 |
 | 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 2009Rough seas
This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. The three headlines are: The change has come Hope sweeps US on day of history and The new captain charters rough seas He does *what* to rough seas? The article starts: With the eyes of the world upon him, and the most highly attended US presidential inauguration ever behind him, Barack Obama must now captain America's ship of state through the roughest economic waters in living memory.  SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first page > devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > He does *what* to rough seas? He charters them. If you can get a big enough group together, it's cheaper than paying the standard fare. I believe there's also a company called "Rent-a-lake" advertising on the Internet. > The article starts: > > With the eyes of the world upon him, and the most highly attended US > presidential inauguration ever behind him, Barack Obama must now > captain America's ship of state through the roughest economic waters > in living memory. SignatureLes (BrE) >> This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first >> page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > company > called "Rent-a-lake" advertising on the Internet. Oh, where is that? We could do with a few of those. It's so dry here even the lakes are burning down: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/22/2471669.htm SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first > page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > now captain America's ship of state through the roughest economic > waters in living memory. They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters to choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to /improvise/ on the theme of the national anthem at public events? I thought Aretha Franklin butchered it, but presumably that was only fulfilling her brief. Do people feel cheated if the anthem is sung straight? (It's far from common for "The Queen" to be sung as a solo in the UK, and I'm not at all sure any alteration to the tune would be welcome.) I vaguely assumed the practice arose because, for the most part, only classically-trained singers can compass the range of "The SSB" as written, and it then got transferred to "My Country 'Tis of Thee". Having said all that, I want to say it was a wonderful occasion. SignatureMike. >> This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first >> page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >thought Aretha Franklin butchered it, but presumably that was only >fulfilling her brief. Aretha Franklin butchered the patriotic song "America". The US National Anthem is "The Star-Spangled Banner" which is even more butcherable. >Do people feel cheated if the anthem is sung >straight? (It's far from common for "The Queen" to be sung as a solo in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Having said all that, I want to say it was a wonderful occasion. Indeed. But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the wording of the Oath. At one point Obama waited for him to try again. I would need to check a recording to see whether Roberts did in fact get it right. Obama did. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the > wording of the Oath. At one point Obama waited for him to try again. > I would need to check a recording to see whether Roberts did in fact > get it right. Obama did. <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_chief_j ustice> Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the >> wording of the Oath. At one point Obama waited for him to try again. >> I would need to check a recording to see whether Roberts did in fact >> get it right. Obama did. > ><http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_chief_justice> I'll correct myself: I thought that Obama got it right. What he said, according to that report, was: "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear" "that I will execute" "the office of president of the United States faithfully" "and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." "faithfully" should precede "execute". I hope this will not result in battalions of lawyers sharpening their pencils and their arguments. At least Obama did not go with the Chief Justice's initial wording "president to the United States". The sight of outgoing Vice-President Dick Cheney in a wheelchair reminded me of Dr Strangelove. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >The sight of outgoing Vice-President Dick Cheney in a wheelchair reminded me >of Dr Strangelove. I was not alone. The Times (of London) made the same observation. Ilustrating an article headed "Old guard wheeled off as Obama attacks worn-out dogmas" there is a photo of the out-wheeling V-P captioned: Dick Cheney, bearing a resemblance to Dr Strangelove, is seen off by Joe Biden his successor as Vice-President. Mr Cheney injured himself while packing. Below that picture is one of Peter Sellers as Dr Strangelove. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) BrE filted: >Ilustrating an article headed "Old guard wheeled off as Obama attacks worn-out >dogmas" there is a photo of the out-wheeling V-P captioned: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Below that picture is one of Peter Sellers as Dr Strangelove. At least it's better than the earlier comparison: http://members.cox.net/dadoctah/images/cheneychaney.jpg ....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" >> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the >> wording of the Oath. At one point Obama waited for him to try again. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > <http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090120/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_chief_j > ustice> It seemed to be a day for mangling - Roberts, Obama, Franklin ... I thought Roberts was out of order (unless it was by prior agreement) to throw a "So help you god?" at Obama at the end of the oath. It could only have been done as Q&A since the words don't appear in the official version, but it was really for Obama to choose whether or not to add them (which the majority of Presidents do). But Obama (more likely his speechwriter) was strangely wrong to claim to be the 44th American to have taken the oath. He's the 43rd even though he's the 44th President. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford Peter Duncanson: > But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the wording of > the Oath. At one point Obama waited for him to try again. I would need to > check a recording to see whether Roberts did in fact get it right. Obama did. Roberts made two mistakes on the first try ("to" for "of", misplaced "faithfully") and one on the second try (misplaced "faithfully" again, differently). Obama gave a composite of the two incorrect versions. De minimis non curat lex. SignatureMark Brader, | "There is no silver bullet, because not every Toronto, msb@vex.net | problem is a werewolf." -- Damian Conway >Peter Duncanson: >> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the wording of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >"faithfully") and one on the second try (misplaced "faithfully" again, >differently). Obama gave a composite of the two incorrect versions. Yes. I noted that in a later post. >De minimis non curat lex. Indeed. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > Peter Duncanson: >> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the wording of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > "faithfully") and one on the second try (misplaced "faithfully" again, > differently). Wasn't the time factor a mistake too? The USA was without a president for about 6 minutes, and I suppose, with the faulty oath, some will claim it still is. SignatureRob Bannister >Wasn't the time factor a mistake too? The USA was without a president >for about 6 minutes No it wasn't. One becomes president by the operation of law, not by reciting a pledge. Obama became president promptly at noon, despite not having taken the oath. Lyndon Johnson became president at the moment Kennedy died, regardless of how long it took for the officials attending JFK to determine that he had died and inform Johnson of that fact. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are wollman@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness >> Wasn't the time factor a mistake too? The USA was without a president >> for about 6 minutes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > attending JFK to determine that he had died and inform Johnson of that > fact. Still, he's been careful enough to have the oath administered again just to make sure. SignatureRob Bannister > > > Wasn't the time factor a mistake too? The USA was without a > > > president for about 6 minutes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Still, he's been careful enough to have the oath administered again > just to make sure. Prevents anyone from claiming that his executive orders are void. I read somewhere that Obama, as is traditional for the new President, also signed a copy of the oath. Where that's the same as swearing/affirming, I couldn't say. Best to remove all doubt, I suppose. Brian SignatureIf televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who won't shut up. -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) >>Wasn't the time factor a mistake too? The USA was without a president >>for about 6 minutes [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > attending JFK to determine that he had died and inform Johnson of that > fact. Ah, it's a coronation. We understand those. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Peter Duncanson: >>> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the wording of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >for about 6 minutes, and I suppose, with the faulty oath, some will >claim it still is. But the USA did have a duly sworn-in Vice-President and still has. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> Peter Duncanson: >>> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > for about 6 minutes, and I suppose, with the faulty oath, some will > claim it still is. No. The 20th amendment which is the one that sets out the date of the inuaguration states "1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin." Note that last clause. The new President and Vice President's terms begin at noon, not when they take the oath. There is also no legally-established wording for the oath of office, so it wasn't "faulty." >>> Peter Duncanson: >>>> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> misplaced "faithfully") and one on the second try (misplaced >>> "faithfully" again, differently). And Obama matched Robers's first misplaced "faithfully". >> Wasn't the time factor a mistake too? The USA was without a >> president for about 6 minutes, and I suppose, with the faulty oath, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > legally-established wording for the oath of office, so it wasn't > "faulty." Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." But this would be trumped by the (later) 20th amendment, which states that the term begins at noon. Of course, I guess somebody could claim that while his term starts then, he can't "enter on the Execution of his Office" until he takes the oath. On the other hand, I'd note that neither the president's name nor the words "So help me God" are in the mandated oath, so I can't help but think that some variation in the actual wording is permitted as long as it's clear that the promise being made is the one required, which it clearly was in this case. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It's not coherent, it's merely 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |focused. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Keith Moore kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Peter Duncanson: >>>>> But did you notice that Chief Justice John G. Roberts mangled the >>>>> wording of the Oath. At one point Obama waited for him to try [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > as it's clear that the promise being made is the one required, which > it clearly was in this case. To allay doubts about the validity of the presidential oath, it was readministered today "without any missteps." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> Peter Duncanson: > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090122/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_oath_do_over Yeah. I heard that too. Something about dotting "i"s and crossing "t"s, just not to give the nitpickers ammunition. I can see such an attempted impeachment by those who would have made it impossible to impeach that craven criminal who has left the office. But remember, impeachment can be done to an "ex", too. >>>>>> Peter Duncanson: >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > impeach that craven criminal who has left the office. But remember, > impeachment can be done to an "ex", too. I think it may also have been meant to reassure us that the President and the Chief Justice -- despite their political and ideological differences -- were still on cordial speaking terms after the incident on Inauguration Day. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. [...] >>>> On the other hand, I'd note that neither the president's name nor >>>> the words "So help me God" are in the mandated oath, so I can't [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > differences -- were still on cordial speaking terms after the > incident on Inauguration Day. I understand from another newsgroup that all this God stuff was only introduced in the 1930s. I'd like to know how they square that with the Constitution. Theodore Roosevelt, according to somebody on the same other newsgroup, chose to affirm rather than swear: looking from outside, that seems to me to be the most American thing to do. SignatureMike. > I understand from another newsgroup that all this God stuff was only > introduced in the 1930s. I'd like to know how they square that with the > Constitution. Theodore Roosevelt, according to somebody on the same > other newsgroup, chose to affirm rather than swear: looking from > outside, that seems to me to be the most American thing to do. One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings religion into politics (and particular into political speeches) all the time. The UK explicitly ties church and state together, and then does all it can to keep religion out of politics. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu > One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics > is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings > religion into politics (and particular into political speeches) all > the time. The UK explicitly ties church and state together, and > then does all it can to keep religion out of politics. Ah, they've finally gotten rid of the opening prayer in the House of Commons? No, I guess not. The first order of business each day http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmagenda.htm is still "Prayers". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |There is something fascinating 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |about science. One gets such Palo Alto, CA 94304 |wholesale returns of conjecture out |of such a trifling investment of kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |fact. (650)857-7572 | Mark Twain http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Nick Atty: >> One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics >> is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings >> religion into politics (and particular into political speeches) all >> the time. The UK explicitly ties church and state together, and >> then does all it can to keep religion out of politics. Evan Kirshenbaum: > Ah, they've finally gotten rid of the opening prayer in the House of > Commons? No... So the obvious conclusion is that that's something they *can't* do. There! <Vanishes in a puff of logic.> SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | In the affairs of this world men are saved, msb@vex.net | not by faith, but by the want of it. --Franklin >> One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics >> is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >is still "Prayers". Yes, but that's tradition. We don't think of it as anything to do with actual religion. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >>> One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics >>> is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Yes, but that's tradition. We don't think of it as anything to do > with actual religion. Perhap's I'd have expressed myself better if I'd ended up with "out of politicking" - except I wasn't sure how to spell it. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>>> One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics >>>> is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Perhap's I'd have expressed myself better if I'd ended up with "out of >politicking" - except I wasn't sure how to spell it. The significant point, which I mention whenever Evan raises the issue, is that this little ritual is not conducted in public. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" >> One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics >> is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > is still "Prayers". What does "Prayers" have to do with religion? Fran >>> One of the things that really strikes me between UK and US politics >>> is that the US explictly separates state and religion, yet brings [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >What does "Prayers" have to do with religion? Those "Prayers" at the beginning of the day's proceedings in the HoC and HoL are religious: http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/customs/traditions.cfm Prayers Each sitting in both Houses begins with prayers that follow the Christian faith. In the Commons the Speaker's Chaplain usually reads the prayers. In the Lords a senior bishop (Lord Spiritual) who sits in the Lords usually reads the prayers. Attendance is voluntary. This sort of praying is distinct from the parliamentary procedure of "praying against" a Statutory Instrument: http://www.parliament.uk/about/glossary.cfm?ref=prayaga_1173 Pray against To table a motion to annul a Statutory Instrument Note: In BrE "to table a motion" means to put forward a motion for discussion. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of > the United States." I happened to catch a bit of the swearing-in of the senior White House staff today...Vice-President Biden (after making a crack about not having the memory of Chief Justice Roberts) had a large group raise one hand and repeat their corresponding oath after him...all of them appeared to recite it as "do solemnly swear or affirm", making literal what was probably meant to imply a choice of phrasings....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Evan Kirshenbaum filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > choice of > phrasings. Yes. A bit ridiculous. Something like that statement that was going on a few years ago: Nobody is above the law. And nobody is under it. Damned if I can recall who was on trial, or what scandal was in vogue. Pat Durkin filted: >> I happened to catch a bit of the swearing-in of the senior White House >> staff [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >a few years ago: >Nobody is above the law. And nobody is under it. At least none of them started "I, state your name"...I wouldn't have put it past the previous bunch....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1... Count again. Article I is actually about Congress. Article II is about the president. Draw your own conclusions. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto But that's what all the other msb@vex.net individualists are doing! >> Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1... > > Count again. > > Article I is actually about Congress. Article II is about the > president. Draw your own conclusions. Well, to start with, there's the obvious inference that I'm an idiot... SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum: >>> Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1... Mark Brader: >> Count again. >> >> Article I is actually about Congress. Article II is about the >> president. Draw your own conclusions. Evan Kirshenbaum: > Well, to start with, there's the obvious inference that I'm an > idiot... Giggle! I have to admit that Evan's slip put me in mind of the tagline for "Talladega Nights". (But, in case anyone actually misunderstands, I was *talking* about the constitution.) SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "If you feel [that Doug Gwyn] has a bad attitude, msb@vex.net | then use lint (or Chris Torek...)" --Joe English My text in this article is in the public domain. > Evan Kirshenbaum: >>>> Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1... > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > tagline for "Talladega Nights". (But, in case anyone actually > misunderstands, I was *talking* about the constitution.) Only because you put an emphasis on the word, I will mention that you were *writing* about the constitution. SignatureSkitt (AmE) emPHAsizing away Mark Brader: >> (But, in case anyone actually misunderstands, I was *talking* >> about the constitution.) "Skitt": > Only because you put an emphasis on the word, I will mention that > you were *writing* about the constitution. Yes, that's the applicable sense of "talking". SignatureMark Brader | I rise to speak ... well, actually, I don't rise, Toronto | nor do I speak, but I lounge to type in his defense. msb@vex.net | -- Bob Lipton > Mark Brader: >>> (But, in case anyone actually misunderstands, I was *talking* >>> about the constitution.) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yes, that's the applicable sense of "talking". Oh. I thought that you were writing about the *constitution*. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> Evan Kirshenbaum: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Only because you put an emphasis on the word, I will mention that you were >*writing* about the constitution. Since the document is entitled "The Constitution", is it correct to uncapitalize it in the body of an article? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>> Evan Kirshenbaum: >>>>>> Yes there is. It's in Article 1, Section 1... >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Since the document is entitled "The Constitution", is it correct to > uncapitalize it in the body of an article? Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more capitalized words in it than you can shake a stick at. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>> Evan Kirshenbaum: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more >capitalized words in it than you can shake a stick at. The writers felt, I think, they were composing a major document that might serve a country for a long time. Who can blame them if they got a little carried away and capitalized a few words unnecessarily? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland ... >>Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more >>capitalized words in it than you can shake a stick at. > >The writers felt, I think, they were composing a major document that >might serve a country for a long time. Who can blame them if they got >a little carried away and capitalized a few words unnecessarily? Temporary morays, innit. To quote from a Lingua Franca article about amendments to the US Constitution: "When reading the amendment we have to keep in mind that punctuation practices have changed over the last two centuries. In 1789 when the ten amendments making up what's called the Bill of Rights were first written down, punctuation and capitalisation were a lot freer than they are now. They were used liberally to separate phrases, almost as if they were indications of where you might pause while reading. Random nouns were graced with capital initials too." http://www.abc.net.au/rn/linguafranca/stories/2008/2199816.htm SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >... >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Temporary morays, innit. What is a "moray" in this context? >To quote from a Lingua Franca article about amendments to the US >Constitution: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >http://www.abc.net.au/rn/linguafranca/stories/2008/2199816.htm Was the popularity of capitalizations due to the Germanic influence on the language? Were the Britons of the day as enthralled with them as the Americans? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >> ... >>>> Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > What is a "moray" in this context? I hazard a guess: Richard alluded to Cicero's "O tempora, o mores". >>> ... >>>>> Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I hazard a guess: >Richard alluded to Cicero's "O tempora, o mores". Yes. Punning on a bit of a shibboleth. "Oh tempura, Oh morays". SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. Richard Bollard filted: >>>> Temporary morays, innit. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes. Punning on a bit of a shibboleth. "Oh tempura, Oh morays". That is absolutely the wrong way to cook an eel....r Signature"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!" "You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!" > Richard Bollard filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > That is absolutely the wrong way to cook an eel....r When an eel bites your thigh Until it makes you cry, That's a moray. SignatureMike. >> Richard Bollard filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Until it makes you cry, >That's a moray. When you see two black feet Walking down Bondi Beach, That's a Maori. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >Richard Bollard filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >That is absolutely the wrong way to cook an eel....r Well it is *now*. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>> ... >>>>>> Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Yes. Punning on a bit of a shibboleth. "Oh tempura, Oh morays". I'm probably forever whoosed on this post, but there are several hundred more to go, today. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs Near Dublin, Ireland >>>>> ... >>>>>>> Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it has more [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I'm probably forever whoosed on this post, but there are several >hundred more to go, today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O_tempora_o_mores! Puns aside (temporarily), it just means that customs (mores) change as tempus goes on fugiting. Capitalization was different then. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. >>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Probably not. As for The Constitution itself, right or wrong, it [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Puns aside (temporarily), it just means that customs (mores) change as > tempus goes on fugiting. Capitalization was different then. Also of note: "tempura" and "tempora" are etymologically connected; "morays" and "mores" aren't. SignatureRoland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. >> This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first >> page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >thought Aretha Franklin butchered it, but presumably that was only >fulfilling her brief. I thought she was rather good. And, as you say below, it isn't the national anthem; it only shares a tune with ours. The real national anthem came at the end, sung "straight" by a military choir. > Do people feel cheated if the anthem is sung >straight? (It's far from common for "The Queen" to be sung as a solo in >the UK, and I'm not at all sure any alteration to the tune would be >welcome.) The national anthem is sung, usually unaccompanied, at all major US sporting occasions, and many minor ones. For something like the World Series, what seems to be required is a well-known performer, preferably from the local area. The fact that they can't came anywhere near to coping with the tune is no bar - the performances are embarassingly bad as often as not. But it is horribly difficult to sing, and people are presumably used to taking that into account. SignatureDon Aitken Mail to the From: address is not read. To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com" > > They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters to > > choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > national anthem; it only shares a tune with ours. The real national > anthem came at the end, sung "straight" by a military choir. Much better tune altogether. I especially cherish the Hendrix version. DC -- > > The article starts: > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters to choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to improvise on the theme of the national anthem at public events? I thought Aretha Franklin butchered it, but presumably that was only fulfilling her brief. Do people feel cheated if the anthem is sung straight? (It's far from common for "The Queen" to be sung as a solo in the UK, and I'm not at all sure any alteration to the tune would be welcome.) Ooh, it would around here, squire. As much alteration to the bloody awful dirge as possible, please. DC -- [...] >> They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters >> to choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Ooh, it would around here, squire. As much alteration to the bloody > awful dirge as possible, please. Oh, that wasn't music criticism on my part: the thing is awful. I was considering tribal custom. SignatureMike. > [...] > > > They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > Oh, that wasn't music criticism on my part: the thing is awful. I was considering tribal custom. It's probably just as well we don't have the tradition of solo versions of GSTQ though. I shall mention two words; Charlotte Church. DC -- > They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters to > choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > classically-trained singers can compass the range of "The SSB" as > written, and it then got transferred to "My Country 'Tis of Thee". The Australian national anthem is regularly butchered by pop stars at big events. I don't think it's anything to do with the musical range; they just want to sound like pop stars. SignatureRob Bannister >> They should have skippered that one. But, moving from rough waters to >> choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >big events. I don't think it's anything to do with the musical range; >they just want to sound like pop stars. Very occasionally somebody strings it straight without glissando-ing from one note to the next. My grumpy assumption is that they are taught to sneak up on a note this way to avoid missing it completely. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. ... > But, moving from rough waters to > choppy music, how old is the US custom of getting a singer to > /improvise/ on the theme of the national anthem at public events? Mid '70s? > I > thought Aretha Franklin butchered it, I thought it was uneven. The choppy thing has never appealed to me. > but presumably that was only > fulfilling her brief. Do people feel cheated if the anthem is sung [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > classically-trained singers can compass the range of "The SSB" as > written, and it then got transferred to "My Country 'Tis of Thee". My vague impression is that all this started with African Americans singing patriotic songs in the gospel style they used for hymns, which obviously they felt was reverent. That's one ancestor of the soul style, and Franklin started as a singer in her father's church and has continued to make gospel recordings. But what she's famous for is soul, which (though you're not supposed to define it) partly means the uninhibited expression of black people's feelings, which had been inhibited for so long. No one thought she would sing the song straight. It would have taken a while for non-African Americans to see these performances of patriotic songs as anything but sacrilege, possibly in the service of protest. Viv has mentioned Jimi Hendrix's spectacular and unambiguously angry version of "The Star-Spangled Banner", first performed in 1968. In 1976 Ray Charles made a soul recording of "America the Beautiful", the third on our list of patriotic songs, which featured social protest and attracted superlatives. The soul singer Lou Rawls first performed "The Star-Spangled Banner" in 1977 and was in demand for it till his death (dates according to WP). It's common to hear the "Banner", "America", and "America the Beautiful" in soul or other pop styles--whether the apparent improvisations are really improvised probably depends on the performer--but as Don Aitken pointed out, also common to hear them straight. You often used to hear opera singers doing the "Banner" at sporting events. I don't know how common that is now. However, speaking of changing it, I can't resist mentioning Rocco Scotti, my fellow Clevelander (I think) and almost an opera tenor. (He said his family couldn't afford the study.) He performed it many times at baseball games and the like, transposed into C, so he could go up instead of down at the end and finish on the tenor's high C. If not in the best taste, it was memorable. -- Jerry Friedman >> This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first >> page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. >> and >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > They should have skippered that one. Assuming you mean they should have edited or written the report better, I confess to having gotten stuck on the "skippered" part. I found myself wondering whether or not you meant "scuppered". >But, moving from rough waters to choppy music, how old is the US custom >of getting a singer to /improvise/ on the theme of the national anthem [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > classically-trained singers can compass the range of "The SSB" as > written, and it then got transferred to "My Country 'Tis of Thee". >>> This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first >>> page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > better, I confess to having gotten stuck on the "skippered" part. I > found myself wondering whether or not you meant "scuppered". Exactly. The paper seems to have got to "charter" from the nearly-as-bad "chart"; I responded by offering the analogous "skipper" instead of "skip", noting the similarity to "scupper". Round here, if regulars seem to be playing word games, it's usually safe to assume they actually /are/... SignatureMike. >>>> This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first >>>> page devoted to the inauguration of President Obama. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Round here, if regulars seem to be playing word games, it's usually > safe to assume they actually /are/... Well, I thought I'd ask, because I do miss a lot of forests. People are kind and don't "Whoosh!" the way they useter. Oh, yes, I noticed the "chart(er)s". > This evening's local paper here (Belfast Telegraph) has its first page devoted > to the inauguration of President Obama. . . . > The new captain charters rough seas > He does *what* to rough seas? There was plenty of this everywhere. A CanWest feature writer produced (on the train): "The rails that Barack Obama will ride today are forged of history and ambition, steeled in memory and spliced together with the spikes of racial and national pride." SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) |
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.