 |
 | 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 2004Isn't that the capital of Sweden?
[Mailed to the _International Herald Tribune_ and posted to alt.usage.english.] ===== <http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1219-11.htm> The virtual silence continued to reign in Oslo. When the Swedish Academy presented Coetzee with his prize, much was made (rightly so) of the human evils he documents: torture, alienation, racism, suffering. But little was spoken about what animals mean to Coetzee, the man, or Coetzee, the author. -- "Animal Rights: What the Nobel Committee Failed to Note" by Tom Regan and Martin Rowe. Published on Friday, December 19, 2003 by the _International Herald Tribune_ ===== The people of Norway often cite the United States of America as the place where people think either Norway or Oslo is the capital of Sweden. It's a standing joke. I thought it was, anyway. It is a shame that Tom Reagan's and Martin Rowe's article about the Nobel Prize for literature was spoiled by such a stereotypically dumb Americanism. I fear that the Norwegian stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is the capital of Sweden will increase as a result. Here's a correction: The Nobel Prize literature is presented in Stockholm, capital of Sweden, by King Carl XVI Gustav. This year, the prize went to J. M. Coetzee from South Africa. The Nobel Peace Prize is presented in Oslo, capital of Norway, by Harald V (this year it was presented by Crown Prince Haakon, who is regent for his convalescent father). The prize for 2003 was presented to Shirin Ebadi from Iran. Sweden and Norway are next to each other on the map, but have been wholly independent of each other since 1905. I urge the _International Herald Tribune_ to print a full-page correction of Reagan's and Rowe's mistake; I hate hearing stories of "dumb Americans".  SignatureSimon R. Hughes >I fear that the Norwegian >stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is >the capital of Sweden will increase as a result. It is a faraway place about which we know little. Joking aside, how many of your half-frozen Norwegian friends know where California is, a state at least as significant as their entire country? Not all by a long shot, you can be sure. All the time people in Ireland ask me if I liked the west coast of America so much, why did I leave Washington, DC? Many here don't even know the *name* of the capital of the US, let alone where it is located. And the Irish are said to be among the best educated people in the world. Americans are a hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for, the election of George W not withstanding. Half the threads you start are there to make fun of Americans. Most of us already know what Franke's problem with America is, what is your excuse? SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>I fear that the Norwegian >>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > state at least as significant as their entire country? Not all by a > long shot, you can be sure. Is this "joking aside"? > All the time people in Ireland ask me if I > liked the west coast of America so much, why did I leave Washington, > DC? Many here don't even know the *name* of the capital of the US, let > alone where it is located. And the Irish are said to be among the best > educated people in the world. Er... Ireland is populated by paddies. Nuff said. > Americans are a hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for, > the election of George W not withstanding. I agree. P. T. Barnum's maxims, "every crowd has a silver lining", and "the public is wiser than many imagine" are true. The place he said them was America. > Half the threads you start > are there to make fun of Americans. I would dispute the statistic. > Most of us already know what > Franke's problem with America is, what is your excuse? Answering this again, I would be repeating myself. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>>I fear that the Norwegian >>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Is this "joking aside"? Come on, we all know New York is the capital of America. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > >>>I fear that the Norwegian > >>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Come on, we all know New York is the capital of America. In a weird response to America's accidental nuking of Moscow in the movie "Fail Safe", the US president nukes New York City. Me, if I had to give up some town because we did that, I would've dropped the bomb on a small town in Idaho. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" >> Come on, we all know New York is the capital of America. >> >In a weird response to America's accidental nuking of Moscow in the >movie "Fail Safe", the US president nukes New York City. Me, if I had to >give up some town because we did that, I would've dropped the bomb on a >small town in Idaho. Tit for tit, eh? Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm Would that have been Rexburg? :) Chris McCabe > > >>>I fear that the Norwegian > > >>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." > +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" >>>>I fear that the Norwegian >>>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Come on, we all know New York is the capital of America. From frequent comments here, I was beginning to believe it might be Laurel (a place I can see only with difficulty in my atlas). SignatureRob Bannister >>>I fear that the Norwegian >>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Is this "joking aside"? It is. Which part was funny or odd? >> All the time people in Ireland ask me if I >> liked the west coast of America so much, why did I leave Washington, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Er... Ireland is populated by paddies. Nuff said. So you're prejudiced against them as well? Who, beside your family and your new Norwegian friends, *do* you like? I used Ireland as an example since I live there now. I lived in Germany four years, have visited most of the countries of Europe, at least the fully-civilized ones, and have found the level of ignorance, for lack of a nice complimentary term, much the same. >> Americans are a hell of a lot smarter than you give them credit for, >> the election of George W not withstanding. > >I agree. You agree you haven't been giving them enough credit? Sound. > P. T. Barnum's maxims, "every crowd has a silver >lining", and "the public is wiser than many imagine" are true. >The place he said them was America. One place, even Japan, is pretty much like another, in my experience. The veneers are very different, it is true. >> Half the threads you start >> are there to make fun of Americans. > >I would dispute the statistic. Would you believe 37.8%? >> Most of us already know what >> Franke's problem with America is, what is your excuse? > >Answering this again, I would be repeating myself. I feel like that fellow pushing a rock up a hill. I'll have to begin reading your posts over again, and again, and again... By God, Simon, someday I'll actually be able to understand you! SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>Er... Ireland is populated by paddies. Nuff said. > > So you're prejudiced against them as well? My mother is half Irish. There's so much different blood in my veins that being prejudiced against any nationality would mean my hating myself. Prejudice is stoopid. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > My mother is half Irish. There's so much different blood in my > veins that being prejudiced against any nationality would mean my > hating myself. Any American ancestors? >> My mother is half Irish. There's so much different blood in my >> veins that being prejudiced against any nationality would mean my >> hating myself. > > Any American ancestors? Not Americans coming to Europe, as far as I know, but there are doubtless some relatives somewhere who emigrated from Europe to the US. Everyone in Europe has those. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > there are doubtless some relatives somewhere who emigrated from Europe to > the US. Everyone in Europe has those. Not really. In my family he choosed Canada instead :-). He just died two months ago. Three months before his 91-year birthday ;-(. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>> My mother is half Irish. There's so much different blood in my >>> veins that being prejudiced against any nationality would mean my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >doubtless some relatives somewhere who emigrated from Europe to >the US. Everyone in Europe has those. For sure, but is the direction of emigration tending to move the opposite way? I read that for the first time more Americans are settling here than are Irish settling over there. True a year or two ago, anyway, and I'd think the reasons for it haven't changed. The traditional reasons for going -- a greater availability of work and a higher standard of living -- have largely slipped away. I wonder what the situation is for other developed nations in Europe vis-à-vis the US. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > I wonder what the situation is for other developed nations in Europe > vis-à-vis the US. Well, the only Scandinavians and Germans who might even /consider/ moving to the U.S. are those with a very good education and no risk of getting unemplyed. Unemployment benefits in Denmark, for example, are higher than are the minimum wages in the U.S. The unemployment benefits in Denmark are 3115 Danish kroner a week, the same as €419 and $521. A month it is Dkr 13498, €1814 and $2256. To-day's rate of exchanges. And since we work 37 hours a week [with six weeks of holyday] it will give an hourly wage of at least $14. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >> I wonder what the situation is for other developed nations in Europe >> vis-à-vis the US. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >To-day's rate of exchanges. And since we work 37 hours a week [with six >weeks of holyday] it will give an hourly wage of at least $14. This, by itself, doesn't mean anything. Unless you relate wages to cost-of-living, the wage figure is meaningless. The unemployed Dane certainly fares better than the unemployed American. The employed Dane, at or near the top of his profession, does not fare at all well compared to his counterpart in the US. Thus, if effort and reward are considered, the Dane should strive to be jobless and the American to be employed in an industry with golden parachutes. > > I wonder what the situation is for other developed nations in Europe > > vis-à-vis the US. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > To-day's rate of exchanges. And since we work 37 hours a week [with six > weeks of holyday] it will give an hourly wage of at least $14. Aren't there concerns about how this sort of government spending can continue? Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > > > I wonder what the situation is for other developed nations in Europe > > > vis-à-vis the US. > > Well, the only Scandinavians and Germans who might even /consider/ > > moving to the U.S. are those with a very good education and no risk of > > getting unemplyed. Unemployment benefits in Denmark, for example, are > > higher than are the minimum wages in the U.S. > > The unemployment benefits in Denmark are 3115 Danish kroner a week, the > > same as €419 and $521. A month it is Dkr 13498, €1814 and $2256. > > To-day's rate of exchanges. And since we work 37 hours a week [with six > > weeks of holyday] it will give an hourly wage of at least $14. > Aren't there concerns about how this sort of government spending can > continue? In a minority only. And Denmark still has one of the largest Gross National Products Per Capita in the world. BTW, unemployment benefits can only be received for up to four years [adults over 25]. Then people are moved to another system with much smaller benefits [8172 Dkr, €1098, $1366 a month - for adults over the age of 25]. Furthermore, unemployment benefits are only available to people members of insurance unions linked to the trade unions [though most of the benefits are paid by the government]. /And/ after a year the unemployed has to get activated. Either in an education which will improve their chances of getting a job or in a job-like project, 37 hours a week, with no wage. Kids under the age of 30 get activated after only half a year, and kids under the age of 25 only get half the benefits of adults and only for half the time. So you see that these benefits only apply to adults over 25 and that activation to "wages" below the "minimum wage" at around $17 an hour for unskilled labourers reduces the inclination to remain under the system. Furthermore, the system is more drastic to kids under 30 and especially those aged 18-25. They'd better go back to school or get an apprenticeship training. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>I fear that the Norwegian >>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >alone where it is located. And the Irish are said to be among the best >educated people in the world. Fine, and not argued with. How many, though, of those people are journalists and copy-editors on what purports to be the world's most prestigious international newspaper, most of the contents of which are culled from America's two newspapers "of record"? That, surely, was Simon's point. -- Ross Howard >>>I fear that the Norwegian >>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > culled from America's two newspapers "of record"? That, surely, was > Simon's point. I was working as the sole English teacher in a small middle school last year. About the time America was beginning serious rattling of its sabres, I had a great idea for a class of 14 year-olds. I got them to write letters to George W. Bush, to let him know what they felt about the imminent invasion of Iraq. The thought at the back of my mind, although I didn't tell the kids, was that if any of the letters were any good, we could post them. A week later, I collected the letters, and decided that none of them were appropriate for posting to the US president. A week after that, I took a couple of hours to try to teach them about the concept of appropriate usage (e.g. you don't call the President of the United States of America a "f.cking monkey-brained Nazi" to his face). Charles thinks I am anti-American, but I have nothing on the kids these kids are representative of (the next generation). If America wants to see the decline of anti-American sentiment, America is going to have to help its own cause. Eye-rolling stories of Americans thinking that Norway is the capital of Sweden are a small step on the way. I wouldn't have written to a newspaper, had I encountered personally a person (of any nationality) as ignorant as the journalists appear to be. There is ignorance everywhere. I would roll my eyes at Norwegians not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall having met one. My current gripe in this country is the impending death of the semicolon. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > There is ignorance everywhere. I would roll my eyes at Norwegians > not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall > having met one. In Denmark, it is said that Americans think Copenhagen is Sweden's capital ;-(. And I've never met a Dane in middle school or above who doesn't know where Washington DC [or California] is placed ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> There is ignorance everywhere. I would roll my eyes at Norwegians >> not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >And I've never met a Dane in middle school or above who doesn't know >where Washington DC [or California] is placed ... Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? Incidentally, America's 'gross legal product' is only slightly smaller than the gross national product of Norway. And 'personal services' were worth $63 billion in 2001. http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/gspmap/mappage.asp SignatureMickwick > Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state > whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? This is a granfalloon (Kurt Vonnegut) viz. a presumption of shared interest that on analysis can be shown bogus or unlikely -- here that all members of communities of size N share an interest in knowing about other communities of size N that is undifferentiated (does not vary with proximity etc.) I vote in a community of 10 million and I know the name of the head of its government: this does not imply I have an equal interest in knowing the names of the heads of government of all other communities of size 10 million. -- Don Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) In alt.usage.english, Don Phillipson wrote: >"Mickwick" <mickwick@use.reply.to> wrote in message >> Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state >> whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >size N that is undifferentiated (does not vary >with proximity etc.) Au contraire, Mr Phillipson! (A good word to know, though. Thanks.) My presumption is that such an interest *does* vary with proximity and that this differentiation is entirely reasonable. That was my point. What's more, my point wasn't about the amount that members of communities of size N know about other communities of size N, but about the amount that members of communities of an unspecified size know about communities other than their own that are of size N. Hence ... > I vote in a community of 10 million and I know the name of the head >of its government: this does not imply I have an equal interest in >knowing the names of the heads of government of all other communities >of size 10 million. ... is not really relevant to Danish ignorance (or otherwise) of Wisconsin. Denmark - where Per lives - is neither Norway nor Wisconsin. Perhaps you were lead astray by the coincidence that Denmark is more or less of size N. (More: it's 1.15*N.) SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state > whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? Only few. But lots of people will recognize it as one of the U.S. states in the central north of the country - and a state with lots of descendants of Scandinavian immigrants. BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very short history. SignaturePer Erik Rønne In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> >In Denmark, it is said that Americans think Copenhagen is Sweden's >> >capital ;-(. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >in the central north of the country - and a state with lots of >descendants of Scandinavian immigrants. Exactly! This shared heritage means that there should be a greater likelihood of Scandinavians knowing the capital of Wisconsin than of non-Scandinavian Americans (Nonscandinavian-Americans?) knowing the capital of Norway. Unless proximity does make a difference, that is. Or unless your next paragraph is true (and it might be). >BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than >a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very >short history. What is that difference? You see, I think I agree with you (unless it has something to do with burkas) but I don't know why. Why do we know and care more about small nation-states than about large provinces? Are all men not equal? (Incidentally, I'm sure we would know more about Wisconsin's ancient history if all those Germans and Norwegians hadn't stolen it.) SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > >BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than > >a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very > >short history. > What is that difference? You see, I think I agree with you (unless it > has something to do with burkas) but I don't know why. Why do we know > and care more about small nation-states than about large provinces? Not only "small nation-sates", but "small nation-states with a millenium long history". BTW, what do you know about Liechtenstein? And how much do you know of a Texas county with a total population of 20,000 and three villages? SignaturePer Erik Rønne In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> >BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than >> >a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >BTW, what do you know about Liechtenstein? And how much do you know of a >Texas county with a total population of 20,000 and three villages? (a) Robert Maxwell liked to bank there and its Head of State has just declared himself an absolute monarch (to the near-universal acclaim of Liechtensteiners). (b) You'll have to be more specific. (But probably nothing. All I know about Texas is that a lot of armadillos get killed down there, that a lot of Texans eat roadkill, and that a lot of young Texans have Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.) SignatureMickwick > >BTW, what do you know about Liechtenstein? And how much do you know of a > >Texas county with a total population of 20,000 and three villages? > (a) Robert Maxwell liked to bank there and its Head of State has just > declared himself an absolute monarch (to the near-universal acclaim of > Liechtensteiners). It is a democracy with 20,000 people and a hereditary Prince as their head of State. I believe absolute monarchy was abandoned a decade or so ago. It is one of the richest countries in the world - lots of international companies have namely placed their headquarters [10*10*30 cm] in Liechtenstein due to the country's low taxes :-). > (b) You'll have to be more specific. (But probably nothing. All I know > about Texas is that a lot of armadillos get killed down there, that a > lot of Texans eat roadkill, and that a lot of young Texans have > Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.) And their liking of executing one person a week. I simply don't know any Texan county. SignaturePer Erik Rønne Per R?nne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > It is a democracy with 20,000 people and a hereditary Prince as their > head of State. I believe absolute monarchy was abandoned a decade or so > ago. It is one of the richest countries in the world - lots of > international companies have namely placed their headquarters [10*10*30 > cm] in Liechtenstein due to the country's low taxes :-). Trivia: Why is Liechtenstein like Uzbekistan? > Trivia: Why is Liechtenstein like Uzbekistan? Because they both end in "stan", except in Liechtenstein they pronounce it "stein". How many sheep do I get? -Aaron J. Dinkin Dr. Whom >> Trivia: Why is Liechtenstein like Uzbekistan? > Because they both end in "stan", except in Liechtenstein they pronounce > it "stein". > How many sheep do I get? No sheep, but there's a friendly goat waiting for you in Jizzax. Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan are the only doubly landlocked countries - all of their neighbors are also landlocked. I am now wondering if there's a triply landlocked commune or province ... > >> Trivia: Why is Liechtenstein like Uzbekistan? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > countries - all of their neighbors are also landlocked. I am now > wondering if there's a triply landlocked commune or province ... If you don't consider the Great Lakes as a coastline, Nebraska would seem to qualify. Its immediate neighbors are South Dakota, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, and Iowa. At one remove, you get North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the last three of which are on the Great Lakes. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Code should be designed to make it 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |easy to get it right, not to work Palo Alto, CA 94304 |if you get it right. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> (a) Robert Maxwell liked to bank there and its Head of State has just >> declared himself an absolute monarch (to the near-universal acclaim of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >international companies have namely placed their headquarters [10*10*30 >cm] in Liechtenstein due to the country's low taxes :-). You're out of date, old son. In March 2003, a referendum reverted Liechtenstein to absolute monarchy. SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You're out of date, old son. In March 2003, a referendum reverted > Liechtenstein to absolute monarchy. Have you got a reference? SignaturePer Erik Rønne In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >> You're out of date, old son. In March 2003, a referendum reverted >> Liechtenstein to absolute monarchy. > >Have you got a reference? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1066002.stm SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1066002.stm Well, I do see that BBC distinguishes between dictatorship and absolute monarchy: "In effect, the referendum made Liechtenstein Europe's only absolute monarchy. It gave Prince Hans-Adam the power to hire and fire the government, despite publicly expressed fears that the development could usher in dictatorship." SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > in the central north of the country - and a state with lots of > descendants of Scandinavian immigrants. A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US came from. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote: [ ... ] > A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in > the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US > came from. Some of us know at least a wee bit about Scandinavia: Nobel, Ibsen, Grieg, Svendsen, Strindberg, Andersen, Munch, Amundsen. Not to mention all those great athletes, particularly in tennis and hockey. And no historically aware Jew will ever forget the Danish reaction to Nazi antiSemitism. People who are generally ignorant will also be ignorant of Scandinavia. People who seek to be cultured will have at least some understanding of the region and its great historical figures. I have also had the pleasure of making the acquaintance of many native Scandinavians over the years. Some I liked better than others, but on average they are as fine a group as I can claim to have known. SignatureBob Lieblich Scandinavi-phile > Grieg The author or the composer? SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > Grieg > > The author or the composer? Composer. Classical music is my avocation. I meant to include Carl Nielsen as well. (I omitted Sibelius and other Finns as not really Scandinavian. I hope I got that right.) I confess that I don't know any author Grieg; I have only so many names to drop. I turned up several Griegs on Google besides Edvard, but I can't tell which one you meant. SignatureBob Lieblich Big fan of Peer Gynt > Classical music is my avocation. Me too, me too. For me it isn't Peer Gynt, but I am a fan of Grieg, also. My introduction to Grieg came from television -- I guess TV has some positive attributes. The "I Remember Mama" show used "The Last Spring" as its theme. And I'll always take time out to listen to the "Holberg Suite." -- Ok, I'm a depressive > I confess that I don't know any author Grieg; I have only so many > names to drop. I turned up several Griegs on Google besides Edvard, > but I can't tell which one you meant. Nordahl Grieg 1902-1943. We read his drama "Nederlaget" ["The Defeat"] on the Commune in grade 10 [pupils aged 17-18]. In the subject Danish but of course read in its original Norwegian. We didn't read him in upper secondary school [grades 11-13]. He died over Berlin. And if you look up in a proper encyclopædia instead of using google, you will only find him and Edvard Grieg under the name "Grieg". At least in my Encyclopædia Britannica. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >> Grieg > >The author or the composer? A wise guy Paris question. If not given more information, Paris is in France and Grieg is the composer. That should confuse no-one. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in >the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US >came from. Those Scandiwegians are all the same. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > >A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in > >the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US > >came from. > > Those Scandiwegians are all the same. An American couple that i met in Copenhagen told me that "Scandinavia is a lovely country" :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>>A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in >>>the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > An American couple that i met in Copenhagen told me that "Scandinavia is > a lovely country" :-). An American couple I met in London told me: "We've done England this week, and tomorrow we're flying to Australia for a week, to do that, too." SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>>>A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in >>>>the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >this week, and tomorrow we're flying to Australia for a week, to >do that, too." That just shows you how polite Americans can be. England can be done in four days if you skip the Tower. >>>>A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in >>>>the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >this week, and tomorrow we're flying to Australia for a week, to >do that, too." Odd. I'd have done France, Germany, Italy, and even Norway first. Maybe the couple had done them already. Yeah, that must be it. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > An American couple that i met in Copenhagen told me that > "Scandinavia is a lovely country" :-). Are you worried they were just being polite? SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > > An American couple that i met in Copenhagen told me that > > "Scandinavia is a lovely country" :-). > > Are you worried they were just being polite? Of course they were being polite. But as a matter of fact, Scandinavia is not "a country". It is a set of countries [Denmark, Norway, Sweden] with mutually intelligible languages and a long common history of peace and war [the latter especially between Denmark and Sweden]. Some will add Iceland to the Scandinavian countries though few Danes, Norwegians and Swedes will understand Old Norse any more. Some English-speaking people even Finland though that is called a "Nordic", not a "Scandinavian" country. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >> doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid (Per R›nne) wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > common history of peace and war [the latter especially between > Denmark and Sweden]. Next time, I'll use a smiley. ;-) SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > Next time, I'll use a smiley. ;-) OK :-). It is difficult to "see" through usenet ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne >> An American couple that i met in Copenhagen told me that >> "Scandinavia is a lovely country" :-). > >Are you worried they were just being polite? Hope he slapped `em good for it. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > > >A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in > > >the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > An American couple that i met in Copenhagen told me that "Scandinavia is > a lovely country" :-). Maybe they were giving you all a hint. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > >A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in > >the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US > >came from. > > Those Scandiwegians are all the same. The languages are certainly similiar. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack filted: >> >A lot of Americans recognize Norway, Sweden, and Denmark as countries in >> >the North of Europe where a lot of Scandinavian immigrants to the US [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >The languages are certainly similiar. As are the national flags, the criterion according to which I lump Finland and Iceland in with the ones you named....r > As are the national flags, the criterion according to which I lump Finland and > Iceland in with the ones you named....r Finland was under Swedish rule from prehistoric times until the Russian conquest at the end of the Napoleonic wars. Iceland is inhabited from Norway and was part of the Danish Realm 1380-1943. It's the only independent country where Danish was the first foreign language - now it seems to be replaced by English. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than >a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very >short history. What country is it you are referring to that predates 1776, let alone one that has existed for 1000 years? Surely not yours. As a people, Americans are no less younger than yours either. Thirdly, my xenophobic friend, you might want to look up the word "province". SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > >BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than > >a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very > >short history. > What country is it you are referring to that predates 1776, let alone > one that has existed for 1000 years? Surely not yours. Probably, Denmark was founded around the third century [Funen, Zealand, Scania]. The earliest written records about the Danes come from the 500s, one from Gaul and two from Constantinople. It seems as if the two sources from Constantinople have a common now lost book by Cassiodorus, written in the 400s at the Imperial capital of Ravenna. The source from Gaul, from Saint Gregory of Tours' Annals, contains the earliest date in Danish history: AD 515. A year in which the Frankish Empire was in Civil War after the death of Clovis. The Danish "King" was killed during an attack on the Frankish Empire - it is not known if he was indeed the Danish King or just a chieftain in an early viking raid. Nothing suggests that Sweden isn't as old as is Denmark. > As a people, mericans are no less younger than yours either. Actually, as a "people" the Americans is a very young people. And most countries in Western Europe existed before 1776. > Thirdly, my xenophobic friend, Xenophobic? > you might want to look up the word "province". I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German "Land" - and a Canadian "province"? SignaturePer Erik Rønne > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides history, > what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German "Land" - and a > Canadian "province"? American "states" exercise limited sovereignty -- I don't believe that's true of either a German "Land" or a Canadian province, despite the federal nature of their political systems. >> I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides history, >> what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German "Land" - and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >true of either a German "Land" or a Canadian province, despite the federal >nature of their political systems. Does any US state exercise as much sovereignty as Quebec and Bavaria do? Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>> I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides history, >>> what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German "Land" - and a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Does any US state exercise as much sovereignty as Quebec and Bavaria >do? You need to distinguish between sovereignty as a legal concept and autonomy as a political one. In any federal system, there are matters which are exclusively cognisable at each level; if the federal constitution gives certain powers to the states, no federal instrumentality can override that. It is usually the case, however, that the states/provinces are largely dependent on the federal government for finance, which can make their freedom of action pretty illusory in some cases. The question of whether *residual* power is with the states (USA/Australia) or the centre (Canada) is of little importance in practice. I don't know much about the German system. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, R F <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> writes >> I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides history, >> what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German "Land" - and a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >true of either a German "Land" or a Canadian province, despite the federal >nature of their political systems. I am no expert, but I get the impression that the German federal system is as devolved as that of the US. SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected > On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, R F > <rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> writes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I am no expert, but I get the impression that the German federal system > is as devolved as that of the US. It's not a matter of devolution; there are powers that the US states have that can't be taken away from them by the national government (except by constitutional amendment, which is a rarely-achieved thing). I'm not sure to what extent that's true in the German or Canadian setups. To my mind, devolution only exists when the higher level governmental entity chooses to give up powers that it holds -- that isn't true of the basic American setup wrt the feds and the states that I'm talking about. >>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, R F >><rfontana@alumni.wesleyan.edu> writes [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > entity chooses to give up powers that it holds -- that isn't true of the > basic American setup wrt the feds and the states that I'm talking about. It's really the other way round in Australia. To start with, the states were almost autonomous except with regard to foreign policy, but since the 80s, the Federal Government has assumed more and more power, mainly in the way pointed out by another poster: they withhold funds or give funds only if... My State has recently 'lost' $41m of federal funding because it didn't comply with the centralists' "anti-competition" policy. There was a similar thing with road funding - a pressure to apply the same traffic laws across the entire country, which seems fair enough on the face of it, but somehow we and, I think, Northern Territory have kept our 110 kph maximum speed limit despite pressure to reduce to 100. SignatureRob Bannister Richard Fontana: >>> American "states" exercise limited sovereignty -- I don't believe >>> that's true of either a German "Land" or a Canadian province... > ... there are powers that the US states have that can't be taken > away from them by the national government (except by constitutional > amendment, which is a rarely-achieved thing). I'm not sure to what > extent that's true in the German or Canadian setups. Don Aitken's observation in another branch of the thread seems better tuned than Richard's: | In any federal system, there are matters which are exclusively | cognisable at each level; if the federal constitution gives certain [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | question of whether *residual* power is with the states (USA/Aus- | tralia) or the centre (Canada) is of little importance in practice... As to Canada specifically, the legislative powers of the respective governments are set out in Part VI of the Constitution Act, 1867. (That doesn't mean nothing's changed since 1867; unlike the US system, constitutional amendments in Canada, like any other amendments, are often implemented as modifications to the text of the existing constitutional acts. In fact, the name of the 1867 act has itself been changed -- it used to be the British North America Act.) The following text is taken from the present version of the act as found under http://canada.justice.gc.ca, reformatted by me and with the footnotes deleted. You are not expected to read it all. You can identify the newer material not only by the numbering (in some cases), but also by the use of standard capitalization. VI. DISTRIBUTION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS POWERS OF THE PARLIAMENT Legislative Authority of Parliament of Canada 91. It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters not coming within the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces; and for greater Certainty, but not so as to restrict the Generality of the foregoing Terms of this Section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding anything in this Act) the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, 1. Repealed. 1A. The Public Debt and Property. 2. The Regulation of Trade and Commerce. 2A. Unemployment insurance. 3. The raising of Money by any Mode or System of Taxation. 4. The borrowing of Money on the Public Credit. 5. Postal Service. 6. The Census and Statistics. 7. Militia, Military and Naval Service, and Defence. 8. The fixing of and providing for the Salaries and Allowances of Civil and other Officers of the Government of Canada. 9. Beacons, Buoys, Lighthouses, and Sable Island. 10. Navigation and Shipping. 11. Quarantine and the Establishment and Maintenance of Marine Hospitals. 12. Sea Coast and Inland Fisheries. 13. Ferries between a Province and any British or Foreign Country or between Two Provinces. 14. Currency and Coinage. 15. Banking, Incorporation of Banks, and the Issue of Paper Money. 16. Savings Banks. 17. Weights and Measures. 18. Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes. 19. Interest. 20. Legal Tender. 21. Bankruptcy and Insolvency. 22. Patents of Invention and Discovery. 23. Copyrights. 24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians. 25. Naturalization and Aliens. 26. Marriage and Divorce. 27. The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters. 28. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Penitentiaries. 29. Such Classes of Subjects as are expressly excepted in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. And any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section shall not be deemed to come within the Class of Matters of a local or private Nature comprised in the Enumeration of the Classes of Subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the Legislatures of the Provinces. EXCLUSIVE POWERS OF PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES Subjects of exclusive Provincial Legislation 92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say, 1. Repealed. 2. Direct Taxation within the Province in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial Purposes. 3. The borrowing of Money on the sole Credit of the Province 4. The Establishment and Tenure of Provincial Offices and the Appointment and Payment of Provincial Officers. 5. The Management and Sale of the Public Lands belonging to the Province and of the Timber and Wood thereon. 6. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province. 7. The Establishment, Maintenance, and Management of Hospitals, Asylums, Charities, and Eleemosynary Institutions in and for the Province, other than Marine Hospitals. 8. Municipal Institutions in the Province. 9. Shop, Saloon, Tavern, Auctioneer, and other Licences in order to the raising of a Revenue for Provincial, Local, or Municipal Purposes. 10. Local Works and Undertakings other than such as are of the following Classes: (a) Lines of Steam or other Ships, Railways, Canals, Telegraphs, and other Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other or others of the Provinces, or extending beyond the Limits of the Province: (b) Lines of Steam Ships between the Province and any British or Foreign Country: (c) Such Works as, although wholly situate within the Province, are before or after their Execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general Advantage of Canada or for the Advantage of Two or more of the Provinces. 11. The Incorporation of Companies with Provincial Objects. 12. The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province. 13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province. 14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts. 15. The Imposition of Punishment by Fine, Penalty, or Imprisonment for enforcing any Law of the Province made in relation to any Matter coming within any of the Classes of Subjects enumerated in this Section. 16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province. NON-RENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES, FORESTRY RESOURCES AND ELECTRICAL ENERGY Laws respecting non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources and electrical energy 92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to (a) exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province; (b) development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and (c) development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy. Export from provinces of resources (2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada. Authority of Parliament (3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict. Taxation of resources (4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of (a) non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and (b) sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom, whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province. "Primary production" (5) The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule. Existing powers or rights (6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section. EDUCATION Legislation respecting Education 93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions: (1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union: (2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec: (3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education: (4) In case any such Provincial Law as from Time to Time seems to the Governor General in Council requisite for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section is not made, or in case any Decision of the Governor General in Council on any Appeal under this Section is not duly executed by the proper Provincial Authority in that Behalf, then and in every such Case, and as far only as the Circumstances of each Case require, the Parliament of Canada may make remedial Laws for the due Execution of the Provisions of this Section and of any Decision of the Governor General in Council under this Section. Quebec 93A. Paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93 do not apply to Quebec. UNIFORMITY OF LAWS IN ONTARIO, NOVA SCOTIA, AND NEW BRUNSWICK Legislation for Uniformity of Laws in Three Provinces 94. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, the Parliament of Canada may make Provision for the Uniformity of all or any of the Laws relative to Property and Civil Rights in Ontario, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, and of the Procedure of all or any of the Courts in those Three Provinces, and from and after the passing of any Act in that Behalf the Power of the Parliament of Canada to make Laws in relation to any Matter comprised in any such Act shall, notwithstanding anything in this Act, be unrestricted; but any Act of the Parliament of Canada making Provision for such Uniformity shall not have effect in any Province unless and until it is adopted and enacted as Law by the Legislature thereof. OLD AGE PENSIONS Legislation respecting old age pensions and supplementary benefits 94A. The Parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to old age pensions and supplementary benefits, including survivors' and disability benefits irrespective of age, but no such law shall affect the operation of any law present or future of a provincial legislature in relation to any such matter. AGRICULTURE AND IMMIGRATION Concurrent Powers of Legislation respecting Agriculture, etc. 95. In each Province the Legislature may make Laws in relation to Agriculture in the Province, and to Immigration into the Province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from Time to Time make Laws in relation to Agriculture in all or any of the Provinces, and to Immigration into all or any of the Provinces; and any Law of the Legislature of a Province relative to Agriculture or to Immigration shall have effect in and for the Province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada. SignatureMark Brader | "'Settlor', (i) in relation to a testamentary trust, Toronto | means the individual referred to in paragraph (i)." msb@vex.net | -- Income Tax Act of Canada (1972-94), 108(1)(h) My text in this article is in the public domain. > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides > history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German > "Land" - and a Canadian "province"? States and provinces tend to stay the same size and remain under the same national government. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides > > history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German > > "Land" - and a Canadian "province"? > States and provinces tend to stay the same size... Except for Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, and arguably New York and/or New Hampshire. Virginia is unique on this list as having been the only one that changed size in both directions. (We ignore, of course, simple technical boundary adjustments, boundary dispute resolutions [as these are normally retroactive], and gradual changes in area due to changes in shoreline positions.) > and remain under the same national government. Unless you count certain events in the 1860s. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Gwyneth Paltrow always says I'm a msb@vex.net | shameless name dropper" -- Roger Ford My text in this article is in the public domain. > > > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides > > > history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and arguably New York and/or New Hampshire. Virginia is unique on this > list as having been the only one that changed size in both directions. Would you count Connecticut's loss of its Western Reserve? SignatureBob Lieblich Whose parents both attended WRU > > > > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides > > > > history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Would you count Connecticut's loss of its Western Reserve? That's an entirely different Case. > > > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides > > > history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and arguably New York and/or New Hampshire. Virginia is unique on this > list as having been the only one that changed size in both directions. Okay ... Virginia got back part of the original District of Columbia, but then it later lost West Virginia, so that was just a blip in a smallward transition. Or are you thinking of something else? What, if so? -- rzed >> > > I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides >> > > history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >then it later lost West Virginia, so that was just a blip in a smallward >transition. Or are you thinking of something else? What, if so? It had very extensive claims to western territories, including the whole of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, and most of Michigan and Wisconsin. Kentucky was actually organised in the 1770s as a "District" of Virginia. However Maryland, and other states with no western claims, refused to ratify the Articles of Confederation until all such claims were withdrawn, which was eventually done, thus making possible the Land Ordinance of 1785, and thereby creating the public domain of the United States, which is older than the current Constitution. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". In response to: > > > States and provinces tend to stay the same size... I (Mark Brader) wrote: > > Except for Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Massachusetts, Virginia, Maryland, > > and arguably New York and/or New Hampshire. Virginia is unique on this > > list as having been the only one that changed size in both directions. Now Dick Zantow says: > Okay ... Virginia got back part of the original District of Columbia, but > then it later lost West Virginia, so that was just a blip in a smallward > transition. Or are you thinking of something else? ... Yes, that's what I meant. I was not counting the westward claims of Connecticut or other states, as these were all disputed, but of course they *could* be counted if one wanted. SignatureMark Brader "People who think for a living have always Toronto been especially prone to confuse thinking msb@vex.net with living." -- G. L. Sicherman My text in this article is in the public domain. > (We ignore, of course, simple technical boundary adjustments, boundary > dispute resolutions [as these are normally retroactive], and gradual > changes in area due to changes in shoreline positions.) Does the Texas Compromise of 1850 fall under boundary dispute resolution? http://www.lsjunction.com/events/comp1850.htm >> I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides >> history, what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German >> "Land" - and a Canadian "province"? > >States and provinces tend to stay the same size and remain under >the same national government. But can one say the lady from the states who dresses like a guy and who doesn't think she waltzes, but would rather like to try ? Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm >> >BTW, there is a difference between a country with a history of more than >> >a millenium - and what in reality is an American province with a very [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Scania]. The earliest written records about the Danes come from the >500s, one from Gaul and two from Constantinople. Everyone has ancestors. These Danes and people from other tribes didn't have a country called Denmark or anything else back then. >Nothing suggests that Sweden isn't as old as is Denmark. Fine, but it is younger than the United States. >> As a people, mericans are no less younger than yours either. > >Actually, as a "people" the Americans is a very young people. Every bit as old as your people even if we don't include the Indians, which we would. >And most >countries in Western Europe existed before 1776. Name just one. >> Thirdly, my xenophobic friend, > >Xenophobic? Proud of one's country to the exclusion of a love for the other ones: xenophobic, in my book, as a result. Patriotic is another word for the condition, not making it any the less serious. It is even contagious. >> you might want to look up the word "province". > >I do very well know the meaning of the word "province". Besides history, >what is the difference between a U.S. "state", a German "Land" - and a >Canadian "province"? RF took this one, followed by many erudite others. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > >Probably, Denmark was founded around the third century [Funen, Zealand, > >Scania]. The earliest written records about the Danes come from the > >500s, one from Gaul and two from Constantinople. > Everyone has ancestors. These Danes and people from other tribes > didn't have a country called Denmark or anything else back then. Actually, I'm talking about the formation of the /State/ of Denmark. > >Nothing suggests that Sweden isn't as old as is Denmark. > Fine, but it is younger than the United States. The United States was formed 1776. It simply didn't exist before that year. > >> As a people, mericans are no less younger than yours either. > >Actually, as a "people" the Americans is a very young people. > Every bit as old as your people even if we don't include the Indians, > which we would. The Indians weren't Americans in the sense that they were part of the U.S. /people/. > >And most countries in Western Europe existed before 1776. > Name just one. France. Founded when Hugo Capet became its first King [987]. And have you forgotten King George III? > >> Thirdly, my xenophobic friend, > >Xenophobic? > Proud of one's country to the exclusion of a love for the other ones: > xenophobic, in my book, as a result. Patriotic is another word for the > condition, not making it any the less serious. It is even contagious. I do certainly not exclude a love for other ones. If you looked at the paintings on my walls, you will find painters like Botticelli, Rembrandt, Canaletto, Breughel, El Greco, Bosch. Not one Danish painter as none of importance exist. And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but lots of Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, Beethoven, Monteverdi, Josquin, ... I very well know that the greatest Danish composers don't rank amongst the world élite. I perfectly know that European civilization is based on Greece, Rome - and Israel. That Greece got lots from Mesopotamia and Egypt, and that the greatest collections of art can be found in Italy. And I perfectly know that Denmark, well Scandinavia as a whole, is placed on the fringe of Continental Europe. With relative small populations and with little impact on history. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but lots of > Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, Beethoven, > Monteverdi, Josquin, ... I very well know that the greatest Danish > composers don't rank amongst the world élite. How 'bout some great Danish jazz musicians, like Kenny Drew (Sr.)? > > And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but lots of > > Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, Beethoven, > > Monteverdi, Josquin, ... I very well know that the greatest Danish > > composers don't rank amongst the world élite. > How 'bout some great Danish jazz musicians, like Kenny Drew (Sr.)? I've never heard about him. The two greatest Danish composers are Diderik Buxtehude [1637 {Elsinore} - 1707 {Lübeck}] and Carl Nielsen [1865 {Funen} - 1931 {Copenhagen}] can only be called third-rate in a greater European context. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>> And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but lots >>> of Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, Beethoven, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > [1865 {Funen} - 1931 {Copenhagen}] can only be called third-rate in a > greater European context. Buxtehude was the greatest organist of his era and probably the most inluential composer of the early Baroque period. Bach and Handel both travelled to hear him and Bach studied under him. m. > >>> And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but lots > >>> of Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, Beethoven, > >>> Monteverdi, Josquin, ... I very well know that the greatest Danish > >>> composers don't rank amongst the world élite. > >> How 'bout some great Danish jazz musicians, like Kenny Drew (Sr.)? > > I've never heard about him. The two greatest Danish composers are > > Diderik Buxtehude [1637 {Elsinore} - 1707 {Lübeck}] and Carl Nielsen > > [1865 {Funen} - 1931 {Copenhagen}] can only be called third-rate in a > > greater European context. > Buxtehude was the greatest organist of his era and probably the most > inluential composer of the early Baroque period. Buxtehude wasn't "early Baroque" and the early Baroqe had two composers much greater than him. Heinrich Schütz [1585-1672] in Germany and Claudio Monteverdi [1567-1643] in Italy. Even during the middle Baroque greater composers could be found in England [Purcell], France [Charpentier, Lully] and Italy. But he was a major figure in the Lutheran world at his time. Not only as an organist but also for his cantatas and an oratorio like "Das jüngste Gericht". The Doomesday Oratorio. > Bach and Handel both travelled to hear him and Bach studied under him. I don't remember Bach having studied under him. I do, though, remember that the young Bach walked 300 km to hear his music and that Bach is the person "responsible" for that large parts of Buxdehude's work survived. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>>>> And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but >>>>> lots of Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the person "responsible" for that large parts of Buxdehude's work > survived. Buxtehude *was* early Baroque, as opposed to late Baroque. I would have used 'Early Baroque' if I were referring to the particular musical period. One cannot compare the 'greatness' of the composers mentioned. Buxtehude was as great a composer in his genre as the others were in theirs. It was, most certainly, he who influenced Bach, the *greatest* composer of the Late Baroque. Bach studied with Buxtehude in 1704 and 1706, I believe. ObAEU: ...Bach is the person "responsible" for large parts of Buxtehude's work surviving. However, he is not responsible for their popularity in the 20th Century. m. > Buxtehude *was* early Baroque, as opposed to late Baroque. Buxtehude was *middle* Baroque as opposed to early Baroque [Monteverdi, Schütz but also Jacopo Peri and Pier Francesco Cavalli] and as opposed to *late* Baroque [Bach, Händel, Rameau]. > It was, most certainly, he who influenced Bach, the *greatest* composer of > the Late Baroque. In my eyes, Bach was the greatest composer /of all times/ :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne >> Buxtehude *was* early Baroque, as opposed to late Baroque. > > Buxtehude was *middle* Baroque as opposed to early Baroque > [Monteverdi, Schütz but also Jacopo Peri and Pier Francesco Cavalli] > and as opposed to *late* Baroque [Bach, Händel, Rameau]. You don't understand. I was using the terms early and late only - no middle - no dates. If I was referring to musical periods I would have capitalised both words - 'Early Baroque', 'Middle Baroque' etc. m. > >> Buxtehude *was* early Baroque, as opposed to late Baroque. > > Buxtehude was *middle* Baroque as opposed to early Baroque > > [Monteverdi, Schütz but also Jacopo Peri and Pier Francesco Cavalli] > > and as opposed to *late* Baroque [Bach, Händel, Rameau]. > You don't understand. I was using the terms early and late only - no > middle - no dates. But in my view the Baroque is circa 1600-1750. I don't see how a composer who died 1707 can be called "early baroque" when the two geniuses of the early baroque died 1643 and 1672. Furthermore, Buxtehude's music seem closer to that of Bach and Händel than to that of Schütz though all of them were Lutherans. But I think I will have to go to bed now. Tomorrow is Yule, December 24th. The greatest feast in Scandinavia :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne mUs1Ka filted: >>>> And my music collection? Almost no Danish composer eicher, but lots >>>> of Bach, Händel, Vivaldi, Mozart, Wagner, Schütz, Verdi, Beethoven, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >inluential composer of the early Baroque period. >Bach and Handel both travelled to hear him and Bach studied under him. Now let's move on to modern popular music...from http://home.planet.nl/~haan0654/hot100/rh/fa/033.htm: ACTS FROM DENMARK ON THE HOT 100 Chart debut 1955 Singing Dogs 1960 Jan & Kjeld 1961 Jorgen Ingmann 1962 Bent Fabric 1963 Kai Winding 1984 Laid Back 1991 Cut 'N Move 1994 Lucas 1997 Aqua 1997 Los Umbrellos 1999 S.O.A.P. Kind of embarrassing, really...I can make a pretty decent guess at the songs responsible for putting four of these on the chart, and I'll probably recognize the Bent Fabric title when someone (inevitably) mentions it, but it's not exactly a list you'd want to celebrate....r On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes >And I perfectly know that Denmark, well Scandinavia as a whole, is >placed on the fringe of Continental Europe. With relative small >populations and with little impact on history. Perhaps no recent impact, but large parts of England were heavily influenced by Danish "occupation" (this is not intended to be insulting, but I could not think of a better word). SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne > <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > influenced by Danish "occupation" (this is not intended to be insulting, > but I could not think of a better word). We call it "conquest" and "colonization" and the large parts of England that you are hinting at were the "Dane Law". We all know that a millenium ago and before, the Danes were barbarians. Though, of course, every Dane will be a little proud when visiting Wales - to discover a cathedral ruin from the 900s. The result of a Danish viking raid. SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne >><doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > every Dane will be a little proud when visiting Wales - to discover a > cathedral ruin from the 900s. The result of a Danish viking raid. I like the description 'raid' to decribe something that gave them time to build a cathedral. SignatureRob Bannister >>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne >>><doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I like the description 'raid' to decribe something that gave them time >to build a cathedral. Evidently, you aren't aware that the Danish Vikings invented pre-fab construction. If the Swedish Vikings would have been first to Wales, the cathedral would have been constructed of interlocking colored plastic blocks. >>>We call it "conquest" and "colonization" and the large parts of England >>>that you are hinting at were the "Dane Law". We all know that a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the cathedral would have been constructed of interlocking colored > plastic blocks. I can imagine the size of the cardboard box it came in and the plastic packets of screws and the Allen key and other funny tool. My first set of Ikea shelves took me over 3 hours to put together, and I got it wrong. SignatureRob Bannister In alt.usage.english, Robert Bannister wrote: >My first set of Ikea shelves took me over 3 hours to put together, and >I got it wrong. Not necessarily. They are often designed that way. I'm a skinflint so I love Ikea but they really should user harder metals for their screws, bolts and other fixings. If you ask a shop assistant why a particular display item wobbles so badly they'll tell you it's because the idiot public keeps prodding it and playing with it. Well duh! What's gonna happen when we get it home? SignatureMickwick >>>>We call it "conquest" and "colonization" and the large parts of England >>>>that you are hinting at were the "Dane Law". We all know that a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >packets of screws and the Allen key and other funny tool. My first set >of Ikea shelves took me over 3 hours to put together, and I got it wrong. Which makes me think......who *did* originate the phrase "insert Tab A into Slot B". In alt.usage.english, Tony Cooper wrote: >>> We call it "conquest" and "colonization" and the large parts of England >>> that you are hinting at were the "Dane Law". We all know that a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >the cathedral would have been constructed of interlocking colored >plastic blocks. Brilliant! But somehow I don't think it was intentional... SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > > We call it "conquest" and "colonization" and the large parts of England > > that you are hinting at were the "Dane Law". We all know that a > > millenium ago and before, the Danes were barbarians. Though, of course, > > every Dane will be a little proud when visiting Wales - to discover a > > cathedral ruin from the 900s. The result of a Danish viking raid. > I like the description 'raid' to decribe something that gave them time > to build a cathedral. Oh, they didn't /build/ the cathedral. They burnt it! And the welshmen then built a new cathedral in the proximity. SignaturePer Erik Rønne "Per Rønne" <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote... > > I like the description 'raid' to decribe something that gave them > > time to build a cathedral. > > Oh, they didn't /build/ the cathedral. They burnt it! > > And the welshmen then built a new cathedral in the proximity. Hence the familiar Welsh saying: If you find a proximity there'll usually be a cathedral nearby. Matti >We all know that a >millenium ago and before, the Danes were barbarians. Though, of course, >every Dane will be a little proud when visiting Wales - to discover a >cathedral ruin from the 900s. The result of a Danish viking raid. It'd be hard not to make improvements to Wales, so what I'm most grateful to the Vikings for is that they founded the fine city of Dublin, pearl of Ireland. Many Irish people have Viking blood in them too, so no Paddy can, with reason, throw rocks at the Danes. I'm only a wannabe Paddy, but I don't either. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne ><doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >influenced by Danish "occupation" (this is not intended to be insulting, >but I could not think of a better word). Ireland, too. > >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne > ><doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ireland, too. Though the Scandinavian raids in Ireland were mainly Norwegian ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne >> >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Per Rønne >> ><doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> writes [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Though the Scandinavian raids in Ireland were mainly Norwegian ... No they weren't. Prior to 840 AD, the Norwegian Vikings were the most prevalent. In the late 840s, the Danish Vikings came from Northumbria and Brittany and conquered the Norwegian Vikings. The battles between the Norwegian Vikings and the Danish Vikings continued (with the power going back and forth between the two) until the late 900s when Brian mac Cenneidgih, the King of Munster that is now known as Brian Boru, drove most of the Danish out. It wasn't until the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 that the Danes were completely driven out. ObAUE: I would not consider "occupation" and "raid" to be the same thing. The Vikings - both Norwegian and Danish - occupied Ireland for about 200 years. People go home after raids, don't they? In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: >I do certainly not exclude a love for other ones. If you looked at the >paintings on my walls, you will find painters like Botticelli, >Rembrandt, Canaletto, Breughel, El Greco, Bosch. Hmmm. Are you going away over Christmas? SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hmmm. Are you going away over Christmas? Away? I'll be together with one of my brothers this evening. He lives with his wife and children in a northern suburb of Copenhagen. That is the way it has been since our parents died in 2000. In Scandinavia, the great day is to-day. 24th December. And we still use the old heathen word for Christmas: yule. Though the churches use to hold three services to-day because of lack of room. Still, with three services a day half the 500 who attend the church at yule have to stand up ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne <Highly reasonable explanations (in that I follow many of the same practices) acknowledged> >And I perfectly know that Denmark, well Scandinavia as a whole, is >placed on the fringe of Continental Europe. With relative small >populations and with little impact on history. Good man. To give credit where credit is due, I'll say that part of the world did have an impact on me, if not on world history, particularly during my travels to those fine lands in the 60s. It would be hard to imagine a city more pleasant to be in than Copenhagen, for one thing. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs <CHANGE@aircom.net> writes >>And most >>countries in Western Europe existed before 1776. > >Name just one. England? Scotland? Wales? France? Spain? Portugal? Why would these not count? SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs ><CHANGE@aircom.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >England? Scotland? Wales? France? Spain? Portugal? Why would these >not count? Indeed they would, if we could count them. UK history is complicated and fuzzy, today's France dates back to 1789, modern Spain only goes back to 19fucking75, with Portugal being a little older but young compared to the United States. If we don't get into the convoluted discussions of English history that must result if we consider it at any length, the United States is the oldest country, unchanged from its beginnings, in the world. I didn't say necessarily the best, only the oldest. God bless America, though, and let's hope, for everyone's sake, Dean or Gephardt wins in November. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs <CHANGE@aircom.net> writes >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs >><CHANGE@aircom.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >back to 19fucking75, with Portugal being a little older but young >compared to the United States. Ah! You mean the current method of government. That is not the same as the country. >If we don't get into the convoluted discussions of English history >that must result if we consider it at any length, the United States is >the oldest country, unchanged from its beginnings, in the world. I am glad that you put in that "If". SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs <CHANGE@aircom.net> writes > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 17:29:44 GMT, Mark Browne > <news@kafana.demon.co.uk> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > back to 19fucking75, with Portugal being a little older but young > compared to the United States. > If we don't get into the convoluted discussions of English history > that must result if we consider it at any length, the United States is > the oldest country, unchanged from its beginnings, in the world. How do you define "unchanged" Charles ? You've changed your boundaries (Alaska etc) and your constitution. Bob Martin > Charles Riggs writes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You've changed your boundaries (Alaska etc) and your constitution. That does seem like an assertion that depends entirely on specialized definitions. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That does seem like an assertion that depends entirely on specialized > definitions. Are there still 13 states ? >> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Are there still 13 states ? Yes. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! >>>>Charles Riggs writes >>>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Yes. Sorry, I left out the "only" ;-) > > > Charles Riggs writes [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > That does seem like an assertion that depends entirely on specialized > definitions. But as a broad-brush statement I think Charles's remark does represent a very important truth. The US constitutional settlement may not technically be older than the British one, but it seems to me to have undergone far fewer significant changes. As I've said before, the US Constitution is one of England's greatest achievements. As for boundaries, I think an Alaska can be counterbalanced fairly enough by an Ireland. Merry Christmas to all, if that isn't an unwarrantable trespass on the People's religious liberty. Mike. > As I've said before, the US Constitution is one of England's greatest > achievements. My wife opines that the Declaration is a Lockean document, and the Constitution is a Burkean one. >>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs >><CHANGE@aircom.net> writes [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > back to 19fucking75, with Portugal being a little older but young > compared to the United States. Are you sure your name isn't Joey? SignatureRob Bannister > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state > whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? So perhaps Americans are more likely to know which city the European parliament is located in? Philip Eden > So perhaps Americans are more likely to know which city the > European parliament is located in? Actually, due to France it is placed in three cities: Brussels. Straßburg [Elsaß / Alsace]. And Luxembourg. SignaturePer Erik Rønne In alt.usage.english, Philip Eden wrote: >"Mickwick" <mickwick@use.reply.to> wrote in message >> Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state >> whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? >> >So perhaps Americans are more likely to know which city the >European parliament is located in? More likely than me (I?), that's for sure. Is it in Wisconsin? SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yeah, but how many Danes can name the capital of Wisconsin, a state > whose population and economy are similar in size to Norway's? I wonder how many Americans can or would even want to. SignatureRob Bannister > > In alt.usage.english, Per Rønne wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I wonder how many Americans can or would even want to. It's not something that comes up in casual conversation very often, to be sure. Probably not even as often as Norway. However, most school children are exposed to lists of the states and their capitals, and they may even have to memorize them at some point, though that would be in the very early grades. The nations of the world don't get even that treatment, though (or at least most do not), so it's likely that a schoolchild wouldn't have reason to learn the capital of Norway (or Sweden or Denmark) unless they were particularly interested in European geography. -- rzed > It's not something that comes up in casual conversation very often, to be > sure. Probably not even as often as Norway. However, most school children [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > reason to learn the capital of Norway (or Sweden or Denmark) unless they > were particularly interested in European geography. When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > It's not something that comes up in casual conversation very often, to be > > sure. Probably not even as often as Norway. However, most school children [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ > country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. But not in an American school. I should have specified that I was speaking of the American school systems with which I am familiar. It is not a point of pride here in the US, I'd say. I would prefer to see more emphasis on teaching geography in this small world. Not everyone agrees with that view, and there are points to the other side of that argument. There is only so much time to teach all that must be taught, so less obviously valuable material is skimped or skipped entirely. In some ways it doesn't really matter much for someone whose world view begins and ends within national borders. I expect that at least some Norwegians do not bother to keep on the latest news from Burkina Faso, say, or Comoros, and there isn't much reason for a shopkeeper in Steigen to do so. Taxi drivers in Tulsa are equally unlikely to think much about Oslo. Oslo doesn't tip. -- rzed >I would prefer to see more emphasis on teaching geography in this small >world. Not everyone agrees with that view, and there are points to the other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >so. Taxi drivers in Tulsa are equally unlikely to think much about Oslo. >Oslo doesn't tip. But shopkeepers in Steigen and taxi drivers in Tulsa vote for governments that have foreign policies that could mean life or death to thousands of people. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > >I would prefer to see more emphasis on teaching geography in this small > >world. Not everyone agrees with that view, and there are points to the other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But shopkeepers in Steigen and taxi drivers in Tulsa vote for governments that > have foreign policies that could mean life or death to thousands of people. Well, true enough, but I'm not sure by what mechanism learning Norway's (or Burkina Faso's) capital is going to influence foreign policy. Assuming that you mean that increased awareness of other nations is a good thing for a given population, I'll agree. To some extent it might indeed influence a given vote but it will inevitably rank well behind other concerns. There is a political truism here in the US: all politics is local. For most of us, matters of more pressing concern are issues like keeping the paychecks coming, or the location of the nearest open grocery, or how to impress the typist and get up the courage to ask her for a date, or any of a zillion other things. They really do matter more to most people by any realistic standard. You would hope that the office-holders and professional policy makers would acquire an awareness of and appreciation for those other nations, and that they would take a global view when it's appropriate, but there's no guarantee about that any more than there is about any other aspect of office holders. -- rzed -- rzed > For most of us, matters of more pressing concern are issues like keeping the > paychecks coming, or the location of the nearest open grocery, or how to > impress the typist and get up the courage to ask her for a date, or any of a > zillion other things. They really do matter more to most people by any > realistic standard. You still got typists? I though word processing killed them off years ago! > > For most of us, matters of more pressing concern are issues like keeping the > > paychecks coming, or the location of the nearest open grocery, or how to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You still got typists? I though word processing killed them off years ago! You're right, of course, and it was silly of me not to refer to an "admin" (emphasis on the first syllable), whose duties are far more professional than those of a typist. They include typing *and* arranging for airline and hotel reservations. -- rzed > > > For most of us, matters of more pressing concern are issues like > > > keeping the paychecks coming, or the location of the nearest open > > > grocery, or how to impress the typist and get up the courage to ask > > > her for a date, or any of a zillion other things. They really do > > > matter more to most people by any realistic standard. > > You still got typists? I though word processing killed them off years ago! > You're right, of course, and it was silly of me not to refer to an "admin" > (emphasis on the first syllable), whose duties are far more professional > than those of a typist. They include typing *and* arranging for airline and > hotel reservations. And making coffee and "the like". BTW, it is no coincidence that male bosses prefer young girls as such "admins" - and female bosses prefer young boys for the same "purposes"? SignaturePer Erik Rønne >>I would prefer to see more emphasis on teaching geography in this small >>world. Not everyone agrees with that view, and there are points to the other [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But shopkeepers in Steigen and taxi drivers in Tulsa vote for governments that > have foreign policies that could mean life or death to thousands of people. Except the shopkeepers in Steigen. Norway generally does not have an aggressive, protectionist foreign policy. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > But shopkeepers in Steigen and taxi drivers in Tulsa vote for governments that > have foreign policies that could mean life or death to thousands of people. Speaking of taxi drivers, I was just thinking the other day about how taxi drivers in Chicago are very aggressive. Not aggressive in their driving, the way New York taxi drivers are, but aggressive in trying to seek out customers. They're sort of like San Francisco panhandlers (NTTAWWT). Vot a country! rzed filted: >> When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ >> country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >so. Taxi drivers in Tulsa are equally unlikely to think much about Oslo. >Oslo doesn't tip. Problem is, the rest of the world keeps moving things around...even if they'd taught me the capitals of all the countries, I still wouldn't know the one for Burkina Faso because there was no such country when I was in school...(there was an Upper Volta, but that seems to have vanished)...or they'll change the name of the capital or move it to some other city when you're not looking...and I don't even want to get into the whole Yugoslavia mishigoss.... Still, I agree that it's more important to know the capital of Sweden, Norway or Denmark (whichever we decided was the important one to know) than to know the capital of Wisconsin...Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen are all important for reasons beyond their being capitals...the capital of Wisconsin really has no other legitimate claim to importance, even in the rest of Wisconsin.... (Oh, and without Googling: Ouagadougou...I *have* learnt a few things on my own since school)....r > rzed filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > the capital or move it to some other city when you're not looking...and I don't > even want to get into the whole Yugoslavia mishigoss.... Too true. I remember the big maps with the British-, French-, and Belgian-controlled parts of Africa. All those other names burst onto the maps (several variations, in many cases) and who could keep up any longer? Maybe that's when geography fell out of favor in American schools, when they couldn't keep the textbooks current. > Still, I agree that it's more important to know the capital of Sweden, Norway or > Denmark (whichever we decided was the important one to know) than to know the > capital of Wisconsin...Stockholm, Oslo and Copenhagen are all important for > reasons beyond their being capitals...the capital of Wisconsin really has no > other legitimate claim to importance, even in the rest of Wisconsin.... Hey now, that's where I was born! Don't you go dissin' Madison! > (Oh, and without Googling: Ouagadougou...I *have* learnt a few things on my own > since school)....r I *am* impressed! -- rzed R.H. Draney: > > the capital of Wisconsin really has no other legitimate claim to > > importance, even in the rest of Wisconsin.... Dick Zantow: > Hey now, that's where I was born! Don't you go dissin' Madison! Hey, at least it got mentioned. Do you ever see *anyone* talking about *Nottingham* in this newsgroup? SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "This is as 'real' as your so-called life gets!" msb@vex.net | "Q Who", ST:TNG, Maurice Hurley > R.H. Draney: > > > the capital of Wisconsin really has no other legitimate claim to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Hey, at least it got mentioned. Do you ever see *anyone* talking > about *Nottingham* in this newsgroup? After all, it is well known from all the Robin Hood movies ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne > R.H. Draney: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Hey, at least it got mentioned. Do you ever see *anyone* talking > about *Nottingham* in this newsgroup? Yes. SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com Mark Brader filted: >R.H. Draney: >> > the capital of Wisconsin really has no other legitimate claim to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Hey, at least it got mentioned. Do you ever see *anyone* talking >about *Nottingham* in this newsgroup? Mr Zantow is the first person who actually *said* "Madison"...everyone else has been using such circumlocutions as "the capital of Wisconsin", and I made a deliberate point of continuing the trend.... Okay, to be fair, I know of Madison--apart from its capitalociousness--because it was the hometown of my songwriting partner back in the 70s, and because it's the point of origin of Michael Feldman's "Whadya Know?" program on public radio...you are hereby given permission to make whatever jibes you like at Glendale, California...(good thing I wasn't born in Burbank or all the work would have already been done for you)....r > > It's not something that comes up in casual conversation very often, to be > > sure. Probably not even as often as Norway. However, most school children [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ > country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. Those of us in Washington state don't like having to say 'state' after the name of our state because people refuse to say 'DC' after the nation's capital. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > > > It's not something that comes up in casual conversation very often, to > > > be sure. Probably not even as often as Norway. However, most school [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > the name of our state because people refuse to say 'DC' after the > nation's capital. But at least in Europe, "Washington" means the city, "the state of Washington" the state - that is, if they happen to know of the existence of the US state with Seattle as capital and King Bill [Gates] as head of state :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne > Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) > <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But at least in Europe, "Washington" means the city, "the state of > Washington" the state - That is what happens in the US too. That's the problem. Why do I have to say 'state' after my state but all the other states are just their names? California is just California. Oregon is just Oregon. > that is, if they happen to know of the existence > of the US state with Seattle as capital and King Bill [Gates] as head of > state :-). Is your joke going all the way back to Seattle being the capital? I'd hate to have people think that was true. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > > But at least in Europe, "Washington" means the city, "the state of > > Washington" the state - > That is what happens in the US too. That's the problem. Why do I have to > say 'state' after my state but all the other states are just their > names? No problem. Just rename the state. What about "Lincoln"? > > that is, if they happen to know of the existence > > of the US state with Seattle as capital and King Bill [Gates] as head of > > state :-). > Is your joke going all the way back to Seattle being the capital? I'd > hate to have people think that was true. My joke was on King Bill, not on Seattle. I just thought Seattle was the capital since that is the only city in the state I've heard about. My Encyclopædia Britannica says your capital is placed in Greece: Olympia near Mons Olympos :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne > Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) > <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No problem. Just rename the state. What about "Lincoln"? Are you aware of the efforts in Washington state to spilt the state down the middle North to South at the Cascade range and make what is currently eastern Washington into the state of Lincoln? If so, and if you are really in Europe, I'm impressed. > > > that is, if they happen to know of the existence > > > of the US state with Seattle as capital and King Bill [Gates] as head of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Encyclopædia Britannica says your capital is placed in Greece: Olympia > near Mons Olympos :-). Watch out, we also have the Olympic peninsula which has the Olympic mountains including Mt Olympus. We are one of the few areas in the world where businesses can get away with calling themselves 'Olympic' this or that and not get sued by the folks who run the legal department for the Olympic Games. An interesting game to play with state capitals is to look and see if the capital is the city that is the largest or most important in the state. Seattle isn't the capital of Washington. Portland isn't the capital of Oregon. LA or San Francisco aren't the capital of California. I don't recall, but I think it's at about 25% major city is the capital in the US. Looking at Australia, for example, I think that it is pretty much 100% major city is the capital. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > > Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) > > <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > > No problem. Just rename the state. What about "Lincoln"? > Are you aware of the efforts in Washington state to spilt the state down > the middle North to South at the Cascade range and make what is > currently eastern Washington into the state of Lincoln? If so, and if > you are really in Europe, I'm impressed. Ever heard about the www ? :-). We can read the US newspapers in Europe. Personally, I read two major, foreign newspapers: Jerusalem Post and The New York Times. > Looking at Australia, for example, I think that it is pretty > much 100% major city is the capital. Canberra isn't Australia's "major city". SignaturePer Erik Rønne Bill Bonde writes: > Seattle isn't the capital of Washington. Portland isn't the > capital of Oregon. LA or San Francisco aren't the capital of California. > I don't recall, but I think it's at about 25% major city is the capital > in the US. To be exactly, as of the 1990 census 17 states, or 34%, had their largest city as capital. In 8 states the capital was the second-largest city (mostly a fairly distant second), and in 8 the third-largest. In Canada, 5 or 6 provinces out of 10 (I'm not sure about NB) and all 3 territories currently have their largest cities as capital. In two of the rest, it's a close second. Of course, the national capital, Ottawa, is not the largest city, nor close. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Show that 17x17 = 289. Generalise this result." msb@vex.net | -- Carl E. Linderholm My text in this article is in the public domain. On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> writes >Are you aware of the efforts in Washington state to spilt the state >down the middle North to South at the Cascade range and make what is >currently eastern Washington into the state of Lincoln? What would be the advantage in that? SignatureMark Browne If replying by email, please use the "Reply-To" address, as the "From" address will be rejected Bill Bonde: >> Are you aware of the efforts in Washington state to spilt the state >> down the middle ... Mark Browne: > What would be the advantage in that? Two more senators? SignatureMark Brader "...most mistakes are made the last thing before Toronto you go to bed. So go to bed before you do msb@vex.net the last thing." -- David Jacques Way Mark Browne filted: >On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique >allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >What would be the advantage in that? Force people in Nebraska to refer to "Lincoln City"....r > Mark Browne filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Force people in Nebraska to refer to "Lincoln City"....r There's also a Lincoln City closer in Oregon. Revenge! Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack filted: >> Mark Browne filted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >There's also a Lincoln City closer in Oregon. Revenge! If I read my maps correctly, the proposed redistricting would also change the name of a certain small town in Grant County to "George, Lincoln"...it seems a great deal of trouble to kill what was originally a clever little joke....r > On Tue, 23 Dec 2003, in alt.usage.english, "Bill Bonde ( the oblique > allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What would be the advantage in that? One disadvantage is that the town of George, Washington would become George, Lincoln. Beyond that, the issue is mostly a feeling in eastern Washington that it doesn't get paid attention to with most of the population being in Seattle and its environs. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack filted: >One disadvantage is that the town of George, Washington would become >George, Lincoln. Damn...we can't always read threads clear through to the ends, you know....r > Looking at Australia, for example, I think that it is pretty > much 100% major city is the capital. In fact, you could add that something like 90% * of Australians live in the various state capitals. * Invented number - it's probably more than 90%. SignatureRob Bannister > > Looking at Australia, for example, I think that it is pretty > > much 100% major city is the capital. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > * Invented number - it's probably more than 90%. I recall repeating something I heard that made sense (so I repeated it) that Americans were more rural than Australians. Even though Australia is huge and most of it is rural (to use a word to call it), clearly most people don't live outside cities there. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > > In fact, you could add that something like 90% * of Australians live in > > the various state capitals. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > is huge and most of it is rural (to use a word to call it), clearly most > people don't live outside cities there. I gather that the population of Australia is more concentrated in urban areas (which might be considered "cities" in AusE) compared to the American population, but I think our different notion of "city" may be at work here too. Most of the American population today lives in non-rural areas (cities in the AmE informal sense, suburbs in the AmE informal sense). Take Coop. He says he lives in an "unincorporated" area, and it's no doubt a very bucolic setting, seeing as how his house abuts a golf course. But I'll bet to an Australian, or to a BrE, he lives in a city (Orlando), or at least in a conurbation (Orlando). In sum: Tony: Orlando. > I gather that the population of Australia is more concentrated in > urban areas (which might be considered "cities" in AusE) compared to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > In sum: Tony: Orlando. Ah, yes, it's dawning. SignatureSkitt (in Hayward, California) www.geocities.com/opus731/ >>>In fact, you could add that something like 90% * of Australians live in >>>the various state capitals. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > urban areas (which might be considered "cities" in AusE) compared to the > American population Are you saying that 1-3 million people is insufficient to qualify for city status? SignatureRob Bannister > >>>In fact, you could add that something like 90% * of Australians live in > >>>the various state capitals. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Are you saying that 1-3 million people is insufficient to qualify for > city status? Not-ta-tall, but would it qualify for AmE "city" status? Some people here commit AUE Fallacy #1 and assert that a "city" is whatever is governmentally or officially defined to be a city. That's bogus. An AusE would regard Tony Cooper as living in the city known as Orlando, I'll bet, rustic villa notwithstanding. Whether Tony lives in a "city" in the non-fallacious organic AmE sense is another story. Coop, post some pictures of your neighborhood. In sum: Tony: Orlando. > Not-ta-tall, but would it qualify for AmE "city" status? Some people here > commit AUE Fallacy #1 and assert that a "city" is whatever is > governmentally or officially defined to be a city. That's bogus. Agreed. My city, Perth, 1.3 million inhabitants, is divided into 5, 6 or more "cities" for administrative purposes. The actual "city" of Perth is tiny, but when we talk about people living in cities as opposed to the country, we ignore administrative trivia. SignatureRob Bannister > Not-ta-tall, but would it qualify for AmE "city" status? Some people here > commit AUE Fallacy #1 and assert that a "city" is whatever is > governmentally or officially defined to be a city. Englishmen will assert that a city is a place with a cathedral. Thus, in Wales you will find a village which is also a - city :-). SignaturePer Erik Rønne Per Rønne wrote: >>Not-ta-tall, but would it qualify for AmE "city" status? Some people here >>commit AUE Fallacy #1 and assert that a "city" is whatever is >>governmentally or officially defined to be a city. > > Englishmen will assert that a city is a place with a cathedral. Thus, in > Wales you will find a village which is also a - city :-). I remember being told at school (UK) that a city was a place with a cathedral or a university. Bob Martin "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > Per Rønne wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I remember being told at school (UK) that a city was a place with a > cathedral or a university. Unless this was told you by the class idiot, you have an excellent basis for requesting your money back. Matti > "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Matti Please explain why it is wrong. "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > > "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > >>Per Rønne wrote: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Please explain why it is wrong. It's wrong because there is no such strict relationship; as a rule of thumb, though, it has its uses. Look at the following page to get a fuller picture: http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm The Welsh village-city mentioned by Per above, St Davids, has had a cathedral for almost a thousand years, but it was accorded its city status less than a decade ago. Therefore it was a counter-example when you were at school, I assume! Matti > "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > status less than a decade ago. Therefore it was a counter-example when > you were at school, I assume! Matti, please read my append again. I said I was told that a city is a place with a cathedral or a university, NOT that a place with a cathedral or university is a city. There is a difference. Can you think of a city in the UK that has neither ? Bob Martin >> "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > There is a difference. > Can you think of a city in the UK that has neither ? The accuracy of the statement made to you might depend on the date at which it was made. According to the web page Matti cites, Stoke-on-Trent became a city in 1925. It doesn't appear to have a cathedral and it didn't have a university until 1992. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > I said I was told that a city is a place with a cathedral or a > university, NOT that a place with a cathedral or university is a > city. There is a difference. If there's a difference, then "place with a cathedral or university" is not a valid definition of "city." SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > > > "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Look at the following page to get a fuller picture: > http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm [...] And on that basis, what an utterly pointless thing it turns out to be! It's even worse than the honours system. I don't suppose it costs the taxpayer much, but even a trifling cost on something this meaningless would be worth saving. Mike. > "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >>> "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > status less than a decade ago. Therefore it was a counter-example > when you were at school, I assume! Don't forget St. Asaph. m. "mUs1Ka" <mUs1Ka@exite.com> wrote... > > The Welsh village-city mentioned by Per above, St Davids, has had a > > cathedral for almost a thousand years, but it was accorded its city > > status less than a decade ago. Therefore it was a counter-example > > when you were at school, I assume! > > > Don't forget St. Asaph. Yes -- another place with a cathedral which has never been a city. Matti bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > Per Rønne wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I remember being told at school (UK) that a city was a place with a > cathedral or a university. Hence the well-known City of Keele? SignatureDavid ===== > bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Hence the well-known City of Keele? Yes, very funny. Anything with 2 classrooms is a university these days. I was told what I said above by a respected grammar school geography master who was close to retirement. This was in 1950. He probably did his education around the turn of the century. Can you think of any pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor university ? Cambridge was a city but had no cathedral. Bob Martin "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > Can you think of any pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor > university ? Cambridge was a city but had no cathedral. Bath. (It has an abbey, of course, and a university since 1966.) Matti >"Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >> >> Can you think of any pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor >> university ? Cambridge was a city but had no cathedral. > >Bath. (It has an abbey, of course, and a university since 1966.) Westminster. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". >>"Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Westminster. Isn't Westminster Cathedral in Westminster? SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com >>> "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Isn't Westminster Cathedral in Westminster? Yes, it's a stone's throw from Victoria Station and half-a-mile from Westminster Abbey. A very striking brick building, but not to my taste. Bob Martin >>>> "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Bob Martin Just adding to my last missive, although Westminster was a city long before the modern Catholic cathedral was built, the Abbey is usually thought of as a cathedral because of its size and the fact that it is the coronation place and resting place of kings. I believe it was actually called a cathedral at one time. Bob Martin >>>>> "Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the coronation place and resting place of kings. I believe it was > actually called a cathedral at one time. I don't think I'll take that as an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement. I'm not aware that Westminster Abbey (or to call it by its correct name, The Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster) is "usually thought of as a cathedral" though I *am* aware some people call it that. You might as well say that a city is usually thought of as a place with a cathedral or a University and bring the thread to a close. If we're defining 'cathedral' as 'bloody big church' it might qualify, but cathedrals are strictly the places where a Bishop has his throne. The Abbey being a 'Royal Peculiar' and not within any diocese doesn't, therefore, qualify as a cathedral. -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > I don't think I'll take that as an 'ex cathedra' pronouncement. I'm not > aware that Westminster Abbey (or to call it by its correct name, The > Collegiate Church of St Peter, Westminster) is "usually thought of as a > cathedral" It appears in many books of cathedrals; there was a Bishop of Westminster at one time, and it was a cathedral from 1540 to 1550. When Henry VIII created six new sees in the 1540s he promoted four abbey-churches to cathedrals : Westminster, Peterborough, Gloucester and Chester. Westminster was subsequently demoted. The other two sees were Bristol and Oxford. Bob Martin [...] > > Isn't Westminster Cathedral in Westminster? > Yes, it's a stone's throw from Victoria Station and > half-a-mile from Westminster Abbey. > > A very striking brick building, but not to my taste. You lick bricks? SignatureReinhold (Rey) Aman fkemmish@optonline.net spake thus: > >>"Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Isn't Westminster Cathedral in Westminster? Another Catholic cathedral. I think there's one of those new university things now. SignatureDavid ===== >>"Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Westminster. Westmister cathedral is Roman Catholic. The Abbey, although crown property, may serve as a cathedral. Westminster University is in Westminster, and has been for more than 150 years. Also, King's College and St Thomas' Hospital (both University of London hospitals) are both in Westminster. What about the other way? Places that have a university or cathedral, but are not cities. I'll start the ball rolling with Southwick. SignatureSimon R. Hughes a57998.not.this.bit@yahoo.no spake thus: > >>"Bob Martin" <bob.martin@excite.com> wrote... > >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cathedral, but are not cities. I'll start the ball rolling with > Southwick. You've been away too long - it's Southwark. Wikipedia says that the historic connection was with a "diocesan cathedral": http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Church_of_England_dioceses Southwark is on the list of Dioceses. Comparing the list of cities with the list of Diceses gives these towns which have cathedrals but are not cities: Truro, Chelsmford (!), Blackburn. There may be more - I did this by eye. SignatureDavid ===== bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > > bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > master who was close to retirement. This was in 1950. He probably did > his education around the turn of the century. I have to defend Keele - it has more right to university status than (say) Central Lancashire, having been created in the 70s along with York, East Anglia and Daughter's current home from home, Warwick. > Can you think of any pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor > university ? Cambridge was a city but had no cathedral. Do some of the Cambridge chapels have cathedral status? There's an excellent list here http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_of_the_United_Kingdom which gives us a couple: Lancaster, a city from time immemorial, seems only to have a Catholic cathedral. It now has a university of course. Hull, granted city status in 1299 - no university until the 1950s and no cathedral. SignatureDavid ===== > Lancaster, a city from time immemorial, seems only to have a Catholic > cathedral. It now has a university of course. All the cathedrals were Catholic before the Reformation. Bob Martin bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > > Lancaster, a city from time immemorial, seems only to have a Catholic > > cathedral. It now has a university of course. > > All the cathedrals were Catholic before the Reformation. Please sir, the rubric said 1914. This raises an interesting question. Are all the UK catholic cathedrals modern? I know Liverpool and Salford - these are new and fairly new, respectively. SignatureDavid ===== > bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Please sir, the rubric said 1914. Do you seriously suggest that the Reformation was _after_ 1914? SignatureMartin Ambuhl mambuhl@earthlink.net spake thus: > > bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you seriously suggest that the Reformation was _after_ 1914? You asked for "pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor university". Pre-1914, Lancaster was a city with no (Anglican, Diocesan) cathedral and no university. But my query remains. How did cathedrals get to stay RC? Did the monks hide them from Henry VIII? SignatureDavid ===== > You asked for "pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor > university". No, I didn't. SignatureMartin Ambuhl mambuhl@earthlink.net spake thus: > > You asked for "pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor > > university". > > No, I didn't. So you didn't. It must have been your doppelganger. SignatureDavid ===== > mambuhl@earthlink.net spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > But my query remains. How did cathedrals get to stay RC? Did the > monks hide them from Henry VIII? I don't think any cathedrals stayed RC. Alec Clifton-Taylor ("The Cathedrals of England") says : 'Catholic emancipation in England dates from 1829 and cathedrals were erected in Birmingham and in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in 1839-1841 and 1844 respectively.' As far as I know, all other RC cathedrals were built after this time. Bob Martin bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > > mambuhl@earthlink.net spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > As far as I know, all other RC cathedrals were built after this time. I was going to rejoin with Westminster Cathedral, but I find to my astonishment that it was begun in 1865. SignatureDavid ===== > bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I was going to rejoin with Westminster Cathedral, but I find to my > astonishment that it was begun in 1865. The author I quoted above says 1895 to 1903. > bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I was going to rejoin with Westminster Cathedral, but I find to my > astonishment that it was begun in 1865. And is still unfinished, I believe. It is a strange place. Killing time in the area on a wet day, I ventured inside, not long after our summer trip which included visits to many cathedrals (I liked Helsinki the best). It was dark and gloomy but surprisingly homely and quite busy for a weekday mid-morning. I got the impression that quite a few people working locally pop in for a quick pray. I felt unusually comfortable there. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > quite a few people working locally pop in for a quick pray. I felt > unusually comfortable there. I sang there once. Lovely acoustic. m. laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk spake thus: > > I was going to rejoin with Westminster Cathedral, but I find to my > > astonishment that it was begun in 1865. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > working locally pop in for a quick pray. I felt unusually comfortable > there. I haven't been inside Helsinki Cathedral - I will try to find the time on my next visit. Visiting Westminster Cathedral, however, would involve going to London. SignatureDavid ===== > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > time on my next visit. Visiting Westminster Cathedral, however, > would involve going to London. I loved Helsinki Cathedral - it's very plain and full of light, a terrific contrast to St Isaac's in St Petersburg. The steps up to it were a bit of a killer as it was hot when we were there. There is a wonderful little building opposite which houses some lovely craft shops. But the most impressive religious building I've visited in the last few months has to be the Mesquita in Cordoba. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > > laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > But the most impressive religious building I've visited in the last few > months has to be the Mesquita in Cordoba. Is Cordoba still white and silent? The city and the mesquita and the little courtyard with the statue of Maimonides are all a part of the world of my dreams. >>>laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The city and the mesquita and the little courtyard with the statue of > Maimonides are all a part of the world of my dreams. It wasn't very silent when we were there last March - full of tour parties - but it was certainly white and the Rambam is still there. If you search Google Images for maimonides+cordoba you'll find some pictures to remind you. I found it very poignant to realise that Muslims, Christians and Jews had lived together so peacefully and so productively for such a long time. I was especially moved by the signatures of the workmen on the pillars in the mesquita. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) >> bob.martin@excite.com spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Can you think of any pre-1914 cities which had neither cathedral nor > university ? Thorny question - do we count Catholic Cathedrals? I guess strictly not, but others may disagree. Kingston upon Hull (City 1299) Leeds (City 1893, Uni from 1904, Catholic Cathedral from 1878, replaced 1904) Dundee (City 1889, Uni from 1964. It did have a University College but that was only from 1881 and later became part of St Andrews.) Note the Government guidance: http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm << Why are there no criteria? The use of specific criteria could lead to a town claiming city status as of right, which in turn might devalue the honour. Must a city have a cathedral? No. What guidance has been given to potential applicants? Towns known to be interested in applying for city status have been told that the following main factors will be taken into account by Ministers: notable features, including significance regionally; significance within England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and/or significance within the United Kingdom as a whole; historical (including Royal) considerations; and a forward-looking attitude. >> -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > That is what happens in the US too. That's the problem. Why do I > have to say 'state' after my state but all the other states are > just their names? California is just California. Oregon is just > Oregon. New York is just New York. SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" > <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > New York is just New York. That was one I wondered about. People in New York just say 'upstate' or something like that, right? Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > > "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" > > <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > That was one I wondered about. People in New York just say 'upstate' or > something like that, right? I grew up in New York (city), but to me referring to the state as "New York" is confusing even in contexts where the usage is, seemingly, unambiguous. (For example, "the governor of New York" just *looks wrong* somehow.) The state is "New York State", plain and simple. Albany is not "New York's capital", but "New York State's capital". Upstate (NTM people f*rther out) people might see things differently. "Upstate" does not refer to the state in general, of course, nor does it refer to the non-New-York-City portions of the state (for example, Long Island, not even Suffolk County [home of Daniel McGrath {say, ...}], is not "Upstate" any more than Rockford, Ill. is "downstate", whatever Coop might tell you). I have a rather narrow definition of "Upstate"; to some people it seems to mean "any part of New York state north of the Bronx". In alt.usage.english, Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) wrote: >Those of us in Washington state don't like having to say 'state' after >the name of our state because people refuse to say 'DC' after the >nation's capital. Yet some people think badly of foreigners who - understandably, given the above - get the two Washingtons confused from time to time. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the > frontal attack ) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Yet some people think badly of foreigners who - understandably, given > the above - get the two Washingtons confused from time to time. Just call the other Washington "Central South Laurel". Anyhow, most of the time I hear Washington called "D.C." by those with even some remote connection to it, and sometimes "the District" by some with closer connections. Check with Liebs about dat. Technically, I guess, Washington is the city, and the District is what the city is contained in. > In alt.usage.english, Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the > frontal attack ) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yet some people think badly of foreigners who - understandably, given > the above - get the two Washingtons confused from time to time. That's the town in Pennsylvania and the county in Oregon, right? SignatureRob Bannister > > In alt.usage.english, Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the > > frontal attack ) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > That's the town in Pennsylvania and the county in Oregon, right? There's also a town of Washington in Virginia, home to one of the finest gourmet restaurants within a hundred miles of the Washington in DC. SignatureBob Lieblich Who's still saving up for a meal there Robert Lieblich filted: >> > In alt.usage.english, Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the >> > frontal attack ) wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >finest gourmet restaurants within a hundred miles of the Washington >in DC. Let's save time and do this now...the USGS lists a "populated place" named "Washington", thirty-five in all, in each of the following states: Arkansas (twice) California Connecticut District of Columbia Georgia Iowa (twice) Illinois Indiana Kansas Louisiana Massachusetts Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi North Carolina Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey (twice) Nevada Oklahoma Pennsylvania (twice) Rhode Island South Carolina Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Wisconsin West Virginia Among US towns and cities that share their names with a state, that's the record...second place is "Wyoming", of which there are eighteen, including one in Wyoming itself...(that's rarer than you'd think, by the way; only "Maine", "Wyoming" and "New York" occur in their own states)...by way of contrast, the only "Wisconsin" is in Kentucky....r >There's also a town of Washington in Virginia, home to one of the >finest gourmet restaurants within a hundred miles of the Washington >in DC. Are we to leave out Middleburg (sp), home to the finest roast duck I've ever had? A former hometown of that gourmet of gourmets Liz Taylor, to boot? Nothing better in Alexandria than in "Washington", Virginia? Oh dear, why have I never heard of the place, let alone had dinner there? SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net << [Bill Bonde] Those of us in Washington state don't like having to say 'state' after the name of our state because people refuse to say 'DC' after the nation's capital. [end quote] >> Why didn't they think about that back in the 1880s when Washington was about to join the Union? Was it the case that people (and foreign countries) referred to the nation's capital as something other than Washington? (I am curious about this. Was there a debate? Was the winning side disgraced? What were the alternate names for the state?) -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ><< [Bill Bonde] >Those of us in Washington state don't like having to say 'state' after [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Was it the case that people (and foreign countries) referred >to the nation's capital as something other than Washington? Nineteenth century sources tend to call it Washington City. Whitman used that in the titles of two poems, http://www.daypoems.net/poems/2050.html and http://www.daypoems.net/poems/2055.html. Also see http://www.constitution.org/img/wash-cit.htm and http://www.hgrobinet.com/Washington.html SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". > ><< [Bill Bonde] > >Those of us in Washington state don't like having to say 'state' after [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > http://www.constitution.org/img/wash-cit.htm and > http://www.hgrobinet.com/Washington.html Contemporary residents of the area, of which the city itself represents perhaps 15 percent of the total population, refer to it as "the District" (just as on that TV show on CBS Saturday nights). The highway signs say mostly "Washington." The entire area is of course known as Greater Laurel. SignatureBob Lieblich In the Arlingon part of GL Richard Maurer: > Why didn't they think about that back in the 1880s when > Washington was about to join the Union? ... > What were the alternate names for the state? The way I've read it, the name first proposed for the new state was Columbia. This certainly makes sense; you have British Columbia just across the Canadian border, and the mighty Columbia River flowing through both. Presumably the name was applied at one time to the whole region. However, "Columbia" was rejected as the name of the new state because, after all, *there was already a District of Columbia, and it would be confusing*. What sort of mind does it *take* to make that observation, and then choose the name Washington for the state? (Speaking of states and like-named rivers, it was only in the 20th century that Colorado began to include any significant length of the Colorado River. The section upstream of Grand Junction used to be called something else -- the Green River, I think. In this case the river and the state were named independently. "Colorado" was a second-choice name for the state too; it was first going to be called Idaho, until the last-minute revelation that the name had been proposed for bogus reasons. Again the name began to be used for the general region, so when another new state needed naming and no one had anything better, the rejected name was taken for that.) SignatureMark Brader | "He's suffering from Politicians' Logic." Toronto | "Something must be done, this is something, therefore msb@vex.net | we must do it." -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER My text in this article is in the public domain. >> It's not something that comes up in casual conversation very often, to be >> sure. Probably not even as often as Norway. However, most school children [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ >country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. Memorizing a list of their names would be the last thing I'd want to do if I wanted to learn about these cities or about the countries they are located in. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > >When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ > >country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. > Memorizing a list of their names would be the last thing I'd want to > do if I wanted to learn about these cities or about the countries they > are located in. We had to learn other things about each country too. Of course Danish school children aren't taught this to-day. SignaturePer Erik Rønne > > >When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ > > >country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > We had to learn other things about each country too. Of course Danish > school children aren't taught this to-day. I wonder why. A basic framework on which to attach knowledge is a good thing, and having the nations and capitals of the world as part of that basic framework seems like a good idea to me. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack ) <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: > > > >When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ > > > >country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. > > > Memorizing a list of their names would be the last thing I'd want to > > > do if I wanted to learn about these cities or about the countries they > > > are located in. > > We had to learn other things about each country too. Of course Danish > > school children aren't taught this to-day. > I wonder why. A basic framework on which to attach knowledge is a good > thing, and having the nations and capitals of the world as part of that > basic framework seems like a good idea to me. Being a teacher at the upper secondary and college level, I can only regret that the Danish education system has been deteriorating for decades. You'll meet pupils in grade 13 [Form 7] taking their S-levels who can't isolate b in the equation »a = b + c«. Quite a disadvantage if you're making a Java program which amortizes a couple of mortgages in a house. At a certain place in the program you will "know" the debt service and the interest. And you'll know that debt service = repayment + interest. We were taught to solve equations in the first two years of middle school [grade 6-7 at grammar school, pupils aged 12-13]. But no more: every child is said to be equal so what not every child can learn, no child may be taught. SignaturePer Erik Rønne Per R?nne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > When I attended middle school, we had to learn the capital of /every/ > country. Nepal: Kathmandu, USA: Washington, Bhutan: Thimphu etc. I learned on the Discovery channel that Nepal is at the same latitude as Florida. What I've never learned is why we can't drop "District of Columbia" from the name of the U.S. capital. What purpose does adding D.C. serve? > Per R?nne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > as Florida. What I've never learned is why we can't drop "District of Columbia" > from the name of the U.S. capital. What purpose does adding D.C. serve? So you didn't catch the plaintive cries of us Washingtonians? From the state, I mean. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > In Denmark, it is said that Americans think Copenhagen is Sweden's > capital ;-(. Copenhagen needs to come up with a memorable, exportable cheese. Every American knows that the capital of Sweeden is Ikea, and the largest city is Volvograd. Norway's best chance at recognition is to harbor some al-Qaeda. > Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > city is Volvograd. Norway's best chance at recognition is to harbor > some al-Qaeda. Volvograd? Are there any cities in Denmark using 'grad'? Over here in Washington state, we have a 'Thorp'. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > > Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Volvograd? Are there any cities in Denmark using 'grad'? Over here in > Washington state, we have a 'Thorp'. But that's not a quaint and romantic survival of its name in Old English, is it? Surely the dorf is named after somebody named Thorpe. Gary > > > Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > But that's not a quaint and romantic survival of its name in Old > English, is it? Surely the dorf is named after somebody named Thorpe. Thorp, Washington is right next to Ellensburg, Washington. We also have a Medina, Washington. So you can see why I'm wondering about the use of 'grad' outside Slavic language speaking countries. Especially these words used alone as the names of towns, cities, etc. is interesting. The official name of Medina, Saudi Arabia is fairly long and ends with Medina, city in Arabic. This is a lot like how someone in New York City might call it "The City". For more, although not relevant, fun, we have a town called George, Washington. Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" "Bill Bonde ( the oblique allusion in lieu of the frontal attack )" wrote: > > > > Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > For more, although not relevant, fun, we have a town called George, > Washington. For a while a town in Eastern Montana was named Joe. They gave it up when nobody visited anyway. SignatureBob Lieblich IANMTU >> > > Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: >> > > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >For more, although not relevant, fun, we have a town called George, >Washington. What is this? You don't see the Volvo-as-in-Volvo-grad Sweden? Ikea-as-in-furniture Sweeden? > Thorp, Washington is right next to Ellensburg, Washington. We also have > a Medina, Washington. So you can see why I'm wondering about the use of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Medina, city in Arabic. This is a lot like how someone in New York City > might call it "The City". Medina is, perhaps with some relevance, the name of estuary stretching from Newport to Cowes on the Isle of Wight. So maybe there were some Vectian (Vectic?) settlers in Washington. Philip Eden > > > > Per Ronne <doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid> wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Medina, city in Arabic. This is a lot like how someone in New York City > might call it "The City". al-madi:na(t) al-munawwara(t) "the Illuminated City". (or "the Shining City") in Qur'an 68:8 just al-madi:na(t) , usually taken to mean madi:natu~n-nabiyy "City of the Prophet", against this see Enc. of Islam II "(al-)Madina". actually the other way round, it's more like calling "New York City" just "New York". al-madi:na(t) is well established as a proper noun in this case, the other is just a common epithet, that has become the established one recently. in classical arabic al-madi:na(t) also meant "place of jurisdiction", "polity" (which is the etymological one, strictly speaking an old l.w. from aramaic). Plato's "Republic" (greek: politea) was original translated (by al-fa:ra:bi) as "al-madi:na(t) . it was where Muhammad founded the first islamic state. the original name was ya*th*rib . Yathrib is used only in the context of its preislamic past or events around Muhammad's early career. > For more, although not relevant, fun, we have a town called George, > Washington. > > Thorp, Washington is right next to Ellensburg, Washington. We also have > > a Medina, Washington. So you can see why I'm wondering about the use of [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > actually the other way round, it's more like calling "New York City" > just "New York". Whoa. The proper name is "New York" (it's officially "the City of New York"); "New York City" is an improper name. Though it's a sub-tle thing, it's generally the case that Outsiders are more likely to use "New York City" and Insiders are more likely to use "New York" in corresponding contexts. An ancient New York proverb goes "Beware of anyone who says 'I come from New York City'". (I'll admit, I often say that, but because you get tired of people saying "city?" or "city or state?" and things like that.) > > > Thorp, Washington is right next to Ellensburg, Washington. We also have > > > a Medina, Washington. So you can see why I'm wondering about the use of [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > City" and Insiders are more likely to use "New York" in corresponding > contexts. What about the same issue as "Washington DC" and "Washington state"? Do people in the City of New York calling it "New York" force people in New York state to call it New York state? [RF:] > > Whoa. The proper name is "New York" (it's officially "the City of New > > York"); "New York City" is an improper name. Though it's a sub-tle thing, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > people in the City of New York calling it "New York" force people in New > York state to call it New York state? Yes, of course. In fact, driver's licenses (= BrE "licences"; = S.US "licens") in New York state say "NEW YORK STATE" on them. That's about as official as you can get, to my mind. In alt.usage.english, R F wrote: >driver's licenses (= BrE "licences"; Actually, = BrE "driving licences". SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > In alt.usage.english, R F wrote: > >driver's licenses (= BrE "licences"; > > Actually, = BrE "driving licences". I think the "driving" may be used officially in some US states, as is "driver license", but in common speech I think "driver's license" is standard in AmE. >> Whoa. The proper name is "New York" (it's officially "the City of New >> York"); "New York City" is an improper name. Though it's a sub-tle thing, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >people in the City of New York calling it "New York" force people in New >York state to call it New York state? I appreciate that you probably weren't here at the time, but many of us would prefer that you google some of the, literally, thousands of posts that RF has made on this subject, rather than having it all inflicted on us again. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com". > An ancient New York proverb goes "Beware of anyone who says 'I > come from New York City'". (I'll admit, I often say that, but because you > get tired of people saying "city?" or "city or state?" and things like > that.) For shame, Areff. Tell them you're from TFLCIA. SignatureBob Lieblich Whose wife is still from TFLBINY >Whoa. The proper name is "New York" (it's officially "the City of New >York"); "New York City" is an improper name. Though it's a sub-tle thing, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >get tired of people saying "city?" or "city or state?" and things like >that.) One thing I do know is that the capital of New York is not the one that had a chief of police called Pritchett. Steve Hayes hayesmstw@hotmail.com http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm > > actually the other way round, it's more like calling "New York City" > > just "New York". > Whoa. The proper name is "New York" (it's officially "the City of New > York"); "New York City" is an improper name. Though it's a sub-tle thing, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > get tired of people saying "city?" or "city or state?" and things like > that.) Well, I think most non-Americans just call the city "New York". They are rarely aware of the fact that "New York" is an American state too and if they are, they would refer to the state as "the State of New York" and the city as just "New York" :-). When teasing, though, they might choose the name "New Amsterdam" ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne > Well, I think most non-Americans just call the city "New York". They are > rarely aware of the fact that "New York" is an American state too and if > they are, they would refer to the state as "the State of New York" and > the city as just "New York" :-). This is consistent with what I've observed. The "New York City" misusage is primarily an American thing. > When teasing, though, they might choose the name "New Amsterdam" ... This is not at all a wrong thing. I wouldn't mind changing the name back to New Amsterdam. At the very least, Lower Manhattan should be called New Amsterdam. New York State could be New Netherland again. > > Well, I think most non-Americans just call the city "New York". They are > > rarely aware of the fact that "New York" is an American state too and if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > This is consistent with what I've observed. The "New York City" misusage > is primarily an American thing. Isn't it an American city? Was it around here or somewhere else that I wondered about NYPD and FDNY? Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" > > > Well, I think most non-Americans just call the city "New York". They are > > > rarely aware of the fact that "New York" is an American state too and if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > Isn't it an American city? I'm not sure. > Was it around here or somewhere else that I > wondered about NYPD and FDNY? Sure, whatever R.J. Valentine might tell you, the police department in New York (city) is called the NYPD. And the fire engines (= BrE "fire brigade lorries"???) say "FDNY" on them. >fire engines (= BrE "fire >brigade lorries"???) Nope, "fire engines" works for us too. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove number to reply ... } Sure, whatever R.J. Valentine might tell you, the police department in New } York (city) is called the NYPD. And the fire engines (= BrE "fire } brigade lorries"???) say "FDNY" on them. I don't recall that I've taken a firm position. I vaguely recall that I've reported that the raid jackets on _NYPD Blue_ have "NYC POLICE" printed on them and that squad cars on _Brooklyn South_ have "NYPD POLICE" printed on them, but googlers may be able to tidy that recollection up. In general, though, both "NYPD" and "FDNY" are canonical. Seems to me the Brooklyn Police Department used to be independent of NYPD proper, even after Brooklyn was technically part of the City of New York. SignatureR. J. Valentine <mailto:arjay@wicked.smart.net> > > > Thorp, Washington is right next to Ellensburg, Washington. We also have > > > a Medina, Washington. So you can see why I'm wondering about the use of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Whoa. The proper name is "New York" (it's officially "the City of New thanks, but then just change the above to << call "the City of New York" just "New York" >> > York"); "New York City" is an improper name. Though it's a sub-tle thing, > it's generally the case that Outsiders are more likely to use "New York [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > get tired of people saying "city?" or "city or state?" and things like > that.) [ ... ] > > Volvograd? Are there any cities in Denmark using 'grad'? Over here in > > Washington state, we have a 'Thorp'. > > > But that's not a quaint and romantic survival of its name in Old > English, is it? Surely the dorf is named after somebody named Thorpe. Possibly that well-known German professional wrestler, Octo Thorpe? SignatureBob Lieblich Who confuses easily >> There is ignorance everywhere. I would roll my eyes at Norwegians >> not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall >> having met one. > >In Denmark, it is said that Americans think Copenhagen is Sweden's >capital ;-(. Quite so. It's a sad observation indeed that the Danes have very little understanding of what the Americans think. Let's not be harsh on the Danes, though. With Christmas coming, we don't want to upset those North Pole people. > > There is ignorance everywhere. I would roll my eyes at Norwegians > > not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And I've never met a Dane in middle school or above who doesn't know > where Washington DC [or California] is placed ... What is more important to the world, Washington DC or Denmark? Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid (Per Rønne): >> There is ignorance everywhere. I would roll my eyes at Norwegians >> not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall >> having met one. > >In Denmark, it is said that Americans think Copenhagen is Sweden's >capital ;-(. It all comes around. In the Netherlands the joke is that USAians think Holland is the capital of Copenhagen. Of course these are vicious lies. There's nothing wron with US geographical knowledge: http://www.loutan.net/inners/switzerland.gif [snip] regards, Nantko SignatureHanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/ > doesnt.work@spam.filter.invalid (Per Rønne): > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Of course these are vicious lies. There's nothing wron with US > geographical knowledge: http://www.loutan.net/inners/switzerland.gif I quite agree, and so do the gnomes of Prague. Of course there is quite a bit wrong with US geographical knowledge. Geography is not generally taught as a subject in public schools, and geographical information is relegated to casual mention during the study of history. History itself is far less emphasized than it once was, and, if my daughter's schools are any guide, the scope of the classes is less wide-ranging. She's had years of exposure to the American Civil War, but essentially none to African history (other than that of ancient Egypt), and until her 9th-grade year, essentially none to Asian history at all. -- rzed > Of course there is quite a bit wrong with US geographical knowledge. > Geography is not generally taught as a subject in public schools, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > essentially none to African history (other than that of ancient Egypt), and > until her 9th-grade year, essentially none to Asian history at all. Have things really changed? When I were in secondary school, let's see, in eighth grade we had one term on Russian history (from pre-Kievan stuff to the "Present" (i.e., the Yalta Conference), and another term that covered Chinese history. In that second term we might have done a bit on other colonial stuff (and some of this might have been based on the preferences of the teacher), but I don't think we covered Africa at all. Not even a mention of Steve Hayes. In ninth grade we covered European history from the late Middle Ages to the "Present" (i.e., to the Yalta Conference [well, okay, the Suez Crisis may have been mentioned too). In tenth grade we had a term of an elective social science, and then a term of American history (from the arrival of the Europeans to about 1789 or so), and in eleventh grade we had a whole year of American history (1790 or so to the "Present" [i.e., the Yalta Conference]). This was more or less in line with the official New York State Regents syllabus, except, I think, for the elective social science thing (I took psychology, which isn't really a social science, BTAWNS). In seventh grade we did a mish-mosh of stuff in social studies, including some anthropology, some ancient history (i.e., ancient Greece), and we were supposed to get to economics but we never did. > > Of course there is quite a bit wrong with US geographical knowledge. > > Geography is not generally taught as a subject in public schools, and [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > including some anthropology, some ancient history (i.e., ancient Greece), > and we were supposed to get to economics but we never did. No, I don't think things changed much between my and your school careers, but they did change between my parents' time and mine, at least insofar as geography is concerned. It was then taught as a regular subject, carrying weight equal to history, math, or science. Apart from the hints that geography offered, there has never been a strong emphasis in US schools on history outside the Egyptian-Hebrew-Greek-Roman-Western European-British-American trajectory. Since that leaves out most of the land area and most of the population of the world, it would seem to be a deficiency, but not one that is evidently worth what it would cost to fix it. It might be interesting to offer an alternative history course for at least a solid year in high school; the course would cover everything but the EHGRWEBA trajectory. It would be grossly insufficient, but it would at least bring Mesopotamian, Persian, Arabic, Nomadic Asian, Polynesian, Chinese, Indian, African, East European, South American, Paleoaustralian, and the numerous Paleoamerican cultures to US students' conscious awareness. -- rzed >Apart from the hints that geography offered, there has never been a strong >emphasis in US schools on history outside the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >course would cover everything but the EHGRWEBA trajectory. It would be >grossly insufficient, but it would at least bring Mesopotamian, In mid-Sixties-to-mid-Seventies Northern England we were fed a few drops of the Tigris and Euphrates. However, Ur is now a blur and we only made it to Nineveh inasmuch as it rhymed with *Mrs Miniver*. >Persian, Xerxes! (Remembered partly because of his cool name and partly because he had the barefaced cheek to mess with our heroes, the Spartans. His dad was called Delius or something. Or maybe it was Daedalus. >Arabic, You mean like they had history pre-Lawrence? Wow. >Nomadic Asian, Genghis Khan (and his brother Kublai). >Polynesian, HMS Bounty. >Chinese, We were told that they spent 3,000 years inventing gunpowder. >Indian, Empah! >African, Empah! >East European, Rasputin and potatoes. And do Bismarck and Metternich count? >South American, Hmm. Tricky. British Honduras might once have got a mention. Corned beef came from Argentina. Oh, and there was a Womble called Great Uncle Orinoco, too. >Paleoaustralian, Captain Cook! Plus, the school Film Society once showed us a scratchy 16-mm print of Jenny Agutter in *Walkabout* which was much enjoyed, albeit for non-paleoaustralian reasons. Rolf Harris also made an entire career out of blighting our childhoods, of course. >and the numerous Paleoamerican cultures Aztec bars from the tuck shop. > to US students' conscious awareness. Maybe it's better now, but at my school? I doubt it. -- Ross Howard > Xerxes! (Remembered partly because of his cool name Don't you remember Händel's great opera? > and partly because he had the barefaced cheek to mess with our heroes, the > Spartans. His dad was called Delius or something. Or maybe it was > Daedalus. Darius [Latin] or Dareios [Greek] I. Daedalus was the father of Icaros. SignaturePer Erik Rønne In alt.usage.english, Nantko Schanssema wrote: >Of course these are vicious lies. There's nothing wron with US >geographical knowledge: http://www.loutan.net/inners/switzerland.gif Someone ought to have Czeched that before transmission. SignatureMike Barnes Cheshire, England > It all comes around. In the Netherlands the joke is that USAians > think Holland is the capital of Copenhagen. You little brats! If we ever find out where you are... SignatureOpus the Penguin (that's my real email addy) You snipped my sig! Opus the Penguin <nospamopus@netzero.net>: >> It all comes around. In the Netherlands the joke is that USAians >> think Holland is the capital of Copenhagen. > >You little brats! If we ever find out where you are... Arguments about the International Penal Court in The Hague, and US non-recognition of same, come to mind. <IMAGE USMC attack on Scheveningen beach> 'Kay, guys, what's the Eiffel Tower doin' here? </IMAGE> Mumble, mumble ... the beaches ... mumble, mumble ... never surrender, Nantko SignatureHanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. http://www.xs4all.nl/~nantko/ >Charles thinks I am anti-American, but I have nothing on the kids >these kids are representative of (the next generation). You are not a kid, almost all of whom have even more to learn than you and me. Nor are you denying, I'm happy to see since I appreciate honesty, that you are anti-American. (Have we been down this road before?) > If >America wants to see the decline of anti-American sentiment, >America is going to have to help its own cause. Eye-rolling >stories of Americans thinking that Norway is the capital of >Sweden are a small step on the way. I've heard so many fables and falsehoods from Europeans, educated ones included, about America, I no longer roll my eyes on hearing another. Still, one of my jobs, I feel, is to politely set these furriners straight. >I wouldn't have written to a newspaper, had I encountered >personally a person (of any nationality) as ignorant as the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >not knowing the name of the capital of the US. But I don't recall >having met one. Do me a favour, if you will: take a little survey. My guess is you'll be flabbergasted. If he gets the name right, ask him where it is located. Then ask him where Washington state is. If half those you interview get the last two right, it will be me who is flabbergasted. Ask people of all ages and of both sexes. Don't try for a third sex, we've established they're too difficult to locate. I'm half-Norwegian myself; I find I'm even less inclined to be anti-Scandinavian than I am anti-European in general, i.e, not a bit, the Welsh and Belgians excluded, of course. I certainly have no bias against Norwegians in particular, but I don't make any claims they are without major gaps in their knowledge either, especially about things that concern them very little. > My current gripe in this country is the impending >death of the semicolon. We have loads of fully-alive ones in America so you need not worry they'll become extinct. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>Charles thinks I am anti-American, but I have nothing on the kids >>these kids are representative of (the next generation). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > honesty, that you are anti-American. (Have we been down this road > before?) Sometimes I think it's the only road you have. And I know there's no point in defending myself against your charge -- nothing but a full-blown pledge of allegiance from my part will placate you. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>>Charles thinks I am anti-American, but I have nothing on the kids >>>these kids are representative of (the next generation). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Sometimes I think it's the only road you have. It is a road well-traveled, I admit. The existence of my friend Padraig, and of you, Franke, Matti, and bjg before, being a few of the reasons I go down it. Long damn thread that, remember? Others here have some interest in the road too, it seems. >And I know there's no point in defending myself against your >charge -- nothing but a full-blown pledge of allegiance from my >part will placate you. No, Simon, that would amount to treason, it being even viler to me than anti-Americanism. (Insert smiley, if required.) I merely ask, as I ask of my Irish buddies, that you give America credit where credit is due. That gives you full license to discredit it all you like, just as I do when the spirit moves me to do so. The spirit these days is more often in the form of George W Bush. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>>I fear that the Norwegian >>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >prestigious international newspaper, most of the contents of which are >culled from America's two newspapers "of record"? Zero, is my guess. >That, surely, was >Simon's point. If so, we might wonder why he wrote: 'The people of Norway often cite the United States of America as the place where people think either Norway or Oslo is the capital of Sweden. It's a standing joke. I thought it was, anyway.' SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>>>I fear that the Norwegian >>>>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the place where people think either Norway or Oslo is the capital > of Sweden. It's a standing joke. I thought it was, anyway.' Because I often hear that from Norwegians. I hadn't met the ignorance myself until I read that report in the IHT. Should I have kept it a secret? SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>>That, surely, was >>>Simon's point. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Should I have kept it a secret? No, but were me, I'd help these Norwegians form a better-balanced view of Americans, as I try to do when talking with any European when the subject pops up -- as it does every few minutes when I'm out and about here -- but you're not me. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net >>I fear that the Norwegian >>stories of conversations with Americans who think that Oslo is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > DC? Many here don't even know the *name* of the capital of the US, let > alone where it is located. I suppose I ought to be surprised at that, but surveys show that many kids in many countries don't even know the capital of their own country. Some aren't even sure about the difference between a city and country. Still, I'd have thought most semi-literate people who had heard of America, would have heard of California. They almost certainly would not know the capital of California and probably would be confused between Washington State and Washington DC, but... Hmm, I suddenly realised it's an age thing: I was brought up on stories about gold rushes and wagon trains, so of course California stuck in my mind at an early age, but I doubt whether younger people would be familiar with things like that. SignatureRob Bannister << [Rob Bannister] I suppose I ought to be surprised at that, but surveys show that many kids in many countries don't even know the capital of their own country. Some aren't even sure about the difference between a city and country. Still, I'd have thought most semi-literate people who had heard of America, would have heard of California. They almost certainly would not know the capital of California [...] [end quote] >> I was going to write similar, that people in Denmark would not know the capital of a US state even one it with many more people than a Scandinavian country, but then I remembered we that we live in extraordinary times, and that California's capital has been featured in world wide news to an extent not seen for thirteen thousand days. Anyways, that reminds me. Back around fourth grade, they used to test our knowledge of the capitals of states and countries. So now I am getting around to wondering why. I understand that it is easy to grade. But why does it matter, except to politicians? I can see some value in having a child know one city in each large political entity, even if that city is not culturally significant. Is that it? Maybe the whole thing was a tricky way of getting kids to remember where countries and states are located. But that could be done without having to remember all of those cities. For all the class time expended, I had the feeling that there would be more of a payoff. Did I get some great benefit without realizing it? And why do they not use the most significant city? -- --------------------------------------------- Richard Maurer To reply, remove half Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Anyways, that reminds me. Back around fourth grade, they used to test >our knowledge of the capitals of states and countries. So now I am [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >large political entity, even if that city is not culturally significant. >Is that it? Perhaps it was intended to be a first step in forming a web of associations involving the world outside their community. When they hear of an earthquake or a Nobel prize or a hockey team they will have a chance of associating it with a real place. >Maybe the whole thing was a tricky way of getting kids >to remember where countries and states are located. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >without realizing it? >And why do they not use the most significant city? Indeed. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com > [Mailed to the _International Herald Tribune_ and posted to > alt.usage.english.] Automated reply from the _International Herald Tribune_ ===== Subject: Re: Isn't that the capital of Sweden? To: "Simon R. Hughes" From: IHT-PAR-01 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 01:42:45 +0100 Thank you for your letter to the International Herald Tribune. Because of the volume of letters received, we regret that we are not able to respond to all submissions, other than by this automated reply. Letters should be brief and are subject to editing. Letters must include the writer's full address and daytime and evening phone numbers (not for publication). Letters that do not refer to recent articles printed in the International Herald Tribune are rarely considered for publication. To speed the selection process, the subject field of your message should contain the date and headline of the article your letter addresses. Letters must be sent in the body of your message, as we do not open attachments. Please refrain from sending multiple copies of your message. We will not consider mass e-mails or letters sent to multiple addresses. Sincerely, International Herald Tribune ===== Hmmm. Must resubmit. It's a shame they won't be answering to group. SignatureSimon R. Hughes > It is a shame that Tom Reagan's and Martin Rowe's article about > the Nobel Prize for literature was spoiled by such a > stereotypically dumb Americanism. Regan. Are all the staff of the IHT Americans? If not, how do you know that Messrs. Regan and Rowe are Americans? Actually, do we even know that they are staffers? This is the only item that Googling on "International Herald Tribune" Regan Rowe turns up that involves either Tom Regan or Martin Rowe, which makes it look like a contributed one-time op-ed. Looks like a brain fart that the copy editor should have caught. SignatureJohn Varela (Trade "OLD" lamps for "NEW" for email.) I apologize for munging the address but the spam is too much. |
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.