Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #578093 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-30 18:42 +0000 |
| Last post | 2015-12-31 16:46 +0000 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 135 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english
15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-30 18:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-12-30 19:12 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-30 19:21 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Simon Grushka <s.grushka83@gmail.com> - 2016-01-01 14:14 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2015-12-30 22:19 -0500
Re: 15 million fools James Hogg <Jas.Hogg@gOUTmail.com> - 2015-12-31 09:22 +0100
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-31 04:31 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 17:13 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2015-12-31 22:00 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-01 17:47 +1100
Re: 15 million fools musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2016-01-01 08:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-01 19:30 +1100
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 06:41 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 14:59 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 19:44 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 19:48 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 22:24 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 22:46 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 12:28 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-02 15:04 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 12:03 -0500
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 20:51 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:58 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:02 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2016-01-03 19:14 +0100
Re: 15 million fools the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> - 2016-01-03 19:19 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 09:02 +1100
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 19:57 +0000
Re: 15 million fools pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-01-01 12:10 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 20:18 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 22:27 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 22:47 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 20:17 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:48 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 12:55 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 21:05 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 21:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 22:29 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 22:51 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-02 12:29 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:53 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:03 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 10:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-05 07:12 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 00:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 00:14 +0000
Re: 15 million fools bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2016-01-01 17:02 -0800
Re: 15 million fools musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2016-01-02 01:43 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 14:58 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 21:52 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-02 21:54 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 16:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 21:47 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 14:57 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 21:54 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:44 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-02 21:55 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 16:10 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 11:09 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 19:27 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-03 17:32 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:25 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 11:56 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 17:21 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 17:44 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:38 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 23:12 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-05 22:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-05 22:04 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 20:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2016-01-06 11:10 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 17:11 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2015-12-31 22:36 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-01 18:12 +1100
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 06:48 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 22:17 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 11:00 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-01 19:46 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 19:54 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Richard Yates <richard@yatesguitar.com> - 2016-01-01 12:27 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 20:34 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-01 12:57 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-01 21:05 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-01 22:41 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-02 20:46 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-02 21:52 -0500
Re: 15 million fools RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-02 22:03 -0700
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-02 21:48 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-03 17:34 +1100
Re: 15 million fools Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-03 11:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-03 17:40 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-04 10:13 +1100
Re: 15 million fools Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-03 16:15 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-05 16:43 -0500
Re: 15 million fools Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 17:36 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 18:36 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 11:11 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 19:28 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-03 13:47 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-04 00:07 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:29 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:13 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 04:17 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:15 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 00:13 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-06 13:42 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-06 19:04 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 04:19 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:16 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 11:58 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:30 +0000
Re: 15 million fools charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2016-01-04 20:02 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2016-01-04 20:10 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2016-01-04 13:17 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:31 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net> - 2016-01-03 18:18 -0800
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-03 17:54 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 00:27 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> - 2016-01-04 17:58 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 23:40 +0000
Re: 15 million fools GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2016-01-04 09:06 +0000
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-04 19:15 +0000
Re: 15 million fools Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2016-01-02 17:29 -0800
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2016-01-03 16:09 +0000
Re: 15 million fools CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:31 -0500
Re: 15 million fools "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-31 16:46 +0000
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
| From | charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 20:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <553cd2a1b3charles@candehope.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #579152 |
In article <op.yaqah1jl86ebyl@red.lan>, Mr Macaw <no@spam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:19:43 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:47:32 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > >> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >> > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > >> >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:11:45 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > >> >> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >> > On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:36:30 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > > > >> >> >> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave > >> >> >> no spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can > >> >> >> prevent yourself from laughing. > >> >> > > >> >> > "Hindi" is a language, not a person. > >> >> > >> >> Don't be so pedantic. Hindis are clearly people who speak Hindi. > >> >> If I'd called them Indians you might have thought I meant American > >> >> Indians. > >> > > >> > No, I wouldn't have, (a) because we don't use that term much any > >> > more, > >> > >> What do you call them then? > > > > In Canada, "First Nations." In the US, "Native Americans." > Don't tell me, "Indians" is now politically incorrect? certainly inaccurate. -- Please note new email address: charles@CandEhope.me.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 20:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7655d33c55.pnyoung@pnyoung.ormail.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #579152 |
On 4 Jan 2016 "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:19:43 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:47:32 -0000, Peter T. Daniels >>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:11:45 -0000, Peter T. Daniels >>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:36:30 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: >> >>>>>>> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no >>>>>>> spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent >>>>>>> yourself from laughing. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Hindi" is a language, not a person. >>>>> >>>>> Don't be so pedantic. Hindis are clearly people who speak Hindi. If >>>>> I'd called them Indians you might have thought I meant American >>>>> Indians. >>>> >>>> No, I wouldn't have, (a) because we don't use that term much any more, >>> >>> What do you call them then? >> >> In Canada, "First Nations." In the US, "Native Americans." > Don't tell me, "Indians" is now politically incorrect? And anywhere in Africa, "native" is politically incorrect. Peter. -- Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Os) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 13:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <cd056f63-3388-4f5d-bb1a-a4d901ce0fa6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579174 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:11:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Young wrote: > On 4 Jan 2016 "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:19:43 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:47:32 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > >>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:11:45 -0000, Peter T. Daniels > >>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:36:30 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > >>>>>>> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no > >>>>>>> spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent > >>>>>>> yourself from laughing. > >>>>>> "Hindi" is a language, not a person. > >>>>> Don't be so pedantic. Hindis are clearly people who speak Hindi. If > >>>>> I'd called them Indians you might have thought I meant American > >>>>> Indians. > >>>> No, I wouldn't have, (a) because we don't use that term much any more, > >>> What do you call them then? > >> In Canada, "First Nations." In the US, "Native Americans." > > Don't tell me, "Indians" is now politically incorrect? > > And anywhere in Africa, "native" is politically incorrect. Here too. Native Americans aren't "Natives."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 23:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaqma5jv86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579188 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 21:17:19 -0000, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 3:11:15 PM UTC-5, Peter Young wrote: >> On 4 Jan 2016 "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:19:43 -0000, Peter T. Daniels >> > <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 7:30:01 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 21:47:32 -0000, Peter T. Daniels >> >>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 2:28:17 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: >> >>>>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 19:11:45 -0000, Peter T. Daniels >> >>>>> <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>>>>> On Sunday, January 3, 2016 at 1:36:30 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no >> >>>>>>> spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent >> >>>>>>> yourself from laughing. >> >>>>>> "Hindi" is a language, not a person. >> >>>>> Don't be so pedantic. Hindis are clearly people who speak Hindi. If >> >>>>> I'd called them Indians you might have thought I meant American >> >>>>> Indians. >> >>>> No, I wouldn't have, (a) because we don't use that term much any more, >> >>> What do you call them then? >> >> In Canada, "First Nations." In the US, "Native Americans." >> > Don't tell me, "Indians" is now politically incorrect? >> >> And anywhere in Africa, "native" is politically incorrect. > > Here too. Native Americans aren't "Natives." Oxford dictionary says "A person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth". So actually they are. And so are white Americans natives.... -- Before you set out on a journey, ring your local radio station and say there's a teerrible congestion on your road. Everybody avoids it and it's clear for you! -- Jack Dee
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reinhold {Rey} Aman <aman@sonic.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 18:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5689D683.27D81B80@sonic.net> |
| In reply to | #578965 |
Well-frog PeteY "We = *all* Americans" Daniels wrote:
>
[American Indians]
>
> we don't use that term much any more
^^
| Please don't use "we" and "English"
| when you mean "I" and "my idiolect".
---James Hogg, 3 Jan 2016
>
[South Asians]
>
> since we have the impression that most of them are Pakistani.
^^
| Please don't use "we" and "English"
| when you mean "I" and "my idiolect".
---James Hogg, 3 Jan 2016
>
Well-frog PeteY -- of all people! -- reprimanding an AUEer:
| "Will you _never_ learn not to assume that your
| limited experience applies everywhere?"
---PeteY Daniels, 21 Oct 2015
--
~~~ Reinhold {Rey} Aman ~~~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 17:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0s8j8b5vug12ljb70qgejt85h3059klhi1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578907 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:36:22 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:52:37 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:46:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone >>>>>> >>>>>> I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as >>>>>> time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort >>>>>> of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and >>>>>> skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has >>>>>> "-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple >>>>>> rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass >>>>>> usage. >>>>> >>>>> From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on >>>>> holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English >>>>> everyday. >>>> >>>> The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn. >>>> >>>> So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives >>>> Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local >>>> lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try >>>> to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or >>>> "hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time >>>> to mentally edit their speech. >>> >>> Ah, blacks. >> >> >> There are also pidgins amongst the "Spanish" subcultures >> (Mexican isn't Guatamalan isn't Cuban isn't Puerto Rican) >> and the longer-established asian enclaves. 'Cajun'/Acadian >> "Fringlish" permeates much of the state of Louisiana as well. >> The sheer size of the USA allowed immigrants from many >> nations to form partial enclaves where the Queens english >> mixed with the local lingo in odd and interesting ways. >> Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lots >> of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for >> racial & class reasons for over 100 years .... bound to be >> some interesting words and grammar ...... > >Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no >spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent >yourself from laughing. They run practically every "convenience store" in America at this point, so we're well-exposed :-) They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds, "WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This, combined with their native accents, can make it rather difficult to understand them at times. Now if you want funny, find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-) >> >> "Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend >> to drop "useless" letters :-) > >You're not lazy when it comes to eating! We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in the world. To some extent I think our culinary habits are a reflection of the "great depression" of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny kids then ... and not skinny by choice. Once the food returned I think they started making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant 'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'. There are also our not-THAT distant colonial roots where people expended vast amounts of energy in hard labor in rugged environments. A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive. The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after life became easier.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 00:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaot8eps86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578981 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:54:51 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 18:36:22 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:52:37 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 20:46:25 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 11:00:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2016 03:36:45 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> I've never heard anyone say "runned". I've also never heard anyone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I hear it more and more - and from more 'educated' people - as >>>>>>> time goes on. It's "Blinglish' ... American "Black English", a sort >>>>>>> of pigin where non-speakers learned a language quickly and >>>>>>> skipped the more subtle rules. That which did happen often has >>>>>>> "-ed" at the end, so "run"/"runned", "sit"/"sitted" ... the simple >>>>>>> rule applied to everything. Mass exposure then leads to mass >>>>>>> usage. >>>>>> >>>>>> From someone who doesn't speak much English, someone here on >>>>>> holiday maybe, but I don't expect it from anyone who speaks English >>>>>> everyday. >>>>> >>>>> The internet does have the ability to educate - it's not ALL porn. >>>>> >>>>> So find on-the-street news coverage, say of the "Black Lives >>>>> Matter" demonstrations. Street interviews will reveal the local >>>>> lingo - and it is as I've said. The professional newscasters try >>>>> to keep it more formal, but even they might say "runned" or >>>>> "hitted" or "shooted" if they are "live" and do not have time >>>>> to mentally edit their speech. >>>> >>>> Ah, blacks. >>> >>> >>> There are also pidgins amongst the "Spanish" subcultures >>> (Mexican isn't Guatamalan isn't Cuban isn't Puerto Rican) >>> and the longer-established asian enclaves. 'Cajun'/Acadian >>> "Fringlish" permeates much of the state of Louisiana as well. >>> The sheer size of the USA allowed immigrants from many >>> nations to form partial enclaves where the Queens english >>> mixed with the local lingo in odd and interesting ways. >>> Hmm ... is there "Hindglish" - Hindi-English - in the UK ? Lots >>> of immigrants from there, held partially segregated for >>> racial & class reasons for over 100 years .... bound to be >>> some interesting words and grammar ...... >> >> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no >> spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent >> yourself from laughing. > > They run practically every "convenience store" in America > at this point, so we're well-exposed :-) Same here. When possible I avoid those ones. > They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds, > "WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This, > combined with their native accents, can make it rather > difficult to understand them at times. I have no problem understanding them, in fact those harder sounds make the words clearer. > Now if you want funny, > find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south > for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-) Deep South accents just make people sound stupid. >>> "Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend >>> to drop "useless" letters :-) >> >> You're not lazy when it comes to eating! > > We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in > the world. You're the country famous for it. > To some extent I think our culinary habits > are a reflection of the "great depression" > of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny > kids then ... and not skinny by choice. > Once the food returned I think they started > making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant > 'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'. > > There are also our not-THAT distant colonial > roots where people expended vast amounts > of energy in hard labor in rugged environments. > A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive. > The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after > life became easier. Look up ectomorph. Now explain to me why they don't supersede everyone else. When you choose your spouse, if an ectomorph is available, you'd obviously pick one. -- An English woman who has been blind for 26 years got her sight back after suffering a heart attack. Unfortunately, after she was able to see her doctors bill she had several more heart attacks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pktl8bt0225iadjv215rhhomq9p7mi0872@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578998 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:27:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:54:51 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > > [snip] > >>> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no >>> spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent >>> yourself from laughing. >> >> They run practically every "convenience store" in America >> at this point, so we're well-exposed :-) > >Same here. When possible I avoid those ones. Aww ... SOME aren't so bad ....... just make sure to check the "Best If Sold By" dates on whatever you purchase :-) >> They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds, >> "WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This, >> combined with their native accents, can make it rather >> difficult to understand them at times. > >I have no problem understanding them, in fact those harder sounds make the words clearer. Not to my ear ... though likely with more exposure I could follow the cadence and rythm better. >> Now if you want funny, >> find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south >> for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-) > >Deep South accents just make people sound stupid. That's just to throw you off guard ... with every smoothly drawn-out syllable they're plotting ways to defile your teenaged daughters :-) >>>> "Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend >>>> to drop "useless" letters :-) >>> >>> You're not lazy when it comes to eating! >> >> We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in >> the world. > >You're the country famous for it. Greater volume of exported news/cultural media than anywhere else ... >> To some extent I think our culinary habits >> are a reflection of the "great depression" >> of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny >> kids then ... and not skinny by choice. >> Once the food returned I think they started >> making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant >> 'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'. >> >> There are also our not-THAT distant colonial >> roots where people expended vast amounts >> of energy in hard labor in rugged environments. >> A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive. >> The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after >> life became easier. > >Look up ectomorph. Now explain to me why they >don't supersede everyone else. Too fat for the desert and too skinny for Alaska ? >When you choose your spouse, if an ectomorph is >available, you'd obviously pick one. Careful ... a lot of them inflate into huge pinatas 30 days after you say "I Do". Always check the family photos :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaqmpxr786ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579227 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 22:58:36 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:27:40 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > >> On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 22:54:51 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >>>> Hindis here speak very clearly and use proper English, but leave no >>>> spaces between the words. Easy to understand if you can prevent >>>> yourself from laughing. >>> >>> They run practically every "convenience store" in America >>> at this point, so we're well-exposed :-) >> >> Same here. When possible I avoid those ones. > > > Aww ... SOME aren't so bad ....... just make > sure to check the "Best If Sold By" dates on > whatever you purchase :-) It s the folk I don't like, not the food. Although they do tend to fail cleanliness checks. >>> They seem to replace the 'gaps' with harder letter sounds, >>> "WeMustNowGoToTheMeeting" - at least to my ear. This, >>> combined with their native accents, can make it rather >>> difficult to understand them at times. >> >> I have no problem understanding them, in fact those harder sounds make the words clearer. > > Not to my ear ... though likely with more exposure > I could follow the cadence and rythm better. The consonants are stronger, so easier to hear. Like the opposite of a drunk slurring his words. >>> Now if you want funny, >>> find a store clerk that has been living in our deep south >>> for a long time ... Hindglish with a slow drawl :-) >> >> Deep South accents just make people sound stupid. > > That's just to throw you off guard ... with every > smoothly drawn-out syllable they're plotting ways > to defile your teenaged daughters :-) Doesn't need much intelligence to do that, just a big cock or a fancy car. >>>>> "Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend >>>>> to drop "useless" letters :-) >>>> >>>> You're not lazy when it comes to eating! >>> >>> We're hardly the only 'pudgy' country in >>> the world. >> >> You're the country famous for it. > > Greater volume of exported news/cultural > media than anywhere else ... Pah! Go find stats that prove otherwise. >>> To some extent I think our culinary habits >>> are a reflection of the "great depression" >>> of the 1930s. There were a lot of skinny >>> kids then ... and not skinny by choice. >>> Once the food returned I think they started >>> making up for lost calories - 'fat' meant >>> 'healthy', 'happy' and to some degree 'wealthy'. >>> >>> There are also our not-THAT distant colonial >>> roots where people expended vast amounts >>> of energy in hard labor in rugged environments. >>> A 6000 kCal dinner wasn't actually excessive. >>> The recipies and traditions stuck ... even after >>> life became easier. >> >> Look up ectomorph. Now explain to me why they >> don't supersede everyone else. > > Too fat for the desert and too skinny for Alaska ? Huh? >> When you choose your spouse, if an ectomorph is >> available, you'd obviously pick one. > > Careful ... a lot of them inflate into huge pinatas > 30 days after you say "I Do". Always check the > family photos :-) Rubbish. Ectomorphs are easy to spot. -- What's the difference between a black and a white fairytale? White begins, "once upon a time," black begins, "y'all motherfuckers ain't gonna believe dis shit!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 09:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <deur10FqqdnU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578681 |
On 02/01/2016 20:46, Mr Macaw wrote: > On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >> It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly >> I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is >> more specific than "jumped". > > Would you say jove for the past tense of jive? Love for the past tense > of live? Drove for the past tense of drive... oh, wait... -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaqaf40t86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579040 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:06:38 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 02/01/2016 20:46, Mr Macaw wrote: >> On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 03:41:41 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > >>> It will surely filter down to all speakers from there. Frankly >>> I think it sounds more educated than "dived" and is >>> more specific than "jumped". >> >> Would you say jove for the past tense of jive? Love for the past tense >> of live? > > Drove for the past tense of drive... oh, wait... Stop avoiding the question. -- A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death -- Albert Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 17:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ctbishop-02CE8C.17295402012016@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578257 |
In article <7vqb8b95jor48901lu05sihhlpnvff4i8j@4ax.com>, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > > >On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj > >>> <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>, > >>>> "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted: > >>>>> > >>>>> 15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the > >>>>> internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just > >>>>> a typo! > >>>> > >>>> "spelt" > >>>> about 12,700,000 search results. > >>>> > >>>> "spelled" > >>>> about 50,500,000 search results. > >>> > >>> Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care > >>> about. In my example, lenght is not a word. > >> > >> "Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. > > > >No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct". > > If you bring up an American news source, look for stories > about people who were arrested by the police, you will > almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent - > when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is > increasingly rare. > > Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct. > I brought this up a short time ago, because I have been hearing "pleaded" for a while and I thought the change from "pled" had been recent. However, many people said that pleaded has been used for quite some time, both in AmE and BrE. So, I don't know why I thought "pled" was common. Unless, it was common 50+ years ago, which to me is recent. -- charles
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yan65upa86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578756 |
On Sun, 03 Jan 2016 01:29:54 -0000, Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> wrote: > In article <7vqb8b95jor48901lu05sihhlpnvff4i8j@4ax.com>, > Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: > >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 17:11:41 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >> >> >On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 03:19:07 -0000, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >> > >> >> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 19:23:21 -0000, "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2015 18:58:53 -0000, Dr. Jai Maharaj >> >>> <alt.fan.jai-maharaj@googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> In article <op.yagzluoy86ebyl@red.lan>, >> >>>> "Mr Macaw" <n...@spam.com> posted: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> 15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the >> >>>>> internet, and they actually think it's correct, not just >> >>>>> a typo! >> >>>> >> >>>> "spelt" >> >>>> about 12,700,000 search results. >> >>>> >> >>>> "spelled" >> >>>> about 50,500,000 search results. >> >>> >> >>> Those are both words, with a subtle difference not many people care >> >>> about. In my example, lenght is not a word. >> >> >> >> "Spelt" is English english. "Spelled" is more the American version. >> > >> >No. Plenty friends here in the UK use spelled and say it's "correct". >> >> If you bring up an American news source, look for stories >> about people who were arrested by the police, you will >> almost always see the word "pleaded" - guilty or innocent - >> when he appeared before the judge. The use of "pled" is >> increasingly rare. >> >> Our dictionaries say "pleaded" and "pled" are both correct. >> > > I brought this up a short time ago, because I have been hearing > "pleaded" for a while and I thought the change from "pled" had been > recent. However, many people said that pleaded has been used for quite > some time, both in AmE and BrE. So, I don't know why I thought "pled" > was common. Unless, it was common 50+ years ago, which to me is recent. Pled sounds ridiculous to me, rather like "pleb". Doesn't sound like a real word. -- He saw her in her birthday suit swimming by the pier She said, "Please go away," but he pretended not to hear. "If you don't go I'll stay in here 'til it's dark." 'That's OK by me," he said, "I only came to feed the shark." -- Benny Hill
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 08:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <n63ant$tau$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #578093 |
On 30/12/2015 1:42 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: > 15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the internet, and > they actually think it's correct, not just a typo! Pity them. It is the heigth of ignorance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-31 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaiovxmp86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578151 |
On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 13:31:40 -0000, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote: > On 30/12/2015 1:42 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: > >> 15 million people have spelt length as lenght on the internet, and >> they actually think it's correct, not just a typo! > > Pity them. It is the heigth of ignorance. Maybe they have a lithp. -- When shagging a goat you are best taking it to the edge of a cliff because they push back harder. -- Billy Connelly
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]
Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english
csiph-web