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 | 20 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 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
| From | Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 17:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v7ho8b9n2duv2fgkmvrp8c7ua8auivf1hd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #579492 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 16:43:29 -0500, Mr. B1ack <nowhere@nada.net> wrote: >On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 10:13:02 +1100, Peter Moylan ><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote: > >>On 2016-Jan-04 09:40, Mr. B1ack wrote: >> >>> Oh ... you seem well informed ... there's a Britishism >>> that eludes me - saying somebody is "in hospital" rather >>> than "in the hospital" or "in a hospital". Americans DO >>> say "in prison" however ... >> >>Also "in college", "at home", and many other examples. This has been >>discussed numerous times in this newsgroup, so it's probably in the AUE >>FAQ. In non-American English, "in hospital" means that the person is a >>patient, while "in the hospital" means at some specific hospital, not >>necessarily as a patient. "Dr X is not in the hospital right now. Have >>you tried phoning his practice?" > > To discriminate between a patient and somebody > who just happens to be within a hospital we say "IN > the hospital" for a patient and "AT the hospital" > for non-patients. > > "Mr. Jones is in the hospital". > > "Mrs Jones is visiting her husband at the hospital". Not necessarily. The second sentence kinda indicates that the meeting took place in the hospital, but doesn't clearly indicate the Mr Jones is a patient. And, I don't see a problem with "in" in both. > > Anyone "in" is presumed to be ill. There's a slight > problem with all this if Mr. Jones is a hospital > administrator or functionary and Mrs. Jones has > stopped by to discuss the party they're having > that weekend ...... you need personal knowledge > of Mr. Jones to decode the sentences. > -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 18:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaodywjd86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578764 |
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. >>>>>> say "pled" if that's even a word. What would you say instead of pleaded? >>>>> >>>>> "Mr. Fracas was brought before a judge and pled 'not guilty' >>>>> to the charges ..... " >>>>> >>>>> In 1960s America that would have been the most common way >>>>> of stating that in the news. Today it's "pleaded". >>>> >>>> If someone said pled now I'd fall about laughing. In fact my newsreader has underlined it in red. >>>> >>>>>> A word that annoys me is "dove". Not dove the bird, but dove as in past tense if dive, pronounced like cove. >>>>> >>>>> You want "dived" ? >>>>> >>>>> "Dove" is another irregular verb ... that's going away. >>>>> >>>>> But if you want to sound smart you say "dove" :-) >>>>> >>>>> 50 years from now however, will anybody even understand >>>>> if you say "dove" ? It may be like the language of the Bard, >>>>> pretty but obsolete. Can you really appreciate Hamlet if >>>>> you cannot follow the meter and rhythm and play of his >>>>> obsolete words ??? Those were far richer plays to even >>>>> the common folk of his day than they are to the educated >>>>> class of today. >>>> >>>> Isn't dove an Americanism like aluminum? >>> >>> I am unaware of its full extent. I've definitely heard the >>> word on BBC television - news and entertainment - so >>> "dove" has made it back to the motherland. >> >> The BBC is no longer what it once was. > > Maybe ... but it's still a cut above any American news/culture > programming. Americans have a very short attention span > and despise "egghead" discussions. A practical, blue-collar, > black & white novelty-loving culture. Car crashes, police > chases and "Funniest Home Videos" reign supreme. :-) > Ah ... an episode of "Dr. Who" sometime last year ... the MI-6 > lady tells another why they've kept a time-travel device secret > from the Americans ... "Well, you've seen their movies !" :-) > >>> 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? > > There's a reason irregular verbs are called "irregular". > Conventions, homegrown or imported, that just stuck, > likely because somebody important used them. They > do not follow from any "rule". Some just sound silly and should not be used under any circumstances :-) >>> "Aluminum" isn't an Americanism per-se .... the >>> PRONUNCIATION is. Americans say "Ah-LOOM- >>> uh-num" while Brits (and surely those in Oz and >>> NZ) say "Al-You-MIN-ee-um". The latter really >>> does seem to sound better with a "British accent". >>> From the spelling, the British form also seems >>> more correct. Sharp/crisp-sounding words do >>> tend to "soften" with time and distance ... become >>> more "vowely". >> >> The spell it different aswell as pronounce it different. > > "Colour" -vs- "color" ? Americans are lazy too, we tend > to drop "useless" letters :-) You're not lazy when it comes to eating! -- My sister-in-law sat on my glasses and broke them. It was my own fault. I should have taken them off.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f84f860c-b97b-4bd4-890c-959fd39ef7e5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578907 |
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. Do you really think speakers of "proper English," whatever that is, "leave spaces between the words"???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 19:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaogc8l686ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578920 |
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. > Do you really think speakers of "proper > English," whatever that is, "leave spaces between the words"??? More than the Hindis. -- Having swallowed the most amount of semen ever officially recorded Michelle Monaghan had 1.7 pints (0.96 liter) of semen pumped out of her stomach in Los Angeles in July 1991.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-03 13:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a6e35aec-4924-4d61-bfb9-17f13e605df2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578927 |
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, and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." I would be surprised if most of the South Asians (what you-lot call "Asians") in your country are either Hindi-speakers or Indians, since we have the impression that most of them are Pakistani. > > Do you really think speakers of "proper > > English," whatever that is, "leave spaces between the words"??? > > More than the Hindis. That's pure bollux.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 00:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1pcj8b187ks00mlis8pv8nkms5tc968plo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578965 |
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:47:32 -0800 (PST), "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, and
>(b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians."
>
>I would be surprised if most of the South Asians (what you-lot call "Asians")
>in your country are either Hindi-speakers or Indians, since we have the impression
>that most of them are Pakistani.
>
According to these figures from the 2011 Census, Pakistanis plus
Bangladeshis slightly outnumbered Indians in the UK.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnic_Groups_-_2011_Census_data
Indian 1,451,862 2.3%
Pakistani 1,174,983 1.9%
Bangladeshi 451,529 0.7%
As for languages, many Indians in the UK will have Hindi as their
ancestral language but there is a sizeable proportion who have
non-Hindi-speaking ancestry.
So it would not be correct to assume that any particular Indian in the
UK is Hindi-speaking or of Hindi-speaking descent.
Two good friends of mine from India, a married couple, are not
Hindi-speaking, in fact the only language they have in common is
English.
Similarly it can't be assumed that all people of Pakistani descent are
Urdu speakers or have Urdu-speaking ancestry.
>> > Do you really think speakers of "proper
>> > English," whatever that is, "leave spaces between the words"???
>>
>> More than the Hindis.
>
>That's pure bollux.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 00:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaouebiu86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578993 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 00:07:06 -0000, Peter Duncanson [BrE] <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 13:47:32 -0800 (PST), "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, and >> (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >> >> I would be surprised if most of the South Asians (what you-lot call "Asians") >> in your country are either Hindi-speakers or Indians, since we have the impression >> that most of them are Pakistani. >> > According to these figures from the 2011 Census, Pakistanis plus > Bangladeshis slightly outnumbered Indians in the UK. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_the_United_Kingdom#Ethnic_Groups_-_2011_Census_data > > Indian 1,451,862 2.3% > Pakistani 1,174,983 1.9% > Bangladeshi 451,529 0.7% I thought they were all the same! They certainly look and speak similarly. -- How to start a fight, number 46: Wait till a bunch of girls walk past a phone box. Phone the phone box. When one answers, ask to speak to the ugliest one they've got.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 00:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaoub31186ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #578965 |
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? > and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been used since the days of Western films. > I would be surprised if most of the South Asians (what you-lot call "Asians") > in your country are either Hindi-speakers or Indians, since we have the impression > that most of them are Pakistani. Dunno who you're talking about, "Asian" is far too general a term. Chinese and Japanese are called "Oriental" or "Chinky" - is that what you're referring to? >> > Do you really think speakers of "proper >> > English," whatever that is, "leave spaces between the words"??? >> >> More than the Hindis. > > That's pure bollux. The Hindis run their words together, that's a fact. "Whatisitthatyouarewishingtobuytodaysir?" -- I dialled one of those 900 numbers to get some financial advice. They advised me not to dial 900 numbers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 09:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <deurdtFqqdnU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578999 |
On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? > >> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." > > I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been > used since the days of Western films. Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 04:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05c00f03-b4d7-402c-bdef-48532e78cd25@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579041 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-5, GordonD wrote: > On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? > > > >> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." > > > > I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been > > used since the days of Western films. > > > Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. Actually it appeared in this very newsgroup within the last few months.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaqag1hj86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579071 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:17:51 -0000, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-5, GordonD wrote: >> On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? >> > >> >> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >> > >> > I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been >> > used since the days of Western films. >> >> >> Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. > > Actually it appeared in this very newsgroup within the last few months. Sorry for not having read the entire group. Must remember to get less life. -- Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said "It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaqagfig86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579041 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:13:32 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? >> >>> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >> >> I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been >> used since the days of Western films. > > > Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. Which is? -- Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said "It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-05 10:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df1juaFhu3vU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579150 |
On 04/01/2016 19:15, Mr Macaw wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:13:32 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? >>> >>>> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >>> >>> I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been >>> used since the days of Western films. >> >> >> Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. > > Which is? > Commies! -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 00:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yasiv2fx86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579357 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:24:08 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 04/01/2016 19:15, Mr Macaw wrote: >> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:13:32 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? >>>> >>>>> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >>>> >>>> I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't been >>>> used since the days of Western films. >>> >>> >>> Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. >> >> Which is? >> > > Commies! I am unfamiliar with the political persuasions of the Indians in the USA. -- British Rail Customer: "How much does it cost to Bath on the train?" Operator: "If you can get your feet in the sink, then it's free".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 13:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <df4ju7FbaucU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #579526 |
On 06/01/2016 00:13, Mr Macaw wrote: > On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:24:08 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> On 04/01/2016 19:15, Mr Macaw wrote: >>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:13:32 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? >>>>> >>>>>> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >>>>> >>>>> I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't >>>>> been >>>>> used since the days of Western films. >>>> >>>> >>>> Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. >>> >>> Which is? >>> >> >> Commies! > > I am unfamiliar with the political persuasions of the Indians in the USA. > I never mentioned the Indians. -- Gordon Davie Edinburgh, Scotland
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-06 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaty94e386ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579654 |
On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 13:42:29 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: > On 06/01/2016 00:13, Mr Macaw wrote: >> On Tue, 05 Jan 2016 10:24:08 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/01/2016 19:15, Mr Macaw wrote: >>>> On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 09:13:32 -0000, GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 04/01/2016 00:29, 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? >>>>>> >>>>>>> and (b) I'm inured to seeing you-lot call them "Red Indians." >>>>>> >>>>>> I say "American Indian" if I want to be clear. "Red Indian" hasn't >>>>>> been >>>>>> used since the days of Western films. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Not since "Red" took on quite another meaning. >>>> >>>> Which is? >>>> >>> >>> Commies! >> >> I am unfamiliar with the political persuasions of the Indians in the USA. >> > > I never mentioned the Indians. You said not to use Red for Red Indians because it means Commies. If they are Commies, then the name is still apt. -- When a woman wears leather clothing, a man's heart beats quicker, his throat gets dry, he goes weak in the knees, and he begins to think irrationally. Ever wonder why? She smells like a new truck!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 04:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7824d648-b89d-485e-9b5f-f51a99cbc299@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578999 |
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."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaqah1jl86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579072 |
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? -- Take some good advice: Never try to baptize your cat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 11:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38099f3c-0d00-441b-a058-aea5e05175a0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #579152 |
On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:16:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw 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? It was outmoded long before the local rightwing nutcases started accusing "libruls" of pushing "political correctness." They're not from India, you know.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 23:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <op.yaql8rnb86ebyl@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #579168 |
On Mon, 04 Jan 2016 19:58:37 -0000, Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: > On Monday, January 4, 2016 at 2:16:46 PM UTC-5, Mr Macaw 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? > > It was outmoded long before the local rightwing nutcases started accusing > "libruls" of pushing "political correctness." > > They're not from India, you know. Historical innit, sailing the wrong way and all that. Their official name has always been Indians, Red Indians, or American Indians. -- "Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english
csiph-web