rec.autos.simulators

Um, well. My spoken English leaves a LOT to hope for. At least when I'm
sober :-)

And there are still those *** little grammar or rather structural and
rhythmic errors that pop out. Even though learning to spell a foreign
language is easy while you learn all the words by reading and writing in
the first place, you have still learned to THINK in your native.

Whassa 'ontrac'n anyway?

Most of the (native) spelling errors such as to/two/too brake/break
four/for bale/bail etc. are so common that a few days' surfing in the
Net makes you so accustomed to them that you don't even notice the
difference. If the writer is half comprehensible in his context and
structure, the correction of these little "errors" becomes pretty much
automatic. Much like reading Finnish or Swedish printed without the
proper a and o umlauts (did that a LOT when I was typing high school
essays and Finnish class short stories with a Commodore 64 as a kid and
filled the dots in with a pencil :-) You just fill in the umlauts with
your mind's eye automatically after a while.

And last but not least: my intention was not to insult native English
speakers by pointing out that they make most of the spelling errors one
encounters in the Net by themselves. Rather, I tried to offer a
reasonable explanation for this (okay I DO find it a LITTLE bit amusing
at times ;-)

Well, off the box we go.

-lark-

Lately, the spelling "looser" for loser has become so overwhelmingly
common that I can't help but thinking maybe there is a reason of some
kind for this. I mean, is it intentional? A "cool" way of spelling loser
based on some movie or book that I have missed? A phrase used in
motorsports perhaps?

I mean, isn't a "looser" more like someone who occasionally lets loose
:-P

-lark-

I mostly agree with your other points though.

Jari Jokinen

This message wasn't spell checked and may contain clumsy (but not bad)
English.

French used to be the language of international diplomacy (hence,
"lingua franca"). Long, long before WWII, English took over that role.
Speaking of which: if anyone can claim to have "won" WWII, by any
measure you can name -- territory gained, power increased, lives lost --
it was the Russians. Their victory did not noticeably spread the Russian
language. If military victories automatically induced the losers to
speak the victor's language, how would you explain that the French, who
have been defeated by every country in Europe at one time or another,
not to mention the Algerians and Vietnamese, still cling to a language
that is, for all practical purposes, unpronounceable? (just a joke, you
Franco-American Spaghetti-Os out there!)

I may be wrong on this one, but I believe most native Latin speakers are
dead as Julius Caesar. German, well...as a spoken language it has a
certain *rauher gemtlichkeit*, but it has a quite limited vocabulary
and syntactical rules that are very rigid.

I don't argue that America's rise as a global power, especially in
international markets and the scientific community, didn't have a great
deal to do with the ascendancy of English as the World Language (though
by sheer numbers, that title must go to the main dialects of Chinese),
but I *do* maintain that English is the only logical choice -- far more
logical than Chinese, numbers aside -- because of its power and flexibility.

BB

Eldred
--
Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999
Own Grand Prix Legends?  Goto  http://gpl.gamestats.com/vroc

Never argue with an idiot.  He brings you down to his level, then beats you
with experience...
Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

(unsnip)
We all do, Stephen.  With my fading eyesight and gradual loss of hand-eye
coordination it's an easy thing to do.
I was not, however, referring to typos.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------

BB

Stephen

    >>  Are you suggesting that English has some advantage over
    >> German, French or Latin (for example)? Certainly the reasons
    >> for it's current popularity are more historical; Anglo-Saxons
    >> won the World War II etc.

    Barton> Yes, I *am* suggesting just that. I believe that the
    Barton> English language's flexibility and vast vocabulary
    Barton> (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe English
    Barton> has by far the largest vocabulary of any language, living

You're wrong. Size of the dictionary doesn't matter. Some languages
combine words more easily than others, or have other means to express
subtle differences. Do you speak any other language (fluently) apart
from English?

    Barton> French used to be the language of international diplomacy
    Barton> (hence, "lingua franca"). Long, long before WWII, English
    Barton> took over that role.  Speaking of which: if anyone can
    Barton> claim to have "won" WWII, by any measure you can name --
    Barton> territory gained, power increased, lives lost -- it was
    Barton> the Russians. Their victory did not noticeably spread the

If you look at the rest of western Europe, you will find that they
were liberated by English, Americans and Canadians. The Russians were
quickly "put" behind the iron curtain after WWII.

    Barton> Russian language. If military victories automatically
    Barton> induced the losers to speak the victor's language, how

The victors language was/is not forced upan anybody. It is political
and business influences. Europe had to be rebuilt after the war, where
do you think the money and material came from?

    Barton> I may be wrong on this one, but I believe most native
    Barton> Latin speakers are dead as Julius Caesar. German,
    Barton> well...as a spoken language it has a certain *rauher
    Barton> gemtlichkeit*, but it has a quite limited vocabulary and
    Barton> syntactical rules that are very rigid.

Ah, now I see, you are simply trolling.

    Barton> I don't argue that America's rise as a global power,
    Barton> especially in international markets and the scientific
    Barton> community, didn't have a great deal to do with the
    Barton> ascendancy of English as the World Language (though by
    Barton> sheer numbers, that title must go to the main dialects of
    Barton> Chinese), but I *do* maintain that English is the only
    Barton> logical choice -- far more logical than Chinese, numbers
    Barton> aside -- because of its power and flexibility.

You should learn another language, and then think again about the
things you have written here.

-peter

I'm not so sure you're the one who is "real" in the debate with Leela.  Did
you actually read and think about his response?

Stephen

Do you fluently speak any other languages besides your own, Barton?

Nope. No desire and no need.

Never said it was. The debate -- which is no debate because it's a
simple fact of life -- is that English is the universal language of
science, diplomacy, air travel, and the Internet. If you don't agree
with that statement, I'm afraid I can't help you. No need and no desire.

Yes. See above. I'm sure you know what opinions are like. And everybody
has one.

BB

Okay Bruce, (but skip to * if you're weary),

Your point is well-taken; but I think you're right for the wrong reasons.
The English language's *** in world informational systems since the
19C--whether they be of science, diplomacy, market--is not (NOT!) primarily,
or even secondarily, the result of said language's (oop, let me hunt
it--okay, here it 'tis) "precision and subtlety."  Surely you'd agree that
this saturation has come about overwhelmingly because of three things:

1) The U.K.'s *** of the first global economy in the 19C, and the
establishment of London as the world's financial capitol and capital
capitol, and . . .

b) the wane of the European power, Germany, which was quite poised to
challenge the U.K. in this area, post-WW1

iii) and the U.K.'s utter dimunition by the other great military/economic
power during and after WW2, the U.S.

Your post seems to me to reflect profoundly the dilemma faced by cultural
conservatives (whether of the neo-con or neo-lib variety, since only a
hair's breadth of ideological difference separates them) in this odd age.
Namely, that . . .

utter fragmentation of cultural stability; and yet . . .

(nostalgia).

If you look back 200 + years, for example, you see the Father of Modern
Conservatism, one E. Burke, fulmigating elaborately against the perversion
of words he  "saw" in the French (and British) Jacobins.

In short, the reduction of an enormously complicated historical phenomenon,
one contigent upon distributions of power among global actors (and dist. of
social power WITHIN those entities) cannot be reduced to the efficiency and
assimulative power of any language.  New Criticism is dead.  Long live
Historicism.

*In even shorter, "follow the money."

--DK

PS  Richard Adams ?!?!?!?