| Author |
Message |
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 7:35 am
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2004 00:28:51 GMT, CyberCypher
<cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
| Quote: | One of my problems with names is names that end in "stein". Some
people in New Jersey pronounce them to rhyme with "mine" and others
pronounce them to rhyme with "mean".
Stein is an old Scottish name (I had a great-grandfather called |
Stein). It is pronounced "steen".
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:03 am
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:51:48 GMT, "Zephir Woodwood" <zwnospam1965@hotmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | I read some text in an infection control document today. "They are easily
dispersed in air currents and transmitted when susceptible people inhale
contaminated air."
Is the use of "people" acceptable?
|
Yes.
What is wrong with substituting
Nothing, but its not necessary.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 8:31 am
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote on 30 Sep 2004:
| Quote: | On 30 Sep 2004 00:28:51 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
One of my problems with names is names that end in "stein". Some
people in New Jersey pronounce them to rhyme with "mine" and others
pronounce them to rhyme with "mean".
Stein is an old Scottish name (I had a great-grandfather called
Stein). It is pronounced "steen".
|
Ah, so that's where the problem comes from. But thaqt doesn't explain
why Albert Eensteen didn't pronounce his name that way. I guess he
wasn't a Scot.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:31 am
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:02:10 +0100, Django Cat <nospam@please.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 29 Sep 2004 04:06:50 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
Zephir Woodwood wrote on 29 Sep 2004:
I read some text in an infection control document today. "They
are easily dispersed in air currents and transmitted when
susceptible people inhale contaminated air."
Is the use of "people" acceptable?
Quite acceptable, and even preferred by the American Medical
Association Manual of Style.
What is wrong with substituting "persons"?
Style. Medical publishers have been publishing documents filled with
stilted language for far too long. The authors, editors, and publishers
who care about language use prefer to use as much everday English as
possible in order to make what is published as clear and as easy to
read and understand as possible.
And, just for the record, corporations are legal "persons" but *not*
legal "people".
That's interesting Franke - so in (US?) law an entity has to be considered
as equivalent to being an individual so that responsibility can be
assigned?
|
Non sequitur.
You would need to define "entity", "person" and "individual" befaore you could
draw a conclusion like that.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pat Durkin
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 9:38 am
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:_bOdnTmsIOWVmcbcRVn-iw@gbronline.com...
| Quote: | "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:I_C6d.7111$Ki1.4512@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Don Aitken" <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:tlqll0l2uue6npv88sajiq938mtadjc8ga@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:49:56 -0500, Michael Nitabach
mnitabach@acedsl.com> wrote:
CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in
news:Xns9573B4096F3DEcctxt2002@130.133.1.4:
Django Cat wrote on 29 Sep 2004:
[...]
That's interesting Franke - so in (US?) law an entity has to be
considered as equivalent to being an individual so that
responsibility can be assigned?
I don't know the reasoning behind making corporations legal
persons.
One reason is so that courts can have jurisdiction over them.
It isn't a new, or a specifically American, thing. All the common-law
countries have it. Originally it needed a special statute or a Royal
Charter; incorporation by administrative procedure came in in the 19th
century in England.
Taxability.
Liability in civil actions.
Probably a few more. Corporations are, in a sense, immortal. I expect
just
keeping some controls on them is only human.
I've seen that very aspect, potential immortality, used in an argument as
one reason to abolish legal personhood for corporations (part of the
overall
argument that a corporation should not be given the legal status of a
person
because it is so very different from a person).
|
One of the things about the personhood of the corporation that disgusts me
is the permission our laws give to them to contribute to political
campaigns. Now that we are well on the way to removing the double income
tax (on the corporation and again on the shareholders), I think our US
Congress should remove the violation of the "one man, one vote" principle by
forbidding absolutely any trace of corporate political contributions, no
matter what form they take. Think tanks and other non-profits are good
examples of political contributions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:42 am
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
Pat Durkin wrote:
| Quote: | One of the things about the personhood of the corporation that disgusts me
is the permission our laws give to them to contribute to political
campaigns. Now that we are well on the way to removing the double income
tax (on the corporation and again on the shareholders), I think our US
Congress should remove the violation of the "one man, one vote" principle by
forbidding absolutely any trace of corporate political contributions, no
matter what form they take. Think tanks and other non-profits are good
examples of political contributions.
|
By "good examples", do you mean "examples you approve of"?
I don't get your reasoning here, Pat. Think tanks and other nonprofits are
most likely going to be corporate entities, just like for-profit
corporations such as Tony Cooper's (A Place for Medical Equipment), Inc.
(A Florida Corporation). If a business corporation's making political
contributions violates "one man, one vote", then surely so does a
nonprofit's making political contributions.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 30, 2004 12:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Use of word people versus persons |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:35:21 +0100, Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 30 Sep 2004 00:28:51 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
One of my problems with names is names that end in "stein". Some
people in New Jersey pronounce them to rhyme with "mine" and others
pronounce them to rhyme with "mean".
Stein is an old Scottish name (I had a great-grandfather called
Stein). It is pronounced "steen".
|
My wife had a relative who changed it to Steen because once the family moved
from Scotland everyone pronounced it as if it were German.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in