| Author |
Message |
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:50 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Maria Conlon <maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Drifting off the topic:
In the late 1940s, when I was 5 or 6 years old, there was a German woman
(from Germany, speaking German) living down the street. (That was 23rd
Street in Detroit.) The kids in the neighborhood were afraid of her, and
"hated krauts," and told each other that she carried a butcher knife and
would use it on us because she was German and lost the war. It was all
nonsense, of course, but not to kids. We smartened up, though, probably
when it became obvious that no one was getting attacked with a butcher
knife. Still, it must have been hard for the woman, being feared and
hated by kids. (How long did it all that last? I couldn't say. Maybe a
few days, maybe longer. But it's there in my mind while other events of
those times are not.)
|
A close relative of mine -- who shall remain nameless, as this isn't
something she's proud of -- is, to this day, afraid of Asian-looking
people. She blames this on the anti-Japanese propaganda she saw as a
young girl during WWII.
--
SML
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:04 am
Post subject: Re: [OT] Media and War [was Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Sara Lorimer wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | A close relative of mine -- who shall remain nameless, as this
isn't
something she's proud of -- is, to this day, afraid of
Asian-looking
people. She blames this on the anti-Japanese propaganda she saw as
a
young girl during WWII.
|
My late and politically liberal father was permanently rather
uncomfortable about them. And it wasn't the result of propaganda. He
even, very apologetically, had to leave the innocent hothouse in the
Oxford Bot Garden because the atmosphere brought back tropical
memories he didn't need.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:44 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
On 9 Nov 2005 18:13:47 -0800, "Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@theworld.com>
wrote:
| Quote: |
Don Aitken wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:46:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The 1997 Statesman's yearbook has the same - English "Republic of
Sudan", Arabic "Jamhuryat es-Sudan".
jumhu:riyya(t) al-su:da:n
|
Like most of the data in that publication, this comes from the
government concerned. Libya uses "jamahiriya", Egypt "jumhuriyat",
Tunisia and Syria "jumhuriya", Yemen "jamhuriya", Lebanon and Iraq
"jumhouriya". I presume these are official transliterations. The
differences may reflect local dialectal forms, although there may also
be differences of "target" language - I suspect that the "ou" form was
devised by someone whose norm for the Latin Alphabet was French.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From address is not read; to email me,
use don-aitken@clara.co.uk
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Maria Conlon
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 2:47 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
| Quote: | The Republicans seek to put the least competent, but most
politically connected, people into government offices in order
to prove that government is incompetent. It also allows their
corporate constituency to get away with all sorts of
shenanigans.
|
And later, in another post, said:
| Quote: | Your last governor wasn't given a predetermined term of office.
I might agree with you if the Democratic Party actually stood
for something, something consistent anyway.
|
You don't like either of them, eh? :D
--
Maria Conlon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 3:52 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3th0ivFrpmngU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | The Grammer Genious wrote:
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote
...
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which
seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
It has a definite article because it is short for "bila:d
as-su:da:n"
which is Arabic for "the country of the Blacks/Negroes." Look it
up.
I can shamsify an al all by myself, thank you; though of course it
was kind of you to offer. I quoted a printed and a web document: look
them up yourself.
|
But those are merely political citations -- opinions. This is a matter of
language, not politics. I was telling you the factual reason that the
definite article is there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yusuf B Gursey
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 4:04 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote:
| Quote: | On 9 Nov 2005 18:13:47 -0800, "Yusuf B Gursey" <ybg@theworld.com
wrote:
Don Aitken wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:46:15 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
The 1997 Statesman's yearbook has the same - English "Republic of
Sudan", Arabic "Jamhuryat es-Sudan".
jumhu:riyya(t) al-su:da:n
Like most of the data in that publication, this comes from the
government concerned. Libya uses "jamahiriya", Egypt "jumhuriyat",
Tunisia and Syria "jumhuriya", Yemen "jamhuriya", Lebanon and Iraq
"jumhouriya". I presume these are official transliterations. The
differences may reflect local dialectal forms, although there may also
|
they reflect the romanization sytems of various idiot bureaucrats.
there
is no single systematic transliteration o rtranscription of arabic, and
usually
they are done on an ad-hoc basis, people often mixing dialect
pronounciations
even when inappropriate.
standard arabic is quite clear, esp. in regards to orthography. whether
or
not the "t" of jumhu:riyya(t) is represented also depends on the
romanization system. only jama:hi:riyya(t) is a different word, a
word unique to the Libyan regime. jumhu:r refers to a mass of people,
jumhu:riyya(t) something that pertains to it. jama:hi:r is the plural
of jumhu:r and with the same relative noun ending as before it becomes
jama:hi:riyya(t) . it is often left untranslated.
jumhu:riyya(t) is originally from Ottoman usage in regards to the
Republic of Venice.
Plato's "Republic" (`O Politea in greek) was translated by al-Farabi
in medieval times as as al-Madi:na(t) "the Polity" intended but the
semantic connection to "city" retained (which is what it normally means
in arabic). "democracy" and "republic" (AFAIK not distinguished in
greek)
was translated as madi:na(t) jama:3iyya(t) "social polity". nowadays
di:muqra:Tiyya(t) (with some variatians in vowle length) is used.
it is a neologism, but done according to the Syriac scribal tradition
of
rendering greek that was followed in early medieval times, giving it an
archaic quality.
| Quote: | be differences of "target" language - I suspect that the "ou" form was
devised by someone whose norm for the Latin Alphabet was French. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:45 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
The Grammer Genious wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3th0ivFrpmngU1@individual.net...
The Grammer Genious wrote:
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote
...
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which
seems throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no
capital for "the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The
London Embassy website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
It has a definite article because it is short for "bila:d
as-su:da:n" which is Arabic for "the country of the
Blacks/Negroes." Look it
up.
I can shamsify an al all by myself, thank you; though of course it
was kind of you to offer. I quoted a printed and a web document:
look
them up yourself.
But those are merely political citations -- opinions. This is a
matter of language, not politics. I was telling you the factual
reason that the definite article is there.
|
That's profoundly generous of you, ya sidi! You may not be accustomed
to being disagreed with back home, but round here you're in danger of
encountering people who know what they're talking about.
I told you what the local authorities, whose English is in my
experience a hair's breadth from native competence, seem to
officially call the place: you don't have to like it. Perhaps you
missed the beginning of this, but we were looking for the country's
name, not what General Gordon, or even I, might have called it. I'm
reliably informed that there have been changes in Mesopotamia, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Aitken
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 5:59 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:47:48 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
<maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Jeffrey Turner wrote:
The Republicans seek to put the least competent, but most
politically connected, people into government offices in order
to prove that government is incompetent. It also allows their
corporate constituency to get away with all sorts of
shenanigans.
And later, in another post, said:
Your last governor wasn't given a predetermined term of office.
I might agree with you if the Democratic Party actually stood
for something, something consistent anyway.
You don't like either of them, eh? 
|
What's not to like? I have asked before (not sure if it was in this
group) if there is *any* political position which would be regarded as
incompatible with membership of the Republican but not the Democratic
party, or vice versa. Nobody suggested one. Neither meets what the
rest of the world thinks of as the minimum conditions to *be* a
political party - which is why it seems odd when Americans get so
heated about the alleged difference between them. As Gore Vidal has
been saying for forty years, they are the two wings of the Money
Party. The UK seems to be heading rapidly towards the same system.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From address is not read; to email me,
use don-aitken@clara.co.uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sage
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:15 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Ted Schuerzinger wrote:
| Quote: | Somebody claiming to be Charles Riggs <chriggs@éircom.net> wrote in
news:aoetm1lhomd7dns99veou7hina01fmk46n@4ax.com:
There are provisions, of course, for the impeachment of the president
of the United States when necessary, a scary thought with Bush only
because an even bigger lunatic is VP, but the Constitution also allows
for the removal of the vice president.
What does any of this have to do with English usage?
Well, a "siting" was cited somewhere in it all. |
(I didn't want to "Oy" it. One finds such behaviour, so uncouth.)
Cheers, Sage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:20 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
| Quote: | Yes, we don't have a labo[u]r party here.
|
Au contraire. There appears to be a tiny party called the Labor Party
that is currently active; appears to be pro-union and leftist in a way
that would have once been not too remarkable.
More infamous was the Labor Party that existed for a while in the '70s and
early '80s, which was headed by Lyndon LaRouche. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Grammer Genious
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote
| Quote: | Perhaps you
missed the beginning of this, but we were looking for the country's
name, not what General Gordon, or even I, might have called it. I'm
reliably informed that there have been changes in Mesopotamia, too.
|
Oh, you're right. I did miss that. I wasn't aware that what you were after
was the pronunciamento of the Arabic-speaking locals concerning the use of
the definite article in English. I mistakenly thought you wanted to know
whether the English name of the country properly had a definite article or
not.
I agree with you on the irrelevance of General Gordon's opinion. I doubt if
his knowledge of Arabic, and perhaps even of English, would have been
sufficient for him to deliver an informed opinion on the issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeffrey Turner
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Impeach them both? |
|
|
Don Aitken wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:47:48 GMT, "Maria Conlon"
maria.c-b@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Jeffrey Turner wrote:
The Republicans seek to put the least competent, but most
politically connected, people into government offices in order
to prove that government is incompetent. It also allows their
corporate constituency to get away with all sorts of
shenanigans.
And later, in another post, said:
Your last governor wasn't given a predetermined term of office.
I might agree with you if the Democratic Party actually stood
for something, something consistent anyway.
You don't like either of them, eh? :D
What's not to like? I have asked before (not sure if it was in this
group) if there is *any* political position which would be regarded as
incompatible with membership of the Republican but not the Democratic
party, or vice versa. Nobody suggested one. Neither meets what the
rest of the world thinks of as the minimum conditions to *be* a
political party - which is why it seems odd when Americans get so
heated about the alleged difference between them. As Gore Vidal has
been saying for forty years, they are the two wings of the Money
Party. The UK seems to be heading rapidly towards the same system.
|
Yes, we don't have a labo[u]r party here. The Republicans have
gotten much better at consistency/ideological rigidity except
for a saving grace when human decency gets in the way for some
of them (in extremis). But, heck, the Green Party is very small
and still it's riven in two factions. They do seem to keep to a
unified platform, however. America is a very strange country
and the rest of the world is stuck with it, at present.
We don't meet the international standards for free and fair
democratic elections, either.
--Jeff
--
The spirit of democracy cannot be imposed
from without. It has to come from within.
--Mohandas K. Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Charles Riggs
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Sudan (The?) [Was: Re: Impeach them both?] |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:52:27 GMT, "The Grammer Genious"
<washcourthouse@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3th0ivFrpmngU1@individual.net...
The Grammer Genious wrote:
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote
...
I don't know. I have the 1962 _Sudan Almanac_ (no "The"), which
seems
throughout to refer to "the Republic of the Sudan" (no capital for
"the", in spite of what I said I'd have used). The London Embassy
website now uses "the Republic of Sudan".
It has a definite article because it is short for "bila:d
as-su:da:n"
which is Arabic for "the country of the Blacks/Negroes." Look it
up.
I can shamsify an al all by myself, thank you; though of course it
was kind of you to offer. I quoted a printed and a web document: look
them up yourself.
But those are merely political citations -- opinions. This is a matter of
language, not politics. I was telling you the factual reason that the
definite article is there.
|
Here we have the Descriptionist Guy telling us about factual reasons
for a particular usage. If Mike has seen cases when there is no "the"
then no number of logical reasons for why it should be there make any
difference at all. In fact, I *learned* this from PD Schultz.
--
Charles Riggs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in