
> regularly domiciled there...
>
> * Percival Stanley "Stan" Turner (WW2 Fighter Ace)
> He was the person is charge of 242 Sqn (as a Flying Officer) when
> Douglas
> Bader became their CO
> * Pamela Anderson (actress, "Baywatch")
> born Ladysmith BC (first baby born on 1st July 1967, Canada's Centennial
> day
> so she is the official "Centennial Baby"!)
> * Donald Sutherland (actor, "Dirty Dozen", "The Eagle Has Landed")
> born St. Brunswick
> * Raymond Burr (actor, "Perry Mason")
> * William Shatner (actor, "Star Trek")
> * James Doohan (actor, "Star Trek")
> * Lorne Green (actor, "Bonanza")
> * Keanu Reeves (actor)
> Born Beirut, Canadian citizen
> * Paul Gross (actor, "Due South")
> Born Calgary
> * Nicholas Lea (actor, Krycek in "X Files")
> born New Westminster
> * Matthew Perry (actor, "Friends")
> grew up in Ottawa
> * Mike Meyers (actor, "Wayne's World", "Austin Powers")
> born southern Ontario
> * Jim Carrey (actor, "The Mask")
> born in Toronto
> * Leslie Nielsen (actor, "The Naked Gun")
> born in Saskatchewen
> * Dan Aykroyd (actor, "Blues Brothers"
> born Ottawa
> * Carrie-Anne Moss (actress, "The Matrix")
> born Vancouver
> * Celine Dion (singer)
> born Charlemagne, Quebec
> * Neil Young (singer)
> Born Toronto
> * Alanis Morissette (singer)
> Born Ottawa
> * Shania Twain (singer)
> Born Windsor, Ontario
> * Bryan Adams (singer)
> Born Kingston, Ontario
> * Alex Trebek (host, "Jeopardy", "Pitfall!")
> Born Sudbury, Ontario
> * James Cameron (director, "Titanic")
> Born Kapuskasing, Ontario
>
> Will that do to get you started?
>
Greg Rusedski (tennis player) - er, now British.
Lennox Lewis (boxer) - er, now British.
Ben Johnson - cheat
Angela Taylor (Issajenko - or something similar) - cheat.
That swimmer who died in a car-crash (Victor Davis, I think).
Seems like a place to avoid, or get the heck out of.
Graybags
Laury Walkey
> Ben Wolfson wrote:
>
> > I don't know; what was the Bignall position? If the it's that we
> > shouldn't use singular "their" because it is not a singular word and
> > the English language already provides a pronoun to use (namely, "he"
> > and ilk) in cases in which the gender is unknown, and that if "he"
> > is offensive, "he or she" is an option, then, sir, then and only then,
> > is it one and the same with my position; otherwise, I expect the
> > "nyah" to be back in its proper place in *your* country, hard at
> > work.
>
> The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response)
[snip]
Yes, I think 'Bignall Response' might be the better choice, otherwise it
might be better to move this to the other thread involving sexual offers and
the like.
--
Laury
Laury Walkey
> Laury Walkey wrote:
>
> > John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> John Flynn
> >>
> >>> YADJ wrote, in part:
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
> >>>
> >>> There's a difference???
> >>
> >> USian: ah-bowt
> >>
> >> Canadian: ah-boot
> >
> > Um, no. That's such an urban myth that we Canadians have a
> > television commercial that mocks how the USians think we speak. The
> > only time I've ever heard a Canadian say "no doot ah-boot it" is when
> > we're having a laugh about how the USians think they're having a
> > laugh at us.
>
> So.......... there isn't even THAT difference, according to a native
> Canadarian.
>
> That means my original question still stands: there's a difference???
Yes. If you ever have the chance to speak with me and a USian at the same
time, I could show you the difference. Perhaps with colo(u)red markers and
diagrams!
YADJ
> --
>
> Polgara, Your Sorceress
>
life, my
> tragedy, my triumph and its price--I have no choice but to attempt this
record."
My girlfriend reckons that I should be Durnik......
I don't think that I'd be devious enough to be Silk. Plus, if I where, she
would have to be Velvet, wouldn't she?
Whereas, she is more like Poledra (her words, not mine!) with bits of Vella
(watch out for the knives....)
YADJ
Yad ho, groja UL
Laury Walkey
> My girlfriend reckons that I should be Durnik......
>
> I don't think that I'd be devious enough to be Silk. Plus, if I where, she
> would have to be Velvet, wouldn't she?
>
> Whereas, she is more like Poledra (her words, not mine!) with bits of Vella
> (watch out for the knives....)
>
> YADJ
> Yad ho, groja UL
If she's Poledra, then you'd be Belgarath and I'd have to address you as
"Daddy"!
And if you're Durnik, then you'd be married to me already.
"I don't think we've met: I'm your wife, Polgara."
Hmmm...
--
Laury
"But since it's the story in me, the story I am compelled to unfold--my life,
my tragedy, my triumph and its price--I have no choice but to attempt this
record."
_Violin_, Anne Rice
Laury Walkey
> Laury Walkey <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:3A2965F5...@my-deja.com...
> > YADJ wrote, including:
> >
> > > 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents, and then
> we'll
> > > talk about the English and Australian accent issue.
> >
> > Ah-ha! The Voice of Reason, eh?
>
> Surprisingly, I think the difference is the LACK of an accent in Canadian
> english.
West of Quebec, you'd be hard-pressed to find a native Canadian who spoke
with a definite accent (*I* think). Unless you are speaking to an acutal
Native, that is. In Atlantic Canada you'd find a strong accent which only
gets stronger the further east you travel. And Quebec is where you'll find
that distinctive Finnish accent that speakers of French are famous for
possessing.
> Most of us Amurkins (texan) can be placed geographically within
> 500 miles by our differing accents. (The melting pot thing again) e.g.
> Michael J. Fox's
A true Burnaby, BC boy if ever there was one!
Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
> clean-cut speech vs. my sister from Upper Michigan (more
> nort' den most of da pop-yewlayshun a' Candada, yah-hey).
Oh yanhhhhh? Strangely enough, that bit of info makes me want to watch
'Fargo' again.
THEIRNOTE:
[1] Only applicable IF more than one entrant supplies a list. Not an
encouragement of the Singular They faction.
J (& H) Caws-Elwitt
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, John Larkin wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:20:27 +0000, John Flynn
> <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >YADJ wrote, in part:
> >
> >> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
> >
> >There's a difference???
>
>
> USian: ah-bowt
>
> Canadian: ah-boot
>
> That's it!
I've also noted:
USian: Hy! (for "hi")
Canadian: Hoy! (for "hi")
jonathan (jc-e), who lived in suburban Montreal between ages 5 and 7
inclusive, and who subsequently lost the Canadian accent but can be heard
exhibiting it dramatically on a surviving tape recording
J (& H) Caws-Elwitt
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Laury Walkey wrote:
> John Larkin wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 13:20:27 +0000, John Flynn
> > <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >YADJ wrote, in part:
> > >
> > >> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
> > >
> > >There's a difference???
> >
> > USian: ah-bowt
> >
> > Canadian: ah-boot
>
> Um, no. That's such an urban myth that we Canadians have a television
> commercial that mocks how the USians think we speak. The only time I've
> ever heard a Canadian say "no doot ah-boot it" is when we're having a
> laugh about how the USians think they're having a laugh at us.
I must respectfully disagree. I hear a bona fide Canadian accent when I
talk to my old friend in Montreal, and when I phone the University of
Toronto Press (both in the voice of the customer service reps and in the
voices of the radio announcers I hear when they put me on hold). Plenty
of "ah-boot" and "hoy". I even hear it when Hilary and I *go to* Canada,
so it can't be just a practical joke on the part of my friend and the
staff of UT press. I'm not making fun of it, mind you; I'm just observing
vowel sounds that differ from my own northern U.S. vowel sounds.
Hmm . . . Is it possible that the accent Larkin and I are calling
Canadian is in fact limited to *eastern* Canada? (I've only been to
Vancouver once, briefly, and nobody talked to me.)
jonathan (jc-e)
Ben Wolfson
Laury Walkey <pol...@telus.net> wrote:
>John Flynn wrote:
>
>> The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response)
>
>[snip]
>
>Yes, I think 'Bignall Response' might be the better choice, otherwise it
>might be better to move this to the other thread involving sexual offers and
>the like.
Raising the question, of course, of what a nall is, and how big a nall is
big enough.
Barry in Indy
"Graybags" <gb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
> We have a wrod for those struggling to tell an English accent from an
> Ozzie accent - deaf.
>
Thy wrod and thy staff, they comfort me. (Well, not me, personally.)
--
barry in indy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Flynn
> In Atlantic Canada you'd find a strong accent which only gets
> stronger the further east you travel.
No one can disagree with that... if I were standing in Canada on the
Atlantic coast and started travelling east then the people I would meet
first on my travels (depending on my latitude) would be Irish.
--
johnF
"'What an artful little woman!' ejaculated Rebecca."
John Flynn
> Although, it does seem thay syereotypical Canadians hailed from the
> North-East of England.
Ut-ut!
John Flynn
> I've only been to Vancouver once, briefly, and nobody talked to me.
There's a witty response to that, but for the life of me I can't quite
get it out.
Dr Robin Bignall
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Ben Wolfson wrote:
>
>> I don't know; what was the Bignall position? If the it's that we
>> shouldn't use singular "their" because it is not a singular word and
>> the English language already provides a pronoun to use (namely, "he"
>> and ilk) in cases in which the gender is unknown, and that if "he"
>> is offensive, "he or she" is an option, then, sir, then and only then,
>> is it one and the same with my position; otherwise, I expect the
>> "nyah" to be back in its proper place in *your* country, hard at
>> work.
>
>The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response) goes
>something like the following.
>
>Me: Singular "their" has been around in one form or another for
> centuries. It can be found in literature of every generation all
> the way back to at least Chaucer's time. It all stems from an old
> variation that WAS epicene.
>Bignall Response: But we don't talk like Chaucer's or Shakespeare's
> or even Jane Austen's characters anymore, so
> therefore it's wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!
I never, never, repeat myself, John.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Dr Robin Bignall
Wolfson) wrote:
>In article <3A298E8A...@my-deja.com>,
>Laury Walkey <pol...@telus.net> wrote:
>>John Flynn wrote:
>>
>>> The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response)
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>Yes, I think 'Bignall Response' might be the better choice, otherwise it
>>might be better to move this to the other thread involving sexual offers and
>>the like.
>
>Raising the question, of course, of what a nall is, and how big a nall is
>big enough.
Wolfson, you're aptly named!
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Dr Robin Bignall
<polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
>actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
>related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
>criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
>people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>
Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I mean.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
John Flynn
> I never, never, repeat myself, John.
What was that? I didn't quite catch it the first time.
Laury Walkey
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
> <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> >actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
> >related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
> >criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
> >people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
> >
> Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I mean.
You're going to have to do better than that!
John Flynn
> Laury Walkey wrote:
>
>> Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
>> actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors,
>> people related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of
>> course, the infamous criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to
>> the entrant(s) with the most people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>
> Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I
> mean.
Of course! He was the one who did those things a while ago. It was
in all the papers, and he had his photograph on every front page. I
remember he had hair. And I seem to recall two eyes, too.
Steve Elliott
> Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors,
people
> related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the
infamous
> criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the
most
> people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
Hmm, a few come to mind... they were all *born* in Canada, even if not
regularly domiciled there...
Steve
Ben Wolfson
John Flynn <joh...@lineone.net> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>
>> Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I
>> mean.
>
>Of course! He was the one who did those things a while ago. It was
>in all the papers, and he had his photograph on every front page. I
>remember he had hair. And I seem to recall two eyes, too.
Wasn't that actually part of the scandal? There were allegations having to
do with eyes directed towards *someone* of the Canadarian persuasion
recently, at any rate.
John Larkin
<S.R.E...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>* Keanu Reeves (actor)
> Born Beirut, Canadian citizen
Actor? Oh... humor, I get it.
John
ps - Peter Jennings (ABC News anchorthing) is definitely an ah-boot
sayer.
Laury Walkey
> The gorgeous Laury wrote...
> > Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> > actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
> > related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the
> infamous
> > criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
> > people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>
> Hmm, a few come to mind... they were all *born* in Canada, even if not
> regularly domiciled there...
[most excellent and comprehensive list snipped]
> Will that do to get you started?
<swoon!>
<applause!>
Yayyy! I'm impressed, Good Sir. You're in good awesome form today and a
good contender for finishing in first place.
Ben Wolfson
Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 07:12:55 GMT, wol...@midway.uchicago.edu (Ben
>Wolfson) wrote:
>
>>Laury Walkey <pol...@telus.net> wrote:
>>>John Flynn wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response)
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Yes, I think 'Bignall Response' might be the better choice, otherwise it
>>>might be better to move this to the other thread involving sexual offers and
>>>the like.
>>
>>Raising the question, of course, of what a nall is, and how big a nall is
>>big enough.
>
I really don't understand that, but it's far from me to reject what seems
from its appearance to be compliment.
John Larkin
wrote:
jonathan,
I think so. I work with a bunch of guys in BC, and they sound just
like Californians, mostly, just with better grammar. I've heard the
ah-boot stuff in Toronto.
John
Eric Baber
"Steve Elliott" wrote
> * Pamela Anderson (actress, "Baywatch")
> * Keanu Reeves (actor)
"Actress"? "Actor"? Puh-LEAZE!!
> * Bryan Adams (singer)
And as I recall, Canada has apologis/zed for Mr. Adams on numerous
occasions.
Eric
--
Eric Baber
London, England
http://www.ericbaber.com
Eric Baber
<snip>
> Seems like a place to avoid, or get the heck out of.
Which reminds me of something our Canadian Lit tutor told us at uni -
"There IS such a thing as the Canadian Dream - it's to get the hell
out of the place".
Eric "about to visit Canada for the first time in a week's time" Baber
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
Ben Wolfson <wol...@midway.uchicago.edu> schreef in berichtnieuws
qiaW5.224$x3.3514@uchinews...
> In article <c89h2t8b8qv0jsvps...@4ax.com>,
> Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton <nospam...@gmx.li> wrote:
> >On Fri, 1 Dec 2000 23:08:26 -0000, "Steve Elliott"
<S.R.E...@btinternet.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Here's an email I received from a friend in the States... I thought you
> >> might like it
> >
> >I've seen a couple of versions of it floating around.
> >
> >However, many use a bad example, which is also in this one:
> >
> >> 1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Then look
> >> up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at
just how
> >> wrongly you have been pronouncing it.
> >
> >Brits: look up "aluminium". Check the etymology. You will be amazed at
the fact
> >that the American version is the original, and how wrongly *you* have
been
> >pronouncing its discoverer's name.
>
> Not only that, but nearly all so-called American spellings are the older,
> original, and hence more goodly spellings of the words in question. So
> nyah.
Not so. Most of the variations in the American dialect stem from merging
with other languages, with Dutch, Italian, and German being the main
'additives' (color is Dutch, as is adding 'like' to the end of a word to
form an adverb/adjective, for example).
That's perfectly fine, because that's how the English language was built in
the first place.
All you have to do is stop calling it 'English", because it's not, any more.
It's a separate language -- just as Flemish and Dutch are separate
languages, even though speaking one implies speaking the other.
I vote you call it 'Drivel' (I'm into naming for function).
--
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
YADJ <Nos...@thank.you> schreef in berichtnieuws
3a28f...@news1.vip.uk.com...
> 5. It's inefficient to have a national anthem that changes its title
> whenever your monarch dies. Let's not forget that your national anthem has
> an extremely boring tune. We suggest switching to that Rule Brittania
ditty,
> it's toetapping.
I can't argue with this one.
It's called Pomp and Circumstance, and I've been saying we should have it as
the national anthem for years.
<sings> "God save our graciou...*snore...*"
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
John Flynn <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
3A28F71B...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk...
> YADJ wrote, in part:
>
> > 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
>
> There's a difference???
Sure.
Canadians talk sense.
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
John Flynn <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
3A29781A...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk...
> Laury Walkey wrote:
>
> > John Larkin wrote:
> >
> >> John Flynn
> >>
> >>> YADJ wrote, in part:
> >>>
> >>>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
> >>>
> >>> There's a difference???
> >>
> >> USian: ah-bowt
> >>
> >> Canadian: ah-boot
> >
> > Um, no. That's such an urban myth that we Canadians have a
> > television commercial that mocks how the USians think we speak. The
> > only time I've ever heard a Canadian say "no doot ah-boot it" is when
> > we're having a laugh about how the USians think they're having a
> > laugh at us.
>
> So.......... there isn't even THAT difference, according to a native
> Canadarian.
>
> That means my original question still stands: there's a difference???
Sure.
Canadians talk sense.
(so good I said it twice)
Mark Wallace
The Anglo-American Humour (humor) Site
http://humorpages.terrashare.com/mainmenu.htm
____________________________________________
Laury Walkey <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3A2A8C34...@my-deja.com...
> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
> > <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> > >actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors,
people
> > >related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the
infamous
> > >criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the
most
> > >people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
> > >
> > Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I mean.
>
> You're going to have to do better than that!
Wasn't Cagney & Laceys' boss Canadian?
John Flynn
> John Flynn schreef:
>
>> YADJ wrote, in part:
>>
>>> 2. Learn to distinguish the American and Canadian accents,
>>
>> There's a difference???
>
> Sure.
> Canadians talk sense.
No. That's Avon agents.
Dr Robin Bignall
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Ben Wolfson wrote:
>
>> I don't know; what was the Bignall position? If the it's that we
>> shouldn't use singular "their" because it is not a singular word and
>> the English language already provides a pronoun to use (namely, "he"
>> and ilk) in cases in which the gender is unknown, and that if "he"
>> is offensive, "he or she" is an option, then, sir, then and only then,
>> is it one and the same with my position; otherwise, I expect the
>> "nyah" to be back in its proper place in *your* country, hard at
>> work.
>
>The Bignall position (or I should call it the Bignall response) goes
>something like the following.
>
>Me: Singular "their" has been around in one form or another for
> centuries. It can be found in literature of every generation all
> the way back to at least Chaucer's time. It all stems from an old
> variation that WAS epicene.
>Bignall Response: But we don't talk like Chaucer's or Shakespeare's
> or even Jane Austen's characters anymore, so
> therefore it's wrong, wrong, WRONG!!!
You do like cherry-picking, don't you. My main point, which you didn't
mention, is that those authorities on grammar which document the
*correct* use of English *today* all specify agreement in number, of
pronouns with verbs. Descriptivist literature just simply records how
English is both used and misused, usually without any differentiation.
Enough has been said, I think, here and in aeu on this topic. It's not
even remotely amusing. A group whose title is meant to highlight the
correct use of an often-misused word, and which then goes on to
advocate misuse in another area, is just _________.[1]
[1] Fill in the blank with your own adjective. Any even remote synonym
of 'sensible' is wrong.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Dr Robin Bignall
<polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
>> <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
>> >actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
>> >related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
>> >criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
>> >people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>> >
>> Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I mean.
>
>You're going to have to do better than that!
Why?
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Dr Robin Bignall
Wolfson) wrote:
>In article <3A2A8C92...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk>,
>John Flynn <joh...@lineone.net> wrote:
>>Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I
>>> mean.
>>
>>Of course! He was the one who did those things a while ago. It was
>>in all the papers, and he had his photograph on every front page. I
>>remember he had hair. And I seem to recall two eyes, too.
>
>Wasn't that actually part of the scandal? There were allegations having to
>do with eyes directed towards *someone* of the Canadarian persuasion
>recently, at any rate.
Well, I didn't write all of that, but yes, you've almost got it. His
wife was female, and called M.. Mar.. Drat! I think his name had a
'true' in it, but can that be? He was a politician.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
John Flynn
> A group whose title is meant to highlight the correct use of an
> often-misused word, and which then goes on to advocate misuse in
> another area, is just _________.[1]
>
> [1] Fill in the blank with your own adjective. Any even remote
> synonym of 'sensible' is wrong.
"delightfully ironic"
Graybags
"Dr Robin Bignall" <docr...@cwcom.net> wrote in message
news:19cq2t49qti68ahuo...@4ax.com...
> correct use of an often-misused word, and which then goes on to
> advocate misuse in another area, is just _________.[1]
>
> [1] Fill in the blank with your own adjective. Any even remote synonym
> of 'sensible' is wrong.
>
Graybags
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
<polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
> related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
> criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
> people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
* Laury Walkey
:-)
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <nospam...@gmx.li>
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
John Flynn
> My main point, which you didn't mention, is that those authorities on
> grammar which document the *correct* use of English *today* all
> specify agreement in number, of pronouns with verbs. Descriptivist
> literature just simply records how English is both used and misused,
> usually without any differentiation.
>
> Enough has been said, I think, here and in aeu on this topic. It's
> not even remotely amusing.
Putting my Very Serious Hat on for a moment (it's a bit tight, I've
noticed)...
Stripping away all the supporting arguments that I've put forward for
my defending singular "they/them/their", the reason I do is that I can
not bring myself to condemn large groups of people whom I work with,
whom I talk to, and I know are intelligent and articulate people. It's
not in my nature to judge or condemn (I've seen too much of that on AEU
and similar places) and there's no way in the world am I going to use a
little thing such as singular "they/them/their" as the tool with which
I can belittle people.
I do actually see the way that it's deemed 'incorrect' by you and
others. I could even swap 'sides' and become one of those stone-
throwers and brow-beaters and give a persuasive and cogent argument
AGAINST its use. But my aversion to adopting a judgmental attitude
stops me, holds me back, and makes me think "Wait a minute... this
language is THEIR language, too, and who am I or anyone else to
inflict a huge amount of abuse for their using something that has
been around for a long time?"
Locking myself in an ivory tower and making a list of Good Guys and
Bad Guys is not for me -- I'm just here to enjoy life as much as
possible. If that sounds frivolous, then so be it: it's frivolous.
I've had enough misery from ill health to make me want to seek out the
most amount of levity that I can fit into every moment.
There... I'll take my Very Serious Hat off now. And thank goodness!
It was making my head all itchy.
Laury Walkey
> You do like cherry-picking, don't you. My main point, which you didn't
> mention, is that those authorities on grammar which document the
> *correct* use of English *today* all specify agreement in number, of
> pronouns with verbs.
It seems to me, then, that the best way to ensure that all pronouns are in
agreement in number with their verbs is to change the verb to plural,
therefore reflecting its plural antecedant. I recall just having read that
suggestion in one of the eight or nine usage texts I have been recently
reading.
The argument of using the word 'he' as the singular pronoun was covered in
the very same book (but I can't remember which one!!!). To use 'he or she'
is cumbersome, though 'politically correct'; 's/he' is considered overly
clever (even in a smart-arsed/assed manner, perhaps); 'they' does not agree
in number with the verb; and just 'he' is considered 'sexist'.
A case can be made for using each of these alternatives, I suppose. The
bottom line in the book was that in conversation and informal writing, one
can say whatever one likes, but in formal writing, one ought (but not
necessarily *must*) adhere to the 'rule' of agreement in number of pronouns
with their verbs. And this is what I shall try to do: use 'they' as plural
in formal writing and use whatever is situationally appropriate for informal
writing (such as posting to this group) and speech.
I expect y'all[1] will do as you please.[2]
NOTEDNOTES:
[1] I, for one, will continue to use this in the singular *and* the plural,
even if some consider it incorrect.
[2] Please pass the peanuts to this end of the bar? I could use a bit of
nosh. Thanks!
--
Laury
"A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to
read."
-- Mark Twain
Laury Walkey
> There... I'll take my Very Serious Hat off now. And thank goodness!
> It was making my head all itchy.
Try that dandruff remedy I told you about yesterday, John. Might help with
the itchiness.
Laury Walkey
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
> <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> > actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
> > related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
> > criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
> > people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>
> * Laury Walkey
>
> :-)
<APPLAUSE!>
It's now between you and Steve Elliott to see who is the winner.
Laury Walkey
> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 18:08:50 GMT, Laury Walkey
> <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
> >> <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> >> >actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
> >> >related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
> >> >criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
> >> >people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
> >> >
> >> Yeah, whatshisname. The famous one with the wife. You know who I mean.
> >
> >You're going to have to do better than that!
>
> Why?
Because.
Ben Wolfson
John Flynn <joh...@lineone.net> wrote:
<John understands the arguments against singular their, but doesn't want to
condemn vast swathes of people in this cornfield of humanity>
You don't need to hold it against them, you know. Just be silently aware of
the nature of the mistake, and possibly put a check against the
mistaken-one's name, for when the Revolution comes.
--
BTR | "I see you're wearing a white undershirt, a blue shirt, and a dark tie.
From this I deduce that you are twenty."
"French. Close." -- I and Andy Hagan
John Flynn
> You don't need to hold it against them, you know. Just be silently
> aware of the nature of the mistake, and possibly put a check against
> the mistaken-one's name, for when the Revolution comes.
And what Revolution would that be? I've already tried stirring up the
gerunds, urging them to take their rightful possessives (in another
thread), but they just won't be motivated. This language thing of ours
takes forever to change.
Eric Baber
didn't
> mention, is that those authorities on grammar which document the
> *correct* use of English *today* all specify agreement in number, of
how
> English is both used and misused, usually without any
differentiation.
>
> Enough has been said, I think, here and in aeu on this topic. It's
not
> correct use of an often-misused word, and which then goes on to
> advocate misuse in another area, is just _________.[1]
>
> [1] Fill in the blank with your own adjective. Any even remote
synonym
> of 'sensible' is wrong.
Does anyone know another word for "synonym"?
Eric
Ben Wolfson
http://play.rbn.com/?url=livecon/kcrw/g2demand/jf/jf_Bad_Karma.rm&proto=rtsp
It's a little more than halfway through.
Eric Baber
news:KEuX5.17$E3.411@uchinews...
> In article <90l227$l2v$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>,
> Eric Baber <Er...@nll.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Does anyone know another word for "synonym"?
>
>
http://play.rbn.com/?url=livecon/kcrw/g2demand/jf/jf_Bad_Karma.rm&prot
o=rtsp
>
> It's a little more than halfway through.
Couldn't find it - I gave up at about 32 minutes and couldn't be
bothered to listen on, sorry; have you got an exact reference? You
should be able to get one from the timer-thing.
Cheers
Ben Wolfson
Eric Baber <Er...@nll.co.uk> wrote:
>"Ben Wolfson" <wol...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote in message
>news:KEuX5.17$E3.411@uchinews...
>> In article <90l227$l2v$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>,
>> Eric Baber <Er...@nll.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >Does anyone know another word for "synonym"?
>>
>>
>http://play.rbn.com/?url=livecon/kcrw/g2demand/jf/jf_Bad_Karma.rm&prot
>o=rtsp
>>
>> It's a little more than halfway through.
>
>Couldn't find it - I gave up at about 32 minutes and couldn't be
>bothered to listen on, sorry; have you got an exact reference? You
>should be able to get one from the timer-thing.
Well, I'm impressed. At some point he says that he needs to meet god to ask
him, among other things, why there isn't another word for "synonym".
John Flynn
> Does anyone know another word for "synonym"?
I was going to suggest "thesaurus entry" but realised that:
1. You wanted only one word.
2. It sounds like bestiality with a dinosaur.
Ray Heindl
<3A2F4D4B...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk>:
>Eric Baber wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know another word for "synonym"?
>
>I was going to suggest "thesaurus entry" but realised that:
>1. You wanted only one word.
>2. It sounds like bestiality with a dinosaur.
In response to item 1, if it gets used enough it will eventually become
"thesaurusentry", so as long as you speak in the future tense you'll be
OK. I can't help you with item 2.
--
Ray Heindl
Steve Elliott
message news:6s013totfv1l4pjar...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 23:41:35 GMT, Laury Walkey
> <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Perceptive "Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton" wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
> > > <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
> > > > actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors,
people
> > > > related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course,
the infamous
> > > > criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with
the most
> > > > people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
> > >
> > >
> > > :-)
> >
> > <APPLAUSE!>
> >
> > It's now between you and Steve Elliott to see who is the winner.
>
list? I
> make it your call.
I'm hurt that Laury doesn't realise my true feelings for her, and hence my
non-typed inclusion on my list of famous Canadians... and to think that I
almost flew out there to join her :(
Steve
Laury Walkey
> I'm hurt that Laury doesn't realise my true feelings for her, and hence my
> non-typed inclusion on my list of famous Canadians... and to think that I
> almost flew out there to join her :(
Oh, Steve! Your non-typed inclusion of my name on your list is *precisely*
the reason you made it into the finals of the competition, sir!
Steve Elliott
news:3A31488D...@my-deja.com...
> Steve Elliott wrote:
>
> > I'm hurt that Laury doesn't realise my true feelings for her, and
hence my
> > non-typed inclusion on my list of famous Canadians... and to think
that I
> > almost flew out there to join her :(
>
> Oh, Steve! Your non-typed inclusion of my name on your list is
*precisely*
> the reason you made it into the finals of the competition, sir!
o \
|
o /
Steve
John Flynn
> o \
> |
> o /
Steve... Laury... alt.singles.desperate is that way ===>
Graybags
"John Flynn" <joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3A314FA4...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk...
> Steve Elliott wrote:
>
> > o \
> > |
> > o /
>
> Steve... Laury... alt.singles.desperate is that way ===>
>
Graybags
Dr Robin Bignall
<joh...@flynndins.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Dr Robin Bignall wrote, in part:
>
>> My main point, which you didn't mention, is that those authorities on
>> grammar which document the *correct* use of English *today* all
>> specify agreement in number, of pronouns with verbs. Descriptivist
>> literature just simply records how English is both used and misused,
>> usually without any differentiation.
>>
>> Enough has been said, I think, here and in aeu on this topic. It's
>> not even remotely amusing.
>
>Putting my Very Serious Hat on for a moment (it's a bit tight, I've
>noticed)...
>
>Stripping away all the supporting arguments that I've put forward for
>my defending singular "they/them/their", the reason I do is that I can
>not bring myself to condemn large groups of people whom I work with,
>whom I talk to, and I know are intelligent and articulate people. It's
>not in my nature to judge or condemn (I've seen too much of that on AEU
>and similar places) and there's no way in the world am I going to use a
>little thing such as singular "they/them/their" as the tool with which
>I can belittle people.
>
>I do actually see the way that it's deemed 'incorrect' by you and
>others. I could even swap 'sides' and become one of those stone-
>throwers and brow-beaters and give a persuasive and cogent argument
>AGAINST its use. But my aversion to adopting a judgmental attitude
>stops me, holds me back, and makes me think "Wait a minute... this
>language is THEIR language, too, and who am I or anyone else to
>inflict a huge amount of abuse for their using something that has
>been around for a long time?"
>
>Locking myself in an ivory tower and making a list of Good Guys and
>Bad Guys is not for me -- I'm just here to enjoy life as much as
>possible. If that sounds frivolous, then so be it: it's frivolous.
>I've had enough misery from ill health to make me want to seek out the
>most amount of levity that I can fit into every moment.
>
Hey! I agree totally with your last sentence: it's why I'm here, too.
I don't condemn people for using singular 'them' etc. or for running
red traffic lights. If they want to do it, it's their business. I'm
not a magistrate, either in English or rules of the road. But out
there, in the real world, one is judged and sometimes condemned for
one's behaviour, sometimes unjustly, sometimes not. It's best not to
run red lights, because one might be caught and suffer penalties from
recognised authorities. It's best not to misuse English in a job
application to a senior manager who believes in recognised authorities
on English grammar, because one might be caught and suffer penalties.
In either case, excuses, even plausible ones, do not work.
I don't subscribe to the 'we must classify people into little boxes so
that we can decide whether they're worth knowing' philosophy, myself.
A person is not a 'good guy' or a 'bad guy' (where does that leave the
gals?) simply for making a mistake in English usage. As the Cosa
Nostra say, "Dis ain't poysonal, buster. Dis is bizness!"
I don't remember abusing anyone in particular, at least not much, and
if anyone feels belittled by comments on usage of singular 'them' then
all I can do is pass on Ramone's comment to Gregory Peck before he
rides the untamed 'Old Thunder' in 'The Big Country': "Don' do eet,
Senor!"
This topic has now exceeded my levity use-by date, at least here, in
Apihna.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Dr Robin Bignall
Newton" <nospam...@gmx.li> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Dec 2000 23:41:35 GMT, Laury Walkey
><polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Perceptive "Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton" wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 03 Dec 2000 03:34:26 GMT, Laury Walkey
>> > <polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Can anyone name other famous Canadians? I'll accept
>> > > actors/actresses/television personalities, sports people, authors, people
>> > > related to famous people, rich people, musicians and, of course, the infamous
>> > > criminal sorts of people. Polgara Points to the entrant(s) with the most
>> > > people on his/her/its/their[1] list.
>> >
>> > * Laury Walkey
>> >
>> > :-)
>>
>> <APPLAUSE!>
>>
>> It's now between you and Steve Elliott to see who is the winner.
>
>Right. Steve -- what do you say? Does Laury count for more than your list? I
>make it your call.
>
I vote for both of you. Laury has more than enough good points. And
what do points mean?[1]
[1] (Mystery voice, for those of you at home): PRIZES![2]
[2] Ref: Humphrey Lyttleton, compere of, er...[3]
[3] Sorry, I can't remember. I'm clueless.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Steve Elliott
> [3] Sorry, I can't remember. I'm clueless.
I must apologize, I am also completely baffled as to the show to which
Humphrey is, er..., whatchamacallit, ... of
Steve
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
> I vote for both of you.
Would it be appropriate, at this juncture, to ask for a manual recount?
John Flynn
> Dr Robin Bignall wrote:
>
>> I vote for both of you.
>
> Would it be appropriate, at this juncture, to ask for a manual
> recount?
I can find one for my video recorder, but that's about it.
Steve Elliott
message news:89j73tcif169avrcd...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:06:12 +0000, Dr Robin Bignall
<docr...@cwcom.net> wrote:
>
> > I vote for both of you.
>
> Would it be appropriate, at this juncture, to ask for a manual recount?
Well, that depends on:
- what status a pregnant chad would have
- what the apihna Supreme Court ruling is
Steve
Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton
wrote:
> "Philip 'Yes, that's my address' Newton" <nospam...@gmx.li> wrote in
> message news:89j73tcif169avrcd...@4ax.com...
> > On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 18:06:12 +0000, Dr Robin Bignall
> <docr...@cwcom.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I vote for both of you.
> >
> > Would it be appropriate, at this juncture, to ask for a manual recount?
>
> Well, that depends on:
> - what status a pregnant chad would have
I only know two Chads and they're both male. So we can disregard this problem.
Dr Robin Bignall
[3] "I'm sorry, I haven't a clue", BBC Radio 4's answer to the quiz
show. The inventors of the 'Mornington Crescent' game.[4]
[1] You were kidding, weren't you?[2]
[2] In case you weren't, see [3].
[4] They are said to have published the 'rules'. They do not lead to
either un- or dis- or even anti-bafflement. I can't follow the logic
which takes them from Chiswick Brook Aqueduct to Mornington Crescent
via London Dockland Broadway, the Thames Barrier and Buckingham Palace
Monorail, even with all oddly-named stations wild.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Steve Elliott
Yes!
[referring to the excellent 'Mornington Crescent'...]
> [4] They are said to have published the 'rules'. They do not lead to
> either un- or dis- or even anti-bafflement. I can't follow the logic
> which takes them from Chiswick Brook Aqueduct to Mornington Crescent
> via London Dockland Broadway, the Thames Barrier and Buckingham Palace
> Monorail, even with all oddly-named stations wild.
Hmm... I think that's probably following the Hapsbug Convention!
For those who don't know what Dr R and I are talking about, here are a few
randomly-chosen MC sites:
http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/6S8.html
http://www.isihac.co.uk/mcvari.html
http://homepages.tesco.net/~N.Faulkner/blakes7/morncres.htm
(Blakes 7 MC...)
http://www.cix.co.uk/~gil/data/morn.htm
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crescent/morningplay.pl?Game230
(annotated game of MC!)
and, of course:
news:alt.games.mornington.cresent
(and, yes, it is missing the second 'c' in crescent! "Yes, by the way,
that is how the newsgroup name is spelt: the 1991 IMCC in Dresden
discussed at length the issue of MC games played via electronic media and
it was decided to drop the second C from the newsgroup title after concern
was voiced over polyhedral decay of Victoria line cross-hatches due to net
lag. There are purists who refuse to play on the grounds that it's a quick
hack, but I don't feel it detracts from the overall quality of the game")
Steve
Steve Elliott
Latimer Road.
Steve
Ben Wolfson
Having been unfortunate enough to have witnessed one of these abominable
things on apihna once already, I must beg that the game be ended now.
--
BTR
It infuriates me that Dracula may have needed my soul more than I do.
-- Stanley Donwood, "Dracula"
John Flynn
> I'll start with the classic move:
>
> Latimer Road.
Bad start, Steve. You DO realise that by starting there, I can go:
EMBANKMENT and get a free turn that leads directly to: MORNINGTON
CRESCENT, yeah? Thus winning (and ending) the game. Hooray!
(The reason being... it's unfair on the USians who:
1. Don't know the rules.
2. Don't care about the rules.
3. Don't understand the rules.)
--
johnF
"There is little doubt that most of the new features that are intensely
disliked by linguistic conservatives will triumph in the end."
-- Robert Burchfield, quoted in _The Complete Plain Words_
Laury Walkey
> [referring to the excellent 'Mornington Crescent'...]
The site
http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/6S8.html
which you quoted says
"The Basic Rules:
"1.Each player takes it in turn to name a street in London. "
Is that London, Ontario, perhaps? Or some other London?
"2.The winner is the first person to say Mornington Crescent."
Seems simple enough. So why can't the first person just say this "Mornington
Crescent" thing on the first go and bam! end of game?
I'm clearly missing something.
And yet the site http://www.isihac.co.uk/parlour.html#mornington says:
"As most people know the rules to this game, or can
track down the International
Mornington Crescent Society rulebook, I will not waste
space repeating them here."
Ah, well then. Since I must already know the rules (perhaps by osmosis or
some weird alternate dimension thingy) to the game, I must then know the
answer to my question.
So I say "Morning To N. Crescent" and I win! Huzzah!
--
Laury <who is totally missing the point and thinking a game of "Mother May I",
"Red Rover" or even "I Spy With My Little Eye" might be more her thing>
Steven M. O'Neill
>Steve Elliott wrote:
>
>> I'll start with the classic move:
>>
>> Latimer Road.
>
>Bad start, Steve. You DO realise that by starting there, I can go:
>EMBANKMENT and get a free turn that leads directly to: MORNINGTON
>CRESCENT, yeah? Thus winning (and ending) the game. Hooray!
>
>(The reason being... it's unfair on the USians who:
> 1. Don't know the rules.
> 2. Don't care about the rules.
> 3. Don't understand the rules.)
Here's the map I play with:
http://members.tripod.com/pansiecola/greatbear/boogabear.htm. It's
Simon Patterson's The Great Bear.
My first move is Angelica Huston.
--
Steven O'Neill ste...@panix.com
www.cars-suck.org
John Flynn
> My first move is Angelica Huston.
Is she any relation to the famous actress Anjelica Huston?
Steven M. O'Neill
>Steven M. O'Neill wrote, in part:
>
>> My first move is Angelica Huston.
>
>Is she any relation to the famous actress Anjelica Huston?
You'll have to ask Mr. Patterson.
Graybags
"Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:91838h$i6n$1...@news.panix.com...
A foxy move indeed. My response is St. John of Damascus.
Graybags
Steven M. O'Neill
>
Aha! The Queen's Gambit Accepted... Fra Angelico.
Dr Robin Bignall
<polgara_th...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Steve Elliott wrote, including:
>
>> [referring to the excellent 'Mornington Crescent'...]
>
>The site
>
>http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/6S8.html
>
> which you quoted says
>
>"The Basic Rules:
> "1.Each player takes it in turn to name a street in London. "
>
>Is that London, Ontario, perhaps? Or some other London?
>
> "2.The winner is the first person to say Mornington Crescent."
>
>Seems simple enough. So why can't the first person just say this "Mornington
>Crescent" thing on the first go and bam! end of game?
>
>I'm clearly missing something.
>
>And yet the site http://www.isihac.co.uk/parlour.html#mornington says:
>
> "As most people know the rules to this game, or can
>track down the International
> Mornington Crescent Society rulebook, I will not waste
>space repeating them here."
>
>Ah, well then. Since I must already know the rules (perhaps by osmosis or
>some weird alternate dimension thingy) to the game, I must then know the
>answer to my question.
>
>So I say "Morning To N. Crescent" and I win! Huzzah!
That's too simplistic. The point of the game is that there are no
rules whatsoever. Period.
It started, like all "I'm sorry, I haven't a clue" games, by spoofing
some game or activity in the Real World. This was meant as a board
game, played by using the names of London's Underground stations in
some sort of way such that one had to ponder chess-like to work out
the next move, which was supposed to lead to Mornington Crescent. In
fact, even in those early games, starting adjacent to the Crescent
would not help, because the next person would often name a station at
the opposite end of London! Actually, there were no rules: they just
sounded as though they were playing by some, and the idea was to make
it extremely mysterious, with various opening gambits, funny-sounding
rule variations and the like. Then, they started inventing tube
stations that did not exist, as did I in my post. It's just got more
and more complex from there, and we crazy Brits find it screamingly
funny because there's absolutely no point to it at all. This week, for
example, the idea was to prevent the relative newcomer from ever
getting a word in edgeways, so he never got to name a 'tube' station
at all.
The whole program succeeds because Humph plays much of it deadpan, as
though it was serious, and the various parts -- such as slagging off
Colin Sells, the pianist -- are eagerly awaited just as the catch
phrases in 'The Goons' were, 50 years ago.
I hope that doesn't spoil the fun. It's just pure, unadulterated
Nonsense. Or, of course, it could be the most fiendishly complex board
game since 'Go' was invented. Yes, it's probably that. In fact I'm
sure it is.
--
wrmst rgds
RB...(docr...@cwcom.net)
Graybags
> Graybags <gb...@lineone.net> wrote:
> >"Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> My first move is Angelica Huston.
> >
> >A foxy move indeed. My response is St. John of Damascus.
>
> Aha! The Queen's Gambit Accepted... Fra Angelico.
> --
Steve, you just can't resist a woman.
Pluto.
Graybags
Steven M. O'Neill
>"Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> Graybags <gb...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> >"Steven M. O'Neill" <ste...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> >> My first move is Angelica Huston.
>> >
>> >A foxy move indeed. My response is St. John of Damascus.
>>
>> Aha! The Queen's Gambit Accepted... Fra Angelico.
>
>
>Pluto.
That's Fra as in frère (or perhaps you mean the Queen).
I concede.
John Flynn
> I hope that doesn't spoil the fun. It's just pure, unadulterated
> Nonsense. Or, of course, it could be the most fiendishly complex
> board game since 'Go' was invented. Yes, it's probably that. In fact
> I'm sure it is.
Definitely the latter.
Going by what you've said, I'm assuming you missed the offer of the
entire series of rulebooks and addenda that you could get by collecting
150 tokens from packets of Typhoo tea, Fox's Crunch Creams, and/or
Weetabix.
YADJ
> Steve Elliott wrote, including:
>
>
> "2.The winner is the first person to say Mornington Crescent."
>
> Seems simple enough. So why can't the first person just say this
"Mornington
> Crescent" thing on the first go and bam! end of game?
It's a 'British' thing. As Kate just said to me, it's a game you play to
play, not a game you play to win.
The context is important here. Mornington Crescent is played by two teams
who take part in a radio show called 'I'm Sorry, I haven't a clue'. Billed
as the antidote to panel games.
It's an anarcistic set of 'games' which are daft in the extream, but allow
four comic geniuses, plus Humphrey Littleton, (who is *the* Humphrey
Littleton, of Jazz fame) to make bad puns, get lots of laughs and generally
'Ham It Up' on the radio.
Supporting cast includes Colin Cell (That may not be the correct spelling)
plus Samantha, or Sven, the scorers.
As they say, you have to hear it to understand.
It's on Radio 4, which can be heard, on the internet, at
http//www.bbc.co.uk/radio4 and is broadcast at 18:30 UTC on a Monday.
HTH - Dave
Appologies for any spelling or grammatical errors
--
If Garion kept his sword on his back, he must have had very long arms to
draw it.
YADJ
>
> My first move is Angelica Huston.
I see you are trying the diagonal manouver first.....
Hmmm, pity that Angelica Huston isn't a street in London (England).
Never mind, my go.
The Strand.
Dave
Steve Elliott
there was a round where you "censor" a song, using a buzzer to hide
'censored' words...
"My Favourite Things" from the Sound Of Music:
<buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz>
<buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz>
<buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz>
<buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz>
<buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> <buzz> all tied in string,
these are a few of my favourite things!
Steve
Laury Walkey
> If Garion kept his sword on his back, he must have had very long arms to
> draw it.
Nah, all he would need is a pencil and some paper.
--
Laury
Ben Wolfson
Labtec.