Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?
Date	2015-02-11 16:28 +0100
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mbfse6$eva$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(20 earlier) <mbecnj$9r9$1@dont-email.me> <mbfk4m$9bj$1@dont-email.me> <mbflg7$f9j$2@dont-email.me> <mbfnn9$pkq$1@dont-email.me> <mbfov0$v11$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/02/15 15:29, Bartc wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 14:08, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 02/11/2015 08:33 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>> James Kuyper wrote:
>>>> On 02/10/2015 08:57 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
>>>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> separate kingdoms - there is no such thing as "the Queen of England"
>>>>>
>>>>> That term does get used.
>>>>
>>>> I can't find it on the list at
>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II>.
>>>>
>>>> Is that list incomplete?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe the usage is informal. And we're back to whether language
>>> lives in lists or not.
>>
>> Titles are not ordinary language. Where they have legal meaning (which
>> does not include the US) they are tightly regulated by law. You can call
>> Oprah the "Queen of Talk TV", and that's just ordinary English usage.
>> Calling Elizabeth II "Queen of England", on the other hand, is claiming
>> for her a legal title which she does not, in fact, possess, and which
>> has not even existed since 1707-05-01.
> 
> Unless you're claiming that England is a republic, England does have a
> reigning monarch who is currently Queen Elizabeth II.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_England
> 
> It's an informal term but, so what. Everyday speech is necessarily
> informal otherwise we'd all be talking legalese.
> 

England is not a monarchy, and does not have a monarch - it is part of a
union (the UK) that has a monarch.  There is no "Queen of England" - it
is not an "informal term", but an /incorrect/ term.  Informal, everyday
speech is fine - blatantly incorrect speech is not.

In the eyes of some, she is not even "Queen Elizabeth II", since there
has only been one Queen Elizabeth of the UK - the previous Queen
Elizabeth really was "Queen of England".  But I think it is practical to
take the highest numbering based on previous monarchs of the member
countries, and thus call her "the second".  British royals specifically
avoid the name "James" to avoid such a confusion - what would be the
next number after "James the first and sixth"?

Elisabeth is primarily the Queen of the UK, but also a figurehead
monarch for a number of other Commonwealth countries (such as Canada and
Australia).  For those of us from the UK, but not from England, the use
of terms like "the Queen of England" is an example of the domination of
England over the rest of the UK, and of the ignorance of people
(especially foreign media).

Fortunately, ignorance is curable - now you are educated, and you at
least have no excuse for referring to the "Queen of England" again
(except, of course, in historical contexts from when there was a Queen
of England).

Thread

csiph-web