 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2007Can someone please explain？
The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just don't understand. I think it does not go along with the preceding sentence and is grammatically incorrect? "According to a survey by the European Commission last year, just 30% of Britons can converse in a language other than their own (only Hungarians did worse). Bad as these figures are, they are flattered by the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than English at home." > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than >English at home." A little less than three in ten Britons are capable of speaking a language other than their own, but only one in ten converse in a language other than English when they are at home with their families. That's a very odd use of "flattered", but they mean that the three in ten figure makes the one in ten figure look good. It is the figure that is flattered. In my view, grammar is not the issue to understanding this. It's the odd use of "flattered". One doesn't think of figures flattering other figures, and the difference is not significant enough to use "flattered". I'm also unsure about what is meant in the last sentence. In the first figure, "a language not their own" is specified, but in the second figure "other than English" is used. That would mean that the second figure could include people whose native language is not English. I think.  SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > second figure could include people whose native language is not > English. I think. It could definitely be expressed better. Frinstance, they speak of Britons "capable of speaking a language other than their own" and seem to assume that we will understand English to be that "own" or first language. One problem that springs to mind is that there are many Britons for whom English is not their own and not their first language. I've had several colleagues and friends over the years for whom Welsh was their own language and English was something they were obliged to learn at school. Often, Welsh would be the language they spoke at home (putting them, of course, into the second category). Then there are the immigrants who become naturalised. Does English become their "own" language as soon as they get their papers? Or does their first language remain their own? I believe that what the article is trying to say is that only 30% of native Britons (or maybe they mean UKoGBaNIans) for whom English is a first language can converse in a second language. Which then makes a bit of a nonsense of the second sentence. Of course, of the "one in ten" who speak a language other than English at home, some speak no English at all. It's a dog's breakfast. I'd cancel your subscription to the Economist and find a mag that's produced by the literate. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > >It could definitely be expressed better. Agreed, Strongly. > Frinstance, they speak of Britons >"capable of speaking a language other than their own" and seem to assume [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >It's a dog's breakfast. I'd cancel your subscription to the Economist and >find a mag that's produced by the literate. I substituted "boosted" for "flattered" and it began to make sense. Whether this is the sense the writer intended I do not know. Paraphrasing: According to a survey by the European Commission last year, just 30% of Britons can converse in a language other than their mother tongue (only Hungarians did worse). Bad as these figures are, they are boosted by the one in ten residents of Britain whose mother tongue is not English. No doubt the survey report will have been worded much more precisely. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Many thanks and best regards to Peter Duncanson for your lucid paraphrasing using the word "boost" . Now, at long long last, I as the one who posted this question am fully satisfied. > > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > >Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > That's a very odd use of "flattered", but they mean that the three in > ten figure makes the one in ten figure look good. Well, here we go again. It seems quite clear to me that "they" in the sentence beginning "bad" has "these figures" as its antecedent and that "these figures" refers to the 30% figure in the precedeng sentence. And this time I think Tony is perfectly clear, and this time I think he is perfectly wrong. It is the one in ten that makes the three in ten look good (much as someone who scores 5 points in a basketball game makes someone who scores 12 look pretty good). I am doing this, of course, to give Tony yet another chance to explain to me that what I think he said is not at all what he really said. He seems so grateful for such opportunities. I agree with the snipped comments about what poor writing the quotation under discussion is. [ ... ] SignatureBob Lieblich Bringing joy wherever he goes On 17 Dec 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote >>> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > antecedent and that "these figures" refers to the 30% figure in > the precedeng sentence. I'm not joining in the he meant/she meant thing, but it's pretty clear to me what's being said in the article -- the 1 in 10 figure for non-English-at-home raises the average for the whole population; without that 1 in 10, the main figure would be even less than 30%. > And this time I think Tony is perfectly > clear, and this time I think he is perfectly wrong. It is the > one in ten that makes the three in ten look good (much as > someone who scores 5 points in a basketball game makes someone > who scores 12 look pretty good). I don't think that's the analogy at all: it's that if the team is scoring one basket for every 4 attempts, the guy in the team who scores a basket with every shot he makes "flatters the figure" of 1 basket in 4 for the whole team. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 17 Dec 2006, Robert Lieblich wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > scores a basket with every shot he makes "flatters the figure" of 1 > basket in 4 for the whole team. I think I agree with you, although that's not how I understood it on my first read-through. I thought that the article was saying that the 30% was a low percentage compared to other countries, while the 10% was relatively high. Perhaps more context would have brought greater clarity. >> > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >> >Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >the three in ten look good (much as someone who scores 5 points in a >basketball game makes someone who scores 12 look pretty good). In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only when it is compared to the one in ten. That's the way I saw it when I read it, but not the way I wrote it. >I agree with the snipped comments about what poor writing the >quotation under discussion is. What about the use of "flatter"? Do you agree that figures can flatter other figures? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not > write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only > when it is compared to the one in ten. That's the way I saw it when I > read it, but not the way I wrote it. I think it interesting that it is mostly the AmE-speaking contingent who read it this way, while more of the BrE-speakers see it my way (and are right, of course). I think Maria is the only American who understood. There doesn't seem to be anything overtly British about the paragraph, so perhaps it is just the context that is more familiar to Brits. Fran > > In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not > > write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > There doesn't seem to be anything overtly British about the paragraph, > so perhaps it is just the context that is more familiar to Brits. Whatever the flattery bit means, I just don't believe that as many as three Brits in ten can converse in a foreign language. If I had to guess, I'd put it at nearer three in a hundred, and very likely fewer. Thirty per cent sounds impressive for Anglophones in general and purely fantastic for Brits in particular. If there's a misprint involved, and it really should have been 3%, then the debate about the significance of "flattered" assumes a new dimension. SignatureMike. > Whatever the flattery bit means, I just don't believe that as many as > three Brits in ten can converse in a foreign language. If I had to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the debate about the significance of "flattered" assumes a new > dimension. I suppose it depends what you mean by "converse". Fran On 17 Dec 2006, Mike Lyle wrote -snip- > Whatever the flattery bit means, I just don't believe that as > many as three Brits in ten can converse in a foreign language. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 3%, then the debate about the significance of "flattered" > assumes a new dimension. Anecdotally, I agree entirely that 3% sounds a lot more likely than than 30% -- I speak French, after a fashion[1], and I'm one of the few people I know who can do even that. [1]Vocabulary's not bad; accent tends towards the "execrable" end of the scale, particularly when I've been out of practice. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >>>In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not >>>write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the debate about the significance of "flattered" assumes a new > dimension. I, too, thought that 30% seemed very high so I did some research. The article from the Economist is only accessible on line by subscription - the part quoted by the OP is the opening paragraph. Searching the European Commission site I eventually tracked down the report referred to: it's at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_237.en.pdf The report states that 30% of the UK population *assert* that they can speak at least one other language than their mother tongue at the level of being able to have a conversation. The respondents' assessment of their language capabilities doesn't appear to have been tested. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >The report states that 30% of the UK population *assert* that they can >speak at least one other language than their mother tongue at the level >of being able to have a conversation. The respondents' assessment of >their language capabilities doesn't appear to have been tested. Oh well then. It means pointing to an article and saying "Combien?" and then being able to understand the answer, which is given in Engish. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >> In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not >> write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > (and are right, of course). I think Maria is the only American who > understood. [...] Wow. I'm beginning to feel very pleased with myself. Watch out, everyone, I may become an unbearable intellectual snob over this. SignatureMaria Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) >> In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not >> write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only >> when it is compared to the one in ten. That's the way I saw it when I >> read it, but not the way I wrote it. > I think it interesting that it is mostly the AmE-speaking contingent who > read it this way, while more of the BrE-speakers see it my way (and are > right, of course). I think Maria is the only American who understood. > > There doesn't seem to be anything overtly British about the paragraph, so > perhaps it is just the context that is more familiar to Brits. The meaning to me is so clear that I'm surprised anyone's disputing it. I can only make sense of Tony's interpretation if there's a mentality that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as their first language is a bad thing, and really we should be pushing it up so that more people don't speak English as their home language. There is no such mentality. Matthew Huntbach >>> In this case, you are correct that I have made a mistake. I did not >>> write what I mentally processed. The three in ten looks good only [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as >their first language is a bad thing, I think that *was* the point of the article. However, we are dealing with just one snippet from an article, and basing our interpretation on that one snippet. The body of the article may have presented additional comments that would have either solidified this interpretation or provided an entirely different interpretation. >and really we should be pushing >it up so that more people don't speak English as their home language. >There is no such mentality. The only conclusions we should draw from one snippet are the conclusions that the one snippet present. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>I can only make sense of Tony's interpretation if there's a mentality >>that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > additional comments that would have either solidified this > interpretation or provided an entirely different interpretation. I cannot see how you can interpret the paragraph to mean that. It has nothing to do with what the rest of the article does or does not say. The first sentence says: "According to a survey by the European Commission last year, just 30% of Britons can converse in a language other than their own (only Hungarians did worse)." See: it says "30% of Britons can converse" in another language. That is the important point. It is talking about how many British people can speak a foreign language. Then comes the second sentence: "Bad as these figures are, they are flattered by the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than English at home." The sentence is a comment on the makeup of the 30% referred to in the first sentence. It says that the 30% figure is bad. The second half of the sentence says that the 30% figure would be worse (i.e. lower) but for those British residents who have a first language which is not English. Fran >>>I can only make sense of Tony's interpretation if there's a mentality >>>that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > for those British residents who have a first language which is not > English. I agree with this intepretation; it seems the only possible one that makes reasonable sense. However, I can't stop wondering why they couldn't be bothered to say so in English. Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, nor does anything else within my powers to conjecture as the intended wording. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. [...] > Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, nor > does anything else within my powers to conjecture as the intended > wording. "Inflatted"? > [...] >> Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, nor >> does anything else within my powers to conjecture as the intended >> wording. > > "Inflatted"? I think you may be on to something. I bow to your superiour powers of conjecture. "Inflated" is the only even halfway sensible emmendation we've seen so far, I think. And a slightly plausible mechanism for the corruption: I can just about imagine "are inflated" (non-rhotic) over a bad phone connection or the like turning into "are flattered". SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > > [...] > >> Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, nor [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > imagine "are inflated" (non-rhotic) over a bad phone connection or the like > turning into "are flattered". I guess I posted my suggestion of "fattened" at the wrong time and no one read it. SignatureBob Lieblich Well acquainted with that verb >> > [...] >> >> Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, nor [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I guess I posted my suggestion of "fattened" at the wrong time and no > one read it. Good guess! SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >>> [...] >>>> Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I guess I posted my suggestion of "fattened" at the wrong time and > no one read it. It's the best suggestion so far, and maybe the conclusive one, but I didn't see it until this post; I've checked back and I seem not to have received it. Haven't other posters been complaining recently about missing posts? There's even one of my own that I haven't gotten, although it was there when I checked on Google. >>>>I can only make sense of Tony's interpretation if there's a mentality >>>>that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Neither "flattered" nor "flattened" seems to fit this meaning, nor does > anything else within my powers to conjecture as the intended wording. It wouldn't have been my choice, but I think "flattered" fits the meaning: the 10% who don't speak English at home make the 30% figure look better. Making something look better is one meaning of flattering. Fran >>>I can only make sense of Tony's interpretation if there's a mentality >>>that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I cannot see how you can interpret the paragraph to mean that. It has >nothing to do with what the rest of the article does or does not say. I didn't quite follow the lead paragraph above. The original statement was "Bad as these figures are, they are flattered by the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than English at home." There's a tone in that writing that says to me that the writer is making the point that one-in-thirty is bad, and one-in-ten is worse. That tone may just be present in the snippet, but it may be diluted in the full context. The next sentence may start off with a "However," and start turning the tone to something different. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >> The meaning to me is so clear that I'm surprised anyone's disputing it. >> >> I can only make sense of Tony's interpretation if there's a mentality >> that having only one-in-ten British people not speaking English as >> their first language is a bad thing, > I think that *was* the point of the article. Doesn't such a meaning strike you as so bizarre that it couldn't possibly be intended? Do you really think that even the Economist, which tends to take its free-market liberalism to the point where it is fairly pro economic immigrant, would make that point? In the USA are people in general rejoicing at more families being Spanish etc speaking at home, and regarding it as a bad thing if immigrants switch to English in the second generation? In general, people who don't speak English at home are regarded as a bit of a problem in the UK. I can quite see there's a certain hypcorisy in worrying about all those families who stick to Urdu, Bengali etc at home, and simultaneously worrying about all those English-origin children who give up attempting to learn French at the first possible opportunity. But I don't think anyone's clamouring to import more Urdu-speakers etc to improve things. Well, okay, some may express a certain happiness about cheap eastern European workers undercutting the natives, but I don't think the fact they don't speak English well is seen as part of the attraction. Matthew Huntbach I think it interesting that it is mostly the AmE-speaking contingent who read it this way, while more of the BrE-speakers see it my way (and are right, of course). I think Maria is the only American who understood. There doesn't seem to be anything overtly British about the paragraph, so perhaps it is just the context that is more familiar to Brits. I saw that Maria and Adrian had already nailed it, so no further comment was needed. Perhaps some is now, with the esteemed Bob Lieblich is on the wrong side. "Flattered" did cause a bump in the reading, but the usage makes sense, and within the two minutes allowed I could not think of a better word, although I had the feeling that there was a word or phrase used more often in that circumstance. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > > >Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > I agree with the snipped comments about what poor writing the > quotation under discussion is. By using the term "other than their own", the author has unnecessarily mucked this paragraph up. Some people who speak a language other than English at home do so because they don't speak English at all, or because they do so poorly, or because their parents speak a language other than English at home. These last folk often speak fairly good, if not fluent, English, because they grew up speaking English at school. More statistics are needed. > > > > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > > > >Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > English, because they grew up speaking English at school. More statistics > are needed. I finally decided to retrieve my Occam's Razor from its case, almost cutting myself in the process. It then dawned upon me that if the article had used "fattened" where "flattered" appeared, it would have been far clearer. So maybe the whole thing is a typesetting error. Would't that beat all? Meanwhile, upon further mature reflection, I've decided that the article as it stands is sufficiently ambiguous that no reasonable interpretation is necessarily wrong. It seems easy enough to conclude what the author meant, yet we have at least two competing views that both make at least some sense. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go look for my Occam Shave Cream. SignatureTheodoric of York Medieval Barber >>The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > language other than their own, but only one in ten converse in a > language other than English when they are at home with their families. How did you get from "just 30%" to "a little less than three in ten"? When I learned math, 30% was three in ten. --Jeff SignatureAll men of conscience or prudence ply to windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive. -Roger Williams > How did you get from "just 30%" to "a little less than three in ten"? > When I learned math, 30% was three in ten. Perhaps it was Floridian for "a little less than one third". SignatureRob Bannister >> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than >> English at home." > A little less than three in ten Britons are capable of speaking a > language other than their own, but only one in ten converse in a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ten figure makes the one in ten figure look good. It is the figure > that is flattered. No, I don't see it as meaning this at all. What it means is that the figures for the number of Brits who speak a language other than their own look much higher than they would otherwise be due to the large number of people of non-Brit origin whose first language is English but who can speak their parents' language. So the three-in-ten figure is actually artificially high and one should not suppose, as one might when first encountering it, that three-in-ten Brits have managed to learn enough foreign language at school to be able to converse in one of them. I was surprised to find the Hungarians having such a low figure. I'd expect them to be like the Finns, fairly high in speaking other languages due to hardly anyone knowing theirs. Matthew Huntbach On 18 Dec 2006, Matthew Huntbach wrote > So the three-in-ten figure is actually artificially high and one > should not suppose, as one might when first encountering it, > that three-in-ten Brits have managed to learn enough foreign > language at school to be able to converse in one of them. As Mike Lyle has posted, doesn't that figure of 30% of Brits being able to "converse in another language" look, shall we say, a tad on the high side? Seriously, I'd not be surprised at all if it was a typo for 3%. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 18 Dec 2006, Matthew Huntbach wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Seriously, I'd not be surprised at all if it was a typo for 3%. See my earlier message referring to the original report - it's not a typo. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 18 Dec 2006, LFS wrote >> On 18 Dec 2006, Matthew Huntbach wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > See my earlier message referring to the original report - it's > not a typo. Ah; many thanks. I agree with Katy that it might have been distorted by what people understood "conversing" to mean. I'm honestly not sure what level I'd set that at, though. "Being able to converse" strikes me as more than just saying "deux bieres, garcon", but it doesn't require being able to hold your own in a half-hour discussion of political philosophy. Maybe something like "being able to speak in coherent sentences for an exchange involving at least 4 sentences"......or something. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 18 Dec 2006, Matthew Huntbach wrote >> So the three-in-ten figure is actually artificially high and one >> should not suppose, as one might when first encountering it, >> that three-in-ten Brits have managed to learn enough foreign >> language at school to be able to converse in one of them. > As Mike Lyle has posted, doesn't that figure of 30% of Brits being > able to "converse in another language" look, shall we say, a tad on > the high side? Yes, I thought it was on the high side. My ability with French is probably typical of the avergae well-educated Brit i.e. I know enough to read signs and things, can just about follow the gist of a simple newspaper article in the language, but would struggle to jave a conversation in it. > Seriously, I'd not be surprised at all if it was a typo for 3%. But that ignores the point about the large proportion of the population - more than 3% - who can converse in another language for ancestral rather than school-learning reasons. Matthew Huntbach On 18 Dec 2006, Matthew Huntbach wrote >> On 18 Dec 2006, Matthew Huntbach wrote > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > population - more than 3% - who can converse in another language > for ancestral rather than school-learning reasons. As Laura discovered, the 30% figure represented those who self- assessed themselves as being able to "converse" in another language -- but what constitutes "conversing" was left to the individual. For example, I can carry on a conversation in French, and would therefore say I'm able to converse in the language. But in Italian -- where I can read a bit, can order a meal/drinks using single words, and can thrash out a few basic instructions -- I'd not classify my abilities as being able to "converse" in the language. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> had it: > I was surprised to find the Hungarians having such a low figure. I'd > expect them to be like the Finns, fairly high in speaking other languages > due to hardly anyone knowing theirs. I agree. I spent a week in rural Hungary in 1999; I found that a fair percentage of ordinary people could speak enough German for me (with my very limited German) to be able to get through the day. I did fail to communicate with one person I needed to speak to. She spoke no German, English, French or Russian which was a bit odd as she was behind the counter in the station travel office near Lake Balaton. We were reduced to writing down the names of towns and the times of trains. SignatureDavid ===== >Matthew Huntbach <mmh@dcs.qmul.ac.uk> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Balaton. We were reduced to writing down the names of towns and the >times of trains. My experience, from several visits to Hungary, is that a fair number of Hungarians living in Budapest are likely to speak at least some English and/or German; but get off the beaten track and almost none of them do. We were up near the Slovak border in July, and it was as well that we had some English-speaking Hungarian friends with us. I'm only slightly more surprised about Lake Balaton. I imagine that English (and most other languages) is as hard for a native Hungarian speaker to learn as Hungarian is for most non-Hungarians. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > I imagine that English (and most other languages) is as hard for a > native Hungarian speaker to learn as Hungarian is for most > non-Hungarians. Slaka! Land of lake and forest, of beetroot and tractor. Slaka! Land whose borders are sometimes here, often further north, and sometimes not at all. Land of cultural riches, of a language that is easy enough to learn if you speak Finnish, or perhaps a little Hittite. Mike M I was surprised to find the Hungarians having such a low figure. I'd expect them to be like the Finns, fairly high in speaking other languages due to hardly anyone knowing theirs. Maybe they don't want to admit it, or have deliberately lost the ability. The older half of the population probably spent their school time learning Russian. -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > I was surprised to find the Hungarians having > such a low figure. I'd expect them to be like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the population probably spent their school time > learning Russian. I think "sitting in Russian classes resisting learning Russian" might be nearer the mark. I was able to get along in the neighborhood of the Estarházy estate (where the composer Joseph Haydn worked) in Fertöd, near Sopron (clear the other side of the country from Budapest) by relying on locals with a workable grasp of German, but they were not by any means thick on the ground. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. > I think "sitting in Russian classes resisting learning Russian" might be > nearer the mark. Reminds me of the former Yugoslavia. Whenever I tried Russian, I could tell they knew what I was talking about, but they pretended not to understand. I managed much better with German. SignatureRob Bannister >> I think "sitting in Russian classes resisting learning Russian" might be >> nearer the mark. > > Reminds me of the former Yugoslavia. Whenever I tried Russian, I could > tell they knew what I was talking about, but they pretended not to > understand. Former German Democratic Republic, too. Pretty much everywhere that Russian was compulsory in school and isn't anymore, I should think. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > >> I think "sitting in Russian classes resisting learning Russian" might be > >> nearer the mark. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Former German Democratic Republic, too. Pretty much everywhere that Russian > was compulsory in school and isn't anymore, I should think. Czech Republic also. SignatureDavid ===== > Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Czech Republic also. All of former Czechoslovakia, in fact, if what I gleaned from a fondly remembered visit to Bratislava can be taken as typical. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. Roland Hutchinson <my.spamtrap@verizon.net> had it: > >> I think "sitting in Russian classes resisting learning Russian" might be > >> nearer the mark. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Former German Democratic Republic, too. Pretty much everywhere that Russian > was compulsory in school and isn't anymore, I should think. And in Rhodes 20 years ago, the old people could speak Italian but wouldn't. SignatureDavid ===== > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than > English at home." I think it means that if it weren't for the "one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than English at home," that 30% figure (of those who can converse in a language other than their own) would be less. From Merriam-Webster Online, for the verb "flatter": 3 a : to portray too favorably < the portrait flatters him> b : to display to advantage <candlelight often flatters the face> SignatureMaria Resident of southeast Michigan, near Detroit; native of east Tennessee. There's only one 'n' in my email address, and it's not in my first name. (The email address I use in this newsgroup is munged.) > > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > > Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > figure (of those who can converse in a language other than their own) > would be less. Yup. Adrian >>> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yup. Yea! I got one right! Thanks... SignatureMaria > > > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > > > Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yup. Nope. I think it means that the one in ten figure makes the three in ten figure look better by comparison. I don't suppose there's any way to get the author of the original item to own up. SignatureBob Lieblich Spoiling for a fight [...] > Nope. I think it means that the one in ten figure makes the three in > ten figure look better by comparison. > > I don't suppose there's any way to get the author of the original item > to own up. It's the degree of clarity one should, the sainted Bagehot notwithstanding, expect from a mag calling itself "The Economist". > Bob Lieblich > Spoiling for a fight Always provided the other guy was a lot smaller, I'd rather fight for the spoils. SignatureMike. >>>>The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>>>Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Nope. I think it means that the one in ten figure makes the three in > ten figure look better by comparison. I don't see how you can arrive at that meaning. The 10% who speak a non-English language at home is part of the 30% who can converse in another language. Thus it affects the percentage of Britons who can converse in another language. The article is about the difficulties that Britons have in learning foreign languages. Your reading just doesn't fit into that context. > I don't suppose there's any way to get the author of the original item > to own up. He'd agree with me, so it's not necessary. Fran >>>The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>>Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Yup. Nope. It means the "30%" doesn't look so good until you compare it to the lower figure of "one in ten." The "one in ten" figure makes the "30%" look good, which is the second definition of flatter from Maria's dictionary quote. --Jeff SignatureAll men of conscience or prudence ply to windward, to maintain their wars to be defensive. -Roger Williams On 17 Dec 2006, Jeffrey Turner wrote >>>> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of >>>> The Economist. Can someone please explain the second [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > makes the "30%" look good, which is the second definition of > flatter from Maria's dictionary quote. Nope. It means what Maria and Adrian have said: if it wasn't for the 1-in-10 group, the poor figure of 30% would be even worse -- the "no English at all" group makes the figure for the whole population look better than it really is. It's an odd use of "flatter", but to me that's very clearly what is being said. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van > On 17 Dec 2006, Jeffrey Turner wrote > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > It's an odd use of "flatter", but to me that's very clearly what is > being said. You are right; Bobl and Jeffrey are wrong. SignatureRay UK >On 17 Dec 2006, Jeffrey Turner wrote > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >It's an odd use of "flatter", but to me that's very clearly what is >being said. Anytime you have several reasonably intelligent people arguing about the meaning of a paragraph, you have a poorly written paragraph. That is, if the paragraph is written by a professional writer and appears in a respected publication. The above rule is suspended, however, if a non-professional writer writes a sentence that puzzles normally intelligent people who just aren't on their game at the time of the reading. There's no doubt in my mind about this. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>>>> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >>>>> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>> are flattered by the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a >>>>> language other than English at home." [snip] > Nope. It means what Maria and Adrian have said: if it wasn't for > the 1-in-10 group, the poor figure of 30% would be even worse -- the > "no English at all" group makes the figure for the whole population > look better than it really is. How did you get "no English at all" out of "speak a language other than English at home"? About a third of the kids in Josh's school speak Spanish at home (and a smaller percentage speak other non-English languages), but almost all of them and probably most of their parents speak English somewhere between "can hold a halting conversation" and "with native-speaker fluency". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Now every hacker knows 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | That the secret to survivin' Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is knowin' when the time is free | And what's the load and queue kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |'Cause everyone's a cruncher (650)857-7572 | And everyone's a user |And the best that you can hope for http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Is a crash when you're through On 18 Dec 2006, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >>>>>> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of >>>>>> The Economist. Can someone please explain the second [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > How did you get "no English at all" out of "speak a language > other than English at home"? I got there by extremely crude shorthand for what I meant -- which was "people who don't use English at home". > About a third of the kids in > Josh's school speak Spanish at home (and a smaller percentage > speak other non-English languages), but almost all of them and > probably most of their parents speak English somewhere between > "can hold a halting conversation" and "with native-speaker > fluency". I have no idea of the figures here, but I suspect that a fair number of those 1-in-10 have one or more members of the household who don't speak any English at all. It's a recognised situation, particularly for certain immigrant groups who have been joined by extended families under the various immigration provisions. (I've tried to choose neutral wording for that; it can be a touchy subject.) SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van >> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >figure (of those who can converse in a language other than their own) >would be less. I didn't see that, and I think you've picked up a meaning that I missed. >From Merriam-Webster Online, for the verb "flatter": > >3 a : to portray too favorably < the portrait flatters him> > b : to display to advantage <candlelight often flatters the face> I don't think "flatter" is used appropriately in the article. We can often stretch a meaning and say a word is used correctly, but sometimes a word is used inappropriately. It just isn't the right choice for the context and is a distraction to the reader. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > >> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > sometimes a word is used inappropriately. It just isn't the right > choice for the context and is a distraction to the reader. When Coop's right, he's right. He was wrong about the other thing, though. I've posted about that already. SignatureBob Lieblich Fighter of picks (or something like that) > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than > English at home." It means:- 30% of Britons can speak a foreign language. This is poor. Hungary is the only European country that did worse. But the British figure of 30% has been boosted by our large immigrant population, many of whom (at home) speak the language of their country of origin, such as Urdu, Hindustani, etc. This group amounts to 10% of the British population, and has boosted the count of the number of Brits who can speak a foreign language. Without this contribution to the statistics, only 20% of Britons would be assessed as being able to speak a foreign language. [That is the meaning of the expression "is flattered by" in this context. I assume that this is the wording that caused you the difficulty. Our immigrant population have made the figures look better than they really are, boosting our figures from 20% to 30%. i.e. their conribution has "flattered" the figures for Britain as a whole]. My only personal comment is that I am surprised that the figure for Britain is as high as 20% of the non-immigant population being able to speak a foreign language. I would have guessed a figure nearer 5%. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. On Dec 18, 3:01 pm, "Dick Chambers" > 30% of Britons can speak a foreign language. ... > But the British figure of 30% has been boosted by our large immigrant > population ... > This group amounts to 10% of the > British population > Without this contribution to the statistics, only > 20% of Britons would be assessed as being able to speak a foreign language. 18%, correcting for the disregarded 10% ... > My only personal comment is that I am surprised that the figure for Britain > is as high as 20% of the non-immigant population being able to speak a > foreign language. I would have guessed a figure nearer 5%. Define "speak". >> The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The >> Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >is as high as 20% of the non-immigant population being able to speak a >foreign language. I would have guessed a figure nearer 5%. I suppose you're right, but any one paragraph that takes four paragraphs to explain is somewhat lacking. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:01:05 GMT, "Dick Chambers" > >> "According to a survey by the European Commission last year, just 30% > >> of Britons can converse in a language other than their own (only > >> Hungarians did worse). Bad as these figures are, they are flattered by > >> the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than > >> English at home." > I suppose you're right, but any one paragraph that takes four > paragraphs to explain is somewhat lacking. Where was the need for any explanation? >> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:01:05 GMT, "Dick Chambers" >> >> "According to a survey by the European Commission last year, just 30% [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Where was the need for any explanation? An explanation was specifically requested in the original posting, to which I replied. Although the question seems simple to anybody who speaks English as his first language, I can well understand why the unusual use of the word "flatter" might cause difficulty to a foreigner learning English. I like to help foreign students of English whenever I have time to do so. The best way to do so is to give a complete analysis which covers all possible areas of doubt, and fully answers the question. That is why I used four paragraphs. I did not realise that paragraphs were rationed. I disagree with Tony when he says that ". . . any one paragraph that takes four paragraphs to explain is somewhat lacking." The original paragraph was excellent in its conciseness, and would be understood by most readers. The only trouble was that it confused a foreigner. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. > That is why I used four >paragraphs. I did not realise that paragraphs were rationed. There was no criticism involved in your use of four paragraphs. I prefer breaks in any block of text. >I disagree with Tony when he says that ". . . any one paragraph that takes >four paragraphs to explain is somewhat lacking." The original paragraph was >excellent in its conciseness, and would be understood by most readers. The >only trouble was that it confused a foreigner. The paragraph may have been concise, but I don't think it was clear. Otherwise, why would there have been differing interpretations by (non-foreign) posters here? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > I suppose you're right, but any one paragraph that takes four > paragraphs to explain is somewhat lacking. Yeah, just as any word that needs four or more words to define it should be struck out of the dictionary. What do you expect an explanation to be, if no longer than the original? -- Regards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au akoamay のメッセージ: > The following is part of an article in the latest issue of The > Economist. Can someone please explain the second sentence, which I just [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the one in ten residents of Britain who speak a language other than > English at home." I as the one who posted this question received a clarification from the Economist author of this article as follows: Thanks for your letter regarding my article on monolingual Britain. Sorry you found that particular sentence so incomprehensible - it aroused no comment here!! All I was trying to do was say elegantly and briefly that when you survey people living in britain and discover that 30% speak a second language, you must remember that Britain has a high proportion of immigrants who speak English as their second language. Approx one in 10 residents of these islands speak a language other than English at home, and almost all of them will speak English as well as that language. So (a) it's the second-worst fig in the EU on the face of it, but (b) it's actually worse than that, because it's being 'flattered' - made look better than it is - by the high number of biilinguals who have English as their second, not first, language. Phew! Best regards Helen Joyce Helen Joyce Britain correspondent The Economist 020 7830 7133 >akoamay ??????: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >The Economist >020 7830 7133 Please tell me that you did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's sentence structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper のメッセージ: > Please tell me that you did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's sentence > structure, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization. I am very sure I transcribed (or, is "repoduced" more appropriate word?) his mail text exactly by pasting it on to my posting. So, any irregularities you may see on your side, I think, are due to some mechanical reasons on the part of this newsgroup server. >Tony Cooper ??????: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >irregularities you may see on your side, I think, are due to some >mechanical reasons on the part of this newsgroup server. You don't instill confidence when you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail. If you "transcribed" the e-mail, you typed it out. If you copy/pasted the e-mail, you accurately replicated it. If you "reproduced" the e-mail, you could have done either. Do you see the irregularities in the e-mail? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper のメッセージ: > You don't instill confidence when you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as > "his" mail. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Do you see the irregularities in the e-mail? I as one who is learning English as a foreign language just don't understand some part of the seemingly sarcastic way of your writing above. For instance, your wording "You don't instill confidence when you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just don't see what you mean. Anyhow, I pasted what Mr. Helen Joyce of The Economist had mailed to me, without knowing if there are any irregularities in it in any manner. Now I wonder what you did mean by first saying "Please tell me that you did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's sentence." On second thought, did you mean to tell me that I "did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's sentence" and that you somehow know I did not. The reason I posted Mr. Helen Joyce's response is to let some of those who have kindly responded to my pasting know what the original author of that article meant to say. That's all. If you are not still satisfied with my exlplanation, just disregard what I posted about this article and forget everything without continuing knitpicking what I posted as an honest foreign student of English. The akoamay entity posted thusly: >Tony Cooper ??????: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >understand some part of the seemingly sarcastic way of your writing >above. That wasn't sarcastic, or at least, I don't see it that way. > For instance, your wording "You don't instill confidence when >you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just >don't see what you mean. I see. You are baffled by what Tony said, so you assume sarcasm. I am not familiar with Helen Joyce, and I suppose Helen Joyce _could_ be a man, but I don't think so. I have never heard of a man named Helen, but it is a common enough woman's name. > > For instance, your wording "You don't instill confidence when > >you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be a man, but I don't think so. I have never heard of a man named > Helen, but it is a common enough woman's name. Now I see. A Japanese, I just didn't recall "Helen" as a female name. And thank you for correcting me. Nevertheless, I don't think my errorneously refering "Helen" as he make any significant difference to the authenticity of what this person had said to me in her mail and to the whole picture of this matter which had begun with an Economist article I had found containg some part which I didn't understand properly? > Now I see. A Japanese, I just didn't recall "Helen" as a female name. > And thank you for correcting me. You should probably instead say "As a Japanese...", though at least in America, to call yourself "A Japanese" sounds odd. I might have written "As I am Japanese," in that situation, which is subtly different, but means basically the same thing. -=Eric > > For instance, your wording "You don't instill confidence when > >you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > be a man, but I don't think so. I have never heard of a man named > Helen, but it is a common enough woman's name. Now I see. A Japanese, I just didn't recall "Helen" as a female name. And thank you for correcting me. Nevertheless, I don't think my errorneously refering "Helen" as he make any significant difference to the authenticity of what this person had said to me in her mail and to the whole picture of this matter which had begun with an Economist article I had found containg some part which I didn't understand properly? The akoamay entity posted thusly: >> > For instance, your wording "You don't instill confidence when >> >you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >had begun with an Economist article I had found containg some part >which I didn't understand properly? The fact that you referred to Helen Joyce as 'he', marks you as a not-native speaker who has not lived among a predominantly English-spealing population, and sets the expectations of people reading your post. While most of your English is quite good, there are indications that you have not spent a long time in English-only surroundings, but have learned most of your English in an academic setting. There is no criticism intended in saying this. It's just the way things are. Your only presence here is through your words, and they paint a picture of your understanding of English What Tony tried to express was that you passed on an email from Helen Joyce, a professional writer, presumably of a reasonably high skill level, since she does write for _The Economist_, that seemed to have a lot of errors that he would not have expected. Since you are neither a professional writer, nor a native English speaker, he was hoping that you had transcribed the email, and perhaps paraphrased it, and in the process had made some fundamental errors. If the email was cut and pasted, then posted (note the difference), and was indeed an accurate rendition of her email, then the errors are the fault of Ms. Joyce, and not you. Far from being nitpicking, sarcastic, or critical of you, he was only expressing a hope that a professional writer would not have made those errors. Personally, I feel that a writer, professional or otherwise, should be allowed some leeway in writing informally, as opposed to writing formally and for publication. >If the email was cut and pasted, then posted (note the difference), >and was indeed an accurate rendition of her email, then the errors are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >allowed some leeway in writing informally, as opposed to writing >formally and for publication. While a writer should be allowed some leeway in informal writing, I would not expect a professional writer to respond to a question about what she meant in an article in a magazine in a style so informal that she writes "Britain" in one instance and "britain" in another...just to cite one glaring error. That level of "informality" may be expected in personal e-mail to known friends, but not to a stranger asking for clarification of a magazine article. The professional writer would be very conscious of the writing style because she, in this case, is defending her communication skills. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>If the email was cut and pasted, then posted (note the difference), >>and was indeed an accurate rendition of her email, then the errors are [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >the writing style because she, in this case, is defending her >communication skills. Good point. In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote: >The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: >>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 11:43:18 -0600, Oleg Lego <rat@atatatat..com> >>>If the email was cut and pasted, then posted (note the difference), >>>and was indeed an accurate rendition of her email, then the errors are >>>the fault of Ms. Joyce, and not you. [...] >>That level of "informality" may be expected in personal e-mail to >>known friends, but not to a stranger asking for clarification of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Good point. So what where the errors, then? * Thank you, akoamay, for writing to Ms Joyce and posting her reply - in the best traditions of AUE etc etc. Given the chance, Tony Cooper would be the first to tell you - probably at some length - that you shouldn't take him too seriously. He knows nothing and he knows that he knows nothing and he's not usually afraid to admit it. He's only bullying you now because ... Well, I don't know why he's bullying you. Ask him. I'm sure he'll leap at the chance to tell you all about himself. SignatureV PITHHNPD >In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote: >>The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >So what where the errors, then? It doesn't seem you are in any condition to catch errors. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: >On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 01:41:15 +0000, Vinny Burgoo <hnNULh@yahoo.co.uk> >>So what where the errors, then? > >It doesn't seem you are in any condition to catch errors. Maybe not, but I was in a condition to catch Tone. SignatureV On 06 Jan 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote > In alt.usage.english, Oleg Lego wrote: >> The Tony Cooper entity posted thusly: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > So what where the errors, then? In something by a professionial writer, writing semi-formally (informal medium, formal response)? These sort of leapt out at me: -------------------- Thanks for your letter regarding my article on monolingual Britain. Sorry you found that particular sentence so incomprehensible - it aroused no comment here!! All I was trying to do was say elegantly and briefly that when you survey people living in britain [there's one; maybe a typo, but should have been caught] and discover that 30% speak a second language, you must remember that Britain has a high proportion of immigrants who speak English as their second language. Approx [error in my book] one in 10 [not an error, but the inconsistency is ugly] residents of these islands speak a language other than English at home, and almost all of them will speak English as well as that language. So (a) it's the second-worst fig [c'mon -- it's not like a telegram; you're not being charging per character transmitted...] of it, [not immediatelly clear as to what "it" refers to here] but (b) it's actually worse than that, because it's being 'flattered' - made look better [I'd not be proud of dropping 'to' in that sentence] than it is - by the high number of biilinguals who have English as their second, not first, language. --------------------- I'm on Tony's side in hoping that Joyce, as a professional writer, would be at least a bit embarrassed to have sent that to someone other than a friend or colleague who knows her well. SignatureCheers, Harvey Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van The HVS entity posted thusly: >On 06 Jan 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >[there's one; maybe a typo, but should have been caught] I'd add the double "!", and the single "-", and I'd add commas before and after "elegantly and briefly" >and discover that 30% speak a second language, >you must remember that Britain has a high proportion of immigrants [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >than it is - by the high number of >biilinguals who have English as their second, not first, language. Add the misspelling, though that might be a fingo. Her spell checker should have caught it, though, >--------------------- > >I'm on Tony's side in hoping that Joyce, as a professional writer, >would be at least a bit embarrassed to have sent that to someone >other than a friend or colleague who knows her well. In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote: >On 06 Jan 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote >> So what where the errors, then? >> >In something by a professionial writer, writing semi-formally >(informal medium, formal response)? These sort of leapt out at me: [snip] Pah! One capitalisation error, one omitted two-letter word and the rest of it (including the un-stopped abbrevs) a matter of register - and I approve of writers who write to readers matily as equals rather than keep them at arm's length with perfectly polished formal prose. It's democratic, innit. In shorts, there's nothing there to justify Tony's initial outburst or his subsequent prickliness when questioned about it. And even if the letter had been riddled with errors, I still don't understand why the transcriber's bad guess about the writer's sex might indicate bad transcription rather than bad original writing. SignatureV >In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote: >>On 06 Jan 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >In shorts, there's nothing there to justify Tony's initial outburst or >his subsequent prickliness when questioned about it. He said prickily. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > He said prickily. Wot, no comma? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: >He said prickily. Succinct. Success! SignatureV >Tony Cooper ??????: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just >don't see what you mean. I am generally kind to people whose first language is not English, but attempt to write in English. However, I would think one of the first things that you would learn is that a woman's name - Helen - takes "her" and not "him". I'm willing to concede that you may not recognize "Helen" as a woman's name, but if you don't, I don't have a great deal of confidence in your ability to transcribe English. >Anyhow, I pasted what Mr. Helen Joyce of The Economist had mailed to >me, without knowing if there are any irregularities in it in any >manner. Helen Joyce is female, and should be referred to as Miss Joyce, Mrs Joyce, or Ms Joyce. I'd go with Ms Joyce, but - checking at http://plus.maths.org/people/ I see that she is Dr Joyce. She may use the title "Dr", but she is entitled to do so. >Now I wonder what you did mean by first saying "Please tell me that you >did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's sentence." On second thought, did >you mean to tell me that I "did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's >sentence" and that you somehow know I did not. What you provided is riddled with errors. She's an experienced Editor, so I would not expect her to have made the errors that your post indicates that she did. Either you made errors or she did, and I would prefer to think that you did because of her experience in writing and editing. >The reason I posted Mr. Helen Joyce's response is to let some of those >who have kindly responded to my pasting know what the original author >of that article meant to say. That's all. If you are not still >satisfied with my exlplanation, just disregard what I posted about this >article and forget everything without continuing knitpicking what I >posted as an honest foreign student of English. You are posting to a newsgroup that focuses on English usage. You should expect that errors in English usage would be noted in such a newsgroup. It is not nitpicking (note the spelling) to call attention to errors in the use of English. I would not point out *your* errors unless you asked for them to be pointed out. However, you are quoting someone else - a native English speaker - and it is your responsibility to quote them accurately. I don't think you've done so. You have not explained whether you have "transcribed" or "copied and posted". If you are a "student of English", go back over that post and see if you can find the errors that Ms Joyce allegedly made. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >Helen Joyce is female, and should be referred to as Miss Joyce, Mrs >Joyce, or Ms Joyce. I'd go with Ms Joyce, but - checking at >http://plus.maths.org/people/ I see that she is Dr Joyce. She may use >the title "Dr", but she is entitled to do so. That should be: "She may not use the title "Dr", but she is entitled to do so." ("Not" has been added) She is either Irish or British, and neither the Irish nor the British always use the title "Dr" the way Americans who have a PhD seem to. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL Tony Cooper のメッセージ: > If you are a "student of English", go back over that post and see if > you can find the errors that Ms Joyce allegedly made. OK. What follows this message of mine is the text of the mail I received from Helen Joyce (Please note I just pasted it without touching anything at all.) As you pointed out, now I can see some irregularities in this English text, which, however, I think is a minor point. The point is " Are you, or are you not, satisfied by Helen Joyce's explanation". Remember that I just took the time to ask some capable person in this newsgroup to help me understand an Economist artcile which contained part which I was unable to understand. Nevertheless, I thank you all the same for having corrected my English writing. Lastly, I have no intention to offend you, but don't you think that our common interest should first be in seeing if her explanation makes sense about the questionable part of the article which she seems to have authored. Quote Dear Michio thanks for your letter regarding my article on monolingual Britain. Sorry you found that particular sentence so incomprehensible - it aroused no comment here!! All I was trying to do was say elegantly and briefly that when you survey people living in britain and discover that 30% speak a second language, you must remember that Britain has a high proportion of immigrants who speak English as their second language. Approx one in 10 residents of these islands speak a language other than English at home, and almost all of them will speak English as well as that language. So (a) it's the second-worst fig in the EU on the face of it, but (b) it's actually worse than that, because it's being 'flattered' - made look better than it is - by the high number of biilinguals who have English as their second, not first, language. Phew! Best regards Helen Joyce Helen Joyce Britain correspondent The Economist 020 7830 7133 Unquote >Tony Cooper ??????: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >text, which, however, I think is a minor point. The point is " Are >you, or are you not, satisfied by Helen Joyce's explanation". There are two points involved: yours and mine. Your point was that this section of Ms Joyce's article was not clearly presented. My point was that the response from Ms Joyce that you posted did not appear to be an accurate replication of what I would expect from a person who is published in a magazine of the stature of _The Economist_. It seems even less likely when its discovered that she's a founding editor of another magazine and on the Editorial Board of the Royal Statistical Society. When you post here in aue, you should not expect to be able to control the responses. The reader can address your specific point, or the reader can go off on any tangent the reader chooses. You're free to ignore the tangents, but there's certainly no justification in becoming offended because the reader hasn't stuck to your point. >Nevertheless, I thank you all the same for having corrected my English >writing. Lastly, I have no intention to offend you, but don't you think >that our common interest should first be in seeing if her explanation >makes sense about the questionable part of the article which she seems >to have authored. No, I don't. That's your interest, but it isn't necessarily mine. The common interest in this group is the subject of English usage. There were usage issues in the post, and there's no reason they should be overlooked because you have a specific - different - interest. >Quote I'm surprised. Granted this is an e-mail, and e-mail correspondence is often informally dashed off. It does surprise me that a person who is an experienced editor, and is being questioned on the clarity of her writing, has sent out an e-mail with capitalization errors, double exclamation marks and word fragments. That just seems that it would go against the grain of a professional writer and editor. The errors *are* minor, but this is an *editor* writing. >thanks for your letter regarding my article on monolingual Britain. >Sorry you found that particular sentence so incomprehensible - it >aroused no comment here!! >All I was trying to do was say elegantly and >briefly that when you survey people living in britain and discover that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >Unquote A capsulized CV of Helen Joyce is shown at: http://plus.maths.org/people/ SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL I have fully noted what you have to say about the proper manners in which professional writers are supposed to write. But you have not answered my question: "Are you satisfied by the author's explanation?" Suppose someone, especially a foreigner who seems not very good at English asks you some question about an article or sentence which he or she does not understand, will you first try to correct his or her English first without answering his or her very question? I know this is a newsgroup primarily concerned with the correct usage of the English language, which is probably your mother tongue. But I think it should have room for those English-related questions which may deal with other subjects than the correct usage of English. That why I had originally posted my request saying "Can someone please exlplain ?" ( an English article properly.) >I have fully noted what you have to say about the proper manners in >which professional writers are supposed to write. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >correct his or her English first without answering his or her very >question? That depends entirely on the person responding. We pick and choose what we want to answer here. I thought the meaning was unclear, but that others in the group could, and would, provide some better clarification than I could. Frankly, the subject didn't interest me enough to worry out the meaning. So I picked something that did interest me: the incongruities in the author's e-mail. Others picked the subject you asked about, and still others didn't pick anything and didn't reply at all. If it helps you, this isn't a classroom where we are obligated to answer questions directed to us. Think of this newsgroup as a social dinner group with several conversations going on. Each member of the group picks a conversation that interests them and joins in in whichever aspect of the conversation that he or she finds interesting. >I know this is a newsgroup primarily concerned with the correct usage >of the English language, which is probably your mother tongue. But I >think it should have room for those English-related questions which may >deal with other subjects than the correct usage of English. It does, and you did receive direct answers to your specific question. Just not from me. >That why I >had originally posted my request saying "Can someone please exlplain >?" I *do* mean this politely, but you cannot ask a question here and demand that the replies to be constrained to your question or even that you get replies. (Well, you *can*, but you *shouldn't*) Things don't work that way here. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or supervised by some chosen people including you but not me? The way you speak and teach me reminds me that the British remark about "Johnny Foreigner." akoamay wrote [addressing Tony Cooper]: > You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. > Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or > supervised by some chosen people including you but not me? "We" is the ill-defined group of regular participants in this newsgroup. This group is neither hosted nor managed nor supervised, be it by the Jews (the Chosen People) or by anyone else. It does have a Website with a FAQ and other materials. <http://www.alt-usage-english.org/>. You might consider reading Intro A, if you haven't yet done so. > The way you speak and teach me reminds me that the British remark about > "Johnny Foreigner." Tony isn't speaking -- he's writing. And he's not teaching, in the usual sensse of that word -- he's simply passing along his view of the world for whatever it is worth. (As am I.) We do have teachers here, along with practitioners of many another profession. What unites us (well, most of us) is our devotion to the English language. Our FAQ urges us to make allowances for those whose native language is not English. This isn't evidence of snobbery; if anything, it's the opposite -- we are asked not to lord it over those whose English is not of native quality. Yours comes quite close, but there are still nuances that you miss. That's simple fact, and we take that into account. As for your underlying question, I have read Ms. Joyce's response to your e-mail. I do, with no irony or sarcasm, congratulate you on going to the source and uncovering the true motivation behind her use of "flattered." (I have done the same thing myself: <http://tinyurl.com/ydub7m>) I now understand why Dr. Joyce wrote what she did, and all I can say is that her use of "flatter" is not idiomatic to me. I was happier thinking that it was a typo for "fatten." Is the horse dead yet? SignatureBob Lieblich RR (I suppose) >akoamay wrote [addressing Tony Cooper]: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >nuances that you miss. That's simple fact, and we take that into >account. The odd thing here is that it was not Akoamay's use of English that was questioned (except for "knitpick" instead of "nitpick" and his of "Mr" instead of "Ms"). It was primarily Ms Joyce's usage that was questioned. Ms Joyce is either British or Irish and presumably a native speaker of English. Akoamay was only questioned about the accuracy of his "transcription". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [ ... ] > The odd thing here is that it was not Akoamay's use of English that > was questioned (except for "knitpick" instead of "nitpick" and his of > "Mr" instead of "Ms"). It was primarily Ms Joyce's usage that was > questioned. Ms Joyce is either British or Irish and presumably a > native speaker of English. Akoamay was only questioned about the > accuracy of his "transcription". By you, perhaps. I certainly noted the "near miss" quality of his English, which is completely satisfatory for communication with native speakers but is just the tiniest bit off-center. For example, here (cut and pasted from the original) is some text from one of his prior posts to this thread: "I am very sure I transcribed (or, is "repoduced" more appropriate word?) his mail text exactly by pasting it on to my posting. So, any irregularities you may see on your side, I think, are due to some mechanical reasons on the part of this newsgroup server." There's no missing his meaning, but here and there things are just the slightest bit off. For example, "a" should precede "more appropriate", and "due to some mechanical reasons" should be changed to something like "due to mechanical errors". (I also object to "on to" in place of "onto" -- and "into" would be even better, IMO -- but there may be pondian differences here.) I ignore his typos (e.g., "repoduced") for this purpose. But as Akaomay would have it, these are "knitpicks." Many a native speaker would justifiably envy his fluency in writing the language. SignatureBob Lieblich Not quite sure what the point is anymore > "We" is the ill-defined group of regular participants in this > newsgroup. This group is neither hosted nor managed nor supervised, > be it by the Jews (the Chosen People) or by anyone else. It is said that there is a Committee, but I don't know anyone who's on it. Truly. SignatureSalvatore Volatile >> "We" is the ill-defined group of regular participants in this >> newsgroup. This group is neither hosted nor managed nor supervised, >> be it by the Jews (the Chosen People) or by anyone else. > > It is said that there is a Committee, but I don't know anyone who's > on it. Truly. I think she is. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" > are. Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The way you speak and teach me reminds me that the British remark > about "Johnny Foreigner." I and I don't mind answering your question, JF* (no, wait, that's somebody else). The explanation is satisfactory in that it is plausible and in that it agrees with the understanding of the passage expressed by several posters, mostly British I think, some days ago. It is less than satisfactory to me, a North American, in that it requires me to pause and reinterpret a word that could have been replaced by something clearer: "inflated", for example. In fact, the passage as a whole doesn't seem to me the work of a highly competent writer. Maybe the style of her reply ought to have surprised people less than it did. *"Johnny Foreigner" doesn't strike me as unfriendly. The English-Speaking Peoples have in the past expressed themselves more harshly thereanent. > You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. > Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Yes. Tony won the Indian leg-wrestling contest and now represents AUE in all matters. SignatureSML > > You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. > > Do you represent this newsgrpoup? > > Yes. Tony won the Indian leg-wrestling contest and now represents AUE in > all matters. Careful, Sara, PG is back, and she'll no doubt correct your "Indian" to "Native American." As for that leg-wrestling -- for shame! This is AUE. Gerunds at forty paces. SignatureBob Lieblich Friend to All >> > You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >> > Do you represent this newsgrpoup? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Careful, Sara, PG is back, and she'll no doubt correct your "Indian" >to "Native American." The reason that a puny little thing like me was able to win the contest was that my opponent was sikh. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. > Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or >supervised by some chosen people including you but not me? Management of the group is by a rotating volunteer system. Normally, we'd be glad to add your name to the list, but we don't currently have anyone serving on the List Committee. This is a more serious problem than you might think. Without a List Committee, we can't add names of people willing to serve on the List Committee. Someone has suggested that this type of problem should be called a "viscous circle", but that suggestion has been sent to the Eggcorn Committee for discussion by a group representing the Typo, Pun, and Mondegreen subcommittees. We had hoped that Bob Lieblich would take over the List Committee, but he has begged off claiming that his responsibilities on the Equine Carcass Patrol take all of his available time. Bob Cunningham - recently freed of his duties on the Compilation and Statistics Committee - was considered, but his propensity to tell people who contact him to never contact him again was not felt to be conducive to generating a list of people. Vinny Burgoo declined to serve because of his commitment to the Sly Digs and Gibes Committee. Mike Lyle also declined, but we have no idea why. We are still studying his Letter of Refusal trying to figure out exactly what he said. Ross sent in a list, but it turned out that his list consisted of a slate of nom de plumes and Matthew Huntbach vetoed that list saying that he could never live under a political system primarily consisting of plumes. Steve Hayes forwarded his name, but mistakenly sent it to Rey Aman. We'll know more about this after Rey completes his endorsement of Steve. We sent an invitation to Daniel al-Autistiqui telling him it was a rare opportunity to increase his participation in aue, but he replied only that he had read the invitation. Thinking perhaps that the List Committee chairpersonship was too much for one person, we offered joint chairpersonship to UC and Laura. This idea was ruled impractical since the required plastic spit-screen impeded note-passing between the two. Do keep in touch, though, Akoamay. I've asked Sis to step in and sort things out. Or, as Areff would say, "AmE: sort things out = BrE: queue up at the coach stop". SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL >>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >>Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > queue up at the coach stop". > The only omission in your comprehensive report is the role of the Axis of Misbehaviour which, as I understand it, is a neuralgic filiation of the committee hierarchy, acting where necessary as a catalyst to counter the conservative effects of random palliative intercessions. As these have been infrequent[1] lately, the Axis slumbers. Tony, have you ever read any of Miles Kington's occasional columns in the Independent about the meetings of United Deities? Here's a couple to try: http://tinyurl.com/ylvb4g http://tinyurl.com/yl9ew7 [1] Whoops! Nearly used the r word there. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >Tony, have you ever read any of Miles Kington's occasional columns in >the Independent about the meetings of United Deities? Here's a couple to >try: > >http://tinyurl.com/ylvb4g >http://tinyurl.com/yl9ew7 I rather like the idea of being "Chairgod", but - unfortunately - the suggestion comes just as I'm going off the rota of SRRIC. I think Daniel al-Autistiqui should take on that title since he answers to no one. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. > > Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > we'd be glad to add your name to the list, but we don't currently have > anyone serving on the List Committee. [etc.] I love it when you talk dirty, C**p. SignatureBob Lieblich Listing mostly to port these days[1] [1] Truly.[2] It's that damned arthritis. [2] Or, if you prefer, True. >>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >> Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Committee, we can't add names of people willing to serve on the List >Committee. One of the practical difficulties of maintaining a List of Group Members is that some members change their names from time to time. Members whose original first names begin with the letter "R" seem to have the greatest propensity to change their names. They also have a tendency to adopt new names which contain the letter "R". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >>>Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have the greatest propensity to change their names. They also have a > tendency to adopt new names which contain the letter "R". I think you'll need to support that assertion with some evidence. I can immediately think of two exceptions. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >>>>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >>>>Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I think you'll need to support that assertion with some evidence. I can >immediately think of two exceptions. This is my second attempt to reply. The computer crashed immediately I attempted to compose a response. My thoughts had got as far as "Evidence! You want evidence?". It is possible that the exceptions you thought of are ones that I'm unaware of. Obviously I was not being unduly serious in my observation. I'll keep an eye open for further evidence. Please do not hold your breath. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >>>>>Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Please do not hold your breath. I won't, I'm too busy remembering the need to be careful when speaking to Germans. I wasn't sure if you meant by original the posters real names or their first adopted names in aue. I was thinking of Vinny and Gunga. AFAIK neither their real names nor their first aue adopted names begin with R. Were you thinking of Richard and Ross? SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [not addressing me] > I wasn't sure if you meant by original the posters real names or their > first adopted names in aue. I was thinking of Vinny and Gunga. AFAIK > neither their real names nor their first aue adopted names begin with R. > Were you thinking of Richard and Ross? Perhaps he was thinking of Robert ("Dick") Lieblich. Check with Rey. SignatureBob Lieblich (sometimes a "Dick") > I wasn't sure if you meant by original the posters real names or their > first adopted names in aue. I was thinking of Vinny and Gunga. AFAIK > neither their real names nor their first aue adopted names begin with R. > Were you thinking of Richard and Ross? And then there's just plain ol' R, who -- as far as I know -- has never gone by another name here. SignatureSML > > I wasn't sure if you meant by original the posters real names or their > > first adopted names in aue. I was thinking of Vinny and Gunga. AFAIK [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And then there's just plain ol' R, who -- as far as I know -- has never > gone by another name here. I believe you're referring to ...r SignatureR. Lieblich >>>>>>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >>>>>>Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >neither their real names nor their first aue adopted names begin with R. > Were you thinking of Richard and Ross? I referred to real names starting with R and adopted names *containing* R. Richard, Ross and Rowan -- assuming those are their real names and that I haven't lost track of their reincarnations[1] -- were the three I had in mind. To quote myself 'They also have a tendency to adopt new names which contain the letter "R"'. "Tendency" does not imply "always". [1] Reincarnation: rebirth by dunking in Carnation Evaporated/Condensed Milk. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>>>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. >>>>>>>Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > To quote myself 'They also have a tendency to adopt new names which > contain the letter "R"'. "Tendency" does not imply "always". I hadn't even considered that bit of your assertion - I was still grappling with the exact meaning of "original" in your post. > [1] Reincarnation: rebirth by dunking in Carnation > Evaporated/Condensed Milk. That's good enough for the Uxbridge English Dictionary. Rowan is in fact one of the Mikier Mikes, and may have been Mickwick before he was Rowan. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) [...] > Rowan is in fact one of the Mikier Mikes, and may have been Mickwick > before he was Rowan. Just checked back, and he was Rowan before he was MW. I, too, nurse the conviction that there was a double bluff involved, archangel-wise. The renouement appeared in a fine thread in AUE's best off-topic vein; perhaps characteristically, it got briefly on-topic at a point where Tony was assailed for a perfectly comprehensible, if conversational, sentence. Not many trees you can name people after; but I knew somebody who registered her son as Willow -- which proves the point. "Mr and Mrs Forrest, their sons Mahogany and Teak, and their charming daughter Afrormosia." SignatureMike. > Not many trees you can name people after; but I knew somebody who > registered her son as Willow -- which proves the point. "Mr and Mrs > Forrest, their sons Mahogany and Teak, and their charming daughter > Afrormosia." I would have thought that Willow was a girl's name. I see that it is 534th on the list of most popular girls' names in the US. And one shouldn't forget Oakes Ames - surely his name goes back to trees somewhere - famous (infamous?) in 19th century Congressional scandals. Fran In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote: >Rowan is in fact one of the Mikier Mikes, and may have been Mickwick >before he was Rowan. He was, and he was Michael before he was Mickwick. Some other Michael came along and stole his name and he just said, "By all means. Help yourself. What's in a name, after all?" It's natural diffidence what put him on the path to Vinny Burgoo, what. SignatureV A mikier burgoo mail@peterduncanson.net had it: > >>You have used the word "we" more than once. Tell me who your "we" are. > >> Do you represent this newsgrpoup? Is this group hosted, manged or [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > have the greatest propensity to change their names. They also have a > tendency to adopt new names which contain the letter "R". I'm pleased to see that you lot didn't waste the day of Dad's 80th birthday. SignatureDavid ===== >mail@peterduncanson.net had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I'm pleased to see that you lot didn't waste the day of Dad's 80th >birthday. Birthday greetings to your Dad (whose month of birth has an R in it). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) mail@peterduncanson.net had it: > >mail@peterduncanson.net had it: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Birthday greetings to your Dad (whose month of birth has an R in > it). He seems to have forgotten to change his name though. SignatureDavid ===== > mail@peterduncanson.net had it: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > He seems to have forgotten to change his name though. I recommend he changes it to Drad or Dard and then starts posting here. Happy Birthday (c) to him ... SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> mail@peterduncanson.net had it: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I recommend he changes it to Drad or Dard and then starts posting here. >Happy Birthday (c) to him ... According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a child's attempt to pronounce some other word. So what word was attempted that came out "Dad"? SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL [...] > According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably > baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a > child's attempt to pronounce some other word. So what word was > attempted that came out "Dad"? Good question, not answered by OED: <[Occurs from the 16th c. (or possibly 15th c.), in representations of rustic, humble, or childish speech, in which it may of course have been in use much earlier, though it is not given in the Promptorium or Catholicon, where words of this class occur. Of the actual origin we have no evidence: but the forms dada, tata, meaning 'father', originating in infantile or childish speech, occur independently in many languages. It has been assumed that our word is taken from Welsh tad, mutated dad, but this is very doubtful; the Welsh is itself merely a word of the same class, which has displaced the original Celtic word for 'father' = Ir. athair.] > I'd always wanted to believe it was one of the few Celtic words to cross into English, but it looks as though I'd better give that up. SignatureMike. >According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably >baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a >child's attempt to pronounce some other word. So what word was >attempted that came out "Dad"? Pre-linguistic babbling, rather than attempts to pronounce a word, I reckon. When you can only pronounce one consonant and a couple of vowels, "dada" can be an attempt at anything. SignatureLinz Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford My accent may vary >>> mail@peterduncanson.net had it: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > child's attempt to pronounce some other word. So what word was > attempted that came out "Dad"? Pater. At least in Angleterre. Actually, I don't think there was any attempt at a word. Pre-linguistic babies have one repetitive sound which has the "a" in "at" sound as its centrepiece, alternated either with a "d" or "t" sound if it starts the noise with its mouth open or an "m" sound if it starts with its mouth shut. Hence "mamamamamama" and "dadadadada" which doting parents interpreted as "dada" and "mama" (later "dad" and "mam") and assigned to genders. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>>>mail@peterduncanson.net had it: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Hence "mamamamamama" and "dadadadada" which doting parents interpreted as > "dada" and "mama" (later "dad" and "mam") and assigned to genders. Also "baba", widely used in areas somewhat to the East of Oxford, for grandmother. Then there's "gaga", usually used for elderly aunts. SignatureRob Bannister >> Actually, I don't think there was any attempt at a word. >> Pre-linguistic babies have one repetitive sound which has the "a" in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Also "baba", widely used in areas somewhat to the East of Oxford, for > grandmother. Then there's "gaga", usually used for elderly aunts. And "kaka", for the other subject of great interest to infants. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Please note the changed e-mail and web addresses. The domain eepjm.newcastle.edu.au no longer exists, and I can no longer receive mail at my newcastle.edu.au addresses. The optusnet address could disappear at any time. > According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably > baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a > child's attempt to pronounce some other word. So what word was > attempted that came out "Dad"? "Dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya," according to my nine-months-old-tomorrow daughter. SignatureSML >> According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably >> baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "Dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya-dya," according to my > nine-months-old-tomorrow daughter. dadadadadadadada dadadadadadadada according to Batman SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > >> According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably > >> baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > dadadadadadadada dadadadadadadada according to Batman A cousin of mine, now well into middle age, lay in her crib as a babe of perhaps nine months going "gaggle gaggle gaggle", etc. We were never able to connect it to anything having to do with geese, but it was fun trying to time the question "What do we call a bunch of geese?" to her next outbreak. Name and location withheld to protect the innocent. SignatureBob Lieblich Ah, yes, I remember it well (sorry, Laura) >> >> According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably >> >> baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Name and location withheld to protect the innocent. The parents of a friend of mine insist that he used to lie there going buggabuggabuggabugga. After some hesitation he decided to be proud of the fact that his first word was "bugger". SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >>> According to the sources I found, the etymology of "Dad" is probably >>> baby-talk. Most of the "baby-talk" words that I can think of are a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >dadadadadadadada dadadadadadadada according to Batman Echolocation bat-style? SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Dear Mr. Cooper: I am fully satisfied. Thank you a lot for taking the time to respond to my mails. Now I feel greatly enlightened. Let us bring this matter to a close. Thanks and best regards. >Steve Hayes forwarded his name, but mistakenly sent it to Rey Aman. >We'll know more about this after Rey completes his endorsement of >Steve. We sent an invitation to Daniel al-Autistiqui telling him it >was a rare opportunity to increase his participation in aue, but he >replied only that he had read the invitation. So where *is* the invitation? daniel mcgrath SignatureDaniel Gerard McGrath, a/k/a "Govende": for e-mail replace "invalid" with "com" Developmentally disabled; has Autism (Pervasive Developmental Disorder), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, & periodic bouts of depression. [This signature is under construction.] } On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:07:18 -0500, Tony Cooper } <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote: } }>Steve Hayes forwarded his name, but mistakenly sent it to Rey Aman. }>We'll know more about this after Rey completes his endorsement of }>Steve. We sent an invitation to Daniel al-Autistiqui telling him it }>was a rare opportunity to increase his participation in aue, but he }>replied only that he had read the invitation. }> } So where *is* the invitation? What? You're sans invitation? At least you have the T-shirt. Signaturerjv > For instance, your wording "You don't instill confidence when > you refer to Helen Joyce's mail as "his" mail." baffles me. I just > don't see what you mean. > > Anyhow, I pasted what Mr. Helen Joyce of The Economist had mailed to > me ... Helen is a woman's name, so you should have used "her name" (and "Ms." rather than "Mr."). I assume Tony thought you were being careless and therefore he was not confident that you were saying what you meant. > Now I wonder what you did mean by first saying "Please tell me that you > did not accurately copy Helen Joyce's sentence." ... I think Tony did not approve of Helen Joyce's English usage in the message, and hoped that you had introduced an error when copying it. People who write for publication should have good English usage. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "He is even more important than my cat, msb@vex.net | which is saying something." --Flash Wilson |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.