| Author |
Message |
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 3:31 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
In message <oeayx9ax.fsf@hpl.hp.com>, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> writes
| Quote: | Areff <me@privacy.net> writes:
Oliver Cromm wrote:
And yes, it is fairly normal in German to distinguish that, and use
"belly ache" if you're not sure about the source.
Interesting. I think of "belly" as being almost a
quasi-baby-talk/infantile word for generalized "stomach" in the
loose nonclinical sense. Like, you'd speak of a "belly ache" with a
very young child, maybe,
I think that for me "belly ache" has been completely skunked by it's
metaphorical extention to "complain excessivly", which MWCD11 dates to
1881. (The OED defines this sense as "To complain querulously or
unreasonably; to whine, grizzle", which at least gives me an anchor
for "grizzle".) If somebody says "I have a belly ache", I'd probably
assume that they meant that they had a gripe unless it was obvious
that they were describing their health.
That would be a gripe as in 'severe spasmodic pain in the intestines'? |
Take gripe-water for it. Full circle, so soon?
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 4:08 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 08:52:15 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:45:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51:22 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
epidemics, sometimes pandemics, and sometimes just some folks getting
sick (=BrE ill).
"Sick" works very well in BrE.
The belief that the English have only one word for the condition seems
to be deeply seated, in certain American quarters at least.
Sometimes, though, it is best to leave sleepers alone.
Well, then, what word _would_ you use in BrE to mean "sick, but I
don't mean nauseated" (=AmE sick, ill).
Why do you not use a dictionary? The FAQ asks you not to ask silly
questions, you know. Silly pronouncements tend to get stepped on.
There can be no rules about _that_, nor about what to do about
fiddle players who refuse to look things up for themselves. I put
them with the sleepers, myself.
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me) look
up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British English to
to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but which will
distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word mean?"
I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?" and even
less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly used by
this group of speakers in this situation?
|
It's a Good Thing, they say, this feeling "intrigued" and it is even
more a Good Thing, I say, to make public confession of inadequacy.
One should help. Try this: look up SICK; look up NAUSEATED; look up
ILL. Repeat over as many dictionaries as you find necessary to get a
"feel" for the topic. Ensure you have a good mix of American and
English dictionaries (Google on _Dictionaries_ to help you with
selection). Now here is the difficult bit: you have to start
discarding all the examples of usage which do not fit your conception
of the social/educational status of the target user, a task rendered
more difficult by a necessarily hazy concept of the usual vocabulary
and needs (in this case) of an American fiddle-playing AUE reader.
Get back to me if you need any more help. Hint--you do not need to
construct an algorithm for this essentially humdrum excercise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 4:10 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:13:46 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
<my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:45:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51:22 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
epidemics, sometimes pandemics, and sometimes just some folks getting
sick (=BrE ill).
"Sick" works very well in BrE.
The belief that the English have only one word for the condition seems
to be deeply seated, in certain American quarters at least.
Sometimes, though, it is best to leave sleepers alone.
Well, then, what word _would_ you use in BrE to mean "sick, but I
don't mean nauseated" (=AmE sick, ill).
Why do you not use a dictionary? The FAQ asks you not to ask silly
questions, you know. Silly pronouncements tend to get stepped on.
There can be no rules about _that_, nor about what to do about
fiddle players who refuse to look things up for themselves. I put
them with the sleepers, myself.
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me) look
up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British English to
to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but which will
distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word mean?"
I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?" and even
less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly used by
this group of speakers in this situation?"
Thanks Evan, for expressing in such measured tones what was also my
reaction.
I had drafted a reply that said much the same thing in a more prolix and
less temperate manner, which I for once had the good judgment not to post
immediately, and which I shall now consign to the eternal discretion of the
bit bucket.
By the way, I have checked the OED and it offers no insight whatsoever into
the question, and indeed not even a hint about American usage differing
from English. Curiouser and curiouser.
|
Better luck next time, but do read the FAC before you post.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 4:39 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 22:08:19 GMT, rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 26 May 2005 08:52:15 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:45:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51:22 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
epidemics, sometimes pandemics, and sometimes just some folks getting
sick (=BrE ill).
"Sick" works very well in BrE.
The belief that the English have only one word for the condition seems
to be deeply seated, in certain American quarters at least.
Sometimes, though, it is best to leave sleepers alone.
Well, then, what word _would_ you use in BrE to mean "sick, but I
don't mean nauseated" (=AmE sick, ill).
Why do you not use a dictionary? The FAQ asks you not to ask silly
questions, you know. Silly pronouncements tend to get stepped on.
There can be no rules about _that_, nor about what to do about
fiddle players who refuse to look things up for themselves. I put
them with the sleepers, myself.
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me) look
up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British English to
to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but which will
distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word mean?"
I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?" and even
less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly used by
this group of speakers in this situation?
It's a Good Thing, they say, this feeling "intrigued" and it is even
more a Good Thing, I say, to make public confession of inadequacy.
One should help. Try this: look up SICK; look up NAUSEATED; look up
ILL. Repeat over as many dictionaries as you find necessary to get a
"feel" for the topic. Ensure you have a good mix of American and
English dictionaries (Google on _Dictionaries_ to help you with
selection). Now here is the difficult bit: you have to start
discarding all the examples of usage which do not fit your conception
of the social/educational status of the target user, a task rendered
more difficult by a necessarily hazy concept of the usual vocabulary
and needs (in this case) of an American fiddle-playing AUE reader.
Get back to me if you need any more help. Hint--you do not need to
construct an algorithm for this essentially humdrum excercise.
|
That's _exercise_ of course--astonishing how seeing things in red
concentrates the mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Wolff
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:00 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
In message <18ic91hmrpgs0gcfkoftttm2k0p6j1kiup@4ax.com>,
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes
| Quote: | On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:13:46 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:45:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51:22 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
epidemics, sometimes pandemics, and sometimes just some folks getting
sick (=BrE ill).
"Sick" works very well in BrE.
The belief that the English have only one word for the condition seems
to be deeply seated, in certain American quarters at least.
Sometimes, though, it is best to leave sleepers alone.
Well, then, what word _would_ you use in BrE to mean "sick, but I
don't mean nauseated" (=AmE sick, ill).
Why do you not use a dictionary? The FAQ asks you not to ask silly
questions, you know. Silly pronouncements tend to get stepped on.
There can be no rules about _that_, nor about what to do about
fiddle players who refuse to look things up for themselves. I put
them with the sleepers, myself.
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me) look
up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British English to
to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but which will
distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word mean?"
I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?" and even
less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly used by
this group of speakers in this situation?"
Thanks Evan, for expressing in such measured tones what was also my
reaction.
I had drafted a reply that said much the same thing in a more prolix and
less temperate manner, which I for once had the good judgment not to post
immediately, and which I shall now consign to the eternal discretion of the
bit bucket.
By the way, I have checked the OED and it offers no insight whatsoever into
the question, and indeed not even a hint about American usage differing
from English. Curiouser and curiouser.
Better luck next time, but do read the FAC before you post.
|
Firearms Certificate?
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R J Valentine
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:30 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:16:38 GMT rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
....
} Initialisms may well be the death of me, but those FAC things are
} surely too much trouble, wot?
Truly, if you just fell off the turnip truck.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@theWorld.com> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
R J Valentine
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:36 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Fri, 27 May 2005 02:16:39 GMT rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
....
} Over and out, I hope.
Uh oh! Now you've gone and wook up Sparky.
Will he Oy! it? Who can say.
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:rj@theWorld.com>
"What do we want?" "Read the signs!" "When do we want it?" "Now!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:56 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
| Quote: | On Thu, 26 May 2005 08:52:15 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me)
look up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British
English to to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but
which will distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word
mean?" I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?"
and even less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly
used by this group of speakers in this situation?
It's a Good Thing, they say, this feeling "intrigued" and it is even
more a Good Thing, I say, to make public confession of inadequacy.
One should help. Try this: look up SICK; look up NAUSEATED; look up
ILL. Repeat over as many dictionaries as you find necessary to get a
"feel" for the topic. Ensure you have a good mix of American and
English dictionaries (Google on _Dictionaries_ to help you with
selection). Now here is the difficult bit: you have to start
discarding all the examples of usage which do not fit your
conception of the social/educational status of the target user, a
task rendered more difficult by a necessarily hazy concept of the
usual vocabulary and needs (in this case) of an American
fiddle-playing AUE reader.
|
Okay. So having done this I find that all the dictionaries agree that
"nauseated" cannot be the word, as it does, indeed nausea. "Sick" is
universally defined as meaning both "ill" and "nauseated", some
dictionaries identifying the latter sense as British. Now I know, as
a native speaker, that "sick" doesn't mean "nauseated" in my dialect,
so clearly it might be a term that could fit the bill, but nothing
tells me that this is the case in British dialects, and the fact that
the association of "sick" with "nauseated" is sometimes described as
British leads me to believe that it would be unwise to assume that
this is the correct term. This leaves, of your examples, "ill".
Again, the dictionaries indicate that this *could* be used in British
English to make this distinction, but none of them indicate that it
*is* the term that would be commonly used there, which was the
original question. For that matter, none of the dictionaries seem to
say that in American English, although "ill" is a term that could be
used to make the distinction, "sick" is the one actually used, though
I know this to be the case, at least for my dialect.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |"It makes you wonder if there is
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |anything to astrology after all."
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |
|"Oh, there is," said Susan.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and
(650)857-7572 |gullibility."
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roland Hutchinson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 5:57 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Paul Wolff wrote:
| Quote: | In message <18ic91hmrpgs0gcfkoftttm2k0p6j1kiup@4ax.com>,
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes
Better luck next time, but do read the FAC before you post.
Firearms Certificate?
|
Absolutely. One should be required for all Usenet flame wars.
rbaniste1 and I see eye-to-eye on this point, at least.
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Murray Arnow
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:15 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
| Quote: |
I did not understand your second sentence, which was a discouraging
start, but quite apart from that would you not say that your
exploration simply confirms my assertion that the "sick" word is as
English as the American "sick" word? "Sick" fits the bill on both
sides of the Atlantic and all this "=BrE ill" is horse-feathers. That,
by the way, was the _original_ question.
Over and out, I hope.
|
It ain't over yet. A current American slang gives "sick" a meaning of
approbation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:15 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 23:57:20 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
<my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Paul Wolff wrote:
In message <18ic91hmrpgs0gcfkoftttm2k0p6j1kiup@4ax.com>,
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes
Better luck next time, but do read the FAC before you post.
Firearms Certificate?
Absolutely. One should be required for all Usenet flame wars.
rbaniste1 and I see eye-to-eye on this point, at least.
|
Flame? I think we do not.
Sorry about the C for Q up there--nothing sinister, just my loathing
for initialisms popping out to bite me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:15 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:56:00 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
On Thu, 26 May 2005 08:52:15 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me)
look up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British
English to to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but
which will distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word
mean?" I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?"
and even less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly
used by this group of speakers in this situation?
It's a Good Thing, they say, this feeling "intrigued" and it is even
more a Good Thing, I say, to make public confession of inadequacy.
One should help. Try this: look up SICK; look up NAUSEATED; look up
ILL. Repeat over as many dictionaries as you find necessary to get a
"feel" for the topic. Ensure you have a good mix of American and
English dictionaries (Google on _Dictionaries_ to help you with
selection). Now here is the difficult bit: you have to start
discarding all the examples of usage which do not fit your
conception of the social/educational status of the target user, a
task rendered more difficult by a necessarily hazy concept of the
usual vocabulary and needs (in this case) of an American
fiddle-playing AUE reader.
Okay. So having done this I find that all the dictionaries agree that
"nauseated" cannot be the word, as it does, indeed nausea. "Sick" is
universally defined as meaning both "ill" and "nauseated", some
dictionaries identifying the latter sense as British. Now I know, as
a native speaker, that "sick" doesn't mean "nauseated" in my dialect,
so clearly it might be a term that could fit the bill, but nothing
tells me that this is the case in British dialects, and the fact that
the association of "sick" with "nauseated" is sometimes described as
British leads me to believe that it would be unwise to assume that
this is the correct term. This leaves, of your examples, "ill".
Again, the dictionaries indicate that this *could* be used in British
English to make this distinction, but none of them indicate that it
*is* the term that would be commonly used there, which was the
original question. For that matter, none of the dictionaries seem to
say that in American English, although "ill" is a term that could be
used to make the distinction, "sick" is the one actually used, though
I know this to be the case, at least for my dialect.
|
I did not understand your second sentence, which was a discouraging
start, but quite apart from that would you not say that your
exploration simply confirms my assertion that the "sick" word is as
English as the American "sick" word? "Sick" fits the bill on both
sides of the Atlantic and all this "=BrE ill" is horse-feathers. That,
by the way, was the _original_ question.
Over and out, I hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 7:15 am
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
On Fri, 27 May 2005 00:00:51 +0100, Paul Wolff
<bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | In message <18ic91hmrpgs0gcfkoftttm2k0p6j1kiup@4ax.com>,
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes
On Thu, 26 May 2005 16:13:46 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca writes:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 20:45:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
rbaniste1@shaw.ca wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 19:51:22 +0100, Peter Duncanson
mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2005 18:15:56 GMT, Roland Hutchinson
my.spamtrap@verizon.net> wrote:
epidemics, sometimes pandemics, and sometimes just some folks getting
sick (=BrE ill).
"Sick" works very well in BrE.
The belief that the English have only one word for the condition seems
to be deeply seated, in certain American quarters at least.
Sometimes, though, it is best to leave sleepers alone.
Well, then, what word _would_ you use in BrE to mean "sick, but I
don't mean nauseated" (=AmE sick, ill).
Why do you not use a dictionary? The FAQ asks you not to ask silly
questions, you know. Silly pronouncements tend to get stepped on.
There can be no rules about _that_, nor about what to do about
fiddle players who refuse to look things up for themselves. I put
them with the sleepers, myself.
I'm intrigued. Just what would you recommend that one (say, me) look
up in a dictionary to find out what word is used in British English to
to mean what Americans typically mean by "sick", but which will
distinguish the condition from that of nausea?
I'm good at using a dictionary to find out "What does this word mean?"
I'm not so good at using it to find "What word means this?" and even
less good at using it to find out "What's the word commonly used by
this group of speakers in this situation?"
Thanks Evan, for expressing in such measured tones what was also my
reaction.
I had drafted a reply that said much the same thing in a more prolix and
less temperate manner, which I for once had the good judgment not to post
immediately, and which I shall now consign to the eternal discretion of the
bit bucket.
By the way, I have checked the OED and it offers no insight whatsoever into
the question, and indeed not even a hint about American usage differing
from English. Curiouser and curiouser.
Better luck next time, but do read the FAC before you post.
Firearms Certificate?
|
Initialisms may well be the death of me, but those FAC things are
surely too much trouble, wot? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Per Rønne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Metric Iron-Age shoe |
|
|
Javi <poziNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Per Rønne wrote:
Javi <poziNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is that your conclusion, or is it explicitly stated in any of those
encyclopaedias you mention? The Britannica says nothing about a set of
diseases.
It talks about different /strains/, about some influenza types as
"animal diseases"
Different strains don't make different diseases: AIDS can be caused by
HIV type 1 or by HIV type 2. Some other slightly different retroviruses
cause immunodeficiency syndrome in different animals; in fact, the
strongest theory about HIV origin is that it mutated from the simian form.
|
The encyclopædias talk about some kinds of influenzas being quite
trivial - others to be potientially lethal. I can only interprete this
as several different diseases.
| Quote: | and about the viruses mutating all the times - also
due to humans getting immune.
??? Do I understand what you mean? Do you suggest that the viruses
mutate due to humans getting immune to them?
|
Well of course mutations happen randomly. But when people get immune
you'll get a selective pressure.
| Quote: | Furthermore, not only the vira mutate. Their "game" mutate too and
through selection some populations become more immune to certain
diseases than other. Like in hiv - 16% of Scandinavians and Russians are
said to be fully immune and more than 50% partly immune. Due to a
selective pressure during the centuries of the Plague.
What is the relation between HIV and the Plague? The first is caused by
a virus, the second by a bacteria (yersinia pestis). And, supposing that
there is a relation (which I doubt, do you have a reference?), why
should Scandinavians and Russian be more immune to HIV or the Plague
than, let's say, Indians (where the Plague is endemic) or Subsaharians,
where the HIV has developed?
Well, I'm no physicians but quite a number of them believe that
Europeans and especially Scandinavians had a small number of people
immune to the Plague - an immunity acquired a long time before the
Plague. The immunity came from earlier diseases and during the Plague
city-people not immune simply died. But better to give a link:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1520635,00.html
It is just the opinion of two scientists (Christopher Duncan and Susan
Scott, based at the University of Liverpool's School of Biological
Sciences, it seems that they are not physicians). They have observed the
fact that about 10-15% of Europeans carry a particular genetic mutation,
known as CCR5-delta32, and remain free of the AIDS. The mutation
prevents the HIV virus from entering the cells of the immune system, and
also protect against Ebola-type viruses that produce haemorrhagic fevers.
That is the fact.
Everything else is speculation. That particular genetic mutation does
not confer protection against the plague/black death, so the speculation
must go further and try to state that the plague epidemics were not
really plague epidemics (caused by yersinia pestis), but an Ebola-like
epidemic .
In fact, Duncan and Scott even say that most of the epidemics in ancient
and earlier medieval times (in the Nile Valley from 1500 BC and in
Mesopotamia (700-450BC), Athens (430BC), the plague of Justinian (AD
541-700) and the plagues of the early Islamic empire (AD 627-744)) were
all caused by Ebola-type virus. There is no the least evidence of it, on
the contrary, the accounts of the Athens plague seems to suggest that it
was a smallpox or measle epidemic, and the plague of Justinian seems to
be the first recorded description of the bubonic plague (black death);
also there is evidence that the epidemics called the plague in the
fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth century were caused by yersinia
pestis, not a virus.
|
It is more than just two scientists and it is more than just
speculation. But of course it hasn't been "proven" - and I'm a layman in
this area.
--
Per Erik Rønne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Per Rønne
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri May 27, 2005 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Plural of "virus" redux |
|
|
Mark Brader <msb@vex.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Mark Brader writes:
Or rather, evidently it means either "either" or "or". Or either "or" or
"either", if you prefer.
Oops, I take that back; I see how% I misread it now. But it was fun to
say that, anyway...
% - There are languages, such as French, where "either" and "or" are the
same word, and I knew that and then mistook the intent of the parentheses.
|
In "official" Danish "eller" is "inclusive or". "Either ... or ..." is
"exclusive or" something programmers call "xor" {"xeller" in Danish}. At
least that is how people who have attended the "mathematical" gymnasium
{grades 11-13} use it.
--
Per Erik Rønne |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in