 |
 | 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 / February 2007Superfluous words
I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have 'relevant' and 'pertinent' English, of course, is rife with synonyms, i.e words that have nearly -- but not quite -- the same meaning or words that mean the same but are appplied in different contexts or in different registers. But as in the example I give, sometimes we just seem to have more words than we need. I can't think of a single instance when 'germane' is better than one of the other two. (Can you?) Can others think of other such superfluous words in the language -- or direct me to such a list on the net? We can of course leave out really arcane words that no-one ever heard of, also the more out-of-the-way foreign words with perfectly good English equivalents. Any word, to qualify, must be reasonably familiar to educated native-speakers, and must be such that there are equally good words, meaning exactly the same, and which can replace the offending word in every istance of its use with no change to the intended meaning or rhetorical effect of the whole construction. Another criterion could be that the meaning of a word is so muddle-headed that it could never be used unambiguously(are there any such?) Feel free to add more criteria as you go along. > I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have > 'relevant' and 'pertinent' Although they may be generally treated as synonyms, examining the etymology of the three words identifies shades of meaning: germane: coming from the same source pertinent: belonging to relevant: important to [...]  SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have > > 'relevant' and 'pertinent' [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Laura > (emulate St. George for email) Yeah, thanks. But I don't think these distinctions were observed even as far back as the latter half of the nineteenth century(I'd like to be corrected if I'm wrong) > > > I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have > > > 'relevant' and 'pertinent' [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > pertinent: belonging to > > relevant: important to > Yeah, thanks. But I don't think these distinctions were observed even > as far back as the latter half of the nineteenth century(I'd like to > be corrected if I'm wrong) This clarifies the fundamental question. Is your undefined intuition about late 19th century usage (or mine or Laura's) better than a systematic collection of documented citations (such as we find in the big OED)? All of us obviously have these impressions, and any of us may feel a word is "superfluous." But if we are going to deal with this rationally we also need (a) a definition of "superfluous" that functions well in all environments (including cases unrelated to your intuition about a particular word) and (b) a rule or guideline that tells us when our counting is sufficient, so that the particular case can be decided. The same question concerns grammar: do feelings or impressions offer a better basis for grownup discussion than factual evidence we can assess? SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > This clarifies the fundamental question. Is your > undefined intuition about late 19th century usage [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Don Phillipson I see your point. But what I'm saying is that even the big O.E.D will probably tell you that relevant,pertinent and germane have all been used interchangably for at least a century now, making it practically impossible to resurrect former distinctions, which seem etymological rather than historical anyway. In contrast, it is certainly possible to urge such distinctions as that between 'sympathy' and 'compassion' even today, seeing as educated people observed these distinctions a century ago, even though subsequent generations have slurred over it. So it is absurd to argue that we need all three words because they mean slightly different things because no-one has thought so for over a century.(I take the English of a century ago(roughly) as a criterion because it was the last era in which a majority of educated people, at least, exercised care and discernment in their use of the language and were at all articulate. I think that for the most part, Standard English ought to be just what it was back then with the possible addition of useful new words, technical or non-technical, but not modified unduly with its felicities such as the nice and useful distinctions between 'shall' and 'will' getting slurred over, for example.) . I think that for the most part, Standard > English ought to be just what it was back then with the possible > addition of useful new words, technical or non-technical, but not > modified unduly with its felicities such as the nice and useful > distinctions between 'shall' and 'will' getting slurred over, for > example.) It should be. It ain't. So what? Say, what do _you_ think of saying "the Coruscic Ocean"? DP wrote: > > This clarifies the fundamental question. Is your > > undefined intuition about late 19th century usage [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > or impressions offer a better basis for grownup > > discussion than factual evidence we can assess? > . . . I think that for the most part, Standard > English ought to be just what it was back then with the possible > addition of useful new words, technical or non-technical, but not > modified unduly with its felicities such as the nice and useful > distinctions between 'shall' and 'will' getting slurred over, for > example.) Perhaps 90 per cent of AUE contributors share your preference -- but this remark merely takes us back to (what I suggest is) the main question. Are our preferences justified by undefined aesthetic intuitions -- or should we adduce evidence to justify a logical argument that what we prefer is superior (in clarity, flexibility, power etc.) to what we deplore? In your first case, you proposed that "germane" was superfluous because all its meanings were nowadays duplicated by others. But: 1. You offered no evidence that this was true. 2. If this were agreed true, you offered no reason why duplicated words ought to be eliminated from the language. SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) > > . . . I think that for the most part, Standard > > English ought to be just what it was back then with the possible [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > logical argument that what we prefer is superior (in > clarity, flexibility, power etc.) to what we deplore? I think it is unfair to ask for ironclad rules in English. But roughly, the more intricately nuanced a language is, the greater its range of expression, and we know for a fact that many subtle nuances of expression from a century ago have been slurred over by subsequent generations. Also, back then, people observed some well-thought-out style rules, such as never overloading clauses or sentences, which made their writing clearer and much more readable. Winston Churchill is still better to read than most modern academic prose on current events, as nearly every objective judge will avow. > In your first case, you proposed that "germane" was > superfluous because all its meanings were > nowadays duplicated by others. But: > 1. You offered no evidence that this was true. I don't know what more evidence you need than that dictionaries define 'germane' as 'relevant' and 'pertinent', and that no-one seems to be able to think of a context in which 'germane' is better than the other two. > 2. If this were agreed true, you offered no reason why > duplicated words ought to be eliminated from the language. I'm not trying to propose that any word be eliminated from the language. No word is really superfluous as long as we have limericks: What could be less germane In a movie starring John Wayne Than a reference to Ukraine Or radical, Tom Paine I was just trying to initiate a discussion on words which in prose, at least, were superfluous, inasmuch as we had one or more words which meant the same, and could replace the offending word in every instance of its application to advantage, without changing the intended meaning and rhetorical effects of the sentence at large. Such words are not easy to find, and as you point out, it is difficult to argue that they are superfluous, since someone else might come up with an example in which your word alone will do, and no others. It is a pleasant and interesting, if slightly pointless(except academically) exercise -- the sort that I thought language buffs on this site would love. > I think it is unfair to ask for ironclad rules in English. I meant ironclad proofs. > I'm not trying to propose that any word be eliminated from the > language. No word is really superfluous as long as we have limericks: > What could be less germane > In a movie starring John Wayne > Than a reference to Ukraine > Or radical, Tom Paine Here's a slightly better-thought-out version What could be less germane To a movie starring John Wayne Than the mystique and pain Of the jazz music of Coltrane > I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have > 'relevant' and 'pertinent' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > we need. I can't think of a single instance when 'germane' is better > than one of the other two. <snipped rest of paragraph> That was quite a long paragraph, but do you never write long reports, or long analyses, and long chapters in long books, where having a long list of synonyms for a concept that might recur quite frequently helps you avoid a long sequence of repetitions? Philip Eden On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> wrote: > > 'relevant' and 'pertinent' > > English, of course, is rife with synonyms, i.e words that have nearly [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Philip Eden Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and 'countries', for the same concept. But I think you will concede that a competent writer will usually be perfectly able to deftly use pronouns and other devices so that more than two words should never be needed; and the need is limited to nouns only, seldom adjectives, as in my example, or others. It is a poor writer indeed who'd identify recurring concepts, and then look up a list of synonyms on a thesaurus, and use several different words at different places to express the same concept, for no other reason than to avoid repeating himself. That'd look stupid and would probably confuse the reader as well. "jinhyun" <jinhyunshyam@gmail.com> wrote : > On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > himself. That'd look stupid and would probably confuse the reader as > well. I sometimes find myself doing just that. So you think I'm a poor writer whose work looks stupid. I think I can live with that. Philip Eden > "jinhyun" <jinhyunshyam@gmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > a poor writer whose work looks stupid. I think I can live > with that. I, too, am frequently guilty of such poor practice. Rationally, the belief that synonyms should be banned makes thesauri (?) superfluous. The notion that "nation" and country" are conceptually identical indicates to me that I should disengage at this point and go back to my day job of confusing readers. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - No. thesauri(yeah, that's the right word,I looked it up) exist to enable you to choose the right word among a bunch of synonyms, not to give you a list of words for the one you had in mind to use interchangably and all in the same context to avoid repetition. By the bye, I'm sincerely curious. How is 'nation' distinct from 'country'? > ... By the bye, I'm sincerely curious. How is 'nation' distinct from 'country'? "Nation" is a word etymologically derived from a word meaning "birth", and is usually applied to a group of similar "birthright", e.g., ethnicity, genetics, language, etc. A country is a political and geographic entity, which may or may not coincide with a nation. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * [...] > No. thesauri(yeah, that's the right word,I looked it up) exist to > enable you to choose the right word among a bunch of synonyms, not to > give you a list of words for the one you had in mind to use > interchangably and all in the same context to avoid repetition. By the > bye, I'm sincerely curious. How is 'nation' distinct from 'country'? What makes you think you have a right to dictate what thesauruses exist for? And even if you had the right, how would you enforce your ruling? For senses in which "country" and "nation" don't overlap, a dictionary will oblige. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Feb 28, 1:58 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote: > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > What makes you think you have a right to dictate what thesauruses exist > for? And even if you had the right, how would you enforce your ruling? I'm not trying to dictate anything. But surely you agree that what I propose is the proper use of a thesaurus. Identifying a recurring concept and then looking it up in a thesaurus to find a bunch of equivalents (usually only near-equivalents) and then using all these to refer to the same thing to avoid repetition makes writing annoying and frequently confusing as well. We see this commonly done in sports journalism. Roger Federer is variously referred to as Roger Federer, the World's no.1, the Swiss ace, the three-time Australian Open champion etc. which is very annoying and occasionally confusing -- the last one especially if you were talking of a meeting between him and Sampras. A better writer would be able to use pronouns and other devices so that 'Roger Federer' (only for the opening sentence)and 'Federer' and perhaps just one other for the body of the column-- maybe the world's no.1 -- would be enough and there is a considerable gap between repetitions of 'Federer'. I think that all of you agree with me on this. > On Feb 28, 1:58 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > gap between repetitions of 'Federer'. I think that all of you agree > with me on this. Not I. (I think it would be difficult to find *anything* on which I might agree with you.) If you want to persuade people to your way of thinking, it would be more sensible to reproduce a passage that causes you offence, rather than make up examples. What confuses or annoys you does not confuse or annoy me. And you're obviously reading the wrong sports journalists. Try the Financial Times where you'll find a sports journalist who writes peerless prose (although I'm pretty sure he uses a thesaurus). SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > On Feb 28, 1:58 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Could you give an example from an online source perhaps -- where he uses many different words (more than two) for the same concept, just to avoid repetition? And I am a little intrigued by 'peerless'. Surely, he can't be that good. Did you mean 'immaculate'(even which I doubt, applied to a modern sports-writer)? >>>On Feb 28, 1:58 am, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> >>>wrote: [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > uses many different words (more than two) for the same concept, just > to avoid repetition? No. Do your own research. And I am a little intrigued by 'peerless'. > Surely, he can't be that good. He has no peer. He is the best. Did you mean 'immaculate'(even which I > doubt, applied to a modern sports-writer)? No, I meant what I wrote. I didn't even need to look at my thesaurus for that. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > Could you give an example from an online source perhaps -- where he > > uses many different words (more than two) for the same concept, just > > to avoid repetition? > > No. Do your own research. Fair enough. But give me his name at least. > I think that all of you agree with me on this. How wonderful for you. SignatureSML > > > "jinhyun" <jinhyunsh...@gmail.com> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > interchangably and all in the same context to avoid repetition. By the > bye, I'm sincerely curious. How is 'nation' distinct from 'country'? In Canada it is perfectly possible to have a nation without a country or a country with multiple nationsThe nuances are not always clear but it is a very important, not to say inflammatory political issue here. Of course, part of the problem is the English/French translation issue. However, depending on were you live country and nation are extremely distinct. Try googling Steven Harper and nation or Michael Ignatief and nation. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >In Canada it is perfectly possible to have a nation without a country >or a country with multiple nationsThe nuances are not always clear >but it is a very important, not to say inflammatory political issue >here. Of course, part of the problem is the English/French translation >issue. Obviously, Quebec is a nation; after all, its legislature is the National Assembly. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> In Canada it is perfectly possible to have a nation without a >> country or a country with multiple nationsThe nuances are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obviously, Quebec is a nation; after all, its legislature is the > National Assembly. You can say that again, but only if you first say "l'Assemblée nationale", twice as loud. It's the law. >>> In Canada it is perfectly possible to have a nation without a >>> country or a country with multiple nationsThe nuances are not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >You can say that again, but only if you first say "l'Assemblée >nationale", twice as loud. It's the law. I'm in a different country; there is no extradition for violating Quebec language laws. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> In Canada it is perfectly possible to have a nation without a >>>> country or a country with multiple nationsThe nuances are not [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'm in a different country; there is no extradition for violating > Quebec language laws. On va les avoir, les Anglais. >> "jinhyun" <jinhyunshyam@gmail.com> wrote : >>>It is a poor writer indeed who'd identify >>>recurring concepts, and then look up a list of synonyms on a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >indicates to me that I should disengage at this point and go back to my >day job of confusing readers. I do it too; not (necessarily) because I'm looking for exact synonyms in order to avoid using the same word twice in one paragraph (though that might be the reason, and I'd be prepared to defend it under many circumstances on the grounds of the utility of euphony) but because being reminded of other words which mean almost the same as the word I first thought of has the potential of refining and (ooh!) precising, in the sense of making more precise, the essence of what I'm trying to say. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > I sometimes find myself doing just that. So you think I'm > a poor writer whose work looks stupid. I think I can live > with that. > > Philip Eden No, you don't! You're just being difficult here. Educated native speakers never do that. It is a practice limited to overzealous learners who're desperately trying to avoid repeating themselves, which they've been told is bad, but aren't sufficiently familiar with the language's range and subtlety to be able to do it without attracting attention. >On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >himself. That'd look stupid and would probably confuse the reader as >well. 'Nation' and 'country', are only synonyms in one sense. A 'nation' need not be a country. The "quick definition" in OneLook, in fact, says in the first example, "the people who live in a nation or country". English originated from many sources. Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Celts, Romans, Greeks, and many more, all contributed. As a result, the language is rich with diversity of meaning. Rock vs. stone, for example, have two different etymologies, but are near-synonyms to some, exact synonyms to others, and synonyms with slight differences of nuance to others. Superfluous words? We welcome superfluous words, we cherish them, we argue about their exact meanings and nuances, and where we would use one but not the other. > >On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > says in the first example, "the people who live in a nation or > country". 'Country' also could mean this. I'm not arguing that the existence of the word 'nation' makes 'country' redundant, since 'country' has other offices such as its use to denote rural territory, for instance. I was just saying that in one of their senses, they meant exactly the same concept but that once we had two words for that concept we didn't need any others. > Superfluous words? We welcome superfluous words, we cherish them, we > argue about their exact meanings and nuances, and where we would use > one but not the other.- Hide quoted text - You're missing my point. If two words are such that even if they mean exactly the same, one conveys a different mood in the speaker from the other, or if they are used in different contexts in deference to idiom, neither makes the other superfluous. But in the example I give, there doesn't seem to be any context in which 'germane' is better than 'relevant' or 'pertinent' . That makes it superfluous. Finding superfluous words is a real challenge. You can't just pick a word, look it up in the thesaurus and declare all its other synonyms superfluous. Its difficult to find a superfluous word, harder even to argue that it is superfluous; a fit challenge for the language buffs on this site. >> >On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > argue that it is superfluous; a fit challenge for the language buffs > on this site. What a genius you are, to have found the proper challenge for us! The Messiah has arrived! >> >On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> >> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >> >You're missing my point. Not at all, but you are missing mine. Superfluous words do not exist in English. It matters not that a word is merely synonymous in all senses of its definition, or if, indeed, it is synonymous in every nuance, shade of meaning, in all possible usages. It is still a welcome variety, allowing anyone who wishes to use one in place of the other, to do so. That was my point about 'rock' and 'stone'. Ask any 100 people, and you are likely to get similar, but not exactly the same, comments about how, where, or when they should be used. Even if 'rock' and 'stone' were fully interchangeable and acceptable in all possible uses, we would still prefer to have the choice, and usages would change over time anyway, with some folks adding nuances to one or the other when used in certain ways. "Oh, I'd call that a rock because I only call them stones when they weigh more than 12 lbs." > If two words are such that even if they mean >exactly the same, one conveys a different mood in the speaker from the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >argue that it is superfluous; a fit challenge for the language buffs >on this site. > "Oh, I'd call that a rock because I only call them stones when they > weigh more than 12 lbs." It's not a real stone unless it weighs 14 lbs. SignaturePeter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org "I am a stone. I am an island." > 'Country' also could mean this. I'm not arguing that the existence of > the word 'nation' makes 'country' redundant, since 'country' has other > offices such as its use to denote rural territory, for instance. I was > just saying that in one of their senses, they meant exactly the same > concept but that once we had two words for that concept we didn't need > any others. Even in the few cases where "nation" and "country" could be used interchangeably, there is always a different feel to the words: "country" always refers to a place; "nation" always refers to people. In fact, "people" would be a closer synonym for "nation" in most instances. SignatureRob Bannister > > >On Feb 27, 5:42 pm, "Philip Eden" <philipATweatherHYPHENukDOTcom> > > >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > there doesn't seem to be any context in which 'germane' is better than > 'relevant' or 'pertinent' . That makes it superfluous. No, because an educated English speaker is almost certainly going to use one of them in situations where the other two are not appropriate. Unfortunately it is almost impossible to specify when one works and the others don't. John Kane, Kingston ON Canada >Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and >'countries', for the same concept. Nations and countries aren't the same concept. For instance, here in the USA we have the Navajo Nation, but it's not a country. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and >>'countries', for the same concept. > >Nations and countries aren't the same concept. For instance, here >in the USA we have the Navajo Nation, but it's not a country. Nor is Marlboro country a nation. SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. >>>Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and >>>'countries', for the same concept. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Nor is Marlboro country a nation. If you remember the ads, that was the Navajo Nation. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>>Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and >>>>'countries', for the same concept. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >If you remember the ads, that was the Navajo Nation. I do, and indeed it was. But why wasn't Tammy Wynette a nation and western singer? SignatureArchie Valparaiso Tunbridge Wells borough residents are the second best recyclers in Kent. > >>>>Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and > >>>>'countries', for the same concept. > > >>>Nations and countries aren't the same concept. For instance, here > >>>in the USA we have the Navajo Nation, but it's not a country. I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. Here in the UK, we say that the United Kingdom is made up of four countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. "Countries within a country" - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp I note that various web pundits, including the bumptious matt Rosenberg at About.com, assert that "Scotland is not a country". I'd like to see him say that in Sauciehall Street on a Friday night. [...] > I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. > Here in the UK, we say that the United Kingdom is made up of four > countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Except for the purposes of Rugby, in which England, France, all Ireland, Italy, Scotland, and Wales are the Six Nations. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >[...] >> I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Except for the purposes of Rugby, in which England, France, all Ireland, >Italy, Scotland, and Wales are the Six Nations. Which, before we let all those foreigners in, was originally the Four Nations, all of which were part of the UK. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" Don Aitken filted: >>[...] >>> I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Which, before we let all those foreigners in, was originally the Four >Nations, all of which were part of the UK. A few years ago, I had a calendar celebrating the "six Celtic nations"...artwork and other customization for each month alternated among the Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Cornish and Breton cultures....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >Don Aitken filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >and other customization for each month alternated among the Irish, Scottish, >Welsh, Manx, Cornish and Breton cultures....r And one of my favorite Celtic rock groups is Seven Nations. You gotta love a group with a rock bagpiper. SignatureTony Cooper Orlando, FL > >[...] > >> I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Which, before we let all those foreigners in, was originally the Four > Nations, all of which were part of the UK. You mean France wasn't in until after Irish independence? SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >[...] >> >> I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >You mean France wasn't in until after Irish independence? The competition was established as the "Home International Championship" some time in the 1880s. France participated sporadically from the 1900s, and regularly from 1910 to 1931, when they were thrown out, and didn't come back until 1948. See http://www.6-nations-rugby.com/sixnations_history.htm SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" > >> >[...] > >> >> I think there is a Pondian dimension to this country/nation thing. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > out, and didn't come back until 1948. See > http://www.6-nations-rugby.com/sixnations_history.htm So we're both right. That's the way I like it. SignatureMike. -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >> >>>>Granted that we need at least a couple of synonyms, like 'nations' and >> >>>>'countries', for the same concept. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Here in the UK, we say that the United Kingdom is made up of four >countries: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of which has a national football (soccer) team. And then there is the 6 Nations Rugby championship featuring the nations England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Italy and France. >"Countries within a country" - http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page823.asp > >I note that various web pundits, including the bumptious matt >Rosenberg at About.com, assert that "Scotland is not a country". I'd >like to see him say that in Sauciehall Street on a Friday night. When he's recovered from that he could try "Scotland is not a nation". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have > 'relevant' and 'pertinent' [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > so muddle-headed that it could never be used unambiguously(are there > any such?) Feel free to add more criteria as you go along. It's not superfluous, but redundant, unnecessary, and unneeded. UC (or somebody else of the same name) wrote thusly in message <1172594484.292063.10590@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>: >> I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have >> 'relevant' and 'pertinent' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> we need. I can't think of a single instance when 'germane' is better >> than one of the other two. (Can you?) I've never heard the compound of formula GeH4 called anything other than germane. The proposed alternatives do not seem to click with composition of the substance. SignatureHe hadde not leyser for to loke after who is his freend & who is his fo. - The Cloud of Unknowing (anon, 14th century) Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply Prai Jei filted: >>> I've always wondered why we need the word 'germane' when we have >>> 'relevant' and 'pertinent' > >I've never heard the compound of formula GeH4 called anything other than >germane. The proposed alternatives do not seem to click with composition of >the substance. And then there are the homophones..."Germaine", for the writer surnamed "Greer"..."Jermaine", for the singer surnamed "Jackson"...and "Germann", a rural road south of Phoenix....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" |
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.