C
CBFalconer
Mark said:
What is that 28 (or so) syllable Welsh town that translates to
"hill hill hill"?
What is that 28 (or so) syllable Welsh town that translates to
"hill hill hill"?
C
CBFalconer
Al said:
I consider it a gentle means of avoiding offending non-USAnians.
This is taking a positive view of it. As I see it now there is one
person objecting, and quite a few with somewhat gentler objections
to the use of American for the purpose.
K
Keith Thompson
Malcolm McLean said:
Incorrect and off-topic.
D
Default User
Richard said:
No, we're not. It started by me correcting a foolish and insulting
neologism. As I said, if someone simply can't bear to use the correct
term, then the sentence can easily be reworded.
Brian
D
Default User
Mark said:
Nonsense. As I said, only one nation that has "America" as part of its
name. There's only one nation for which it makes sense to use
"American" as a national identifier for its citizens.
This isn't that difficult.
Brian
M
Malcolm McLean
In eighteenth century English texts "American" usually means a Red Indian.Richard Heathfield said:
D
Default User
Keith Thompson wrote:
No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.
How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?
I'll point out that my objection was to silly neologisms in a group
that prides itself in whacking newbies for such things as "u". For the
umpteenth time, if Mark or other people are so worried about people
being offended by "American", don't substitute an offensive term,
rewrite the damn sentence. It's not that hard.
I don't believe for one second that the reason they use such terms is
out of some sensitivity towards those elsewhere in the Americas. It's
patently ridiculous. They like to poke us with a point-ed stick. All in
fun, I guess, but I've grown tired.
If Mark et al. are really sensitive to the feelings of others, then
they know at least one person offended by USAnian. I doubt they can
come up with many that really care about the use of American.
Whether they want to go round and round with this in the future is up
to them. They can use it, not use it, killfile me, whatever.
Regardless, they know the score.
Brian
No Americans have taken "unreasonable" offense.
How many "Americans" from outside the USA have chimed in to reveal
their stress and confusion in not being included?
I'll point out that my objection was to silly neologisms in a group
that prides itself in whacking newbies for such things as "u". For the
umpteenth time, if Mark or other people are so worried about people
being offended by "American", don't substitute an offensive term,
rewrite the damn sentence. It's not that hard.
I don't believe for one second that the reason they use such terms is
out of some sensitivity towards those elsewhere in the Americas. It's
patently ridiculous. They like to poke us with a point-ed stick. All in
fun, I guess, but I've grown tired.
If Mark et al. are really sensitive to the feelings of others, then
they know at least one person offended by USAnian. I doubt they can
come up with many that really care about the use of American.
Whether they want to go round and round with this in the future is up
to them. They can use it, not use it, killfile me, whatever.
Regardless, they know the score.
Brian
M
Malcolm McLean
LlanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogochCBFalconer said:
I think it actually means "The church of St. Mary in the hollow of white
hazel trees near the rapid whirlpool by St. Tysilio's of the red cave".
However I can't speak Welsh.
R
Richard Heathfield
Default User said:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It makes sense to encourage people to communicate clearly, so it
therefore makes sense to discourage them from pointless abbreviations.
I suppose that making sense is something to be proud of, yes, but
"whacking newbies" is not something I take great pride in. But yes, it
is in the interests of clarity of communication that some people prefer
to use the term "American" to apply to people of either American
continent.
The word "American", as /you/ would have us use it, is misleading. The
word "Usanian" is not. Clarity matters.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
It makes sense to encourage people to communicate clearly, so it
therefore makes sense to discourage them from pointless abbreviations.
I suppose that making sense is something to be proud of, yes, but
"whacking newbies" is not something I take great pride in. But yes, it
is in the interests of clarity of communication that some people prefer
to use the term "American" to apply to people of either American
continent.
The word "American", as /you/ would have us use it, is misleading. The
word "Usanian" is not. Clarity matters.
R
Richard Heathfield
Default User said:
Correction: "Usanian" is neither foolish nor insulting. It is, however,
a neologism. One out of three is a little low for you, is it not?
What you consider to be "the correct term" is not what everyone
considers to be the correct term. You have long years of usage on your
side, but that's about all, I think.
Perhaps, or perhaps not.
Correction: "Usanian" is neither foolish nor insulting. It is, however,
a neologism. One out of three is a little low for you, is it not?
What you consider to be "the correct term" is not what everyone
considers to be the correct term. You have long years of usage on your
side, but that's about all, I think.
Perhaps, or perhaps not.
C
CBFalconer
Malcolm said:
How revolting
N
Nelu
Richard said:
So, after all, you are all for the war in Irak. From previous
posts I thought you were against it.
For the clarity of communication you fought Jacob over unsigned
integers cannot overflow because you can't name something
different than the standard says it is. And I agreed with you.
Now, when the standard has been American for a citizen of the US
and everyone who knows the standard knows that there are two
American continents so everyone is either North or South
American, in order not to create confusion please use the
standard established tens of years ago as opposed to a word
that's not widely used and was invented to poke fun at Americans
after 2001. (It seems the word appeared on the Internet in 2002,
close enough to 2001, Afghanistan and Iraq). However, this is
c.l.c and nobody establishes standards or adds to existing
standards. I guess we should let comp.std.c discuss whether the
word should make the standard and until then we can use the
existing standard without offending anybody.
Exactly.
Anyway, I think this has been going on for too long. I withdraw.
C
CBFalconer
Default said:
Point of order: The heart of the Canadian Constitution is the
"British North America Act" of 1867. Besides which Canada is
considerably larger than the USA. However, being easy going and
not prone to fighting (outside of hockey) the Canadian goliath
makes no fuss about the (mis)appropriation of the name. However
environmentally unsound LNG terminals in the dangerous waters of
the entrance to the Bay of Fundy is another matter.
K
Keith Thompson
Nelu said:Anyway, I think this has been going on for too long. I withdraw.
I suggest that it might have made more sense to withdraw *before*
posting a lengthy followup.
I admit I'm in no position to criticize; I've participated in this
flame war myself.
I will not post again on this topic. I encourage everyone else to do
the same starting ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... NOW.
D
Default User
Richard Heathfield wrote:
That's just about the case for every English word.
Brian
That's just about the case for every English word.
Brian
R
Richard Heathfield
Nelu said:
You appear to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion from insufficient
data.
I did not fight Jacob. I merely corrected him.
There is no standard for the English language, so you are reasoning from
a false premise.
So, after all, you are all for the war in Irak. From previous
posts I thought you were against it.
You appear to have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion from insufficient
data.
I did not fight Jacob. I merely corrected him.
There is no standard for the English language, so you are reasoning from
a false premise.
R
Richard Heathfield
Default User said:
Yes - but it's in everybody's interests, is it not, for language to
develop in the direction of increasing clarity?
Yes - but it's in everybody's interests, is it not, for language to
develop in the direction of increasing clarity?
N
Nelu
Richard said:
Just a correction. The
was for a joke.Given the fact that that thread went on for quite some time it
extended beyond a mere correction.
Os hte cditionakry is ujst orf unf?
Actually there are people who think there is a standard (Standard
English) although not everybody's in agreement over it. There's
also British Standard English and there is a standardization
process for dialects.
At least we somewhat changed the subject
).I'm still sorry for being off-topic... I have to learn to control
myself
.
N
Nelu
<snip a lot of off-topic stuff>Nelu said:
I apologize for going off-topic for so long.
I am really, really going to stop now. Richard, if you want to
continue this I'm always available on e-mail.
K
Kenny McCormack
That's all he posts.