| Author |
Message |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:01 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Joanne Marinelli had it:
| Quote: |
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8a107e480260f989762@news.ntlworld.com...
Bill McCray had it:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:25:49 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Joanne Marinelli had it:
Most atheists I've interacted with online are zealous conspiracy
theorists,
That's not true, but you can't be blamed for not knowing it. Most
Europeans you interact with online are atheists, but they never
mention this as it's not important.
Unless you know all the atheists she has interacted with online, you
don't have the knowledge to know whether her claim is true or not.
Perhaps you meant "That's probably not true, ...".
That may be the case. But it's my opinion that I am more likely to
be correct about this than not.
While I debate whether or not to curse myself for giving this thread
extraneous drift within drift, let me add one or two things:
|
Curse not; we have to while away the hours until the next usage
question pops around the jamb.
| Quote: | 1. I know plenty of Roman Catholics, which shouldn't be surprising, as
great-grandfather hailed from Rome. Most of these whom I know are lukewarm
about the faith but stop short of disavowal of the doctrine, but I do not
now know any avowed atheists with the exception of one academic from my
past, and he doesn't count.
2. The atheists I have posted with online, by and large, appear to trade
religious doctrine for secular beliefs which are equally dubious, and I
trotted off away from them in grave unhappiness, and feel better for having
done so, but trotted off from them less quickly than I fled Internet
Catholicism.
3. If to European (AEU?) atheists their atheism is no big deal, that has not
been my experience with those in online groups devoted to the topic. The
Christians go at it with them like they're vying for the top seed at
Wimbledon.
|
I think you may have missed my point. Most Europeans are atheists
but don't discuss the matter, any more than they would go to great
lengths to explain that they don't sail dinghies or don't keep bees.
The atheists you are aware of are those who go to the trouble of
identifying themselves, and so can be expected to be more forthright.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:05 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Alan Jones wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will change the
voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the unchurched majority?
Enough to override the appeal of parties' policies and records on education,
the health service, the use of military force, the environment, law and
order, security - and tax?
|
It's quite obvious you're not writing from the United States.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Mendelsohn
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:12 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
I have great trouble with this one -- I try to use the non-
controversial version ("from"), but I have trouble recalling
which one it is. I seem to have to check it each time I use
it.
If "they're different than each other" doesn't set your ears on
edge (excuse the skewed simile), there's no hope.
Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater
wasn't noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go
"clang".
Some similar constructions:
1) I want something else than this.
2) I want something other than this.
3) I want something different than this.
Items 1) and 2) are grammatical, 3) is 'nonstandard'.
But you (and others) are sort of missing my point on this.
|
No, I'm not.
| Quote: | My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
|
Got that.
| Quote: | I'm a well-educated, 52-year-old native speaker and writer of
colloquial and formal English; but "different than" does *not* -- I
repeat *not* -- "sound wrong" to my ear.
Which is why I have trouble remembering that "different from" -- which
sounds equally but not better to my ear -- should be the default.
|
The idea was that you'd use the "each other" phrase as your litmus test,
since that seems to work for you.
The constructions 1)-3) serve only as an attempt to explain why your
perception should be as it is: I theorize that your brain has those
similar structures in mind that correctly use "than", so it refuses to
flag "different than" as unusual.
For the use of "to", if you have a British ear, there's probably no way
to make that sound wrong.
You might go the route of my number 4), i.e. substitute "differing" for
"different" and use the word that seems to fit after that - you'd have
to try how "I want something differing to this" sounds for you (it
sounds ugly to me).
Cheers
Michael
--
It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend
in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country
and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.
-- Ronald Reagan, October 10, 1965 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:16 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | If not, then I stand corrected. The fact that a "regular" coke at some
stage has became what I would call a very large coke, (so that if you
want a human-sized coke rather than a giant-sized one, you have to ask
for a small coke)
We've done this before in aue. Several people have reported - myself
included - that when asking for a "small" drink that they have been
told "We don't have a small size. Would you like a medium drink?"
|
On occasion I've tried "Give me the smallest size <name of drink>
you have. Even that has been known to elicit this: "Our smallest is
the medium size.: To which I respond: Okay, I'll take that one."
And even then I've seen some hesitancy on occasion.
But then, no one under thirty knows how to make change either.
P.S. to RickyC -- It's all in fun, or at least it's supposed to be.
When the cudgels really do come out, it'll be obvious. Welcome
aboard.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:18 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
RickyC wrote:
| Quote: |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 07:50:11 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
Harvey Van Sickle schrieb:
I have great trouble with this one -- I try to use the non-
controversial version ("from"), but I have trouble recalling
which one it is. I seem to have to check it each time I use it.
If "they're different than each other" doesn't set your ears on
edge (excuse the skewed simile), there's no hope.
Admittedly, that sounds odd; but "the colour of his new sweater wasn't
noticeably different to all his other sweaters" doesn't go "clang".
As in a Chinese cymbal vs. a Sabian HH Medium-heavy Ride cymbal, you
mean?
|
This group tends to focus on grammar and usage rather than
cymbalism. You may want to try one of the writing groups for that.
Me for gongs, preferably large. J. Arthur Rank, anyone?
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:22 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than "it
sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to remind me
which one is "right" or "standard".
|
Here's the Liebs Test, all warranties disclaimed: If you can replace
"than" with "from" and it still sounds okay, use "from." Otherwise,
use "than." You should never need "to."[1]
| Quote: | I'm a well-educated, 52-year-old native speaker and writer of
colloquial and formal English; but "different than" does *not* -- I
repeat *not* -- "sound wrong" to my ear.
|
Ve haff vays ...
[1] Yeah, yeah, need to *what*? There's one in every crowd --
except here, where there's a whole bunch.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael Mendelsohn
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 3:44 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Robert Lieblich schrieb:
| Quote: | But then, no one under thirty knows how to make change either.
|
No one under thirty who works as a cashier, that is.
There is a causal relationship, methinks.
And from what I can observe, it's not true.
Cheers
Michael
--
It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend
in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country
and put parking stripes on it and still be home by Christmas.
-- Ronald Reagan, October 10, 1965 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:03 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:51:41 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robin Bignall" <docrobin@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:qrdt31115sujk3tbdcconppk72gl6m2ohi@4ax.com...
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 11:48:29 GMT, "Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk
wrote:
"the Omrud" <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca8a107e480260f989762@news.ntlworld.com...
Bill McCray had it:
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:25:49 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Joanne Marinelli had it:
Most atheists I've interacted with online are zealous conspiracy
theorists,
That's not true, but you can't be blamed for not knowing it. Most
Europeans you interact with online are atheists, but they never
mention this as it's not important.
Unless you know all the atheists she has interacted with online, you
don't have the knowledge to know whether her claim is true or not.
Perhaps you meant "That's probably not true, ...".
That may be the case. But it's my opinion that I am more likely to
be correct about this than not.
On the substantive point, I'm sure David is right. Atheism in Europe
(including the UK) is a non-issue, as is religion in general Those
atheists
who interact online with believers may, of course, be untypically
abrasive.
The beliefs of several religious leaders on abortion have become an
election issue in the last few days. I wouldn't be surprised to find
that several million voters might be influenced.
Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will change the
voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the unchurched majority?
Enough to override the appeal of parties' policies and records on education,
the health service, the use of military force, the environment, law and
order, security - and tax?
I don't know, Alan. That's why I said "might". While church |
attendance has obviously fallen significantly during the past few
decades, and David the Omrud is correct when he says that few Brits
ever discuss religion or appear to let it bother them, abortion is a
very sensitive issue. I would not be surprised to find that a lot of
people, probably a majority of them men, think that our current laws
are too lax. Whether this translates into action at the ballot box is
anyone's guess.
As to the parties' records on the other things you mention, I find
little enough in any of them to appeal to me.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:13 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Michael Mendelsohn wrote
-snip good stuff-
| Quote: | You might go the route of my number 4), i.e. substitute
"differing" for "different" and use the word that seems to fit
after that - you'd have to try how "I want something differing to
this" sounds for you (it sounds ugly to me).
|
That one might work; I'll give it a go. (Unfortunately, "differing to
this" doesn't sound grossly terrible: it seems pretty close enough to
"differs to", which I've no problem with.)
What this whole exchange has done -- at least I hope it has -- is to
drill the word "from" into the synapse (or whatever) where I need to
store it.
(From from from from from from from from...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:21 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Joanne Marinelli wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | 2. The atheists I have posted with online, by and large, appear to
trade religious doctrine for secular beliefs which are equally
dubious, and I trotted off away from them in grave unhappiness,
and feel better for having done so, but trotted off from them less
quickly than I fled Internet Catholicism.
3. If to European (AEU?) atheists their atheism is no big deal,
that has not been my experience with those in online groups
devoted to the topic.
|
As David implied, online discussions invariably represent a self-
selected group of evangelists -- whether it be atheism, Catholicism,
English usage or fans of Buffy -- and it's generally unwise to judge
any belief by its most rabid zealots.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:26 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Robert Lieblich wrote
| Quote: | Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[ ... ]
My point is that I've found no obvious aide-memoire -- other than
"it sounds wrong to somebody else's ear but not to mine" -- to
remind me which one is "right" or "standard".
Here's the Liebs Test, all warranties disclaimed: If you can
replace "than" with "from" and it still sounds okay, use "from."
Otherwise, use "than." You should never need "to."[1]
|
OK; I'll try that test, as well as Michael's.
(But I still have a sneaking suspicion that I'll think "from" sounds
wrong when it is, in fact, right; it's one of of those things that the
more you think about it, the more *everything* sounds wrong. Maybe a
post-it note is a better idea after all...)
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 4:42 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On 21 Mar 2005, Robin Bignall wrote
-snip-
| Quote: | Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will
change the voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the
unchurched majority? Enough to override the appeal of parties'
policies and records on education, the health service, the use of
military force, the environment, law and order, security - and
tax?
I don't know, Alan. That's why I said "might". While church
attendance has obviously fallen significantly during the past few
decades, and David the Omrud is correct when he says that few
Brits ever discuss religion or appear to let it bother them,
abortion is a very sensitive issue. I would not be surprised to
find that a lot of people, probably a majority of them men, think
that our current laws are too lax.
|
That's probably true, but I don't think it will swing votes.
My gut feeling is that most people -- that is, those who don't already
hold dogmatic views of right or wrong on this issue -- have already
accepted that it's a thorny and complex issue. I suspect they see this
is as an "on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand" thing, and the views
of neither churchmen, politicians, nor newspapers wil swing them one
way or the other.
I have a fairly strong faith in people in the UK behaving reasonably --
that is, with the common sense exhibited by people I deal with (rather
than what's trumpeted as such by either newspapers or politicians).
It's always easy -- say in the proverbial pub -- to find people who
will go on at length about such issues. But look at the majority of
people in the room: they'll bury themselves in their paper; nod
politely and say something neutral if forced to; prefer to stay shtum
(schtum?); and when they leave won't have had their views changed one
iota from when they walked in.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:44 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 16:33:53 GMT, "Pat Durkin" <durkinpa@peoplepc.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | First time I was in Boston - visiting from my home in Chicago - I
ordered a cup of coffee in a diner. The conversation went:
Me: Coffee, please.
Waitress: Regulah?
Me: No, with cream..
Waitress: What are you, a smaaat ass?
Don't they use the term Coffee Boston? Or even Boston Style? Seems to me I
heard of that back in my pre-teen years. Not that I ever ordered it that
way.
|
I have not heard the phrase. That doesn't mean anything, though.
I've only been to Boston a half dozen times, and never even saw anyone
baking beans.
Frankly, during most of my visits there, I was either (a) lost, (b)
in a state of terror, or (c) enjoying the food.
Boston seems to be an impossible town to get around in. The natives
are incapable of giving directions and offer bad advice in a surly
manner. They never fail, though, to tell you that Boston is laid out
based on cow paths. If your destination is a large or tall building,
you can often see it but not actually be able to get to it. It seems
there are destinations that are only approachable from somewhere else.
Boston drivers make the Japanese kamikaze flight training program look
like that place at Legoland where tiny tots drive vehicles made of
Lego blocks. The drivers there hurl their vehicles into the maelstrom
of a rotary with a complete and utter disregard for life, limb or the
deductible amount of their insurance. Boston drivers are completely
unaware of the function of that stalk on the steering column that
makes the lights blink on one side or the other. I think they hang
scalps from it. You have to be completely out of your car and have
walked thirty paces to assume that the parking space you want is truly
yours. You can be almost in one and someone will be nudging your back
bumper pushing you back out into traffic.
The food is good, though. There are more good restaurants per square
mile in Boston than anywhere else in the US. It's easy to discover
some new, and unrecommended, place that offers superb food because you
can't get to the place that has been recommended. It is on a
different cow path that is only approachable from the other way.
I once stayed in a hotel near Fenway Park. After a day-trip outside
of Boston I tried to return to my hotel and didn't know the way. I
pulled over (literally...I had to force him over) a Boston police
officer and asked for directions. He pointed vaguely in a direction
and told me to go that way until I found someone else to ask. It was
the wrong direction.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robin Bignall
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:24 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 21:42:07 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 21 Mar 2005, Robin Bignall wrote
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:51:41 GMT, "Alan Jones"
atj@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
-snip-
Do you think that statements by these religious leaders will
change the voting intentions either of their own flocks or of the
unchurched majority? Enough to override the appeal of parties'
policies and records on education, the health service, the use of
military force, the environment, law and order, security - and
tax?
I don't know, Alan. That's why I said "might". While church
attendance has obviously fallen significantly during the past few
decades, and David the Omrud is correct when he says that few
Brits ever discuss religion or appear to let it bother them,
abortion is a very sensitive issue. I would not be surprised to
find that a lot of people, probably a majority of them men, think
that our current laws are too lax.
That's probably true, but I don't think it will swing votes.
My gut feeling is that most people -- that is, those who don't already
hold dogmatic views of right or wrong on this issue -- have already
accepted that it's a thorny and complex issue. I suspect they see this
is as an "on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand" thing, and the views
of neither churchmen, politicians, nor newspapers wil swing them one
way or the other.
I have a fairly strong faith in people in the UK behaving reasonably --
that is, with the common sense exhibited by people I deal with (rather
than what's trumpeted as such by either newspapers or politicians).
Let's hope that that is true for this particular issue. In general, |
though, newspapers can affect voting, or at least (some) politicians
think so. I heard yet again recently that Neal Kinnock attributes the
blame for the destruction of his career in UK politics to a tabloid
(the Sun?) turning against him.
| Quote: | It's always easy -- say in the proverbial pub -- to find people who
will go on at length about such issues. But look at the majority of
people in the room: they'll bury themselves in their paper; nod
politely and say something neutral if forced to; prefer to stay shtum
(schtum?); and when they leave won't have had their views changed one
iota from when they walked in.
|
We never really know, do we? The British are a conservative (small
'c') lot, and many of them do not like to be buttonholed in public
either by loudmouths in pubs or pollsters on the streets. If the
French, for instance, had an NHS like ours, they'd be taking to the
streets, burning down the Ministry of Health and forcibly injecting a
few key politicians with MRSA. We seem to grin and bear just about
everything that is thrown at us, carry on reading our newspapers and
tell the pollsters what they want to hear so that we can get away from
them. But, like all elections, this one will be decided by the
so-called "floating voter", and who knows what, exactly, makes them
vote for one party over another?
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Hertfordshire
England |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2005 6:32 am
Post subject: Re: Should I use the British or American spelling? (check/ch |
|
|
Robin Bignall wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | If the
French, for instance, had an NHS like ours, they'd be taking to the
streets, burning down the Ministry of Health and forcibly injecting
a
few key politicians with MRSA. [...]
|
I've recently taken to saying this, nearly verbatim, in a loud voice
in Kingston Hospital and other public places. It will, I suppose,
produce exactly the opposite of the effect intended, but it relieves
my feelings a bit.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in