Re: Airborne in GPL?

I got air over the Corkscrew my first few laps around Laguna Seca ...I think I ended up in Salinas after a really bad one<vbg>. -- don "Getting hit by a meteorite is an accident... everything else is driver-error." "Speedy Fast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that > Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > > But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very > well)

... and in the same enterprising spirit, you certainly can catch a lot of air at Zandvoort - if you go off the track, as I usually have the ill fortune to do. I just can�t get to grips with the damn thing..... Soren Sarstrup Birmingham UK Don Scurlock <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8F09E2321dscurlock@news...

Quoted text (18 lines)

> Not that I would ever try such a childish stunt, but go to Roen, come > out of the last turn at full speed and as your passing the pits ver > right and launch up the grass embankment, try to miss the first trees. > As mentioned, the biggest realistic air in gpl is at the Nurburgring. > > [email hidden] (Speedy Fast) wrote in > <[email hidden]>: > > >What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that > >Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > > > >But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very > >well) > > > -- > Don Scurlock > Vancouver,B.C.

go flying into the turn after the esses at full speed and lose control and BAM your in the haybail and over the wall. =)

You mean hay *BALES*? (Now all you folk from farming backgrounds know the real term...it's "hay things"!!) :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Frank Vangen <"frupp"@enter.vg> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > ( And I often get airborne at Snetterton due to those hay-things right next > to the road ;p ) > > Frank > >

Stay back after school, young Tony...... your = you're bail = bale -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Tony StewartNo20 <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > go flying into the turn after the esses at full speed and lose control and BAM > your in the haybail and over the wall. =)

ugghhh dang cant we just have some fun WITHOUT AN INSULT....

And Do you Expect me to be Mister Perfect????????? People Do Make Mistakes once in a while.............ok?

What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very well)

Speedy Fast <[email hidden]> skrev i meldingsnyheter:[email hidden]... > What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that > Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > > But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very > well) Dont know about Zandvort cause I dont like that track but you can get ( very ) airborne at N�rburgring. ( And I often get airborne at Snetterton due to those hay-things right next to the road ;p ) Frank

Not that I would ever try such a childish stunt, but go to Roen, come out of the last turn at full speed and as your passing the pits ver right and launch up the grass embankment, try to miss the first trees. As mentioned, the biggest realistic air in gpl is at the Nurburgring. [email hidden] (Speedy Fast) wrote in <[email hidden]>: >What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that >Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > >But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very >well) -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C.

Well, I'll tell you you're problem "Speedy Fast". You'll never get a Honda airborne... they weigh like, 8000 pounds dry, without tires. ;-) Dents. PS. If you try hard enough, you can get air at Mosport too... at the end of the straight. "Speedy Fast" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that > Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > > But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very > well)

In O-ring I once went wide between Dr. Tiroch Kurve and the Bosh Kurve, and I become to a wild flight, the car went higher and higher, and then also the program crashed... "illegal operation". I would have liked to see the replay, but propably the car went so high that it came out of the world og GPL... :-) Arto

Tyres, tires Bales, bails Who cares? It's the meaning that counts in newsgroups Bruce ! Cheers, Phil Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Stay back after school, young Tony...... > > your = you're > bail = bale > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Tony StewartNo20 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > go flying into the turn after the esses at full speed and lose control and > BAM > > your in the haybail and over the wall. =)

Just get ahead of McLaren or Surtees, then, they'll make sure you get plenty of air. Don't plan on finishing the race though Speedy Fast wrote in message ... >What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that >Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > >But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very >well)

You sure you're not confusing this with the Flugplatz at the Nurburgring? It's also possible to get 4-off at the end of the back straight at Mosport....but be prepared to collect the fence if you do! :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Speedy Fast <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that > Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > > But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very > well)

Try Bristol. You can get very very high. (Not so realistic dough thanks to the invisible walls proctecting the vulnerable spectators) Speedy Fast <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws [email hidden]... > What tracks allow cars to become airborne? I have noticed that > Zandvoort is in the GPL video... with cars jumping a crest. > > But I can't get my Honda airborne :( (but I don't know the track very > well)

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > (There is also the side benefit to those of non-English-speaking > nationalities where their knowledge of English can be supported when they > know the correct spelling of a word and the correct grammatical structure of > a sentence. Unless genuine spelling errors are pointed out, how will they > ever know what is correct or not?) Don't worry. We will. It's not like we non-natives were reading your Anglo drivel with a dictionary in one hand, without the benefit of being able to extrapolate on context whenever you guys screw up your spelling ;-) Seriously though. After my 5 years or so in the Net, it would appear that absolutely the worst spellers of the English language are native speakers. To be more precise, the ones from a particular continent which we will leave unnamed to avoid unnecessary trouble. And come to think of it, it's quite logical. You natives learn English by listening to your mum and dad, and learn to write it much later. MUCH later sometimes ;-) Whereas we non-native speakers (or rather writers in this case) learn it by reading and writing, and only later assuming a correct pronouncation according to personal preference. Or just ignore the correct pronouncation and live with the funny accent. I try to go for "vaguely British" as I'm an European after all. Bit rusty and accented now though, as it has been ages since I've been having a good conversation in English. I used to try Aussie especially when drunk, but my current girlfriend is an Ozzer (who speaks perfect Finnish to the point of having a worse Finnish accent in English than me at <not so sober> times) and slagged my good natured efforts with the Aussie twang often enough for me to quit trying :-) -lark-

Joona Vainio wrote: > British" as I'm an European after all. Bit rusty and accented now Oooops. Bloody hell! Meant to write "*A* European" of course. Oh bugger... :-D -lark-

Okay....I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or not but thanks for your feedback. Appreciated, Joona. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > (There is also the side benefit to those of non-English-speaking > > nationalities where their knowledge of English can be supported when they > > know the correct spelling of a word and the correct grammatical structure of > > a sentence. Unless genuine spelling errors are pointed out, how will they > > ever know what is correct or not?) > > Don't worry. We will. It's not like we non-natives were reading your > Anglo drivel with a dictionary in one hand, without the benefit of being > able to extrapolate on context whenever you guys screw up your spelling > ;-) > > Seriously though. After my 5 years or so in the Net, it would appear > that absolutely the worst spellers of the English language are native > speakers. To be more precise, the ones from a particular continent which > we will leave unnamed to avoid unnecessary trouble. And come to think of > it, it's quite logical. You natives learn English by listening to your > mum and dad, and learn to write it much later. MUCH later sometimes ;-) > > Whereas we non-native speakers (or rather writers in this case) learn it > by reading and writing, and only later assuming a correct pronouncation > according to personal preference. Or just ignore the correct > pronouncation and live with the funny accent. I try to go for "vaguely > British" as I'm an European after all. Bit rusty and accented now > though, as it has been ages since I've been having a good conversation > in English. I used to try Aussie especially when drunk, but my current > girlfriend is an Ozzer (who speaks perfect Finnish to the point of > having a worse Finnish accent in English than me at <not so sober> > times) and slagged my good natured efforts with the Aussie twang often > enough for me to quit trying :-) > > -lark-

Don Scurlock wrote: > > Not that I would ever try such a childish stunt, but go to Roen, come > out of the last turn at full speed and as your passing the pits ver > right and launch up the grass embankment, try to miss the first trees. > As mentioned, the biggest realistic air in gpl is at the Nurburgring. > Yep. Start a 19 AI car race at the Ring, skip qualifying so you start in 20th position, and shift-r on the grid when you appear :-) Paul -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Venkatesh | ([email hidden] -44-1279-403486) Nortel, London Road, Harlow, Essex. CM17 9NA

Physics, Dents. The weight doesn't matter in getting airborne or not. Jens ;-) On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 09:31:58 GMT, "D. \"Dents\" Hopkins" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Well, I'll tell you you're problem "Speedy Fast". > >You'll never get a Honda airborne... they weigh like, 8000 pounds dry, >without tires. ;-) > >Dents. >

--------------------------------------------- [email hidden] Remove "NOSPAM" before using my email-address JensSchumi homepage at http://members.xoom.com/JensSchu/ Racing simulation, esp. GPL Logitech Wingman FF optimization Classic cars, esp. Morris Minor Radio controlled airplanes

I grew-up in Wisconsin and worked on farms as a teen. I know firsthand the difference between bale and bail! Bale is for hay and bail is for jail! Been there...done both. Gary Bruce Kennewell wrote:

Quoted text (21 lines)

> > You mean hay *BALES*? > > (Now all you folk from farming backgrounds know the real term...it's "hay > things"!!) :-) > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Frank Vangen <"frupp"@enter.vg> wrote in message > news:[email hidden].. > > > > ( And I often get airborne at Snetterton due to those hay-things right > next > > to the road ;p ) > > > > Frank > > > >

> British" as I'm an European after all. Bit rusty and accented now Oooops. ***y hell! Meant to write "*A* European" of course. Oh ***... :-D -lark-

ROTFLMAO, the irony, the irony!!

I agree as well Bruce, I hate it when people can't take the 0.1 of a sceond to spell their words correctly, or put full stops when required. It just makes messages hard to read, newsgroups are too full of poorly phrased and spelt messages. Rafe Mc On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 07:44:40 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (18 lines)

>Who cares, Phil? I do, because although "English as she is writ" might be a >bastardised mongrel of a language it should still be used correctly, NG or >not. The mere fact that newsgroups comprise 99.99999% written English >should be sufficient to support that statement. > >We all make typographical errors....but there is a vast difference between a >typo and illiteracy and it is the latter that I find disappointing when it >is repetitive and comes from a resident of an English-speaking country. > >(There is also the side benefit to those of non-English-speaking >nationalities where their knowledge of English can be supported when they >know the correct spelling of a word and the correct grammatical structure of >a sentence. Unless genuine spelling errors are pointed out, how will they >ever know what is correct or not?) > >Sorry Phil, but I love the English language and get great pleasure out of >reading not only well-crafted statements but also those that are spelt >correctly. If that's a crime, tough.

Who cares, Phil? I do, because although "English as she is writ" might be a bastardised mongrel of a language it should still be used correctly, NG or not. The mere fact that newsgroups comprise 99.99999% written English should be sufficient to support that statement. We all make typographical errors....but there is a vast difference between a typo and illiteracy and it is the latter that I find disappointing when it is repetitive and comes from a resident of an English-speaking country. (There is also the side benefit to those of non-English-speaking nationalities where their knowledge of English can be supported when they know the correct spelling of a word and the correct grammatical structure of a sentence. Unless genuine spelling errors are pointed out, how will they ever know what is correct or not?) Sorry Phil, but I love the English language and get great pleasure out of reading not only well-crafted statements but also those that are spelt correctly. If that's a crime, tough. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Phil Flack <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Tyres, tires > Bales, bails > > Who cares? It's the meaning that counts in newsgroups Bruce ! > > Cheers, > Phil > > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Stay back after school, young Tony...... > > > > your = you're > > bail = bale > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Tony StewartNo20 <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > go flying into the turn after the esses at full speed and lose control and > > BAM > > > your in the haybail and over the wall. =)

LOL! :) 0.1 of a sceond - was this deliberate? I am not criticising you...it just was funny Ash Rafe McAuliffe <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... | I agree as well Bruce, I hate it when people can't take the 0.1 of a | sceond to spell their words correctly, or put full stops when | required. It just makes messages hard to read, newsgroups are too full | of poorly phrased and spelt messages. | | Rafe Mc

Rafe McAuliffe <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws [email hidden]... > I agree as well Bruce, I hate it when people can't take the 0.1 of a > sceond to spell their words correctly, or put full stops when > required. It just makes messages hard to read, newsgroups are too full > of poorly phrased and spelt messages. ROTFLMAO, the irony, the irony!!

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > Okay....I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or not but thanks for your > feedback. Appreciated, Joona. Heh :-) Sorry, was stuck in a ramble mode and got sidetracked. If you want an actual point of view on the matter. Well, sure it's preferable that folks spell correctly. In any language. But my initial point (that was promptly lost while writing) was that non-native English speakers are not that bad they would suffer significantly more from spelling errors. I mean, if you use the Net in English for fun, you most probably are not having any basic difficulties with the language. If you did, it wouldn't be fun. In a nutshell: I objected the "non-natives can't understand" as an argument to mind your spelling. Those who are fluent enough to read newsgroups in English at all can tell from context the difference between bale and bail just as well or badly as natives. And then I sorta drifted to other things... :-) -lark-

In article <ctoG4.184$[email hidden]>, "Don Hancock (\"Gunner\")" <[email hidden]> writes: >My goodness! You can write THAT eloquently and NOT be a native >English-speaking person?! Amazing. I have to wonder how many Americans >(especially) can so eloquently write in another language... Hehe...not me. That's why I don't correct people on word usage. I guarantee that Lio or Ymenard uses English MUCH better than I can use their first language. People with multi-lingual(even limited) capability have my respect, because I can't do it - yet. 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.

blah blah blah , yadda yadda yadda...... this thing got outta hand half a thread back :))))))

Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:38e9dca0$[email hidden]... > > I can also appreciate that my personal attitude towards correcting errors > has been, and will continue to be, taken as being "school-marmy" and > nit-picky. So be it, because if only ONE, just one person here has hasbeen > able to correct their English because I nit-picked then my life on the > internet has not been without reward. :-) > ...except that it is tedious, and anal, and mucks up some fine threads that discuss auto simulations. Can't you throw in a catch-all "Off Topic - Spelling Corrections" in the subject line so we know to avoid your nauseating tub thumping. I would also propose that there is some fine literature out there, which does not adhere to your vision of the perfect English language. I would certainly rather settle down with a book from Irvine Welsh, creative spelling included, than read another "bale, bail, tire, tyre, prat, pratt" posting. Stephen

(snip) (English is a modern dynamic language, constantly evolving and > changing in a possitive way, not because of its 'guardians' like you > but IN SPITE OF YOU and your efforts to stifle growth and change.) Obviously. Extremely possitive, colin. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- colin brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Triffic, Stephen....go for it! Who's Irvine Welsh? Is he as entertaining as Spike Milligan? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cckug$689im$[email hidden]... > I would > certainly rather settle down with a book from Irvine Welsh, creative > spelling included, than read another "bale, bail, tire, tyre, prat, pratt" > posting.

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I've seen publications from > major houses incorrectly using "break" for "brake", "shear" for "sheer", > and those are just the most simple ones. Yes, these also create a little bit of linguistic friction in my brain, but I think what really annoys most people about these "grammar checker" posts is that *every* single little error, even one that was obviously a typo, like "possitive" vs. "positive", is pointed out > Finally, I think Bruce's comments about new English users learning the > language correctly are spot-on. Communication is the greatest tool the Yes, we learn nuances of a second language through newspapers, television, newsgroups etc. etc. However, I don't expect to learn everything I need to know about German from the German newsgroups I read. Also, even with my level of German skills, and they are below those of almost every other non-native English speaker in this group, I can quite easily spot the typographical errors in German postings. Bruce's point is moot, and in fact condescending to most of the non-native English speakers here. His persistence in correcting obvious typographical errors is not required to improve comprehension of the language.

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > best way to avoid it? Read the works of people who know the English > language: Tolkien, Safire, Melville, Lincoln (some of the greatest and > most simple and direct English ever written), Steinbeck, Twain, > Chesterton, Wells, Orwell, Huxley, John Barth, Kurt Vonnegut, Eudora > Welty, Ursula LeGuin, Richard Adams, Robert Pirsig, Carl Sandburg, > Shelby Foote. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read.

Best advice I've heard yet in this thread. If you want to learn how to really express yourself well in a language, then read some of the best works in that language. Don't expect to improve your language skills reading stream-of-consciousness USENET postings. Cripes. > There, I'm over it. Too bad Bruce isn't. A major part of my work is writing. I publish between 2 and 3 peer-reviewed articles per year in scientific journals, and have to write a variety of grant applications to keep myself afloat. If they weren't well written, I would not be able to move forward with my career. I think that I know how to write, and write well. That's not arrogance talking, that's just the response I get from reviews. But my writing style in USENET is a lot different, by necessity. I make typographical errors, and I would find it petty when someone continually points these out. Stephen

Bruce Kennewell wrote: > Please don't feel that I was belittling you and others with your high > capabilities in English. But you are the exception and I know from personal > feedback that what I first said is true: there *are* a lot of non-English > speakers/writers out there who *do* appreciate the display on the internet > of correctly structured English. Ah, okay, whatever. And my intention was not to complain us foreigners were being belittled :-) What was supposed to be a minor point and a side note, blew out of proportion as I got carried away with the writing. In any case, I think we both agree most people would rather read proper language, whatever the language is. On the other hand, people seldom misspell on purpose and notifying them about their errors can often feel nitpicking. However polite you are. So I kind of understand if folks tend to get irritated. But whatever. I don't consider it a big deal either way. So why am I still writing about it? :-) -lark-

wel spoted thare broos - u r da MAN

>Don't worry. We will. It's not like we non-natives were reading your >Anglo drivel with a dictionary in one hand, without the benefit of being >able to extrapolate on context whenever you guys***up your spelling My goodness! You can write THAT eloquently and NOT be a native English-speaking person?! Amazing. I have to wonder how many Americans (especially) can so eloquently write in another language... You did an amazing job, and you clarified something I'm sure many of us hadn't thought much of: that you learn to speak and write it at the same time; therefore your written English is as proper as your spoken English. What I think would be difficult for those "non-natives", though, would be trying to figure out sentences where the contractions are used improperly and mixed with the wrong form of "to" (too, two, to). I MYSELF find MANY statements here so muddled with improper forms of words that I haven't been able to figure out the sentence at all! Gunner

hehe - an Auzzie defending the Queens English. you sound more like a whinging pom there mate... (English is a modern dynamic language, constantly evolving and changing in a possitive way, not because of its 'guardians' like you but IN SPITE OF YOU and your efforts to stifle growth and change.) stuff that in yer didgeredoo and smoke it bruce. :-p col. On Mon, 3 Apr 2000 07:44:40 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (55 lines)

>Who cares, Phil? I do, because although "English as she is writ" might be a >bastardised mongrel of a language it should still be used correctly, NG or >not. The mere fact that newsgroups comprise 99.99999% written English >should be sufficient to support that statement. > >We all make typographical errors....but there is a vast difference between a >typo and illiteracy and it is the latter that I find disappointing when it >is repetitive and comes from a resident of an English-speaking country. > >(There is also the side benefit to those of non-English-speaking >nationalities where their knowledge of English can be supported when they >know the correct spelling of a word and the correct grammatical structure of >a sentence. Unless genuine spelling errors are pointed out, how will they >ever know what is correct or not?) > >Sorry Phil, but I love the English language and get great pleasure out of >reading not only well-crafted statements but also those that are spelt >correctly. If that's a crime, tough. >-- >Regards, >Bruce Kennewell, >Canberra, Australia. >--------------------------- > >Phil Flack <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Tyres, tires >> Bales, bails >> >> Who cares? It's the meaning that counts in newsgroups Bruce ! >> >> Cheers, >> Phil >> >> Bruce Kennewell wrote: >> > >> > Stay back after school, young Tony...... >> > >> > your = you're >> > bail = bale >> > >> > -- >> > Regards, >> > Bruce Kennewell, >> > Canberra, Australia. >> > --------------------------- >> > >> > Tony StewartNo20 <[email hidden]> wrote in message >> > news:[email hidden]... >> > > go flying into the turn after the esses at full speed and lose control >and >> > BAM >> > > your in the haybail and over the wall. =) > >

you want to KILL a great Language - keep on as you are dude!

wtf - these posts arn't in the correct thread - SHITE sorry folks :) col

too busy flaming to get the message in the right place....

hehe - an Auzzie defending the Queens English. you sound more like a whinging pom there mate... (English is a modern dynamic language, constantly evolving and changing in a possitive way, not because of its 'guardians' like you but IN SPITE OF YOU and your efforts to stifle growth and change.) stuff that in yer didgeredoo and smoke it bruce. :-p col. On Tue, 4 Apr 2000 21:21:37 +1000, "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (50 lines)

>Fair enough, Joona. >I agree that people seldom deliberately misspell words...unless they are >trying to stir the pot, of course! > >I can also appreciate that my personal attitude towards correcting errors >has been, and will continue to be, taken as being "school-marmy" and >nit-picky. So be it, because if only ONE, just one person here has has been >able to correct their English because I nit-picked then my life on the >internet has not been without reward. :-) > >My work here is done. Hi-ho, Silver! > >-- >Regards, >Bruce Kennewell, >Canberra, Australia. >--------------------------- > >Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Bruce Kennewell wrote: >> >> > Please don't feel that I was belittling you and others with your high >> > capabilities in English. But you are the exception and I know from >personal >> > feedback that what I first said is true: there *are* a lot of >non-English >> > speakers/writers out there who *do* appreciate the display on the >internet >> > of correctly structured English. >> >> Ah, okay, whatever. And my intention was not to complain us foreigners >> were being belittled :-) >> >> What was supposed to be a minor point and a side note, blew out of >> proportion as I got carried away with the writing. In any case, I think >> we both agree most people would rather read proper language, whatever >> the language is. >> >> On the other hand, people seldom misspell on purpose and notifying them >> about their errors can often feel nitpicking. However polite you are. So >> I kind of understand if folks tend to get irritated. >> >> But whatever. I don't consider it a big deal either way. >> >> So why am I still writing about it? :-) >> >> -lark- > >

By (self) appointment to Her Royal Highness Queen Elizabeth II Bruce Kennewell - Defender of the Queens English Granted for services to spelling 'far beyond the call of duty'.

wel spoted thare broos - u r da MAN

Hear, hear! Statements like this: > English is a modern dynamic language, constantly evolving and > changing in a possitive [sic] way, not because of its 'guardians' like you > but IN SPITE OF YOU and your efforts to stifle growth and change. are the usual apologist hogwash for the unrepentantly illiterate. The "Dumbing of America" (though obviously far more widespread than that) has been going on for many years, and nowhere on the planet is "English as she is spoke and writ" in a greater state of decay than America. I'm not talking about "growth and change," I'm talking about ignorance and sloth. English is a very complex language, full of quirky pronunciations (though, tough, cough), odd spelling rules (i before e, except after c?) emigrant words from many other languages, but with very definite rules of syntax and grammar. It is also an exceptionally elegant language, capable of great nuance and subtlety, and with -- when well-crafted -- a rhythmic, harmonious flow completely unlike any other. English, the common language that, as Churchill said, divides America and Great Britain, has also become the International language of science, diplomacy, air travel, and the internet. The chief reason for that is that English can be both extremely precise AND richly shaded. But both precision and subtlety are thrown out the window when people start making up their own rules, or aping the egregious solecisms they see on TV or the Net -- the two most pervasive media of English decay, with the print media -- the one that should, above all others, know better -- coming in a close third. English certainly evolves -- another of its great strengths is the ease in which new or foreign words are assimiliated -- but it doesn't evolve in anarchy; it grows and changes within its comprehensive ruleset, and those changes that are least jarring and most fluidly natural are the ones that make the transition most quickly and painlessly. The ruleset itself changes, but not without the overwhelming pressure of common usage. Two excellent examples are the relaxed usage of "who" and "whom", and the more naturally-flowing exceptions to the "split infinitive" rule. English is not a stupid language. The mind-numbing idiocy of supposedly politically-correct aberrations like "Ebonics" -- actually just another plot to keep African-Americans out of the mainstream of American life -- refused to take root in the wise soil of our language, as the bizarre experiments in Esperanto and "phonetic English" likewise withered in their brief heydays. But without constant vigilance and good-spirited correction, decay will set in. As another great English-speaking Canadian, Neil Young, once observed: "Rust never sleeps". Already, with publishing houses dispensing with flesh-and-blood editors and proofreading being largely mangled by computer spell-checkers (notoriously unable to determine correct usage, and don't even GET me on the subject of computer grammar-checkers!), I've seen publications from major houses incorrectly using "break" for "brake", "shear" for "sheer", and those are just the most simple ones. Finally, I think Bruce's comments about new English users learning the language correctly are spot-on. Communication is the greatest tool the human race possesses. It is the basis for all societies and tribes, from the nuclear family to great nation-states. It is the basis for settled civilizations and the world economy. We are present at the full flowering of the information age. There is nothing more important in an information-driven society that that information be precisely correct when it needs to be correct, and, trickier yet, appropriately ambivalent when it needs to be ambivalent. What greater proof of that could there be than the many misunderstandings that arise in these newsgroups because of sloppy writing? Anyone who doesn't know how to use English correctly is at a social, personal, and economic disadvantage, and that's simply not acceptable, when it's so easy to avoid. What's the best way to avoid it? Read the works of people who know the English language: Tolkien, Safire, Melville, Lincoln (some of the greatest and most simple and direct English ever written), Steinbeck, Twain, Chesterton, Wells, Orwell, Huxley, John Barth, Kurt Vonnegut, Eudora Welty, Ursula LeGuin, Richard Adams, Robert Pirsig, Carl Sandburg, Shelby Foote. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. There, I'm over it. BB

What if you guys switched to spelling as we Finns do? Tolkien based the other Faerie tongue (which - can't remember right now) on Finnish :-) I mean, in Finnish every letter is always pronounced the same (well, within the 5mm tolerance). That makes it rather impossible to spell incorrectly, typos nonwithstanding. If you can say it, you can spell it. There's probably a fancy word ford this kind of pronouncation/spelling, but I guess you know what I mean. Anyways, just kidding. But I've always wondered what's the benefit in writing a syllable or letter this way and pronouncing it that way according to the preceding and following syllables/letters? And I'm not making fun of anyone here. I find this interesting and am just curious as with many other silly litlle trivialities of human behaviour and communication. Oops... wrong newsgroup... -lark-

Joona Vainio wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >Don't worry. We will. It's not like we non-natives were reading your >Anglo drivel with a dictionary in one hand, without the benefit of being >able to extrapolate on context whenever you guys screw up your spelling My goodness! You can write THAT eloquently and NOT be a native English-speaking person?! Amazing. I have to wonder how many Americans (especially) can so eloquently write in another language... You did an amazing job, and you clarified something I'm sure many of us hadn't thought much of: that you learn to speak and write it at the same time; therefore your written English is as proper as your spoken English. What I think would be difficult for those "non-natives", though, would be trying to figure out sentences where the contractions are used improperly and mixed with the wrong form of "to" (too, two, to). I MYSELF find MANY statements here so muddled with improper forms of words that I haven't been able to figure out the sentence at all! Gunner

Stephen Ferguson wrote: > Well, I agree to some extent Stephen, but so far I haven't seen Bruce correct someone who doesn't have English as his native language, or at least people with names and e-mail addresses that indicate such, I can't recall one single time he has done that, and he most certainly has never corrected any of my posts, and I would actually have liked that since I strive to improve my English skills all the time, Netscape's spell checker catches my more obvious spelling errors, but the choice of wrong words or grammar errors it doesn't I must say that even though I've always thought of myself as being fairly good in English, IMHO of course :-), I must say that my written English have improved vastly since I ventured onto the "net" some 5 years ago, some of it because of people like Bruce and Bart Yes, I know that most people who read my posts look at where I post from and make allowances for me having English as my second language, and I appreciate that, but without people also correcting us when we make mistakes, how are we going to improve, and I want to improve, I really do And that is why I enjoy reading Bart's post, they don't contain too much about sim racing perhaps, but they sure have lots nice variations on how to use the English language, much like your own, although your posts are usually more sim related :-), that way I can enjoy a nice racing/sim racing discussion and pick up a few hints and tips on the use of the English language Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

"Don Hancock (\"Gunner\")" wrote: > My goodness! You can write THAT eloquently and NOT be a native > English-speaking person?! Amazing. I have to wonder how many Americans > (especially) can so eloquently write in another language... Now please tell me this is sarcasm, or I'll be very embarrassed. Not to mention my world being shattered. A world, in which folks in Usenet never indulge in suspiciously polite complimentaries without a malicious intent. > You did an amazing job, and you clarified something I'm sure many of us > hadn't thought much of: that you learn to speak and write it at the same > time; therefore your written English is as proper as your spoken English. Um, well. My spoken English leaves a LOT to hope for. At least when I'm sober :-) And there are still those nasty 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. > What I think would be difficult for those "non-natives", though, would > be trying to figure out sentences where the contractions are used improperly > and mixed with the wrong form of "to" (too, two, to). I MYSELF find MANY > statements here so muddled with improper forms of words that I haven't been > able to figure out the sentence at all! 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-

Oh, since this NG seems to harbour an astonishing variety of cunning linguists who apparently like racing as well, I'd like to ask a native's opinion on one particular thing. Has to do with winning and losing. And that's what racing is all about so maybe you can help. 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-

Barton Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >and Great Britain, has also become the International language of >science, diplomacy, air travel, and the internet. The chief reason for >that is that English can be both extremely precise AND richly shaded. 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. I mostly agree with your other points though. Jari Jokinen This message wasn't spell checked and may contain clumsy (but not bad) English.

Jari Jokinen wrote: > > 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. Yes, I *am* suggesting just that. I believe that the English language's flexibility and vast vocabulary (someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe English has by far the largest vocabulary of any language, living or dead -- I'd say the proof is in the size of the unabridged OED) makes it the Nuclear Swiss Army Knife of the world's tongues. See my previous comments on subtlety and precision. 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 gem�tlichkeit*, 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

Your English capabilities I would describe as far above the norm for a person who is not in an "English first" situation. Perhaps the reason that I put forward the "let's do it right so that others know what's right" line is that I was involved some years ago with ham radio. That was most definitely a medium where not only spoken English (that language being the standard for international radio communications then and now) was considered important but so also was the written form (verification cards, CW, teletype etc.) The Japanese (in particular) used to use this medium as a means of improving their English skills and even now they continue with this practise. Please don't feel that I was belittling you and others with your high capabilities in English. But you are the exception and I know from personal feedback that what I first said is true: there *are* a lot of non-English speakers/writers out there who *do* appreciate the display on the internet of correctly structured English. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > > Okay....I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or not but thanks for your > > feedback. Appreciated, Joona. > > Heh :-) Sorry, was stuck in a ramble mode and got sidetracked. > > If you want an actual point of view on the matter. Well, sure it's > preferable that folks spell correctly. In any language. But my initial > point (that was promptly lost while writing) was that non-native English > speakers are not that bad they would suffer significantly more from > spelling errors. I mean, if you use the Net in English for fun, you most > probably are not having any basic difficulties with the language. If you > did, it wouldn't be fun. > > In a nutshell: I objected the "non-natives can't understand" as an > argument to mind your spelling. Those who are fluent enough to read > newsgroups in English at all can tell from context the difference > between bale and bail just as well or badly as natives. > > And then I sorta drifted to other things... > > :-) > > -lark-

Jari Jokinen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cdbeh$gfd$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Barton Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > > >and Great Britain, has also become the International language of > >science, diplomacy, air travel, and the internet. The chief reason for > >that is that English can be both extremely precise AND richly shaded. > > 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. >

And that's a shame. Doing my research in Switzerland, I have access to a lot of scientific archives from the last 100 or so years, and I think the German language lends itself to writing scientific papers. And what about all those Russian mathematicians? Perhaps English is the international language of *widely distributed* scientific results, but the Russians churn out quality work at an amazing rate, all in Russian. Of course, if it isn't widely distributed, then what's the point? Stephen

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Leela wrote: > > > A considerable amount of gibberish. > > Get real. Actually, his points were much more logical than yours. Do you fluently speak any other languages besides your own, Barton? I have been slowly coming to terms with German, as it is the language that I have to work in now. Only in the last year have I really been comfortable with some more complex literary works in the language, and now the more I read German literature, the more I can see the unique beauty of this language. English is not the only language of expression. 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

In2home User wrote: > > blah blah blah , > yadda yadda yadda...... > this thing got outta hand half a thread back :)))))) Try using your left hand... BB

Fair enough, Joona. I agree that people seldom deliberately misspell words...unless they are trying to stir the pot, of course! I can also appreciate that my personal attitude towards correcting errors has been, and will continue to be, taken as being "school-marmy" and nit-picky. So be it, because if only ONE, just one person here has has been able to correct their English because I nit-picked then my life on the internet has not been without reward. :-) My work here is done. Hi-ho, Silver! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Joona Vainio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Bruce Kennewell wrote: > > > Please don't feel that I was belittling you and others with your high > > capabilities in English. But you are the exception and I know from personal > > feedback that what I first said is true: there *are* a lot of non-English > > speakers/writers out there who *do* appreciate the display on the internet > > of correctly structured English. > > Ah, okay, whatever. And my intention was not to complain us foreigners > were being belittled :-) > > What was supposed to be a minor point and a side note, blew out of > proportion as I got carried away with the writing. In any case, I think > we both agree most people would rather read proper language, whatever > the language is. > > On the other hand, people seldom misspell on purpose and notifying them > about their errors can often feel nitpicking. However polite you are. So > I kind of understand if folks tend to get irritated. > > But whatever. I don't consider it a big deal either way. > > So why am I still writing about it? :-) > > -lark-

>>>>> "Barton" == Barton Brown <[email hidden]> writes: Barton> Jari Jokinen wrote: >> 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> gem�tlichkeit*, 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

As Eric Morecombe was wont to say "There's no answer to that!". Masterful. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > (snipped an excellent essay) > BB

(snip) I make typographical errors, and I would find it petty when someone continually points these out. (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. --------------------------- Stephen Ferguson <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ccvig$69qcd$[email hidden]... >

> A considerable amount of gibberish. Get real.

Leela wrote: > A considerable amount of gibberish. Get real.

Stephen Ferguson wrote: Do you fluently speak any other languages besides your own, Barton? Nope. No desire and no need. > the more I read German literature, the more I can see the unique beauty of this language. English > is not the only language of expression. 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. > Did you actually read and think about his response? Yes. See above. I'm sure you know what opinions are like. And everybody has one. BB

On Thu 06 Apr 2000 03:16:51p, Barton Brown wrote: <snip> >> PS Richard Adams ?!?!?!? > >Have you ever read "Shardik" or "Maia"? Some of the most beautiful >English prose ever crafted. Shardik some of the most beautiful prose ever created? Now there's a minority point of view, I must say. The vast majority of people I know read Watership Down, thought it was wonderful, then moved on to Shardik and The Plague Dogs, which they thought were "OK I suppose", and hated pretty much everything else. -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Me neither. ...Colin Colin Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:k96H4.10497$[email hidden]... > Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumpingnonsense...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > -- > > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > ICQ 25485061 > > colin (nospam_remove) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > >

"Don Hancock (\"Gunner\")" wrote: > > My goodness! You can write THAT eloquently and NOT be a native > English-speaking person?! Amazing. I have to wonder how many Americans > (especially) can so eloquently write in another language... I wonder sometimes how many can write as eloquently in their first language, never mind another one :) Paul -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Venkatesh | ([email hidden] -44-1279-403486) Nortel, London Road, Harlow, Essex. CM17 9NA

Oh Lord . . . 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 dominance 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 dominance 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 . . . >Market fundamentalism (read "internet anarchy") celebrates and advances theutter fragmentation of cultural stability; and yet . . . >conservative ideology manifests a strong attachment to the "traditional"(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 ?!?!?!? "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hear, hear! Statements like this: > > > English is a modern dynamic language, constantly evolving and > > changing in a possitive [sic] way, not because of its 'guardians' likeyou

Quoted text (71 lines)

> > but IN SPITE OF YOU and your efforts to stifle growth and change. > > are the usual apologist hogwash for the unrepentantly illiterate. The > "Dumbing of America" (though obviously far more widespread than that) > has been going on for many years, and nowhere on the planet is "English > as she is spoke and writ" in a greater state of decay than America. I'm > not talking about "growth and change," I'm talking about ignorance and > sloth. English is a very complex language, full of quirky pronunciations > (though, tough, cough), odd spelling rules (i before e, except after c?) > emigrant words from many other languages, but with very definite rules > of syntax and grammar. It is also an exceptionally elegant language, > capable of great nuance and subtlety, and with -- when well-crafted -- a > rhythmic, harmonious flow completely unlike any other. > > English, the common language that, as Churchill said, divides America > and Great Britain, has also become the International language of > science, diplomacy, air travel, and the internet. The chief reason for > that is that English can be both extremely precise AND richly shaded. > But both precision and subtlety are thrown out the window when people > start making up their own rules, or aping the egregious solecisms they > see on TV or the Net -- the two most pervasive media of English decay, > with the print media -- the one that should, above all others, know > better -- coming in a close third. > > English certainly evolves -- another of its great strengths is the ease > in which new or foreign words are assimiliated -- but it doesn't evolve > in anarchy; it grows and changes within its comprehensive ruleset, and > those changes that are least jarring and most fluidly natural are the > ones that make the transition most quickly and painlessly. The ruleset > itself changes, but not without the overwhelming pressure of common > usage. Two excellent examples are the relaxed usage of "who" and "whom", > and the more naturally-flowing exceptions to the "split infinitive" rule. > > English is not a stupid language. The mind-numbing idiocy of supposedly > politically-correct aberrations like "Ebonics" -- actually just another > plot to keep African-Americans out of the mainstream of American life -- > refused to take root in the wise soil of our language, as the bizarre > experiments in Esperanto and "phonetic English" likewise withered in > their brief heydays. But without constant vigilance and good-spirited > correction, decay will set in. As another great English-speaking > Canadian, Neil Young, once observed: "Rust never sleeps". Already, with > publishing houses dispensing with flesh-and-blood editors and > proofreading being largely mangled by computer spell-checkers > (notoriously unable to determine correct usage, and don't even GET me on > the subject of computer grammar-checkers!), I've seen publications from > major houses incorrectly using "break" for "brake", "shear" for "sheer", > and those are just the most simple ones. > > Finally, I think Bruce's comments about new English users learning the > language correctly are spot-on. Communication is the greatest tool the > human race possesses. It is the basis for all societies and tribes, from > the nuclear family to great nation-states. It is the basis for settled > civilizations and the world economy. We are present at the full > flowering of the information age. There is nothing more important in an > information-driven society that that information be precisely correct > when it needs to be correct, and, trickier yet, appropriately ambivalent > when it needs to be ambivalent. What greater proof of that could there > be than the many misunderstandings that arise in these newsgroups > because of sloppy writing? Anyone who doesn't know how to use English > correctly is at a social, personal, and economic disadvantage, and > that's simply not acceptable, when it's so easy to avoid. What's the > best way to avoid it? Read the works of people who know the English > language: Tolkien, Safire, Melville, Lincoln (some of the greatest and > most simple and direct English ever written), Steinbeck, Twain, > Chesterton, Wells, Orwell, Huxley, John Barth, Kurt Vonnegut, Eudora > Welty, Ursula LeGuin, Richard Adams, Robert Pirsig, Carl Sandburg, > Shelby Foote. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. Read. > > There, I'm over it. > > BB

Me neither. ...Colin > Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumping nonsense...

Quoted text (7 lines)

> -- > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > ICQ 25485061

David Karr wrote: > > Oh Lord . . . > > Okay Bruce, (but skip to * if you're weary), I don't know if this was meant for Bruce or for me, but since you quoted my post in its entirety, I'll take a wild guess and assume you meant to address me. *Your* points are well-taken, especially the one that global market trade has been dominated since the Industrial Revolution by English-speaking countries, but I believe you have cause and effect reversed -- or, more accurately, that cause is sometimes effect, and effect sometimes cause. I still believe and maintain that the present-day dominace of English could not have come about were it not for the English language's remarkable breadth, depth, and flexibility. In the extremely unlikely alternate history that native Filipinos, for example, had been the architects of the Industrial Revolution, it is difficult to believe that Tagalog would have become the dominant global language, simply because of that language's limited expressive power. My point being that we're not just talking about language as a random incidental in the power of nations. I believe very strongly that in the information age -- of which the Industrial Revolution and the machine age are simply subsets, for neither could have occurred without the massive transference worldwide of unprecedentedly huge amounts of information -- the power of a language to communicate precisely, widely, variously, and subtly is perhaps the greatest power of all. Without the widespread dissemination of the ideas of Locke, Calvin, Watt, Ruskin, Pitt, and hundreds of other philosophers, theologians, inventors, scientists, and engineers, both mechanical and social, the Industrial Revolution and subsequent machine age could never have grown as widely and rapidly as it did. That it *did* so, and that it did so primarily and most famously in English-speaking nations, is, to me, a powerful argument for the power of English. Others may disagree. Goody for them! And just to be a further anal pain, here are some incorrect usages in your own post: "okay, here it 'tis" -- "'tis" is the obsolete contraction for "it is" (these days rendered as "it's"); your phrase would thus read "okay, here it it is". The correct use of the obsolete would be "Okay, here 'tis) "dimunition" is spelled "diminution", as its root is "diminutive" "fulmigating" is not a word; the term you were groping for is quite likely "fulminating" -- from its root "fulminate" -- explosive, thundering, as in "fulminate of mercury" "assimulative" is "assimilative" -- root "assimilate" > 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 . . . I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I think that the "dilemma" you posit -- which seems more designed to showcase your own brand of erudition than to advance or explain any serious argument -- is a bit of a sidetrip. First, in no way, shape, or form will I allow myself to be categorized by such a nonsensical term as "cultural conservative." The purpose of naming -- or stereotyping -- is to exert a (usually entirely false) measure of control and encapsulation over the "named." Such comfortable compartmentalization as "cultural conservative" has no more validity in this particular debate than Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativism" did in his. And you know how HE ended up. Such terms are the modern mumbo jumbo or faerie dust that people throw in others eyes, most often to obscure the fundamental weakness of their positions. I'm sure you wouldn't knowingly stoop to that level. More importantly, while you've presented a persuasive "dilemma of poles," I don't see its direct bearing upon the subject at hand, except that the domination of global information by English and English-speakers will continue to be -- as it has been for 300 years -- THE most powerful agent for cultural fragmentation, and the consequent "one world" community that isolationists have been frightening their children with since before the Monroe Doctrine. > If you look back 200 + years, for example, you see the Father of Modern > Conservatism, one E. Burke, fulmigating [sic] elaborately against the perversion > of words he "saw" in the French (and British) Jacobins. Your point being? I argue just the opposite: that the English language's facility for assimilating migrant words is one of its greatest strengths. > 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 [sic] power of any language. Obviously I disagree. I don't think it's a reduction of any sort, given that communication and cognition are the greatest of mankind's powers. Without those greatest of gifts, we'd still be living in the trees and picking nits off each other....hmmmmm.... wait a minute....THAT's exactly what we're doing here! > New Criticism is dead. Long live Historicism. Empiricism rulez, dewd.... > PS Richard Adams ?!?!?!? Have you ever read "Shardik" or "Maia"? Some of the most beautiful English prose ever crafted.

You seem to assume that because English has become 'the universal language of science, diplomacy, air travel, and the Internet' that is in some way better than other languages. This assumption surely proves your ignorance and short-sightedness. English becoming a 'universal language' is purely an accident of fate that has a lot more to do with geography, violence and economics than it has to do with any kind of inherant superiority it has as a medium for communication. You suggest that the huge vocabulary proves this superiority. But surely scientists, diplomats internet users and stewardesses would be better served by a language that was elegant and powerful enough not to need a huge vocabulary. The elephantine vocabulary of English is proof of its weakness. It is an ancient language with for too many complicated useless leftovers from the past. ENGLISH IS THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS OF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES! My biggest problem with your ideas is that you seem to be inferring that we might be somehow better off with a single language, that we should pick one language (you think English) and just forget the others. You don't seem to understand that the way we learn to talk and the the way our 1st language is structured goes a long way towards developing the way we think! Everytime a language dies - and it happens regularly - it is a great loss to us all. Maybe if you would try to learn a new language you might find out new things about yourself - new ways of thinking, new creative approaches to problems, even if its just new ways to chat up women... heaven forbid - you might become a better person... But then again how could you possibly improve yourself when you're perfect already. col On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:11:27 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>Stephen Ferguson wrote: > >Do you fluently speak any other languages besides your own, Barton? > >Nope. No desire and no need. > >> the more I read German literature, the more I can see the unique beauty of this language. English >> is not the only language of expression. > >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. > >> Did you actually read and think about his response? > >Yes. See above. I'm sure you know what opinions are like. And everybody >has one. > >BB

Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumping nonsense... -- Colin Harris ColinHarris in N3/NL Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm ICQ 25485061 colin (nospam_remove) <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Oop! 'pologies--and I knew that too . . . Sorry again, DK "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (16 lines)

> Bruce??? It was Bart who wrote it, not me. > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8cgku4$q6h$[email hidden]... > > Oh Lord . . . > > > > Okay Bruce, (but skip to * if you're weary), > > >

Bruce, come on now...I wasn't saying that the thread was nonsense at all, only the polemic written by my namesake. -- Colin Harris ColinHarris in N3/NL Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm ICQ 25485061 Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > IF you tjhink it's nonsense and IF you can see the header warning you that > it's nonsense, why read it? > > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Colin Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:k96H4.10497$[email hidden]... > > Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumping > nonsense... > > > > -- > > > > Colin Harris > > ColinHarris in N3/NL > > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > > ICQ 25485061 > > > > colin (nospam_remove) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > >

Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Is that enough for your ego? I hope so, because this thread is > officially closed, as far as I'm concerned. > No need to sulk. The thread was actually quite a civilized discussion back and forth until you suddenly packed up. Stephen

Okay....my mistake Colin and I stand corrected. Misinterpretation, I think. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Colin Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Kp8H4.10897$[email hidden]... > Bruce, come on now...I wasn't saying that the thread was nonsense at all, > only the polemic written by my namesake. > > -- > > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > ICQ 25485061 > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > IF you tjhink it's nonsense and IF you can see the header warning you that > > it's nonsense, why read it? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Colin Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:k96H4.10497$[email hidden]... > > > Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumping > > nonsense... > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Colin Harris > > > ColinHarris in N3/NL > > > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > > > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > > > ICQ 25485061 > > > > > > colin (nospam_remove) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

No worries, David :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cj71j$8s7$[email hidden]... > Oop! 'pologies--and I knew that too . . . > > Sorry again, > > DK > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Bruce??? It was Bart who wrote it, not me. > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8cgku4$q6h$[email hidden]... > > > Oh Lord . . . > > > > > > Okay Bruce, (but skip to * if you're weary), > > > > > > > >

nospam_remove wrote: > > My biggest problem with your ideas is that you seem to be inferring > that we might be somehow better off with a single language... Bzzzzzt! Wrong. So much for reading comprehension. > even if its just new ways to chat up women... My wife won't let me. > But then again how could you possibly improve yourself when you're > perfect already. We're ALL perfect already -- we just don't realize it.

Bruce??? It was Bart who wrote it, not me. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cgku4$q6h$[email hidden]... > Oh Lord . . . > > Okay Bruce, (but skip to * if you're weary),

>>>>> "Barton" == Barton Brown <[email hidden]> writes: Barton> Industrial Revolution by English-speaking countries, but I Barton> believe you have cause and effect reversed -- or, more Barton> accurately, that cause is sometimes effect, and effect Barton> sometimes cause. I still believe and maintain that the Barton> present-day dominace of English could not have come about Barton> were it not for the English language's remarkable breadth, Barton> depth, and flexibility. In the extremely unlikely I still think you are making a false assumption here. English is not more flexible, does not have more depth than other languages. You just don't know about the depth/flexibility in other languages. Barton> alternate history that native Filipinos, for example, had Barton> been the architects of the Industrial Revolution, it is Barton> difficult to believe that Tagalog would have become the Barton> dominant global language, simply because of that Barton> language's limited expressive power. My point being that Please give some examples of that language limited expressive powers. Like English had words for e.g. television before it was invented. Oops, a constructed word from latin origins. Point being, any language gets new words for new concepts. Barton> we're not just talking about language as a random Barton> incidental in the power of nations. I believe very Barton> strongly that in the information age -- of which the Barton> Industrial Revolution and the machine age are simply Barton> subsets, for neither could have occurred without the Barton> massive transference worldwide of unprecedentedly huge Barton> amounts of information -- the power of a language to Barton> communicate precisely, widely, variously, and subtly is Barton> perhaps the greatest power of all. Without the widespread Barton> dissemination of the ideas of Locke, Calvin, Watt, Ruskin, Barton> Pitt, and hundreds of other philosophers, theologians, Barton> inventors, scientists, and engineers, both mechanical and Barton> social, the Industrial Revolution and subsequent machine Economic need and enough economic riches to make people like philosophers "possible". A society needs more than an "expressive langauge" like English to make something like an Industrial Revolution possible. By the way, what about the Chinese and Indians who had blooming societies thousands of years ago? They managed quite well without English. What about the mathematics and chemistry knowledge of the Arabs? Greek and Roman philosophers? The people named above all built on knowledge from other cultures in other languages. But I get the impression your definition of cultured and advanced is "the english speaking" world, and the rest is per definition not. Barton> Your point being? I argue just the opposite: that the Barton> English language's facility for assimilating migrant words Barton> is one of its greatest strengths. But English was so powerful, and other languages weren't. Now you are saying English is powerful because it takes the words it needs from other languages. >> PS Richard Adams ?!?!?!? Barton> Have you ever read "Shardik" or "Maia"? Some of the most Barton> beautiful English prose ever crafted. Try reading some literature. Read some history books. -peter

Okay....my mistake Colin and I stand corrected. Misinterpretation, I think. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Bruce, come on now...I wasn't saying that the thread was nonsense at all, > only the polemic written by my namesake. > -- > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > ICQ 25485061 > > IF you tjhink it's nonsense and IF you can see the header warning you that > > it's nonsense, why read it? > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumping > > nonsense... > > > -- > > > Colin Harris > > > ColinHarris in N3/NL > > > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > > > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > > > ICQ 25485061

No worries, David :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- > Oop! 'pologies--and I knew that too . . . > Sorry again, > DK > > Bruce??? It was Bart who wrote it, not me. > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > Oh Lord . . . > > > Okay Bruce, (but skip to * if you're weary),

Peter wrote: > > the wisest words ever written by any human being -- even though they *were* in English... Pete me bucko -- You're absolutely right. What a chump I've been. Thanks for setting me straight. You are incredibly learned, and it practically gives me a full-on chubby to think you would take time out of your purely philanthropic academic pursuits to take the time to try to set such a sucker as me (in Lincoln's pithy phrase) on the right path. Please see my previous post on how English sucks, etc. Like Joan, I've recanted. Is that enough for your ego? I hope so, because this thread is officially closed, as far as I'm concerned. Oh, and thanks for the reading tips -- I'm just now burning all my comics. You can bet that, thanks to your advice, I *will* read some literature, and history -- hell, who knows? I might even try reading prose. With deepest gratitude and humility...

Barton, "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [snip]

Quoted text (11 lines)

> *Your* points are well-taken, especially the one that global market > trade has been dominated since the Industrial Revolution by > English-speaking countries, but I believe you have cause and effect > reversed -- or, more accurately, that cause is sometimes effect, and > effect sometimes cause. I still believe and maintain that the > present-day dominace of English could not have come about were it not > for the English language's remarkable breadth, depth, and flexibility. > In the extremely unlikely alternate history that native Filipinos, for > example, had been the architects of the Industrial Revolution, it is > difficult to believe that Tagalog would have become the dominant global > language, simply because of that language's limited expressive power.

Surely this is a strawman. You're taking your own causitive agents as already proven (efficacy of language), and then offering a circular "example" which closes down the issue, rather than opening it up: English breadth &c.=English dominance; Tagalog constriction=no hope, egads. For what it's worth, however, I *do* think that if (a) Filipino's had undergone an Industrial revolution, having already possessed a socio-economic structure that rewarded limited innovation while constraining its centrifugal effects (i.e. landed power retaining massive influence), &b, &c,. . . their language could have become world-dominant. But, as I said, that's a straw-man, since it presupposes such a vast difference between the actual and the imagined. If you really want to argue in that direction, wouldn't French be a better case?

Quoted text (15 lines)

>My > point being that we're not just talking about language as a random > incidental in the power of nations. I believe very strongly that in the > information age -- of which the Industrial Revolution and the machine > age are simply subsets, for neither could have occurred without the > massive transference worldwide of unprecedentedly huge amounts of > information -- the power of a language to communicate precisely, widely, > variously, and subtly is perhaps the greatest power of all. Without the > widespread dissemination of the ideas of Locke, Calvin, Watt, Ruskin, > Pitt, and hundreds of other philosophers, theologians, inventors, > scientists, and engineers, both mechanical and social, the Industrial > Revolution and subsequent machine age could never have grown as widely > and rapidly as it did. That it *did* so, and that it did so primarily > and most famously in English-speaking nations, is, to me, a powerful > argument for the power of English. Others may disagree. Goody for them!

I do think there's way to talk about language as more than a incidental in this argument--but it would have to encompass among other things the standardization of dialects into a more-or-less unitary whole in print capitalism; the rise and development of, say, Dissenting colleges which turned away from the classics and oriented students towards more "useful" knowledge; the *heavy* role of the state in restraining Benthemite util'ism and laissez-faire (contrary to what most folsk think about 19C Britain), et cetera, ad nauseam. But I say your cart is still wayyyy in front of your horse. I'll have to ask you to give me some sort of empirically sound example, that demonstrates that something particular about the English language as a *system* had a predominant role in its wide extension in the global communication. You seem to feel there's something anterior to the economic and political bases of that power. I'd like some fleshing out of this. At present, your suppostion seems very idealistic, in a Hegelian sense. [snipped remainder] DK

Languages die regularly, Colin? How do you define "regularly" in this context....once every decade, once every century....? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- colin (nospam_remove) <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > You seem to assume that because English has become 'the universal > language of science, diplomacy, air travel, and the Internet' that is > in some way better than other languages. This assumption surely proves > your ignorance and short-sightedness. > > English becoming a 'universal language' is purely an accident of fate > that has a lot more to do with geography, violence and economics than > it has to do with any kind of inherant superiority it has as a medium > for communication. > > You suggest that the huge vocabulary proves this superiority. But > surely scientists, diplomats internet users and stewardesses would be > better served by a language that was elegant and powerful enough not > to need a huge vocabulary. The elephantine vocabulary of English is > proof of its weakness. It is an ancient language with for too many > complicated useless leftovers from the past. > > ENGLISH IS THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS OF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES! > > My biggest problem with your ideas is that you seem to be inferring > that we might be somehow better off with a single language, that we > should pick one language (you think English) and just forget the > others. > > You don't seem to understand that the way we learn to talk and the the > way our 1st language is structured goes a long way towards developing > the way we think! Everytime a language dies - and it happens > regularly - it is a great loss to us all. > > Maybe if you would try to learn a new language you might find out new > things about yourself - new ways of thinking, new creative approaches > to problems, even if its just new ways to chat up women... > > heaven forbid - you might become a better person... > > But then again how could you possibly improve yourself when you're > perfect already. > > > col > > > > > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:11:27 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >Stephen Ferguson wrote: > > > >Do you fluently speak any other languages besides your own, Barton? > > > >Nope. No desire and no need. > > > >> the more I read German literature, the more I can see the unique beauty of this language. English > >> is not the only language of expression. > > > >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. > > > >> Did you actually read and think about his response? > > > >Yes. See above. I'm sure you know what opinions are like. And everybody > >has one. > > > >BB >

IF you tjhink it's nonsense and IF you can see the header warning you that it's nonsense, why read it? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Colin Harris <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:k96H4.10497$[email hidden]... > Just so's you all know, that wasn't me spouting this tubthumping nonsense... > > -- > > Colin Harris > ColinHarris in N3/NL > Proud co-owner - CLONE N.Legends league > http://members.chello.se/clone/index.htm > ICQ 25485061 > > colin (nospam_remove) <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > >

Colin Harris wrote: > > Bruce, come on now...I wasn't saying that the thread was nonsense at all, > only the polemic written by my namesake. Good for you :-) I'm actually enjoying this totally OT thread, even though it has no place in here really, but I'm picking up a few hints and tips on the use of the English language :-) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy (who won't be writing soles instead of souls anymore, but that was my spell checker, that's my story and I'm sticking to it :-) "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

>>>>> "Barton" == Barton Brown <[email hidden]> writes: Barton> Is that enough for your ego? I hope so, because this Barton> thread is officially closed, as far as I'm concerned. It's not about ego, really :-) Don't take it personally, it was just a discussion and you had your point of view, and I had mine. And like someone else said, as usenet discussions go this one was quite civilised. Anyway, back to GPL and NFS:PU :) -peter

How about the Queens own rifles......... "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:38ee6151$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Wow! Impressive use of big words in this lot, David! What do you do for a > living....write insurance policies? :-) > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8ckkj3$f2e$[email hidden]... > > Barton, > [small print snipped] > >

David Karr gurgled: > I do think there's way to talk about language as more than a incidental in > this argument--but it would have to encompass among other things the > standardization of dialects into a more-or-less unitary whole in print > capitalism....At present, your suppostion [sic] seems very idealistic, in a Hegelian sense. I was going to leave this alone (and I *will*, for a while, as I'm traveling next week), but the above statement seems very much at cross-purposes. Hegel posited a "Unified Field Theory" system of philosophy (a system with which *your* statement "it would have to encompass among other things the standardization of dialects into a more-or-less unitary whole in print capitalism" would seem to most easily fit), but *you* chide *me* for presenting an argument based on Hegelian "idealism". While I can agree with the second half of Hegel's "what is rational is real and what is real is rational" ("what is real is rational" has nearly the solid ring of Ayn Rand's "existence is" or the Buddha's "Form is nothing else but emptiness, emptiness nothing other than form), Hegel's dialectical abstraction regarding the transmutation of the Rational (*whose* definition of "rational"?) into the Real smacks way too much of such previous chimerical ideas as the thaumaturgical purification of lead into gold, the Music of the Spheres, and even Angels on the heads of pins. Be that as it may, allow me a week's rest, and I will answer your plea below as best I can, by private email. > I'll have to ask you to give me some sort of empirically sound example, that demonstrates > that something particular about the English language as a *system* had a > predominant role in its wide extension in the global communication. You > seem to feel there's something anterior to the economic and political bases > of that power. I'm assuming that by "anterior", you mean "anterior in time"? Oh, and as for your peremptory and imperious "I'll have to ask you to give me some sort of empirically sound example", I hope I can correctly assume that you meant that in a Monty Pythonesque way, as in: "If you're referring to the author of 'A la recherche du temps perdu' as a loony, I'll have to ask you to step outside!" Bart

On Sat 08 Apr 2000 02:45:03p, Barton Brown wrote: >David Buttery wrote: >> >>then don't expect no-one ... > >Double negative. So what? Shakespeare used them. :-) -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

On Thu 06 Apr 2000 08:22:04p, Barton Brown wrote: >David Buttery wrote: > >> Shardik some of the most beautiful prose ever created? Now there's a >> minority point of view, I must say. > >Read my previous well-worn comment on "opinions"... Oh, sure. But if you post an opinion to a NG, then don't expect no-one to disagree with you :-) -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

I *think* the biggest word in there is "standardization." (I cheated by abbreviating "utilitarianism.") Other such bigguns include "constriction," "constraining," and "centrifugal." Although their initial "c's" are interesting, those hardly big words, especially to a feller like yerseff. --DK "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:38ee6151$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> Wow! Impressive use of big words in this lot, David! What do you do for a > living....write insurance policies? :-) > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8ckkj3$f2e$[email hidden]... > > Barton, > [small print snipped] > >

sighs . . . yet more below . . . "Barton Brown" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > David Karr gurgled: > > > I do think there's way to talk about language as more than a incidentalin > > this argument--but it would have to encompass among other things the > > standardization of dialects into a more-or-less unitary whole in print > > capitalism....At present, your suppostion [sic] seems very idealistic,in a Hegelian sense.

Quoted text (9 lines)

> > I was going to leave this alone (and I *will*, for a while, as I'm > traveling next week), but the above statement seems very much at > cross-purposes. Hegel posited a "Unified Field Theory" system of > philosophy (a system with which *your* statement "it would have to > encompass among other things the standardization of dialects into a > more-or-less unitary whole in print capitalism" would seem to most > easily fit), but *you* chide *me* for presenting an argument based on > Hegelian "idealism".

"Nonsense," David gurgled. My attempts to offer some starting points, some qualifications, for your aestheticization of language-power have nothing to do with Hegelian dialectics, and I think you realize that. Yes, and I stand by the statement. When Marx turned H. upside down, he did so for a very good reason, which you, in your argument for the "present-day dominace" [sic] (and I'm only going to do that "[sic]" business once) of English, continue to ignore. That is to say, you've chosen to minimize the material bases for the English language's victory in global popularity contests, and have chosen to posit a rather old-hat, over-determined, idealist interpretation instead. I think that's wrong-headed and irresponsible of you and I've tried to persuade, pester, goad you into reconsidering your position. You have found that bothersome. It was meant to be so. As for private email: humbug. Newsgroups are among the last spaces publicly available for duels. "Seconds!" --love and kisses, DK [cue snippage of verbiage--oh, irony!] {and snippage of general wisdom} >>You > > seem to feel there's something anterior to the economic and politicalbases > > of that power. > > I'm assuming that by "anterior", you mean "anterior in time"? Noooooo . . . anterior in a causal sense. Good lord . . . > Oh, and as for your "I'll have to ask you to > give me some sort of empirically sound example", I hope I can correctly > assume that you meant that in a Monty Pythonesque way, as in: Lovely. Invoking "peremptory and imperious" as descriptions of one's opponent is almost always. . . well . . . peremptory and imperious. > "If you're referring to the author of 'A la recherche du temps perdu' as > a loony, I'll have to ask you to step outside!" He was of course a loony. But a good one. Didn't step outside much, of course. . . >Bart

>then don't expect no-one ... Double negative.

Wow! Impressive use of big words in this lot, David! What do you do for a living....write insurance policies? :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8ckkj3$f2e$[email hidden]... > Barton, [small print snipped]

David Buttery wrote: > >then don't expect no-one ... Double negative.

David Karr harrumphed: > My attempts to offer some starting points, some qualifications, for your > aestheticization of language-power have nothing to do with Hegelian > dialectics, and I think you realize that. Yo, yo, yo -- *you* brought Hegel into this, not I! > When Marx turned H. upside down... And now Marx, though these arguments smack more of Harpo, Chico, Groucho, Gummo, and Zeppo, than Karl...! "present-day dominace" [sic] (and I'm only going to do that "[sic]" business once) Agreed, [sic] only for obvious gaffs, solecisms, or malapropisms, not for typos... > That is to say, you've chosen to minimize the material bases for the English > language's victory in global popularity contests, and have chosen to posit a > rather old-hat, over-determined, idealist interpretation instead. Well, you've taken what I think of as a rather "chicken or egg?" bootstrap process of complex historical development (encompassing both the English languge's inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental fact that the 300+-year-old Information Age has been dominated by powers for whom English is the primary language), and tried to turn it into a polar, "either-or", "all one or all the other" didacticism. To me, it is *your* arguments that are "old-hat, over-determined, idealist," and , may I add, vast oversimplifcation. "Popularity contests"! Come on, David -- you can do better than that... > As for private email: humbug. Newsgroups are among the last spaces publicly > available for duels. Well, they'll hate us in the morning. > "Seconds!" "Thirds! And please bring me my coffee and cigarettes -- Nat Sherman Naturals, please... BB > I'm assuming that by "anterior", you mean "anterior in time"? DK > Noooooo . . . anterior in a causal sense. Good lord . . . Don't exclaim "Good Lord"! Unless you're extrapolating from Jung's "synchronicity" as an acausal connecting principle, causality IS time dependent, especially from *your* "historicist" position. > Lovely. Invoking "peremptory and imperious" as descriptions of one's > opponent is almost always. . . well . . . peremptory and imperious. Using the phrase "I'll have to ask you..." so reeks of the divine right of Headmasters, that it is difficult to categorize such usage as anything *other* than peremptory and imperious. Au reservoir, Bon Ami! BB

Barton Brown wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > David Karr harrumphed: > > > My attempts to offer some starting points, some qualifications, for your > > aestheticization of language-power have nothing to do with Hegelian > > dialectics, and I think you realize that. > > Yo, yo, yo -- *you* brought Hegel into this, not I!

etc....I love this, I have no idea what you guys are talking about right now, but I love it and I've read each of your posts several times, are you still debating the supremacy of the English language ? :-))) Beers and cheers (uncle) Goy "Team Mirage" http://www.teammirage.com/ "The Pits" http://www.theuspits.com/ * Spam is for losers who can't get business any other way * "Spamkiller" http://www.spamkiller.com

I'm afraid we never got around to that! :) reharrumphant, -DK "Goy Larsen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... [snip] . . . are > you still debating the supremacy of the English language ? :-)))

You write policies for THEM?! (Only kidding :)) Okay...I understand. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Stiff one <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:5itH4.27756$[email hidden]... > How about the Queens own rifles......... > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:38ee6151$[email hidden]... > > Wow! Impressive use of big words in this lot, David! What do you do for a > > living....write insurance policies? :-) > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8ckkj3$f2e$[email hidden]... > > > Barton, > > [small print snipped] > > > > > >

Goy Larsen wrote: > > etc....I love this, I have no idea what you guys are talking about right > now, but I love it and I've read each of your posts several times, are > you still debating the supremacy of the English language ? :-))) I *think* so! BB

On Sat 08 Apr 2000 11:55:29p, Bruce Kennewell wrote: >But everyone knows that he was an illiterate dyslexic, David, who >never REALLY wrote those bloody plays. Well, okay, Francis Bacon (or whoever) used them. The fact is that Shakespeare (or whoever) got away with breaking the rules because the sense *worked* (eg "take arms against a sea of troubles" - mixed metaphor, but a great image). Standard English is a good thing, but I'd hate to see it make the world's most interesting language become a fossilised relic. One thing I really hate (I'm not accusing you of this, BTW) is people who try to make English rigidly fit Latin grammar. It doesn't - because it isn't Latin. I shall continue to boldly state (nyahh) my opinions on this. :-) -- David. "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, really." (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Joking, David. Just jesting. :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cmhk6$pff$[email hidden]... > I *think* the biggest word in there is "standardization." (I cheated by > abbreviating "utilitarianism.") > > Other such bigguns include "constriction," "constraining," and > "centrifugal." Although their initial "c's" are interesting, those hardly > big words, especially to a feller like yerseff. > > --DK > > > > "Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:38ee6151$[email hidden]... > > Wow! Impressive use of big words in this lot, David! What do you do for a > > living....write insurance policies? :-) > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > David Karr <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:8ckkj3$f2e$[email hidden]... > > > Barton, > > [small print snipped] > > > > > >

I thought the thread was killed, but I can't resist. Does one learn this as a fact at school in English speaking countries (300+ years and all)? Jari Jokinen Barton Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >the English languge's inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental >fact that the 300+-year-old Information Age has been dominated by powers >for whom English is the primary language), and tried to turn it into a

Either that,Goy, or the're debating the Theory of Relativity.....it's a tricky one. :-) -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Goy Larsen <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > etc....I love this, I have no idea what you guys are talking about right > now, but I love it and I've read each of your posts several times, are > you still debating the supremacy of the English language ? :-))) >

But everyone knows that he was an illiterate dyslexic, David, who never REALLY wrote those bloody plays. -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- David Buttery <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sat 08 Apr 2000 02:45:03p, Barton Brown wrote: > > >David Buttery wrote: > >> > >>then don't expect no-one ... > > > >Double negative. > > So what? Shakespeare used them. :-) > -- > David. > "After all, a mere thousand yards - such a harmless little knoll, > really." > (Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh)

Jari, I've been through about as much British history as one can get--that's an exaggeration, but I am a Ph.D. candidate in Modern British hist.--and I've never heard anyone expound this theory. Didn't hear it during my time as a Eng. Lit. major either. But some of the "hot" historiography right now, after the Linguistic Turn and all ( G. S. Jones, P. Joyce, J. Vernon), pays close attention to the role of language in ordering perceptions of what we call "reality." So maybe this theory as a *subject* of historical study has made it into studies of colonialism, etc. I *suspect* (just a hunch) that you'll find the idea being tossed around fairly early in the 20C, with the rise of English Literature as a respectable academic field of study. Contemporary proponents of such a move needed to justify why English Lit. should be given this status; perhaps the theory formed part of their weaponry? (See Terry Eagleton, _Literary Theory: An Introduction_--a *great* read, BTW.) It'd be hard to put it forward today without sounding triumphalist (but of course, the Empire was triumphalist); but more importantly, as a hypothesis, it's simply not falsifiable. This last bit, by the way, hasn't stopped the application of theoretical approaches to writing history at all! But maybe other fields have something to say. I'd be interested if someone with a knowledge of the anthropological linguistic literature has heard anything on it. Searching very briefly in the Linguistics Abstracts database http://labs.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/ ), I did find the title below--and I'll have a further look at it this afternoon at the library. Maybe the fellow's footnotes will point towards something useful. ----------------------- Title: English, information access, and technology transfer: a rationale for English as an international language Author: William Grabe Journal: World Englishes Vol: 7(1), 1988, 63-72 Abstract (by author): Abstract: The role of English as an international language has engendered considerable debate recently. In this paper it is argued that English is the major international language at least in part because it is the dominant world language of science and technology. In particular, its role in information access and technology transfer is a major explanation for the rise of English world-wide. Evidence is presented both to support English as the international language of science and technology and to explain its essential role in information access globally. Implications of the analysis are discussed for English language teaching as well as for the role of language in future information access systems. The arguments presented suggest that no country can afford to ignore the important role English plays in information access and technology transfer and still expect to compete professionally and economically. ------------------------ [back to DK] It looks like an argument made from pragmatic grounds, but that "at least in part" is of interest. Of course, I have no quarrel with the argument that facility in English is important in this day if one wants to play the global game. But, you might remember, the issue in a Recent Debate in this NG was whether that dominance had come about primarily through some inherent quality *in* English as a language system (the link made between "languge's inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental fact . . ." in the excerpt you quoted), or rather through a much more historically traceable route of early capitalist practice in GB (from 14C, in fact), agricultural practice which (ahem) "freed" up labor and made possible industrial expansion, the changes in financial adminstration (Bank of E.) and taxation practice, imperialism and the schooling of colonial elites to act as buffers between natives and rulers, &c. (And yes, I am aware of the "or" I used. I'd be happy to change it to something else once the evidence is in.) As I see it--and I'm still open to an empircally-based argument to the contrary--none of these developments have anything to do with some *inherent* quality of English. Had GB been a Basque island, I don't why that *in itself* should have changed that trajectory. Before I join the Inherent Power argument to what has been called my "oversimplified" and "polar" interpretation, I'd just like some reason to do so. "[N]ot-at-all-coincidental" doesn't give me enough. But as you know, the debate in this NG rapidly descended into General Nastiness, something for which I partly blame myself. --DK "Jari Jokinen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8cpg4t$7bd$[email hidden]... > I thought the thread was killed, but I can't resist. Does one learn thisas

Quoted text (12 lines)

> a fact at school in English speaking countries (300+ years and all)? > > Jari Jokinen > > Barton Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... > > >the English languge's inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental > >fact that the 300+-year-old Information Age has been dominated by powers > >for whom English is the primary language), and tried to turn it into a > > >

You seem to assume that because English has become 'the universal language of science, diplomacy, air travel, and the Internet' that is in some way better than other languages. This assumption surely proves your ignorance and short-sightedness. English becoming a 'universal language' is purely an accident of fate that has a lot more to do with geography, violence and economics than it has to do with any kind of inherant superiority it has as a medium for communication. You suggest that the huge vocabulary proves this superiority. But surely scientists, diplomats internet users and stewardesses would benefit more from a language that was elegant and powerful enough not to need a huge vocabulary. The elephantine vocabulary of English is proof of its weakness. It is an ancient language with for too many complicated useless leftovers from the past. ENGLISH IS THE MICROSOFT WINDOWS OF INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGES! My biggest problem with your ideas is that you seem to be inferring that we might be somehow better off with a single language, that we should pick one language (you think English) and just forget the others. You don't seem to understand that the way we learn to talk and the the way our 1st language is structured goes a long way towards developing the way we think! Everytime a language dies - and it happens regularly - it is a great loss to us all. Maybe if you would try to learn a new language you might find out new things about yourself - new ways of thinking, new creative approaches to problems, even if its just new ways to chat up women... heaven forbid - you might become a better person... But then again how could you possibly improve yourself when you're perfect already. col On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:11:27 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (20 lines)

>Stephen Ferguson wrote: > >Do you fluently speak any other languages besides your own, Barton? > >Nope. No desire and no need. > >> the more I read German literature, the more I can see the unique beauty of this language. English >> is not the only language of expression. > >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. > >> Did you actually read and think about his response? > >Yes. See above. I'm sure you know what opinions are like. And everybody >has one. > >BB

David Karr wrote: > > But as you know, the debate in this NG rapidly descended into General > Nastiness, something for which I partly blame myself. > > --DK When did THAT happen? BB

nospam_remove wrote: > > You seem to assume.... Dear hider behind spam blocker and second-tier mailer: You already posted this gripping riposte in its glittering entirety earlier this week. Looking for extra mileage? BB

I have seen these mentioned: -Latin is a good choice for the general language of science - not so old theory, than one might think. -French is suitable for mathematics due to its precision. -German numbers are a handicap: For example 21 is einundzwanzig, "one and twenty". I can add one from my personal experience: Russian is good for chess;) Actually, I targeted my rhetoric question more against the "fact that the 300+-year-old Information Age has been dominated by powers for whom English is the primary language". From what I know about history and history of science, this is quite a bold statement to say the least. Jari Jokinen David Karr wrote in message <8cq2dg$c4b$[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (9 lines)

>Jari, > >I've been through about as much British history as one can get--that's an >exaggeration, but I am a Ph.D. candidate in Modern British hist.--and I've >never heard anyone expound this theory. Didn't hear it during my time as a >Eng. Lit. major either. But some of the "hot" historiography right now, >after the Linguistic Turn and all ( G. S. Jones, P. Joyce, J. Vernon), pays >close attention to the role of language in ordering perceptions of what we >call "reality." So maybe this theory as a *subject* of historical study

has >made it into studies of colonialism, etc. > >I *suspect* (just a hunch) that you'll find the idea being tossed around >fairly early in the 20C, with the rise of English Literature as a >respectable academic field of study. Contemporary proponents of such amove >needed to justify why English Lit. should be given this status; perhaps the >theory formed part of their weaponry? (See Terry Eagleton, _Literary >Theory: An Introduction_--a *great* read, BTW.) > >It'd be hard to put it forward today without sounding triumphalist (but of >course, the Empire was triumphalist); but more importantly, as ahypothesis, >it's simply not falsifiable. This last bit, by the way, hasn't stopped the >application of theoretical approaches to writing history at all! But maybe >other fields have something to say. I'd be interested if someone with a >knowledge of the anthropological linguistic literature has heard anythingon

Quoted text (19 lines)

>it. > >Searching very briefly in the Linguistics Abstracts database > http://labs.blackwellpublishers.co.uk/ ), I did find the title below--and >I'll have a further look at it this afternoon at the library. Maybe the >fellow's footnotes will point towards something useful. > >----------------------- > > Title: English, information access, and technology transfer: a rationale >for English as an international language > Author: William Grabe > Journal: World Englishes > Vol: 7(1), 1988, 63-72 > >Abstract (by author): >Abstract: > >The role of English as an international language has engendered

considerable

Quoted text (16 lines)

>debate recently. In this paper it is argued that English is the major >international language at least in part because it is the dominant world >language of science and technology. In particular, its role in information >access and technology transfer is a major explanation for the rise of >English world-wide. Evidence is presented both to support English as the >international language of science and technology and to explain its >essential role in information access globally. Implications of the analysis >are discussed for English language teaching as well as for the role of >language in future information access systems. The arguments presented >suggest that no country can afford to ignore the important role English >plays in information access and technology transfer and still expect to >compete professionally and economically. > >------------------------ >[back to DK] >It looks like an argument made from pragmatic grounds, but that "at least

in >part" is of interest. Of course, I have no quarrel with the argument that >facility in English is important in this day if one wants to play theglobal

Quoted text (12 lines)

>game. But, you might remember, the issue in a Recent Debate in this NG was >whether that dominance had come about primarily through some inherent >quality *in* English as a language system (the link made between "languge's >inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental fact . . ." in the excerpt >you quoted), or rather through a much more historically traceable route of >early capitalist practice in GB (from 14C, in fact), agricultural practice >which (ahem) "freed" up labor and made possible industrial expansion, the >changes in financial adminstration (Bank of E.) and taxation practice, >imperialism and the schooling of colonial elites to act as buffers between >natives and rulers, &c. (And yes, I am aware of the "or" I used. I'd be >happy to change it to something else once the evidence is in.) As I see >it--and I'm still open to an empircally-based argument to the

contrary--none >of these developments have anything to do with some *inherent* quality of >English. Had GB been a Basque island, I don't why that *in itself* should >have changed that trajectory. Before I join the Inherent Power argument to >what has been called my "oversimplified" and "polar" interpretation, I'd >just like some reason to do so. "[N]ot-at-all-coincidental" doesn't giveme

Quoted text (25 lines)

>enough. > >But as you know, the debate in this NG rapidly descended into General >Nastiness, something for which I partly blame myself. > >--DK > >"Jari Jokinen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:8cpg4t$7bd$[email hidden]... >> I thought the thread was killed, but I can't resist. Does one learn this >as >> a fact at school in English speaking countries (300+ years and all)? >> >> Jari Jokinen >> >> Barton Brown wrote in message <[email hidden]>... >> >> >the English languge's inherent power and the not-at-all-coincidental >> >fact that the 300+-year-old Information Age has been dominated by powers >> >for whom English is the primary language), and tried to turn it into a >> >> >> > >

sorry - technical error on my part :-) hope i didn't waste too much of your precious time... col On Mon, 10 Apr 2000 00:35:11 GMT, Barton Brown <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

>nospam_remove wrote: >> >> You seem to assume.... > >Dear hider behind spam blocker and second-tier mailer: > >You already posted this gripping riposte in its glittering entirety >earlier this week. Looking for extra mileage? > >BB

BTW my name is colin brown and my e-mail is [email hidden] If you have a problem with that then you know what you can do with it...

no - it was ME :) what is 'tubthumping' anyhow? is it something to do with my beloved soapbox? col.

Jari Jokinen wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > I have seen these mentioned: > > -Latin is a good choice for the general language of science - not so old > theory, than one might think. > -French is suitable for mathematics due to its precision. > -German numbers are a handicap: For example 21 is einundzwanzig, "one and > twenty".

Now that's funny. 21 is twentyone in English and Einundzwanzig in German, do you know what 80 is in French: it's 4 times 20. So if the way of expressing numbers in a language determines it's suitability for math, then French really shouldn't qualify... ;^) -- l8er ronny Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? |\ _,,,---,,_ I want to die like my Grandfather, ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ in his sleep. |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Not like the people in his car, '---''(_/--' `-'\_) screaming their heads off!

Ronald Stoehr <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Jari Jokinen wrote: > > > > I have seen these mentioned: > > > > -Latin is a good choice for the general language of science - not so old > > theory, than one might think. > > -French is suitable for mathematics due to its precision. > > -German numbers are a handicap: For example 21 is einundzwanzig, "one

and

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > twenty". > > Now that's funny. 21 is twentyone in English and Einundzwanzig in > German, > do you know what 80 is in French: it's 4 times 20. So if the way of > expressing > numbers in a language determines it's suitability for math, then French > really > shouldn't qualify... ;^) > > -- > l8er > ronny

Actually, the French are taking a very logical factorial approach to the whole problem. Eventually their language will develop to the point that all numbers are expressed as simple combinations of prime numbers! Stephen