 |
 | 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 2010She has Indian blood.
Hi, native speakers of English, here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from India or America? To put it another way: How do I specify that someone's ancestor came from America? Do I say she has American Indian blood? Surely not? I suppose I have to create a context to make the phrase "She has Indian blood" understood or else it will remain ambiguous. "Her grandfather was a mountain man in the Rockies. She has Indian blood." What do you think? Greetings, Ho > Hi, native speakers of English, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > else it will remain ambiguous. "Her grandfather was a mountain man in the > Rockies. She has Indian blood." What do you think? Context will often do the job, as in your final example. Academics often use "Native American" in preference to "Indian" but Native Americans tend to prefer "Indian". Their own context is clear. In BrE, there is of course more room for confusion. The phrase "red Indian" is probably not considered acceptable these days. As a further comment, I think I would /generally/ avoid "blood". "She has Indian (or Native American) ancestry (or ancestors)." "It makes the Indian blood boil in her veins." Jim Deutch (JimboCat) -- "Surely the evil which leaves your lips pollutes you far worse than the evil which enters your ears." -- Raven > > Hi, native speakers of English, > > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has Indian blood > > how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from India or America? > > To put it another way: How do I specify that someone's ancestor came from > > America? Do I say she has American Indian blood? Surely not? Yes, if the context doesn't make it clear. > I suppose I have > > to create a context to make the phrase "She has Indian blood" understood or > > else it will remain ambiguous. "Her grandfather was a mountain man in the > > Rockies. She has Indian blood." What do you think? In an American context, most people would guess at American Indian from that. If you can mention the tribe, though, that settles it, as Cheryl said. May I ask what you're writing? > Context will often do the job, as in your final example. Academics > often use "Native American" in preference to "Indian" but Native > Americans tend to prefer "Indian". ... I've said this too, but now I hear "Native" more often than "Indian" when I listen to "Native America Calling", and the Navajo kids I taught last summer said "Native". So preferences may be changing. I don't think anyone has to stop saying "Indian" with this meaning, though. (Yet?) -- Jerry Friedman > > > Hi, native speakers of English, > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > don't think anyone has to stop saying "Indian" with this meaning, > though. (Yet?) If it isn't sufficient that the Department of the Interior still has a Bureau of Indian Affairs, largely staffed by Indians, the Smithsonian has literally institutionalized the term by opening the National Museum of the American Indian. http://www.nmai.si.edu/  SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:40:55 UTC, Jerry Friedman > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > http://www.nmai.si.edu/ Sufficient for what? Yes, "Indian" is still the legal term here, with exceptions such as the title "Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act". But "colored" and "Negro" were once the usual legal and polite terms, and they've been replaced, so I assume the same thing could happen to "Indian". By the way, I think the NMAI building in DC is beautiful in pictures, and I'd like to visit it, but I think the name is terrible. Of all the times not to imply that there's one of something.... -- Jerry Friedman >> If it isn't sufficient that the Department of the Interior still has >> a Bureau of Indian Affairs, largely staffed by Indians, the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > legal and polite terms, and they've been replaced, so I assume the > same thing could happen to "Indian". There's still the NAACP. SignatureSkitt (AmE) > > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:40:55 UTC, Jerry Friedman > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Often, these terms are changed not by the members of the group but by the elite who are convinced those members should be offended. That is what I've been told is the reason for "Native American" being insisted upon by some, especially academics. Most actual Indians prefer to have the tribe named, but they don't object to Indian, American Indian, or Amerind. Now, one group label used to be changed by the non-member elites (colored, Negro) but is now changed by fiats issued by the elites of the group itself (Black, African-American) whenever they decided that the accepted term has become so identified with themselves that it has become an insult. (Huh? You heard me!) I wonder what they'll come up with next time? ... > > Sufficient for what? Yes, "Indian" is still the legal term here, with > > exceptions such as the title "Native American Graves Protection and > > Repatriation Act". But "colored" and "Negro" were once the usual > > legal and polite terms, and they've been replaced, so I assume the > > same thing could happen to "Indian". ... > Often, these terms are changed not by the members of the group but by > the elite who are convinced those members should be offended. That is > what I've been told is the reason for "Native American" being insisted > upon by some, especially academics. I don't know who started "Native American", but there's another obvious reason, namely the ambiguity and silly origin of "Indian" in this sense. Maybe that's two reasons. Of course, "Native American" can be ambiguous in speech and occasionally in writing. The best would be a combination of some form of "indigenous" or "aboriginal" with "American". Then, as a friend of mine pointed out, we could shorten "Indigenous American" to "Injun". > Most actual Indians prefer to > have the tribe named, but they don't object to Indian, American > Indian, or Amerind. Or "Native American", and I said above, I've seen some signs that an increasing number prefer that last. But I haven't taken a survey. > Now, one group label used to be changed by the > non-member elites (colored, Negro) but is now changed by fiats issued > by the elites of the group itself (Black, African-American) whenever > they decided that the accepted term has become so identified with > themselves that it has become an insult. ... As I've mentioned before in this newsgroup, I've never seen any evidence that any black Americans take "black" as an insult. Do you know of such a case? -- Jerry Friedman >> Most actual Indians prefer to >> have the tribe named, but they don't object to Indian, American >> Indian, or Amerind. > >Or "Native American", and I said above, I've seen some signs that an >increasing number prefer that last. But I haven't taken a survey. I attended a Powwow recently put on by the AIA (American Indian Association). "Attended" as in "lurked around taking photographs". http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/Current-Favorite-Shot/costco-009/708026864_g XtKr-L.jpg There were a lot of banners and badges using the word "First"..."First Nation", "First Americans". Here's a link to that usage: http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/kmartin/School/ SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>> Most actual Indians prefer to >>> have the tribe named, but they don't object to Indian, American [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Nation", "First Americans". Here's a link to that usage: > http://www.ic.arizona.edu/ic/kmartin/School/ Interestingly, according to one[1] theory, two of the groups mentioned on that page--Diné (Navajo) and Tlingit--are, linguistically and genetically, part of a *second* wave of migration and can therefore be assumed to not have been the first in the regions they considered their home. [1] Albeit still controversial SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |barbarian and thinks that the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |customs of his tribe and island are |the laws of nature. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | George Bernard Shaw http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >... > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >evidence that any black Americans take "black" as an insult. Do you >know of such a case? In the heat of anger, I called someone a black bitch the other night, which, until I explained to her I didn't mean it as a racial insult, she took in the wrong way. My argument was that I could just as easily have called a white girl an "Irish bitch", for example, had she done what this girl did. My point is that one has to be very careful when using the word black. Getting back to the black girl, we talk but we're still not exactly on kissing-cousin terms. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > In the heat of anger, I called someone a black bitch the other night, > which, until I explained to her I didn't mean it as a racial insult, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > using the word black. Getting back to the black girl, we talk but > we're still not exactly on kissing-cousin terms. I recall some fifty or more years ago in a Boston newspaper, a letter to the editor from a man with a very Irish surname complained about a white politician as being "a black Protestant Republican". SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> In the heat of anger, I called someone a black bitch the other night, >> which, until I explained to her I didn't mean it as a racial insult, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >letter to the editor from a man with a very Irish surname complained >about a white politician as being "a black Protestant Republican". I haven't met it myself but I understand that in traditional Irish Catholic circles "black" was used to describe the state of a person's soul. A "black woman" was an immoral woman. She might be a "scarlet woman". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter wrote on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:14:58 +0000: >>> In the heat of anger, I called someone a black bitch the >>> other night, which, until I explained to her I didn't mean [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> complained about a white politician as being "a black >> Protestant Republican". > I haven't met it myself but I understand that in traditional > Irish Catholic circles "black" was used to describe the state > of a person's soul. A "black woman" was an immoral woman. She > might be a "scarlet woman". "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure about whether there was an implication of immorality but it would not surprise me at all. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure about > whether there was an implication of immorality but it would not > surprise me at all. Hmm. I thought it was applied to those Irish of partially Spanish descent. Catholic, of course. My second wife, Kathleen, a black-haired girl from a *very* Catholic family (Jesuits, priests, nuns, and such) called herself that. http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/KA3.jpg SignatureSkitt (AmE) > > "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure about > > whether there was an implication of immorality but it would not > > surprise me at all. > > Hmm. I thought it was applied to those Irish of partially Spanish descent. That was my understanding, too. They are supposedly descended from survivors of the Armada who wrecked on the coast of Ireland. That legend has been debunked by Garrett Mattingly in his book "The Armada", Houghton Mifflin, 1959: "Thousands of Spaniards must have drowned on the Irish coast. The fate of those who got ashore was not less miserable. Many had their brains knocked out as they lay stretched exhausted on the beaches where they had come ashore. Others wandered for a while in the desolate parts of the west until they were hunted down and slaughtered like wild beasts by parties of soldiers, or reluctantly handed over by their Irish hosts to English executioners." SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure about >> whether there was an implication of immorality but it would not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > called herself that. > http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/KA3.jpg I've never understood this "Black Irish" thing. Surely all the original Irish people had black hair and, like the Welsh, some had a fairly dark skin. The red/blond hair and light skin came from the Viking settlers. SignatureRob Bannister >>> "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure about >>> whether there was an implication of immorality but it would not [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Irish people had black hair and, like the Welsh, some had a fairly dark > skin. The red/blond hair and light skin came from the Viking settlers. I always heard that it was more than black hair - a 'black Irish' person had black hair, very pale skin and blue eyes. It was attributed to the influence of Spanish sailors washed ashore after the wreck of the Spanish Armada, which always sounded a bit fanciful to me. I *have* heard 'Black Protestant', not personally, but attributed to an elderly Newfoundland lady of Irish Catholic ancestry a good many years ago who thought the expression meant all Protestants had dark hair, and was surprised when she met a blonde one. I find that a bit hard to believe, but stranger beliefs have arisen about unfamiliar people. SignatureCheryl Cheryl wrote on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:47:57 -0330: >>>> "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not >>>> sure about whether there was an implication of immorality [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > ashore after the wreck of the Spanish Armada, which always > sounded a bit fanciful to me. > I *have* heard 'Black Protestant', not personally, but > attributed to an elderly Newfoundland lady of Irish Catholic > ancestry a good many years ago who thought the expression > meant all Protestants had dark hair, and was surprised when > she met a blonde one. I find that a bit hard to believe, but > stranger beliefs have arisen about unfamiliar people. It's a complicated topic. One of the most attractive and characteristic types of Celtic woman has black, curly hair and very white skin. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Cheryl wrote on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:47:57 -0330: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >It's a complicated topic. One of the most attractive and characteristic >types of Celtic woman has black, curly hair and very white skin. Whatever their origins are, I saw them fairly often when I lived in County Mayo. The girls are striking, with the sharp contrast between their white skin and dark black hair. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: >> Cheryl wrote on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:47:57 -0330: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> characteristic types of Celtic woman has black, curly hair >> and very white skin. > Whatever their origins are, I saw them fairly often when I > lived in County Mayo. The girls are striking, with the sharp > contrast between their white skin and dark black hair. I don't think that Spanish ancestry is likely since such pretty girls are not uncommon in Oban, Argyll, Scotland where I was brought up. That's why I used the word "Celtic". I even knew two of them from my senior school classes. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >That's why I used the word "Celtic". I even knew two of them from my >senior school classes. Some scholars have debunked the Mayo girls' link to sailors arriving from beached ships belonging to the Spanish Armada, but it makes for a good story. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >That's why I used the word "Celtic". I even knew two of them from my >senior school classes. Very black hair is unusual in Ireland. I've never seen it in Dublin girls and only in a handful of County Mayo girls. There must be some explanation that makes sense and the Armada one is romantic enough and plausible enough that I'll stick with it until a better one comes along. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > plausible enough that I'll stick with it until a better one comes > along. Dublin was a Viking stronghold and later a Norman-English one. SignatureRob Bannister >> Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >plausible enough that I'll stick with it until a better one comes >along. It's difficult to rule out anything that is even fractionally plausible, but I wouldn't bet on the Armada survivor(s) theory, though. Wikipedia summarises: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada_in_Ireland ...the Armada had attempted to return home through the North Atlantic, when it was driven from its course by violent storms and toward the west coast of Ireland. The prospect of a Spanish landing alarmed the Dublin government of Queen Elizabeth I, and harsh measures were prescribed for both the Spanish invaders and any Irish who might assist them. In the event, up to 24 Spanish ships were wrecked on a rocky coastline spanning 500 km, from Antrim in the north to Kerry in the south, and the threat to Crown authority was readily defeated. Most of the survivors of the multiple wrecks were put to death, and the remainder fled across the sea to Scotland. It is estimated that 5,000 members of the fleet perished in Ireland. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: >>> [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > remainder fled across the sea to Scotland. It is estimated that > 5,000 members of the fleet perished in Ireland. Of those 5000, do you not find it highly plausible that a few dozen were given shelter for the night by some white-skinned colleens? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>It's difficult to rule out anything that is even fractionally plausible, >>but I wouldn't bet on the Armada survivor(s) theory, though. Wikipedia [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >Of those 5000, do you not find it highly plausible that a few dozen >were given shelter for the night by some white-skinned colleens? We can't rule it out, but neither can be accept it as a fact. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>It's difficult to rule out anything that is even fractionally plausible, >>>but I wouldn't bet on the Armada survivor(s) theory, though. Wikipedia [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >We can't rule it out, but neither can be accept it as a fact. Much as it's romantic to think of a colleen's heart being moved by a distressed, swarthy lothario gabbling in some foreign lingo turning up on her (father's) doorstep, but didn't the Irish guard their daughters in those days? More likely that her father and brothers would have done him in and collected any reward. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>>It's difficult to rule out anything that is even fractionally plausible, >>>>but I wouldn't bet on the Armada survivor(s) theory, though. Wikipedia [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >in those days? More likely that her father and brothers would have >done him in and collected any reward. You have a point there, Robin. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > Much as it's romantic to think of a colleen's heart being moved by a > distressed, swarthy lothario gabbling in some foreign lingo turning up > on her (father's) doorstep, but didn't the Irish guard their daughters > in those days? More likely that her father and brothers would have > done him in and collected any reward. The Spanish and the Irish were united in their Catholicism and their hatred of the English. Many Irish would have liked to hide Spanish refugees, though the threat of English reprisals would have been a big deterrent. Don't forget that many Irish refugeed in the opposite direction. For example, after the French in New Orleans staged the first revolt in any American colony, the Spanish general sent to suppress it was Alexander O'Reilly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_O'Reilly SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> Much as it's romantic to think of a colleen's heart being moved by a >> distressed, swarthy lothario gabbling in some foreign lingo turning up [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alejandro_O'Reilly That word appears often in "Gone With the Wind", except she spelled it "refuged". Since it was a new one on me, I don't know which version, hers or yours, John, is right. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >> Much as it's romantic to think of a colleen's heart being moved by a > >> distressed, swarthy lothario gabbling in some foreign lingo turning up [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > "refuged". Since it was a new one on me, I don't know which version, > hers or yours, John, is right. OED lists two verbs: to refugee, which means to flee, and to refuge, which means to shelter. The OED doesn't list the parts of the verbs, but my guess is the one takes refugeed and the other takes refuged. Smaller dictionaries list neither verb. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> Much as it's romantic to think of a colleen's heart being moved by a >> >> distressed, swarthy lothario gabbling in some foreign lingo turning up [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >but my guess is the one takes refugeed and the other takes refuged. >Smaller dictionaries list neither verb. Thank you, John. Without Googling to see if I'm right, I suspect the word, refuged or refugeed, has lost the popularity it must have had in nineteenth century America. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:49:28 +0000: >> Cheryl wrote on Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:47:57 -0330: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> characteristic types of Celtic woman has black, curly hair >> and very white skin. > Whatever their origins are, I saw them fairly often when I > lived in County Mayo. The girls are striking, with the sharp > contrast between their white skin and dark black hair. Just another piece of information from today's Irish Independent, which actually involved funding of Irish Protestant schools. <Quote> As well as meeting Mr O'Keeffe, the group, which included, Royal Black Grand Registrar Billy Scott; Sovereign Grand Master Millar Farr; Grand Master Cavan Willie Roberts; Grand Master Monaghan Eric Mackarel; and Imperial Grand Treasurer William Abernethy, also met Fine Gael education spokesman Brian Hayes. Mr Scott said they travelled to Dublin because of the "concerns, worry and anger" felt by the Protestant community. The Royal Black is a recognised charity, and got involved in the controversy in that role. Mr Scott said the Protestant perception was that they were being targeted more than others. <End quote> SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >Just another piece of information from today's Irish Independent, which >actually involved funding of Irish Protestant schools. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >.... ><End quote> Those ancient-style titles should not be taken too seriously; their holders do not treat them pompously. Aproximately: Master: chairman; when unqualified: local chairman. Grand Master: chairman one or more levels up in the organisational hierarchy. Imperial: of the British Empire (geographically). It could probably be understood today as "International". The Royal Black Institution (sometimes nicknamed "the Black Men") is reticent about its internal affairs, however I suspect that it may choose its officials democratically. The related Orange Order has "Worshipful Masters" as heads of Orange Lodges. This title should not be taken as a guarantee of either mastery or worshipfulness in the titlebearers. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) Peter wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:10:06 +0000: >> Just another piece of information from today's Irish >> Independent, which actually involved funding of Irish [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> .... >> <End quote> > Those ancient-style titles should not be taken too seriously; > their holders do not treat them pompously. > Aproximately: > Master: chairman; when unqualified: local chairman. > Grand Master: chairman one or more levels up in the organisational > hierarchy. > Imperial: of the British Empire (geographically). It could probably > be understood today as "International". > The Royal Black Institution (sometimes nicknamed "the Black > Men") is reticent about its internal affairs, however I > suspect that it may choose its officials democratically. > The related Orange Order has "Worshipful Masters" as heads of > Orange Lodges. This title should not be taken as a guarantee > of either mastery or worshipfulness in the titlebearers. Thanks for the information. The titles are impressive, are they not? However, the main point was the association of "black" with Protestantism. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Peter wrote on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:10:06 +0000: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >However, the main point was the association of "black" with >Protestantism. Wikipedia says of "black" in its article on the Royal Black Institution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Black_Institution The origins of the Institution are clouded with much secrecy however information does exist that demonstrates its true roots. The predominate Protestant church in the late 1700s was the Anglican (Church of England) which is know today as the Church of Ireland. Freemasonry in Ireland was then, as now, based in Anglican Dublin while in the North of the island Freemasonry was more closely linked to the Scottish rites and the Presbyterian Church, the black-mouths, a derogatory name given to those of Scots descent (from where the nickname used in Dublin to this day for Northern Ireland is the 'Black North'). SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure >> about [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > nuns, and such) called herself that. > http://home.comcast.net/~skitt99/KA3.jpg Among my father's siblings, all were sandy-haired and unfreckled (blond, reddish-blond, dishwater blond), except for one, who was a dark-haired, dark-skinned, dark-eyed individual. Not only that, but his hair kinked. Of his two daughters, one retained the "Black Irish" traits, with lovely ruddy brown skin. The other was of the sandy-blond strain. >>> "Black Irish" is used to mean "Protestant Irish". I'm not sure >>> about [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > traits, with lovely ruddy brown skin. The other was of the > sandy-blond strain. My mother's family had two blond, two dark-haired and one medium-brown haired siblings. Two of them - one blond and one dark-haired one - had inherited my grandmother's naturally curly hair, something I envied greatly, although my sister, who got it, finds it a bit of a nuisance. My aunt who was blessed with dark curly hair also adored sunbathing, and tanned deeply. Once, after she had returned from a Florida holiday, a new neighbour who hadn't met her previously asked my mother who that coloured woman was who had visited her the other day! We didn't tend to sunbathe on my side of the family, because we got light genes from our mother and super-light ones from our father, and tend to turn bright and painfully red. We didn't need any doctor's advice to know this wasn't good! None of us had Irish ancestry, black or otherwise. SignatureCheryl >My mother's family had two blond, two dark-haired and one medium-brown >haired siblings. Two of them - one blond and one dark-haired one - had >inherited my grandmother's naturally curly hair, something I envied >greatly, although my sister, who got it, finds it a bit of a nuisance. There are at least seven independent genetic loci which together determine skin color (and related phenotypic traits). This helps account for the wide variety of appearance within a single family seen in countries like Brazil where most people have mixed ancestry. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>> In the heat of anger, I called someone a black bitch the other night, >>> which, until I explained to her I didn't mean it as a racial insult, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >soul. A "black woman" was an immoral woman. She might be a "scarlet >woman". Ah, that could explain it. I'll ask some Catholics about it. God knows they aren't hard to find. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >Sufficient for what? Yes, "Indian" is still the legal term here, with >exceptions such as the title "Native American Graves Protection and >Repatriation Act". But "colored" and "Negro" were once the usual >legal and polite terms, and they've been replaced, so I assume the >same thing could happen to "Indian". We still have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the United Negro College Fund. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >>Sufficient for what? Yes, "Indian" is still the legal term here, with >>exceptions such as the title "Native American Graves Protection and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >We still have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored >People and the United Negro College Fund. Yeah, well, they're holding off changing the names until they use up all the stationery they have stockpiled....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 12:12:15 -0800 (PST), Jerry Friedman > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > We still have the National Association for the Advancement of Colored > People and the United Negro College Fund. Exactly. The words were "institutionalized", but they've been replaced anyway (except in the names of those institutions). -- Jerry Friedman >> If it isn't sufficient that the Department of the Interior still has >> a Bureau of Indian Affairs, largely staffed by Indians, the >> Smithsonian has literally institutionalized the term by opening the >> National Museum of the American Indian. >> >> http://www.nmai.si.edu/ The National Museum of the American Indian is the sixteenth museum of the Smithsonian Institution. It is the first national museum dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of the life, languages, literature, history, and arts of Native Americans. http://www.nmai.si.edu/subpage.cfm?subpage=about > Sufficient for what? Yes, "Indian" is still the legal term here, with > exceptions such as the title "Native American Graves Protection and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > By the way, I think the NMAI building in DC is beautiful in pictures, and in person, and the cafeteria is simply amazing. My main criticism is that the exhibits tended to mix up things that were genuinely old with things that were very recent, often without making it obvious which is which. > and I'd like to visit it, but I think the name is terrible. Of all > the times not to imply that there's one of something.... SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Jerry Friedman skrev: > In an American context, most people would guess at American Indian > from that. If you can mention the tribe, though, that settles it, as > Cheryl said. You already use left- and rightpondian to differentiate language. Why not expand it to ethnicity? That would then be leftpondian indian or rightpondian indian - leftpindian/rightpindian for short. Actually we have no problem in Danish. An american Indian is "indianer", and an indian Indian is "inder". SignatureBertel, Denmark > Jerry Friedman skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why not expand it to ethnicity? That would then be leftpondian > indian or rightpondian indian - leftpindian/rightpindian for short. Which pond would that be? India and North America have no bodies of water in common. > Actually we have no problem in Danish. An american Indian is > "indianer", and an indian Indian is "inder". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you're ready to break a rule, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |you _know_ that you're ready; you Palo Alto, CA 94304 |don't need anyone else to tell |you. (If you're not that certain, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |then you're _not_ ready.) (650)857-7572 | Tom Phoenix http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ Evan Kirshenbaum skrev: > > You already use left- and rightpondian to differentiate language. > > Why not expand it to ethnicity? That would then be leftpondian > > indian or rightpondian indian - leftpindian/rightpindian for short. > Which pond would that be? The very same. > India and North America have no bodies of water in common. No, but is that important? It's a worse problem that they actually are nearly exactly opposite on the Earth so right/left becomes ambiguous. But if we agree that Greenwich is the center, then left and right are well defined. SignatureBertel, Denmark > Evan Kirshenbaum skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The very same. (Scratching head.) The pond is the Atlantic, and that doesn't divide the ethnicity. Are you trying to say that the Americans use the word "Indian" to mean the one group (Native Americans), and the British use the word "Indian" to mean the other group (Asian subcontinent)? It's a more complicated problem than that, but I can't work out any other interpretation. > > India and North America have no bodies of water in common. > > No, but is that important? It's a worse problem that they > actually are nearly exactly opposite on the Earth so right/left > becomes ambiguous. But if we agree that Greenwich is the center, > then left and right are well defined. Greenwich is in the center of a pond? Have there been more floods this week? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Donna Richoux skrev: > > > Which pond would that be? > > The very same. > (Scratching head.) The pond is the Atlantic, and that doesn't divide the > ethnicity. Are you trying to say that the Americans use the word > "Indian" to mean the one group (Native Americans), and the British use > the word "Indian" to mean the other group (Asian subcontinent)? No. I was trying to suggest a jocular designation, but it went awry. > > > India and North America have no bodies of water in common. No, but when I look at a world map, India is to the right of the Atlantic, and USA is to the left - regardless of what is in between. SignatureBertel, Denmark >> > > India and North America have no bodies of water in common. > >No, but when I look at a world map, India is to the right of the >Atlantic, and USA is to the left - regardless of what is in >between. I suppose it depends which way you are holding the map. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>>> India and North America have no bodies of water in common. > > No, but when I look at a world map, India is to the right of the > Atlantic, and USA is to the left - regardless of what is in > between. Depending, of course, on whose map you are reading. On the maps that I'm used to, India is to the right of the Atlantic, and the USA is on the far right. The maps with the South Pole at the top, for example, http://www.odtmaps.com/detail.asp_Q_product_id_E_HDP-11x17 are less popular, because nobody seriously accepts the notion of a left-wing USA. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > Evan Kirshenbaum skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > becomes ambiguous. But if we agree that Greenwich is the center, > then left and right are well defined. To you, perhaps. I've never been able to get used to the fact that leftpondian refers to places on the right of the map, and rightpondian means places on the far left. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan skrev: > To you, perhaps. I've never been able to get used to the fact that > leftpondian refers to places on the right of the map, and rightpondian > means places on the far left. I actually never thought of that problem. Westpondian, Eastpondian and Southpondian would have worked better I suppose? SignatureBertel, Denmark > Peter Moylan skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I actually never thought of that problem. Westpondian, > Eastpondian and Southpondian would have worked better I suppose? The "south" designation works provided that you can resolve the "which pond?" question. The "west" and "east" labels are more ambiguous": west or east of what? I accept that the problem is simpler for those who have no doubt which pond they are referring to. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> Peter Moylan skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > "which pond?" question. The "west" and "east" labels are more > ambiguous": west or east of what? This is especially tricky to those of us who face the Far East when we look west and the "western" countries when we look east. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Giving money and power to government 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |is like giving whiskey and car keys Palo Alto, CA 94304 |to teenage boys. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> Peter Moylan skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > This is especially tricky to those of us who face the Far East when we > look west and the "western" countries when we look east. As a native-born Californian child, I did wonder, in my artless Losangelocentric way, why the Midwest was located "back east". The middle of the West was clearly somewhere around Colorado on the map. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >As a native-born Californian child, I did wonder, in my artless >Losangelocentric way, why the Midwest was located "back east". The >middle of the West was clearly somewhere around Colorado on the map. Northwestern University, if you ever heard of it, must have really thrown you. Clearly it ought to be in Seattle, not Evanston, Ill.! -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >>As a native-born Californian child, I did wonder, in my artless >>Losangelocentric way, why the Midwest was located "back east". The >>middle of the West was clearly somewhere around Colorado on the map. > >Northwestern University, if you ever heard of it, must have really >thrown you. Clearly it ought to be in Seattle, not Evanston, Ill.! Northwestern, one university that was kind enough to grant me a degree, was so named because it was in the Northwest Territory when it was founded in 1850. John Evans - a doctor, Chicago alderman, and railroad investor - put $1,000 down on some property north of Chicago and assumed the mortgage for the site. Hence "Evanston". Tuition per year is currently over 33 times that figure. Not including fees and books. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>> Peter Moylan skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Losangelocentric way, why the Midwest was located "back east". The > middle of the West was clearly somewhere around Colorado on the map. And as an Easterner, I knew Manitoba was part of western Canada, at least, I did until relatives moved there and reported back that it was in central Canada, and that a lot of Manitobans were really, really tired of Easterners who thought it wasn't. After all, there's a lot of Canada west of Manitoba. SignatureCheryl On 11 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote >> As a native-born Californian child, I did wonder, in my artless >> Losangelocentric way, why the Midwest was located "back east". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > that it was in central Canada, and that a lot of Manitobans were > really, really tired of Easterners who thought it wasn't. That does surprise me. I was born in Winnipeg, and AFAIR all of my relatives were dead certain that Manitoba was one of the prairie provinces and therefore -- pretty well by definition -- was part of western Canada. To them and to our family (we moved to Ottawa when I was a toddler) "Central Canada" definitely meant "Ontario and Quebec"; the Winnipeggers I knew would have been mortified to have been lumped together with those provinces. Any idea when it changed? (It would have to be after the mid 1970s. I remember that in 1974, when I went to grad school in Toronto, that I hesitated to say to a couple of Albertans that I was born in western Canada. When I mentioned that I wasn't sure if Winnipeg counted as part of "the west", I was emphatically assured by them that it most definitely did.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 11 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > west", I was emphatically assured by them that it most definitely > did.) None at all. My sister and brother-in-law moved there much more recently than the mid-70s...I'm notoriously bad at dates, but I'd say no more than 10 or 15 years ago. I was really surprised to learn that Manitoba wasn't 'western' - I, too, thought that central Canada was Ontario and Quebec, although extreme westerners have been known to forget that there's anything east of Quebec, since they almost invariably mean 'Ontario and Quebec' when they say 'back east'. Well, except when things are more than usually fraught economically, and they want all those workers from the Atlantic provinces that they don't need any more to go home! That sister is due in tonight for a visit. I must ask her about it. I am so sure that I'm remembering correctly what she told me back when they moved there that I'm fascinated to get another perspective from a knowledgeable source! They were also teased during that first winter when they started wearing their heavy winter coats long before real residents of Winnipeg thought them at all necessary! They've gotten used to the winters now, and really like living there. As an aside, I really don't know why people complain so much about Newfoundland winters! There are LOTS of places that are colder or have more hurricanes or tornadoes or tsunamis (well, OK, we did have one of those, but it wasn't very big and it was a long time ago). My father didn't mention to my mother that Tennessee is one of the state that has tornadoes, and she wasn't much pleased when she discovered the fact after they moved there. SignatureCheryl On 11 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote >> On 11 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > back when they moved there that I'm fascinated to get another > perspective from a knowledgeable source! I'll be interested to hear more on it; it's an intriguing -- and really quite a fundamental -- usage change. > They were also teased during that first winter when they started > wearing their heavy winter coats long before real residents of > Winnipeg thought them at all necessary! > > They've gotten used to the winters now, and really like living > there. I remember it as a fairly friendly city, but then again I was a child and we were always visiting relatives when we were there. > As an aside, I really don't know why people complain so much > about Newfoundland winters! There are LOTS of places that are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > much pleased when she discovered the fact after they moved > there. Good to hear they've adjusted to the winters; although born and bred in Canada (and having lived six years in Edmonton before emigrating at the age of 30), I only ever got to the point of putting up with Ottawa and Edmonton winters rather than coming to not mind them. (My brother lives in Regina, where it's currently something-umpty below; he doesn't seem to mind it much, but I'm still glad to be shot of that.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Re: Manitoba - Central or West My sister is now providing a more nuanced response. She says that she has certainly met people in Winnipeg who say that Manitoba is in Central Canada (because after all, it *is* geographically, you only have to look at a map), but adds that not all of these people are born and bred in Manitoba. Those who are often do consider themselves westerners, and although she has also heard that people from Saskatchewan consider Manitoba an *eastern* province, she hasn't heard this from anyone who actually comes from Saskatchewan. Personally, I think they must simply be saying that Manitoba is east of Saskatchewan, not that Manitoba is part of eastern Canada. She also pointed out that Winnipeg's football team counts as an Eastern team in the Canadian Football League, which I did not know (not surprisingly, because I know so little about sports I once confused the Grey Cup and the Stanley Cup, and was teased mercilessly by a male cousin). I don't really think you can count that as evidence that anyone outside the CFL, and possibly Saskatchewan, think that Winnipeg is an eastern city rather than a central or western one. SignatureCheryl On 13 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote > Re: Manitoba - Central or West > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > simply be saying that Manitoba is east of Saskatchewan, not that > Manitoba is part of eastern Canada. That sounds right to me; when I lived in Edmonton (1976-82) I'm sure that the western secessionist wingnu....er, enthusiasts always included Manitoba in their proposed separate country. > She also pointed out that Winnipeg's football team counts as an > Eastern team in the Canadian Football League, which I did not [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > outside the CFL, and possibly Saskatchewan, think that Winnipeg > is an eastern city rather than a central or western one. Thanks for that; interesting. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > She also pointed out that Winnipeg's football team counts as an > Eastern team in the Canadian Football League, which I did not know > (not surprisingly, because I know so little about sports I once > confused the Grey Cup and the Stanley Cup, and was teased > mercilessly by a male cousin). In Major League Baseball, the Chicago was in the Eastern conference of the National League and the Western conference of the American League. Also in the National League East was St. Louis, while Cincinnati and Atlanta were in the West. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"Are you okay?" 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | Palo Alto, CA 94304 |"I'm made of felt....Add by dose |cubs off." kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> She also pointed out that Winnipeg's football team counts as an Eastern >> team in the Canadian Football League, which I did not know (not [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Also in the National League East was St. Louis, while Cincinnati and > Atlanta were in the West. I might add that none of the above, when I was growing up in L.A. (make that: "attempting to grow up in L.A."; my personal theory is that no one in L.A. actually ever grows up) did anything to dispel my confusion about where the East was nor to enhance my (still) very limited understanding of professional sports. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >None at all. My sister and brother-in-law moved there much more recently >than the mid-70s...I'm notoriously bad at dates, but I'd say no more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >there's anything east of Quebec, since they almost invariably mean >'Ontario and Quebec' when they say 'back east'. Could that perhaps be a consequence of greater awareness of the French heritage in Manitoba? (ObXthread: Gabrielle Roy, normally thought of as a Quebec writer, was a franco-manitobaine, from St.-Boniface.) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> None at all. My sister and brother-in-law moved there much more recently >> than the mid-70s...I'm notoriously bad at dates, but I'd say no more [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > -GAWollman I wouldn't have thought so because I've seen the attitude in people from much further west, such as Albertans, and those areas have comparatively little French heritage. I'd always associated Riel with Saskatchewan, and of course was taught as a child the then-standard 'murderer, rebel and crazy besides' version of his life and death. Manitoba's museum displays show quite a different picture! SignatureCheryl [snip] > That does surprise me. > I was born in Winnipeg, and AFAIR all of my relatives were dead > certain that Manitoba was one of the prairie provinces and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the Winnipeggers I knew would have been mortified to have been > lumped together with those provinces. These slight confusions are everywhere. It always amuses me that when we drive from England to Scotland by the West Coast route we drive north from the North Country to the Southern Uplands. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk On 11 Dec 2009, Dr Peter Young wrote > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > when we drive from England to Scotland by the West Coast route > we drive north from the North Country to the Southern Uplands. Yes, very true -- did you see the recent story about the new signpost at Watford Gap services, pointing to "The North" and "The South"? (As I mentioned further down, though, the view that Manitoba is part of the west was also held by people two provinces -- 750 miles, give or take -- further west than that.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Peter. There's a story about the clergyman who had been living in British Columbia and took up a new position somewhere in or around Corner Brook, Newfoundland. At the welcoming dinner, one of the parish dignitaries gave a speech welcoming the new minister and his family to the west coast. SignatureCheryl >[snip] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >With best wishes, The confusion here is giving directions to people when they require using Interstate 4. To get to Daytona Beach from here, you go north on I-4 eastbound. To get to Tampa, you go south on I-4 westbound. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > using Interstate 4. To get to Daytona Beach from here, you go north > on I-4 eastbound. To get to Tampa, you go south on I-4 westbound. When heading south on the Grand Union Canal you pass along the shared section with the Oxford Canal from Napton to Braunston. When heading south on the Oxford Canal you pass along the shared section from Braunston to Napton. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>> [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > south on the Oxford Canal you pass along the shared section from > Braunston to Napton. Travelling north along Banbury Road from Oxford City centre you will come to North Parade and a mile further on you come to South Parade. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford > >>> [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Travelling north along Banbury Road from Oxford City centre you will come to > North Parade and a mile further on you come to South Parade. This must be what they mean in Oxford by a moral compass, as opposed to a real one. -- franzi >>>>> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > This must be what they mean in Oxford by a moral compass, as opposed > to a real one. If you wander too far from the canal, you come across the lost causeway. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >> Peter Moylan skrev: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I accept that the problem is simpler for those who have no doubt which > pond they are referring to. The problem, Peter, is that you have not yet reconciled yourself to the fact that you live in the Far East and that your problems are oriental. SignatureRob Bannister >>> Peter Moylan skrev: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The problem, Peter, is that you have not yet reconciled yourself to the > fact that you live in the Far East and that your problems are oriental. It's all very well for you rightpondians in the west. (Does that make you South Indian?) My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I become disoriented. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan filted: >> The problem, Peter, is that you have not yet reconciled yourself to the >> fact that you live in the Far East and that your problems are oriental. >> >It's all very well for you rightpondians in the west. (Does that make >you South Indian?) My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I >become disoriented. Many Australians, it seems, are geographically challenged...that's why Yahoo Serious claimed that Albert Einstein was from Tasmania, and accounts for the name of this Ocker surf group: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo4DvZmHU9Q ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>>> Peter Moylan skrev: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > you South Indian?) My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I > become disoriented. And my problem is that, although I live in the west, I am undoubtedly still in the Far East myself - after all, our time zone is the same as Singapore's. SignatureRob Bannister > My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I > become disoriented. Was the pun intentional? If so, bravo! You achieved at least two whooshes. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I >> become disoriented. > > Was the pun intentional? If so, bravo! You achieved at least two > whooshes. Not necessarily. Some people see the pun and move on anyway. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > >> My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I > >> become disoriented. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > Not necessarily. Some people see the pun and move on anyway. Really? You think someone would note and ignore a groaner like that? SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >> My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I become >> >> disoriented. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Really? You think someone would note and ignore a groaner like that? [raises hand] SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>> >> My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I become >>> >> disoriented. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >[raises hand] Ditto. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>> >> My problem is that whenever I leave the east coast I become >>>> >> disoriented. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Ditto. Mee too. (Dammit, I can't respnd every single time someone makes a witty quip. I'd be here all day.) SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ > > Evan Kirshenbaum skrev: > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > To you, perhaps. I've never been able to get used to the fact that > leftpondian refers to places on the right of the map, Start with the significe of "The Pond," "The Great Pond," the "Big Pond." DAE: 1780 in W. Sargent /Loyalist Poetry/ Then Jack was sent across the Pond To take her in the rear, Sir. 1853 Knickerbocker XLII 'I am going over the pond,' said he, meaning thereby the Atlantic. >and rightpondian > means places on the far left. Which map did they put in the front of your classroom? Did they put Australia, Japan, and the Pacific in the middle, which I think would work out as you describe? Or, as a bow to Mother England, was it London? In my school (California), it was North and South America in the middle, and they had to split the Soviet Union in two to make that work. I don't find an image of that on line, but here are two world maps that are Pacific-centric: http://www.mapsofworld.com/geography-map/pacific-centric-world-map.jpg http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/communicate/blog/stude nt//images/worldmap_lg.jpg I believe we established here before that in the UK and USSR, their capitals were the center of their world maps. I wouldn't be surprised if the French had a special projection that centered on Paris. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux > Evan Kirshenbaum skrev: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > actually are nearly exactly opposite on the Earth so right/left > becomes ambiguous. Indian and Antipodinidian, then. SignatureRegards John for mail: my initials plus a u e at tpg dot com dot au > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has > > Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from India [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Americans tend to prefer "Indian". Their own context is clear. In BrE, > there is of course more room for confusion. Dunno about that. You'd be surprised at how few Native American takeaways there are in our town. DC -- > > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has > > > Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from India [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Dunno about that. You'd be surprised at how few Native American > takeaways there are in our town. I think someone should start the Dah Diníilghaazh Indian Takeaway in your town. Navajo tacos should go over a treat (unless the English won't eat greasy food), but it would be worth it for the looks on people's faces. -- Jerry Friedman looked up the Navajo phrase for frybread. > > > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has > > > > Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > won't eat greasy food), but it would be worth it for the looks on > people's faces. I'd be well up for that, Jerry. DC -- > > > > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has > > > > > Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > I'd be well up for that, Jerry. Market research concluded. Next: the color scheme. After that: borrow the money. Then we should be ready to find a Native American cook on or willing to relocate to the English-Welsh border (if I remember correctly). Mutton stew is another Navajo delicacy--will it sell? -- Jerry Friedman > > > > > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has > > > > > > Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mutton stew is another Navajo delicacy--will it sell? We now have a slogan! Nitáííkakomimmiiwa, which is Blackfoot for "I'm loving it," according to a comment at Language Log. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1954#comments Obaue: The original post gives the Latvian version McDonald's slogan: Man tas patīk, translated as "I like it." -- Jerry Friedman Jerry Friedman filted: >> Mutton stew is another Navajo delicacy--will it sell? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Obaue: The original post gives the Latvian version McDonald's slogan: >Man tas pat=C4=ABk, translated as "I like it." The Spanish version, "Me encanta" is literally "it bewitches me"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Jerry Friedman filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > The Spanish version, "Me encanta" is literally "it bewitches > me"....r The French, at least hereabouts, is in txtish: "J'M [j'aime] ça." > The Spanish version, "Me encanta" is literally "it bewitches > me"....r Or, with the same connotation, "It enchants me". Two phrases we learned early on in first-year Spanish were "Me gusta" (I like ..., lit. "It pleases me") and "Me encanta" (I love ...), likely because they allowed you to introduce vocabulary without having to worry about conjugating the verb (as long as you stuck to singular "objects"). SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |If all else fails, embarrass the 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |industry into doing the right Palo Alto, CA 94304 |thing. | Dean Thompson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ > We now have a slogan! Nitáííkakomimmiiwa, which is Blackfoot for "I'm > loving it," according to a comment at Language Log. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Obaue: The original post gives the Latvian version McDonald's slogan: > Man tas patīk, translated as "I like it." That's a good translation. The "tas" (that) is the subject in the nominative, the "patīk" is the verb "patikt" (to like) in the present passive form, and "man" is the pronoun "es" (I) in the dative form. All properly declined, if you know what I mean. Latvian grammar is a bitch to learn, unless you are born to it. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >> We now have a slogan! NitáÃÃkakomimmiiwa, which is Blackfoot for "I'm >> loving it," according to a comment at Language Log. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > All properly declined, if you know what I mean. Latvian grammar is a > bitch to learn, unless you are born to it. What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's slogan is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's less than 500m from where I live. Hang on... I noticed the other day that it now says "McCafé" - does that mean it's no longer a McDonald's? SignatureRob Bannister > What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's slogan > is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's less than > 500m from where I live. Hang on... I noticed the other day that it now > says "McCafé" - does that mean it's no longer a McDonald's? I'm not completely qualified to reply, but then I imagine that most people here rarely set foot in such an establishment. My answer is based on my stopping at a McDonald's while highway driving, in circumstances where it appeared likely that the next eating place would be several hours further down the road. As I understand it, the entire place is still called McDonald's, and McCafé is the name of the other end of the counter. It's a new initiative. Instead of ordering coffee with your hamburger, you now have to buy your hamburger and then proceed down to the coffee machine where the McCafé name is displayed. Instead of getting weak and foul-tasting coffee in a styrofoam cup, you get ... well, it's still weak and foul-tasting, but it has a new name. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's slogan >> is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's less than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > coffee in a styrofoam cup, you get ... well, it's still weak and > foul-tasting, but it has a new name. Ha! My campaign to say that they aren't a restaurant is paying off. You laughed at me, but see! [collapses in manic giggling] SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>> What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's slogan >>> is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's less than [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Ha! My campaign to say that they aren't a restaurant is paying off. > You laughed at me, but see! [collapses in manic giggling] It might be the first step in a plan to upgrade themselves to a cafeteria. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's slogan >>>> is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's less than [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > It might be the first step in a plan to upgrade themselves to a > cafeteria. One could start a campaign to pronounce McCafé as "McCaffey". SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>>> What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's >>>>> slogan [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > One could start a campaign to pronounce McCafé as "McCaffey". Homonymous with McCaughey? Pat Durkin filted: >> One could start a campaign to pronounce McCafé as "McCaffey". > >Homonymous with McCaughey? I'm having enough trouble not reading McCafé as a near-homonym [1] of McAfee...r [1] Could you call that a proxinym? SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Pat Durkin filted: >>> One could start a campaign to pronounce McCafé as "McCaffey". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > [1] Could you call that a proxinym? In general, yes. But since we seem to have moved on to matters viral, it might be better to call it a poxynym. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's slogan >> is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's less than [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > coffee in a styrofoam cup, you get ... well, it's still weak and > foul-tasting, but it has a new name. You've got to love progress. SignatureRob Bannister Robert Bannister filted: >> As I understand it, the entire place is still called McDonald's, and >> McCafé is the name of the other end of the counter. It's a new [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You've got to love progress. *I'm* loving it.... By the way, I just saw in the paper today that, a scant few months after McDonald's left Iceland, rival burger-chain Wendy's is suspending all its operations in Japan....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> What amazes me is that so many people know what the McDonald's >> slogan is. I didn't even know they had one, and there's a Macca's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'm not completely qualified to reply, but then I imagine that most > people here rarely set foot in such an establishment. I guess I can admit to being a frequent customer of restaurants that serve rapidly prepared food[1]. I'm surprised that they've hit you guys. "McCafé" was an experiment that they tried around here a few years ago, and it appeared to have failed miserably. They remodelled a number of the McDonald's so that about half of it was obviously aimed at the Starbucks crowd, with a counter serving coffee (in mugs), pastries, and, I believe, cold sandwiches, booths with overstuffed bench seats, big-screen TVs, and reduced lighting. After a while, they pulled out the counters and the whole place reverted to a normal McDonald's, except the layout is still weird and the seats and lighting aren't, to my mind, as conducive to eating the food. [1] A No-Prize to the first person who spots the reference. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The Elizabethans had so many words 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |for the female genitals that it is Palo Alto, CA 94304 |quite hard to speak a sentence of |modern English without inadvertently kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |mentioning at least three of them. (650)857-7572 | Terry Pratchett http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >I guess I can admit to being a frequent customer of restaurants that >serve rapidly prepared food[1]. I'm surprised that they've hit you >guys. "McCaf\351" was an experiment that they tried around here a few >years ago, and it appeared to have failed miserably. There are two different things by that name, as this Wikipedia article <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCafe> notes. In the U.S., McDonald's is trying to go full-on against the likes of Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks for the coffee market, as those companies are their biggest competitors for the breakfast market. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> I guess I can admit to being a frequent customer of restaurants that >> serve rapidly prepared food[1]. I'm surprised that they've hit you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks for the coffee market, as those companies > are their biggest competitors for the breakfast market. In that case, I wonder just how my local McCafé will go, because it is right next door to a BP "Wild Bean" café which is very popular with the breakfast crowd, especially the police and taxi drivers. I suppose Macs will still attract the younger set though. SignatureRob Bannister >> I guess I can admit to being a frequent customer of restaurants that >> serve rapidly prepared food[1]. I'm surprised that they've hit you [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Dunkin' Donuts and Starbucks for the coffee market, as those companies > are their biggest competitors for the breakfast market. Starbucks has very few outlets in Australia, and I suspect that it's not very successful because of the perception that its coffee is excessively weak. I don't think we have Dunkin Donuts at all. The biggest chain of coffee shops in this country is probably Gloria Jean, about which I have mixed feelings: the coffee is good, but I don't like giving money to religious fundamentalists. The great majority of Australian cafes don't belong to a chain or franchise at all. The good ones attract customers by building up a reputation in the local neighbourhood. My rule of thumb, when looking for good coffee, is to go to a district with a large Italian population. McDonald's coffee would, to the best of my knowledge, be consumed only by people who went in for a hamburger and wanted something to wash it down with. The coffee is, in my limited experience, hideous stuff. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >Starbucks has very few outlets in Australia, and I suspect that it's not >very successful because of the perception that its coffee is excessively >weak. That's . . . odd. Seriously odd. Starbucks is jocularly known as "Charbucks" here for its perceived over-roasting. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> Starbucks has very few outlets in Australia, and I suspect that it's not >> very successful because of the perception that its coffee is excessively >> weak. > > That's . . . odd. Seriously odd. Starbucks is jocularly known as > "Charbucks" here for its perceived over-roasting. A difference in national taste, I think. During the recent Olympics that were held in Sydney, the American team arranged for Starbucks to provide their coffee, on the grounds that Australian coffee was far too strong. This, despite the fact that Australian coffee has a reputation in Europe of being similar to making love in a canoe. Let it be said that "overroasting" is not the same as "overbrewing". The complaint in Australia is that Starbucks doesn't provide enough beans per cup; and that has no correlation with the degree of roasting. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Starbucks has very few outlets in Australia, and I suspect that it's not >>> very successful because of the perception that its coffee is excessively [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >complaint in Australia is that Starbucks doesn't provide enough beans >per cup; and that has no correlation with the degree of roasting. I can't stand Starbucks coffee. It's either too strong or too bitter. An organization that I do some favors for sends me Starbucks gift cards in appreciation for my service. I think it would be impolite of me to refuse them, and even more impolite to ask for something else in exchange, but I never use them. Eventually I'll find someone I know who does like Starbucks coffee and dump about $100 in gift cards on him/her. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida tony cooper filted: >I can't stand Starbucks coffee. It's either too strong or too bitter. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >who does like Starbucks coffee and dump about $100 in gift cards on >him/her. Couldn't you just buy biscotti with them....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > tony cooper filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Couldn't you just buy biscotti with them....r I'm always amazed that people actually go to Starbucks and buy (at prices that are ridiculously inflated) tricked-up coffee. Give me real java, joe, etc. None of that sissy stuff. SignatureMaria Conlon [ ... ] > I'm always amazed that people actually go to Starbucks and buy (at > prices that are ridiculously inflated) tricked-up coffee. > > Give me real java, joe, etc. None of that sissy stuff. And nothing added, right? No cream, no sugar, none of that crap. Strong fresh black coffee in a china mug. Sip. Smile. Hell, it's probably even "organic" that way. (Of course, human sh.t is also organic.) SignatureBob Lieblich And his organ > [ ... ] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And nothing added, right? No cream, no sugar, none of that crap. > Strong fresh black coffee in a china mug. Sip. Smile. Well, no cream, no sugar, but I wouldn't say No if someone offered a "sup of the stuff" in it, though. A bit of Dramboui would be fine, TYVM. > Hell, it's probably even "organic" that way. (Of course, human sh.t > is also organic.) You are awful. You know that? Hear I am anticipating something good and you bring up, well, something stinky. (smile) > Bob Lieblich > And his organ You play, do you? (We've got an organ, too. Three keyboards; and very full sound. But the speakers aren't as good as they could be and used to be.) SignatureMaria Conlon Maria Conlon filted: >> [ ... ] >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >(smile) Sshhh!...nobody tell Maria about kopi luwak.... >> Bob Lieblich >> And his organ > >You play, do you? (We've got an organ, too. Three keyboards; and very >full sound. But the speakers aren't as good as they could be and used to >be.) My organ teacher would spend the rest of the lesson yelling at you that they're not "keyboards"; they're "manuals"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Maria Conlon filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Sshhh!...nobody tell Maria about kopi luwak.... I looked it up anyway: http://www.vietnamese-coffee.com/coffee_kopi_luwak_shop.php I thought at first the the "nobody tell Maria" was about my using "Hear" for "here." I seem to do "hearos" a lot. (Don't pick the sound of that sentence apart, Ron. It means what it means to me.) >> You play, do you? (We've got an organ, too. Three keyboards; and very >> full sound. But the speakers aren't as good as they could be and used [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that they're > not "keyboards"; they're "manuals"....r Hmph. The term "manuals" doesn't work for me. (And it inappropriately reminds me of RTFM {or PTFM in this case.) Now, I think I'll go practice a tune or two for Christmas Eve. Well, maybe I'd better just practice playing a CD or two. SignatureMaria Conlon > An organization that I do some favors for sends me Starbucks gift > cards in appreciation for my service. I think it would be impolite of > me to refuse them, and even more impolite to ask for something else in > exchange, but I never use them. Eventually I'll find someone I know > who does like Starbucks coffee and dump about $100 in gift cards on > him/her. Ebay. Brian SignatureDay 317 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project >>> I guess I can admit to being a frequent customer of restaurants that >>> serve rapidly prepared food[1]. I'm surprised that they've hit you [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > reputation in the local neighbourhood. My rule of thumb, when looking > for good coffee, is to go to a district with a large Italian population. I used to think that (about chains and franchises), but I now find there are very few left that are not. The biggest chain in the West is still I think "Dôme" with a silly accent; I mainly go to Gloria Jean or Baci or Muffin Break and occasionally Miss Maud's. Even in the City centre, I can only think of two that I have been in that aren't part of a chain/franchise. > McDonald's coffee would, to the best of my knowledge, be consumed only > by people who went in for a hamburger and wanted something to wash it > down with. The coffee is, in my limited experience, hideous stuff. At least the coffee's better than the burgers. SignatureRob Bannister ... >Starbucks has very few outlets in Australia, and I suspect that it's not >very successful because of the perception that its coffee is excessively >weak. I don't think we have Dunkin Donuts at all. The biggest chain of >coffee shops in this country is probably Gloria Jean, about which I have >mixed feelings: the coffee is good, but I don't like giving money to >religious fundamentalists. I can't agree with you on the coffee. I had one there once and it's the only time I couldn't finish one. I saw no point in continuing with something so bland and unsatisfying. They did have a good range of sweet pastries and a large selection of sweet essences that the deluded insist on adding to coffee (hazelnut, peppermint, and so on). but that isn't what I want in a coffee. I believe they have stopped collecting for the brainwashers, 'though. >The great majority of Australian cafes don't belong to a chain or >franchise at all. The good ones attract customers by building up a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >by people who went in for a hamburger and wanted something to wash it >down with. The coffee is, in my limited experience, hideous stuff. Compared with GJ's, it is glorious. I recall having a cup once at the one near Yass and was surprised that it was quite okay. Not up to your Melbourne Collins Street standard or, as you note, Italian restaurant. But for a takeaway, not bad. Better than the food. SignatureRichard Bollard Canberra Australia To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT. > > > > > > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who > > > > > > has Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Mutton stew is another Navajo delicacy--will it sell? Could do. At least one of the ingredients is readily available around here. -- > Hi, native speakers of English, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ho You have to put it in context, although of course if you say "Her grandfather was Mohawk" you don't really need to add that she has Indian blood (or Native ancestry, which sounds a bit more up-to-date). Similarly, if you say "Her grandfather was born in Calcutta", your listener knows what you mean by 'Indian'. Of course, it's entirely possible she had one grandfather from India and one from a Navaho reservation. "Mountain man" doesn't imply "American Indian", but at least a mountain man in some parts of the Rockies might be in the right part of the world to meet one. At one time, I was told by someone who should have known that the preferred terminology differs in western and eastern Canada - Native vs Indian? I've forgotten; it was long ago. I wonder if there are such variations now, and if they apply in the US. SignatureCheryl >> Hi, native speakers of English, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Similarly, if you say "Her grandfather was born in Calcutta", your > listener knows what you mean by 'Indian'. William Makepeace Thackeray was born in Calcutta (now Kolkata), one of a long list of Indian-born Brits - like Cliff Richard (Lucknow) and Colin Cowdrey (Bangalore). So if Thackeray had a grand-daughter with a Lakota grandmother on the other side of the family it would all get very confusing. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford >>> Hi, native speakers of English, >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So if Thackeray had a grand-daughter with a Lakota grandmother on the other > side of the family it would all get very confusing. You have a point, of course. What's that phrase about being born in a barn not making someone a cow, or something like that? I should have said something like 'Whose grandfather was a Maharajah, descended from a long line of maharajahs' SignatureCheryl >>>> Hi, native speakers of English, >>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > You have a point, of course. What's that phrase about being born in a > barn not making someone a cow, or something like that? If a cat occupies an orange box to have her litter, are they kittens or oranges? Wikiquote has a section on a misattribution to old Nosey: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley,_1st_Duke_of_Wellington "If a gentleman happens to be born in a stable, it does not follow that he should be called a horse. As quoted in Genetic Studies in Joyce (1995) by David Hayman and Sam Slote. Though such remarks have often been quoted as Wellington's response on being called Irish, the earliest published sources yet found for similar comments are those about him attributed to an Irish politician: The poor old Duke! what shall I say of him? To be sure he was born in Ireland, but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse. Daniel O'Connell, in a speech (16 October 1843), as quoted in Shaw's Authenticated Report of the Irish State Trials (1844), p. 93 No, he is not an Irishman. He was born in Ireland; but being born in a stable does not make a man a horse. Daniel O'Connell during a speech (16 October 1843), as quoted in Reports of State Trials: New Series Volume V, 1843 to 1844 (1893) "The Queen Against O'Connell and Others", p. 206 Variants: If a man be born in a stable, that does not make him a horse. Quoted as as an anonymous proverb in Dictionary of Quotations from Ancient and Modern English and Foreign Sources (1899), p. 171 Because a man is born in a stable that does not make him a horse. Quoted as a dubious statement perhaps made early in his career in The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs (1992) edited by John Simpson and Jennifer Speake, p. 162" > I should have said something like 'Whose grandfather was a Maharajah, > descended from a long line of maharajahs' As long as none of the Maharajahs was Alfred Dent, the British businessman who became Maharajah of Sabah. We should also tread carefully around the Brooke family - the White Rajahs who ruled Sarawak for a hundred years. We're lucky CB Fry turned down the offer of the throne of Albania. SignatureJohn Dean Oxford John Dean filted: >> You have a point, of course. What's that phrase about being born in a >> barn not making someone a cow, or something like that? > >If a cat occupies an orange box to have her litter, are they kittens or >oranges? I've heard that as "if a cat has kittens in an oven, that don't make 'em biscuits"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > John Dean filted: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I've heard that as "if a cat has kittens in an oven, that don't make 'em > biscuits"....r Unless the oven is on. SignatureLes (BrE) >> You have a point, of course. What's that phrase about being born in a >> barn not making someone a cow, or something like that? [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Concise Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs (1992) edited by John Simpson and > Jennifer Speake, p. 162" The earliest I see in Google Books is Mr. St. John being smoe time ago in want of a servant, an Irishman offered his servicel but being asked what countryman he was, he answered, "An Englishman." "Where was you born?" said his lordship. "In Ireland, and please your honour," said the man "How then can you be an Englishman?" said his lordship. "My lord," replied the man, "supposing I was born in a stable, that is no reason I should be a horse. _The Freemason's Magazine_, June, 1795 Soon afterwards he came up to me, and without any ceremony, said: "But, Sir, you are a Frenchman." I was aware of the insinuation which he wished to convey, and was offended at the impertinent manner in which he did it. "And why so, sir?" said I.--"Because you were born in France," said he.--"But, Sir, a man is not a horse because he happens to be born in a stable." Louis Dutens, _Memoirs of a Traveller, Now in Retirement_, 1806. (translated from French) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |This case--and I must be careful 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |not to fall into Spooner's trap Palo Alto, CA 94304 |here--concerns a group of warring |bankers. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ [snip] > At one time, I was told by someone who should have known that the > preferred terminology differs in western and eastern Canada - Native vs > Indian? I've forgotten; it was long ago. I wonder if there are such > variations now, and if they apply in the US. It always amuses me that, while the word "native" has become acceptable in America (and I think in Australia), it's still highly incorrect in Africa. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk >It always amuses me that, while the word "native" has become >acceptable in America (and I think in Australia), it's still highly >incorrect in Africa. Perhaps because all humankind is native to Africa. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 Peter Young: >> It always amuses me that, while the word "native" has become >> acceptable in America (and I think in Australia), it's still highly >> incorrect in Africa. Garrett Wollman: > Perhaps because all humankind is native to Africa. Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. SignatureMark Brader | The chief use to which we put our love of the truth is Toronto | in persuading ourselves that what we love is true. msb@vex.net | -- Pierre Nicole, c.1675 > Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. This brings up another tack. When and why would someone say "I'm English" vs. "I'm a Brit" ? Interchangeable? Something PC involved here? Please elaborate. Mark Brader: > > Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. "Kalmia": > This brings up another tack. When and why would someone say "I'm > English" vs. "I'm a Brit" ? Interchangeable? Clearly not, since Britain includes other places besides England. My family moved to Canada when I was 2. I never heard "Brit" when I was young and, even though I know some British people use it to describe themselves, it comes across to me as faintly insulting. SignatureMark Brader "How can we believe that?" Toronto "Because this time it's true!" msb@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay: YES, PRIME MINISTER My text in this article is in the public domain. > Mark Brader: >>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I was young and, even though I know some British people use it to > describe themselves, it comes across to me as faintly insulting. Straying somewhat from the topic, I was thinking about this "Brit" thing this morning and my mind wandered to "UK". When I was young (and still lived in England), the term "The United Kingdom" was only ever met in official pronouncements and nobody ever actually said "the you kay". We did perhaps vaguely associate the letters "GB" with home (although people didn't go round saying "gee bee"), but "UK" was too formal. Today, along with "Brit" for the person, I find "UK" for the country being used more and more. Is this just my impression, or do British and English people notice this too? SignatureRob Bannister Mark Brader: >>>> *I* am a native of England. >> My family moved to Canada when I was 2. I never heard "Brit" when >> I was young and, even though I know some British people use it to >> describe themselves, it comes across to me as faintly insulting. Rob Bannister: > Straying somewhat from the topic, I was thinking about this "Brit" thing > this morning and my mind wandered to "UK". When I was young (and still > lived in England), the term "The United Kingdom" was only ever met in > official pronouncements and nobody ever actually said "the you kay"... Similarly, in my family we always spoke of the place we had come from as England, and I share Rob's impression that it used to be less common to say "UK". However, I don't remember at what age I first understood that England *was* one part of something called the UK. SignatureMark Brader | "Hitler made an elementary error when he chose not to Toronto | dress his young National Socialists in lime-green catsuits msb@vex.net | laced with twinkling fairy lights." --Anthony Lane My text in this article is in the public domain. Robert Bannister wrote, in <7oauafF3p67qcU1@mid.individual.net> on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:39:41 +0800: > > Mark Brader: > >>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > being used more and more. Is this just my impression, or do British and > English people notice this too? Pretty much the only place you see GB these days is on cars or as GBP for currency. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Straying somewhat from the topic, I was thinking about this "Brit" thing >this morning and my mind wandered to "UK". When I was young (and still [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >being used more and more. Is this just my impression, or do British and >English people notice this too? I think it's simply that these days we have far more official forms to fill in, possibly because we're travelling abroad more frequently. The only place where "GB" is still common, surely, is on the back of cars -- the nation code. That raises all sorts of other questions. SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 08:39:41 +0800, Robert Bannister > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >The only place where "GB" is still common, surely, is on the back of >cars -- the nation code. That raises all sorts of other questions. It depends rather on where you spend your time. In the heady, rarefied world of patents, GB is the standard signifier of United Kingdom intellectual property rights. When there are patent numbers issued by (don't actually know, but between 100 and 200) states and organisations, each is conventionally prefixed by a two-letter code. The number GB19910025540 means patent application no. 25540 of 1991 in the United Kingdom Patent Office. GB2276967A is the published British patent application document corresponding to that application. And so on. In case anyone was wondering, Ukraine is UA, and United Arab Emirates is AE. Obviously. TW is "Taiwan", "Chinese Taipei", or "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu", according to your national political prejudice. But that's another story. SignaturePaul Katy Jennison: >> The only place where "GB" is still common, surely, is on the back of >> cars -- the nation code. Paul Wolff: > It depends rather on where you spend your time. In the heady, rarefied > world of patents, GB is the standard signifier of United Kingdom ... > In case anyone was wondering, Ukraine is UA, and United Arab Emirates is > AE. Obviously. TW is "Taiwan"... Well, then obviously it's ISO 3166 standard country codes. What else? (Those are the same codes used for all Internet national domains but one.) SignatureMark Brader | I passed a sign that said "you are here", Toronto | but I didn't entirely believe it. msb@vex.net | --Michael Levine > Today, along with "Brit" for the person, I find "UK" for the country > being used more and more. Is this just my impression, or do British and > English people notice this too? At least "UK" caters for everyone. If you say GB, Great Britain or just Britain it excludes the Northern Irish (because Great Britain is the big island that comprises England, Scotland and Wales) and England/Scotland/Wales are all mutually exclusive, so UK is least likely to offend :-) It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. It might also exclude Scillonians and Manx people, and all the other island communities around the British Isles. SignatureAndy Clews University of Sussex *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email *** A.Clews@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk skrev: > It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. Oxford Advanced learners does not agree. It defines "Brit" as a person from UK. SignatureBertel, Denmark Bertel wrote on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:45:26 +0100: >> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be >> called a Brit. > Oxford Advanced learners does not agree. It defines "Brit" as > a person from UK. I was surprised to find that quotations for "Brit" in the OED go back to 1894. I really cannot recall seeing its use until well after I emigrated to the US and I think I first saw it used by people from Ireland or those having Irish sympathies. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > I was surprised to find that quotations for "Brit" in the OED go back to > 1894. I really cannot recall seeing its use until well after I emigrated > to the US and I think I first saw it used by people from Ireland or > those having Irish sympathies. RHHDAS pretty much agrees with you, saying "Rare in U.S. before 1970's." Their early citations, which I'll trim to source only: 1901 OEDS 1932 Ezra Pound (spells with apostrophe: Brit') 1940 Ezra Pound 1964 Time Magazine 1975 National Lampoon I'm waiting for UKer to catch on. I don't know whether it should be pronounced like "you care" or "ucker." ... Present-day Google hits relate mostly to ukeleles or euchre. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux Donna wrote on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:10:45 +0100: >> I was surprised to find that quotations for "Brit" in the OED >> go back to 1894. I really cannot recall seeing its use until >> well after I emigrated to the US and I think I first saw it >> used by people from Ireland or those having Irish sympathies. > RHHDAS pretty much agrees with you, saying "Rare in U.S. > before 1970's." > Their early citations, which I'll trim to source only: > 1901 OEDS > 1932 Ezra Pound (spells with apostrophe: Brit') > 1940 Ezra Pound > 1964 Time Magazine > 1975 National Lampoon > I'm waiting for UKer to catch on. I don't know whether it > should be pronounced like "you care" or "ucker." ... > Present-day Google hits relate mostly to ukeleles or euchre. Words made from abbreviations seem rather inelegant to me and don't seem to have caught on. Think of "Usasian" and Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonian". I am not inclined to check whether those have more than one capital letter. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not James Silverton filted: >Words made from abbreviations seem rather inelegant to me and don't seem >to have caught on. Think of "Usasian" and Frank Lloyd Wright's >"Usonian". I am not inclined to check whether those have more than one >capital letter. On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? R wrote on 10 Dec 2009 13:06:26 -0800: > James Silverton filted: >> >> Words made from abbreviations seem rather inelegant to me and >> don't seem to have caught on. Think of "Usasian" and Frank >> Lloyd Wright's "Usonian". I am not inclined to check whether >> those have more than one capital letter. > On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just > fine....r I did not know that but it also helps I suppose that it apparently can be taken to mean "the pure country". SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not >On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r And the abbreviation "Paki", as in "The Pakis are playing a test against the Windies". SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r > > And the abbreviation "Paki", as in "The Pakis are playing a test against the > Windies". "Paki" has become tainted by association with racist chants and attacks in the UK and is now best avoided. IMHO it's a pity, because it's quite a friendly little word, but then I can think of a few others that fit that description (a couple beginning with W for example). So while we'd say "The Windies", we'd never say "The Pakis", it would always be "Pakistan". SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >>>On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r >> >> And the abbreviation "Paki", as in "The Pakis are playing a test against the >> Windies". > "Paki" has become tainted by association with racist chants and attacks > in the UK and is now best avoided. Very much so. > IMHO it's a pity, because it's quite a friendly little word, Oh yeah? I think there are quite a few folks of Pakistani birth or descent that would strongly disagree with you! What might seem like a friendly-sounding little word to white British people may not be so to those whom it's aimed at. Give you an example: In George Takei's (Mr Sulu from Star Trek) autobiography, he writes of his utter loathing for the term "Jap" as a reference to the Japanese. That said, it's not exactly a friendly word anyway, because it was generally used exclusively as a reference to them during WW2, so I'd say it's on an equal footing with "Paki". I'm quite happy to be called a "Brit" though, even though some seem to think it's offensive. SignatureAndy Clews University of Sussex *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email *** > >>>On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r > >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Takei's (Mr Sulu from Star Trek) autobiography, he writes of his utter > loathing for the term "Jap" as a reference to the Japanese. It's no better than "gook". > That said, it's > not exactly a friendly word anyway, because it was generally used exclusively > as a reference to them during WW2, so I'd say it's on an equal footing with > "Paki". It is objectionable even as an explicit abreviation. Protests from Japan got Jap. J. Phys. changed to Japan J. Phys. (which is of course abbreviated as (Japan. J. Phys.) Murphy always strikes, Jan >>>>On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I'm quite happy to be called a "Brit" though, even though some seem to think > it's offensive. Better than 'Slimey Limey', which is what one Yank shouted out at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, this happened when Zola Budd and Mary Decker collided in the 3000 metres womens race. >>>On the other hand, "Pakistani" seems to have caught on just fine....r >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >say "The Windies", we'd never say "The Pakis", it would always be >"Pakistan". It has no such connotations in this part of the world. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk > Donna wrote on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:10:45 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > "Usonian". I am not inclined to check whether those have more than one > capital letter. Then there is US = us = we => the Weans of Robert Nathan's short story "Digging the Weans". SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Roland wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:11 +0000 (UTC): >> Donna wrote on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:10:45 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Lloyd Wright's "Usonian". I am not inclined to check whether >> those have more than one capital letter. > Then there is US = us = we => the Weans of Robert Nathan's > short story "Digging the Weans". I've lost my copy but I remember the story well. David Macaulay's "Motel of the Mysteries" had a similar theme. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Roland wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:11 +0000 (UTC): > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > I've lost my copy but I remember the story well. David Macaulay's > "Motel of the Mysteries" had a similar theme. I'd very much like to read it. You have to subscribe to Harper's to be able to read it online. Can't find any mp3 versions either. SignatureJames James wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:01:28 +0100: >> Roland wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:11 +0000 (UTC): >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >> I've lost my copy but I remember the story well. David >> Macaulay's "Motel of the Mysteries" had a similar theme. > I'd very much like to read it. You have to subscribe to > Harper's to be able to read it online. Can't find any mp3 > versions either. I wish I could find my copy of "Digging the Weans". The adventures at "Pound Laundry" are coming back to me but I can't remember the name of the despised maverick archeologist whose ideas are actually correct. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > > Roland wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:11 +0000 (UTC): ... > >> Then there is US = us = we => the Weans of Robert Nathan's short > >> story "Digging the Weans". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd very much like to read it. You have to subscribe to Harper's to be > able to read it online. Can't find any mp3 versions either. You can look it up at the Internet Speculative Fiction Database http://www.isfdb.org and find that it's been anthologized. Then you can get a copy of one of the anthologies from a library, if necessary by interlibrary loan. (I forget whether that's what the service is called in Britain.) -- Jerry Friedman >> Roland wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:11 +0000 (UTC): >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >I'd very much like to read it. You have to subscribe to Harper's to be >able to read it online. Can't find any mp3 versions either. If the writing has retained the standard of quality it held twenty years ago, Harper's is a fine magazine, IMO. It and the Atlantic Monthly became my favourite magazines, back when I lived in America. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE [...] >>> Words made from abbreviations seem rather inelegant to me and >>> don't seem to have caught on. Think of "Usasian" and Frank >>> Lloyd Wright's "Usonian". I am not inclined to check whether >>> those have more than one capital letter. Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, as you have it above. I tried the word out in a.u.e. but it didn't catch on. I was fascinated by his "Usonian automatic" building system, which needed fewer skills than usual to make a house. I talked to a structural engineer about it, and he said it wouldn't get through British building regs, which was disappointing (but maybe just as well), as I wanted to have a go. SignatureMike. >Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, Nobody in the U.S. would call him that. It's not one of those double-barrelled family names like you have in Britain. The man's family name was "Wright". -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, > > Nobody in the U.S. would call him that. It's not one of those > double-barrelled family names like you have in Britain. The man's > family name was "Wright". Ah, so? I assumed he used the Lloyd bit to emphasise his Welsh heritage. SignatureMike. >>> Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, >> Nobody in the U.S. would call him that. It's not one of those >> double-barrelled family names like you have in Britain. The man's >> family name was "Wright". >> > Ah, so? I assumed he used the Lloyd bit to emphasise his Welsh heritage. He was named Frank Lincoln Wright originally. When his parents divorced, he changed his middle name to Lloyd: his mother was originally a Lloyd Jones. But he used the initials FLLW, still retaining the Lincoln. Lincoln Logs were invented by Wright's son and were not named after Abraham. My brain is clearly still full of Wright trivia from our trip to Chicago in October. I was thinking about this today when talking to an academic from the Booth business school at the University of Chicago. The building is across the road from the Robie house and has been cleverly designed to echo its lines. And I'm still hearing Paul... SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) Laura Spira: > My brain is clearly still full of Wright trivia from our trip to Chicago > in October. I was thinking about this today when talking to an academic > from the Booth business school at the University of Chicago. The > building is across the road from the Robie house and has been cleverly > designed to echo its lines. Arrgh. In last night's trivia league final, we were given floor plans of that house, told only that it was in Chicago, and asked to identify it. During a break (when the question was no longer available to us, but was to others, so the answer had not been revealed) I asked the QM what the correct answer was, and when I still did not recognize "Robie house", he informed me that "it's probably Frank Lloyd Wright's most famous house -- well, second after Fallingwater." I would have guessed the architect if I'd seen a photo instead of floor plans, I think, but I'd never have known it by name. But it seems the QM was right! (<http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Robie_Residence.html> is where the floor plans we were given came from, in case anyone was wondering or wanted to explore that site.) SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "We are informed many things, msb@vex.net | some of them correct." --Greg Goss My text in this article is in the public domain. ... > My brain is clearly still full of Wright trivia from our trip to Chicago > in October. I was thinking about this today when talking to an academic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And I'm still hearing Paul... ... After so... much time? -- Jerry Friedman > My brain is clearly still full of Wright trivia My brain is full of right trivia, too. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>> Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, >>> Nobody in the U.S. would call him that. It's not one of those [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >My brain is clearly still full of Wright trivia from our trip to Chicago >in October. I started to say that Wright trivia is better than wrong trivia, until I realized that the value of trivia probably cannot be measured. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs filted: >>He was named Frank Lincoln Wright originally. When his parents divorced, >> he changed his middle name to Lloyd: his mother was originally a Lloyd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I started to say that Wright trivia is better than wrong trivia, until >I realized that the value of trivia probably cannot be measured. Ah, but surely there are three ways to measure it....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Chuck Riggs filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Ah, but surely there are three ways to measure it....r You whoosed me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs filted: >>Chuck Riggs filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You whoosed me. "Trivia"="three ways" ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >Chuck Riggs filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >"Trivia"="three ways" Sort of, anyway. From the COD10, I found that trivia is related to trivium: trivium n. historical an introductory course at a medieval university involving the study of grammar, rhetoric, and logic. Compare with quadrivium. ORIGIN C19: from L., lit. 'place where three roads meet'. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: > [...] >>>> >>>> Words made from abbreviations seem rather inelegant to me >>>> and don't seem to have caught on. Think of "Usasian" and >>>> Frank Lloyd Wright's "Usonian". I am not inclined to check >>>> whether those have more than one capital letter. > Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, as you > have it above. I tried the word out in a.u.e. but it didn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wouldn't get through British building regs, which was > disappointing (but maybe just as well), as I wanted to have a go. I knew a man who apprenticed with Wright and he claimed that there was no such thing as a Wright-designed roof that did not leak. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I knew a man who apprenticed with Wright and he claimed that there was > no such thing as a Wright-designed roof that did not leak. You don't have to apprentice with Wright to know that. His roofs are notorious for leaking. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Roland Hutchinson filted: >> I knew a man who apprenticed with Wright and he claimed that there was >> no such thing as a Wright-designed roof that did not leak. > >You don't have to apprentice with Wright to know that. His roofs are >notorious for leaking. That's what happens when you destroy the box....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >> Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >You don't have to apprentice with Wright to know that. His roofs are >notorious for leaking. Can a thing, as opposed to a person, be notorious? Serious question. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Can a thing, as opposed to a person, be notorious? Serious question. I think so. You can speak of a stretch of highway that's notorious for accidents or a race course or mountain that's notoriously difficult. SignatureCheryl >>>> Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >I think so. You can speak of a stretch of highway that's notorious for >accidents or a race course or mountain that's notoriously difficult. Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a leaking roof be? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a > leaking roof be? It can be expensive. It can also be implicated in the growth of mould, which recently seems to have been in turn implicated in everything from mild allergies to cancer. SignatureCheryl >Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >leaking roof be? If water leaks on to a smooth-surfaced floor there is a risk that an unwary person will slip and injure themselves. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>leaking roof be? > >If water leaks on to a smooth-surfaced floor there is a risk that an >unwary person will slip and injure themselves. The leaking roof results in a weakened ceiling. I would say that a ceiling crashing down presents an element of danger. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >The leaking roof results in a weakened ceiling. I would say that a >ceiling crashing down presents an element of danger. A danger of course, Peter, Cheryl and Coop, but can a ceiling be notorious for being dangerous? That was my question, as seen above. While people, gods, spirits and even animals can be notorious, I maintain that material objects can not be. They have no soul, no being, no spiritual essence, no way to commit good or evil, in the sense that they willed it. In other words, for handymen like Coop, a leaking roof has no free will. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sense that they willed it. In other words, for handymen like Coop, a > leaking roof has no free will. The word "notorious" just means that a person or thing is famous, for the wrong reasons. It used to mean "known", now it means "famous for some bad quality". It can be used of things as well as people. SignatureJames >>>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >wrong reasons. It used to mean "known", now it means "famous for some >bad quality". It can be used of things as well as people. My hammer is notorious for hitting my thumb may work for you, but it does not for me. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >sense that they willed it. In other words, for handymen like Coop, a >leaking roof has no free will. Mountain climbers have their own jargon, but I would have no problem with someone saying that a particular rock face or climb is "notorious" meaning that it is difficult, impossible or dangerous to climb. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >Mountain climbers have their own jargon, but I would have no problem >with someone saying that a particular rock face or climb is "notorious" >meaning that it is difficult, impossible or dangerous to climb. Try again, Peter: Mountain climbers have their own jargon, but I would have no problem with someone saying that a particular rock face or climb is "notorious", meaning that it has a reputation for being difficult, impossible or dangerous to climb. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>>leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >with someone saying that a particular rock face or climb is "notorious" >meaning that it is difficult, impossible or dangerous to climb. Since heights are notoriously scary to many people, I wouldn't either, but how many people find a leaking roof scary? Annoying, irritating and sometimes costly to fix, I'll grant you, but not scary. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sense that they willed it. In other words, for handymen like Coop, a > leaking roof has no free will. Fame and notoriety are surely not a question of free will or of soul (whatever that is). A thing can acquire a reputation from what it does or from what happens around it. No doubt, some simple people will confer malevolence on the poor object (especially if it is a computer or car), but even a bend in the road can be notorious for causing injury - not the stupid drivers. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >but even a bend in the road can be notorious for causing injury - not >the stupid drivers. Granted, but not a leaking roof. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Granted, but not a leaking roof. Agreed. I never did believe the roof one. To be notorious, it would have to have been repaired umpteen times and still leak. Dangerous, possibly, but notoriety requires the fact to be known to a lot of people, usually over time. Lots of reefs and rocks were notorious to sailors a century or so ago. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >over time. Lots of reefs and rocks were notorious to sailors a century >or so ago. While an individual roof may not be notorious for leaking, one can say that Frank Lloyd Wright's roofs were notorious for leaking. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >>>>>>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>>>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > While an individual roof may not be notorious for leaking, one can say > that Frank Lloyd Wright's roofs were notorious for leaking. I know nothing about FL Wright, but yes, that sentence makes sense. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>>>> Since lives are at stake, that is true, but how dangerous can a >>>>>>> leaking roof be? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >but notoriety requires the fact to be known to a lot of people, usually >over time. That, I think, is the key to whether a material object can be notorious. >Lots of reefs and rocks were notorious to sailors a century >or so ago. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Mike wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:42 -0000: >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Can a thing, as opposed to a person, be notorious? Serious question. Yes. The OED is full of examples from the entire history of the word. SignatureJames > [...] >>>> Words made from abbreviations seem rather inelegant to me and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, as you have it > above. I've sometimes wondered whether he copied the word from Zamenhof, or vice versa. "Usono" is the Esperanto word for "America". The corresponding word for "American" is "Usonano". When I first heard "Usonian" I automatically assumed that it was taken from Esperanto. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Mike Lyle filted: >Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, as you have it >above. I tried the word out in a.u.e. but it didn't catch on. I was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >regs, which was disappointing (but maybe just as well), as I wanted to >have a go. I wonder if a house built as a collaboration between Wright and Fuller could be both Usonian and Dymaxion at the same time....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >[...] >>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Lloyd Wright gave "Usonian" only an initial capital, as you have it >above. I tried the word out in a.u.e. but it didn't catch on. Naturally not, since it sucks. It is a silly, useless word, created out of air for no reason that I can think of. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>[...] >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Naturally not, since it sucks. It is a silly, useless word, created > out of air for no reason that I can think of. Well, maybe I simply invented the reasoning behind "Usonian" as a reference not only to the US, but more importantly to the utility (usefulness) aspect of the "form follows function" mantra. >>>[...] >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >reference not only to the US, but more importantly to the utility >(usefulness) aspect of the "form follows function" mantra. Since I didn't see the post where you invented the reasoning behind using Usonian, nor can I find it, I'm having trouble following you. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>[...] >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Since I didn't see the post where you invented the reasoning behind > using Usonian, nor can I find it, I'm having trouble following you. Chuck, someone just a few posts earlier in the thread is connecting "Usonian" with the "US" abbreviation. As I confess, I may be just inventing the "utility>usage" connection. The key words being "maybe I simply invented". The "inventing" happened in my paragraph, and I used past tense to indicate that I have had this idea before the topic came up here on AUE.. What kind of explanation do you need in order to follow me? You don't have to follow. Don't _you_ ever invent ideas and rationalizations? Give me a break. Now, go ahead and tell me you are just joking. That's a copout I can't accept. >>>>>[...] >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >Now, go ahead and tell me you are just joking. That's a copout I >can't accept. It is because I invent stuff frequently that I'm interested in your rationale for inventing Usonian. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>[...] >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > It is because I invent stuff frequently that I'm interested in your > rationale for inventing Usonian. OK. Usage. Jeremy Bentham and utility theory. http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm I must say, I can recall reading works by Mill and others of the Victorian era, but can't recall whether or not I read Bentham directly. It was more that I read "in the school of Bentham". http://www.utilitarian.org/definitions.html '4. Somewhat surprisingly, I may say, JSM has a particularly good definition: "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2. ' > Roland wrote on Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:18:11 +0000 (UTC): > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I've lost my copy but I remember the story well. David Macaulay's "Motel > of the Mysteries" had a similar theme. Yes, very much so. The Interweb seems to abound in pages that mention the two of them together. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) > I'm waiting for UKer to catch on. I don't know whether it should be > pronounced like "you care" or "ucker." ... Present-day Google hits > relate mostly to ukeleles or euchre. I've heard it used within the UK, and it has been invariably pronounced as "you-kay-er". Of course, my sources are not random, and may well not be representative. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China. Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be valid for 2 weeks after the date of message it appears in. > Bertel wrote on Thu, 10 Dec 2009 15:45:26 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to the US and I think I first saw it used by people from Ireland or > those having Irish sympathies. I'm sure I first heard it about the time of Thatcher's war in the South Atlantic. SignatureRob Bannister > A.Clews@DENTURESsussex.ac.uk skrev: >> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. > Oxford Advanced learners does not agree. It defines "Brit" as a > person from UK. Even more confusingly, my Collins English dictionary defines Brit as "a British person", but Britain as "another name for Great Britain or the United Kingdom", and "British" as "relating to ... Britain or ... inhabitants of the United Kingdom." <shuffles off into the night, whistling tunelessly, hands in pockets> SignatureAndy Clews University of Sussex *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email *** >It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe themselves as Brits rather than Irish. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. > Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe > themselves as Brits rather than Irish. I meant that of course in the semantic sense; I'm not about to tell the Norn Ironers what they should and shouldn't be calling 'emselves :-) SignatureAndy Clews University of Sussex *** Remove DENTURES if replying by email *** >>>It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I meant that of course in the semantic sense; I'm not about to tell the Norn >Ironers what they should and shouldn't be calling 'emselves :-) For the Norn Irn Brits it is semantic. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. > >Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe >themselves as Brits rather than Irish. Since NI is part of the UK but not part of GB, unless I'm mistaken, how could one of their citizens be called a Brit? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. >> Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe >> themselves as Brits rather than Irish. > > Since NI is part of the UK but not part of GB, unless I'm mistaken, > how could one of their citizens be called a Brit? Because the adjective UKian never caught on? SignatureJames >> Since NI is part of the UK but not part of GB, unless I'm mistaken, >> how could one of their citizens be called a Brit? >Because the adjective UKian never caught on? And "citizen of the United Kingdom" would be at best a very loose approximation (no matter what the current crop of politicians would like to claim); we are subjects of Her Majesty. SignatureRoger BW - BrE >>> Since NI is part of the UK but not part of GB, unless I'm mistaken, >>> how could one of their citizens be called a Brit? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > approximation (no matter what the current crop of politicians would like > to claim); we are subjects of Her Majesty. Once again, I act vicariously, for Don this time. We have been citizens of the UK since the British Nationality Act 1981 (which came into force at the beginning of 1983). We were indeed British Subjects before 1983, but we were also Citizens of the UK and Colonies. Things were different before 1949. SignatureDavid >Once again, I act vicariously, for Don this time. We have been citizens >of the UK since the British Nationality Act 1981 (which came into force >at the beginning of 1983). We were indeed British Subjects before 1983, >but we were also Citizens of the UK and Colonies. Things were different >before 1949. Bah and harumph. <reaches for pinked gin> Perhaps we should just be "uniteds". SignatureRoger BW - BrE Roger Burton West filted: >>Once again, I act vicariously, for Don this time. We have been citizens >>of the UK since the British Nationality Act 1981 (which came into force [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Perhaps we should just be "uniteds". That sounds like it should be the name of some kind of undergarment....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Roger Burton West filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That sounds like it should be the name of some kind of > undergarment....r I thought it sounded like soccer players. (Footies?) -- Maria Conlon >> Roger Burton West filted: >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I thought it sounded like soccer players. (Footies?) Our minds are travelling in different directions, it seems. My first thought was "divideds". SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> Roger Burton West filted: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Our minds are travelling in different directions, it seems. My first > thought was "divideds". Clever. I wish I'd thought of that. SignatureMaria Conlon >>>> Perhaps we should just be "uniteds". >>> That sounds like it should be the name of some kind of undergarment. >> I thought it sounded like soccer players. (Footies?) > Our minds are travelling in different directions, it seems. My first > thought was "divideds". By a common language? SignatureMark Brader | "This was followed by a vocal response which Toronto | would now be reserved for kicking a ball in a net." msb@vex.net | --Derrick Beckett >>>>> Perhaps we should just be "uniteds". >>>> That sounds like it should be the name of some kind of undergarment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > By a common language? The thought was triggered mostly by reflections on the role of Northern Ireland in that otherwise well-united kingdom. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. >>> Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Because the adjective UKian never caught on? Yes. "British" used to be used much more widely. The people of thirteen of the British colonies in North America were British until they got the urge to rebrand themselves. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be >>>>> called a Brit. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > of the British colonies in North America were British until they got > the urge to rebrand themselves. Except when they were "English", e.g., Meanwhile, a new set of men have arisen, who, adopting the sentiments of the Tories, though with very different views, have inferred: That, though a King of England may be bound, though the descent of the crown may be limited by Parliament, yet, that English subjects, living within the boundaries of the empire, claiming rightrs from English laws, are exempted from the authority of the English legislature. George Chalmers, _Political Annals of the present United Colonies, from their Settlement to the Peace of 1763_, 1779, quoted in _The Monthly Review_, June, 1780 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Of course, over the first 10^-10 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |seconds and 10^-30 cubic Palo Alto, CA 94304 |centimeters it averages out to |zero, but when you look in kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |detail.... (650)857-7572 | Philip Morrison http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. >>>> Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the British colonies in North America were British until they got the >urge to rebrand themselves. As either Loyalists or Americans, I believe. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. >>> Try telling that the those Northern Irish persons who describe [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Because the adjective UKian never caught on? I see the problem. Some residents of NI call themselves, simply, Irish or Irishmen, don't they? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be >>>>> called a Brit. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I see the problem. Some residents of NI call themselves, simply, > Irish or Irishmen, don't they? They do. And they can choose whether to have a British or an Irish passport. I knew an Ulster Presbyterian who had booked a holiday abroad only to discover that his British passport had expired. He couldn't renew it in time because of a strike, so he simply applied for an Irish one. Life can be easier if you don't have strong ideological convictions. SignatureJames > I knew an Ulster Presbyterian who had booked a holiday abroad only to > discover that his British passport had expired. He couldn't renew it in > time because of a strike, so he simply applied for an Irish one. Life > can be easier if you don't have strong ideological convictions. Some NI friends I have (who are, incidentally, nominally protestant) have both a UK and an Irish passport. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China. Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be valid for 2 weeks after the date of message it appears in. James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: > > I see the problem. Some residents of NI call themselves, simply, > > Irish or Irishmen, don't they? > > They do. And they can choose whether to have a British or an Irish passport. I was born in England to a mother born in Belfast and I have both British and Irish passports. > I knew an Ulster Presbyterian who had booked a holiday abroad only to > discover that his British passport had expired. He couldn't renew it in > time because of a strike, so he simply applied for an Irish one. Life > can be easier if you don't have strong ideological convictions. In 1975 we got the chance of a really cheap holiday abroad at three days notice. Both of our passports had expired. The British embassy here got us new ones in two days. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> > on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >I was born in England to a mother born in Belfast and I have both >British and Irish passports. Do you ever find either the Irish or the British government frowning on the fact that you have dual citizenship? I've encountered people in the American Embassy In Dublin who, when they learned I had an Irish passport, said something like "Oh, so you have dual citizenship", in a deprecating manner. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > passport, said something like "Oh, so you have dual citizenship", in a > deprecating manner. I can't imagine it being an issue - just about everybody born in Northern Ireland is entitled to dual citizenship. SignatureDavid >>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I can't imagine it being an issue - just about everybody born in >Northern Ireland is entitled to dual citizenship. I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in > addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. Indeed. While there are other countries where it's accepted as normal to change your citizenship if you migrate. This difference in attitudes has some correlation, I suspect, with one's attitude towards the question of whether a painter with American citizenship is automatically an American painter. When we discussed this question it was very obvious that Americans - including Americans who lived elsewhere but had kept their old citizenship - were on one side of the question, and non-Americans were on the other. As I recall it, France is another country that confers citizenship for life, and it does seem to me that expatriate French people never lose their Frenchness. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan: > This difference in attitudes has some correlation, I suspect, with one's > attitude towards the question of whether a painter with American > citizenship is automatically an American painter. When we discussed this > question it was very obvious that Americans - including Americans who > lived elsewhere but had kept their old citizenship - were on one side of > the question, and non-Americans were on the other. No, we weren't. SignatureMark Brader "It is hard to believe that any Biblical passage, Toronto no matter how powerful, could make an entire msb@vex.net Soviet submarine crew speak English and not even realize they were doing it." --Mark Leeper >>>>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >life, and it does seem to me that expatriate French people never lose >their Frenchness. Both of my sons have dual British/French nationality. One went to live there when he was nine, the other was born there. Their default language when talking together is French, although their partners speak English. But both of them consider that they're British although they will probably never live here. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England Robin Bignall wrote, in <lodsi5djkvqmcj6h5skc3rujlipmo08ur2@4ax.com> on Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:42:40 +0000: > >As I recall it, France is another country that confers citizenship for > >life, and it does seem to me that expatriate French people never lose [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > speak English. But both of them consider that they're British > although they will probably never live here. My twin granddaughters, with an Irish father and a Dutch mother, were born in and live in France. I know Ben took the trouble to register them with the Irish consulate, I don't know if Mabel did likewise. Their father talks to them in English, their mother in Dutch and their schooling is through French. When they first got familiar with French they started to use it to each other in the belief that their parents wouldn't understand. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. I wonder if some unenlightened, IMO, Americans put a "my country, right or wrong" spin on the decision by some Americans to obtain a second citizenship, almost as if we are traitors. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >right or wrong" spin on the decision by some Americans to obtain a >second citizenship, almost as if we are traitors. I could imagine, for some of those who are descendents of voluntary immigrants, that the move to America to escape whatever troubles made them emigrate from their country of birth, and the granting of American citizenship (and possibly passports), was the single most important event in their family's history. Why would they want a passport from the country that they fled from, even if it was generations ago. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>>>>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>>>>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >passport from the country that they fled from, even if it was >generations ago. My ancestors left Europe because there were better job opportunities in America than there were in Ireland, on my mother's side, and Norway, on my father's. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. Not any more. For several decades Americans have been able to hold more than one passport. The question is, why bother? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * On 22 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote >> I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >> addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. > > Not any more. For several decades Americans have been able to > hold more than one passport. Old habits and all that; the State Department policy recognises dual citizenship, but the information sheet makes it pretty clear that they think it's not a good idea: http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html > The question is, why bother? It's easier travelling in Europe as an EU citizen (and a lot easiaer working in various countries) -- there are reciprocal settlement rights, not just tourist/visitor permissions. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 22 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >working in various countries) -- there are reciprocal settlement >rights, not just tourist/visitor permissions. If you are thinking of relocating to Europe I can see having an EU passport, but that affects very few Americans. And I have had little difficulty getting through customs and immigration at EU ports of entry using the non-EU line. In fact, many places it's the shorter line. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * On 23 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote >> On 22 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote >>> The question is, why bother? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ports of entry using the non-EU line. In fact, many places it's > the shorter line. Having been on a day trip to Switzerland from France in the 1980s, using a Canadian passport, when France overnight introduced tourist visas for non-EU citizens, our experiences of getting through customs and immigration with a non-EU passport clearly differ. Whatever your experience may be, I find it much easier -- and more assured in law -- to move around the EU with an EU passport. That you've managed not to encounter any glitches is good to hear; it's not built in to the system, though. That remains the answer to "Why bother?" SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 23 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote >>> On 22 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >That remains the answer to "Why bother?" It's not really an answer though, if the process of using non-EU entrance lines from time to time is worse than the trouble getting a second passport... Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * On 24 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote >> Whatever your experience may be, I find it much easier -- and >> more assured in law -- to move around the EU with an EU [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > entrance lines from time to time is worse than the trouble > getting a second passport... You seem to be insisting that since it's not worth doing in your case -- a perfectly valid conclusion -- makes it of negligible worth for anyone else. We'll have to differ on the validity of your universalising. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 24 Dec 2009, Hatunen wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >-- a perfectly valid conclusion -- makes it of negligible worth for >anyone else. No, I didn't. I said "Not any more. For several decades Americans have been able to hold more than one passport. The question is, why bother?" You're giving examples from your experience and I'm doing likewise. The question at hand was "why bother?" The question depends on balancing the bother of obtaining a second passport against the bother of not having one when travelling. So far, all your examples are limited to entering or leaving the EU, which I consider particulary Eurocentric on your part. In any case, comparative bother is a pretty subjective thing. >We'll have to differ on the validity of your universalising. So long as you cling to the delusion that this only involves the EU, I daresay the lack of universality is on your part. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >>addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. > > Not any more. For several decades Americans have been able to > hold more than one passport. The question is, why bother? I don't believe that the US is alone in requiring its citizens to enter and leave the country on its passport. (What you do while outside the country is your own business.) So if you are also a citizen of such a country and you travel between it and the US, you would need both. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Those who study history are doomed 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to watch others repeat it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>> I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >>> addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > outside the country is your own business.) So if you are also a > citizen of such a country and you travel between it and the US, you Do you know of any such countries? If any in Europe have a rule like this, I'm not aware of it, and I suspect that its citizens would also be unaware. SignatureDavid >>>> I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >>>> addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > this, I'm not aware of it, and I suspect that its citizens would also > be unaware. I'm pretty sure Israel does. Yeah, seems to: Does an Israeli citizen have to enter Israel with an Israeli passport? Yes. An Israeli citizen must enter Israel with an Israeli passport; otherwise he or she will not be permitted exit. http://www.israelemb.org/la/consularit/faqs-link.htm Apparently Mexico does, too: Mexico requires you have and use a Mexican passport to leave and enter the country, http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090619040909AAY0V6o Brazil does: Brazilian nationals must enter and leave Brazil with their Brazilian passport only. http://tinyurl.com/ybss2hj <URL:http://www.brasilemb.org/index.php?option=com_content& task=view&id=167&Itemid=1> As for European countries, Sweden is asserted to be one such: As a Swedish citizen, you are not required to have a passport to live in Sweden (and if you had a PUT in your American passport, it was cancelled when you were naturalized). If, however, you plan on leaving Sweden (and going to a country outside of the Schengen area), you must have a Swedish passport to leave and re-enter the country. If you travel to another country in the Schengen area, you need either a valid Swedish passport or a new Swedish national ID that states your nationality (this is different from a regular Swedish ID card or driver's license, which do not state your nationality). http://www.amerikanska.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=92 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A burro is an a.s. A burrow is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |hole in the ground. As a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |journalist, you are expected to |know the difference. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | UPI Stylebook (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>>> I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >>>>> addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > http://www.amerikanska.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=92 Thanks. The Brazil and Israel quotes are clear, but I'm not so sure about those for Sweden and Mexico - they appear to be written from the pov of a dual-US citizen. They read more like advice to make the traveller's life easier than legal regulations. SignatureDavid >>>>>> I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >>>>>> addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > pov of a dual-US citizen. They read more like advice to make the > traveller's life easier than legal regulations. Well, remember that there's going to be some bias in that direction just because most things written by the governments for their citizens are likely to not be in English. (And for those with only one nationality there's no issue.) Here's a somewhat more authoritative one for Mexico: Note: Mexican citizenship laws establish that Mexicans entering or leaving Mexican territory must identify themselves as Mexican citizens without exception, even if they hold multiple citizenships. <URL:https://www.banjercito.com.mx/iitv/sitio/html/ cte_hpr_1_iitvautosonora_ing.php?pago=N> Sweden says "should" rather than "must": Likewise, Swedish citizens are expected to declare their nationality and to present a valid Swedish passport upon arrival in Sweden and/or the European Union. http://sveduletes.se/Page____37000.aspx Japan is apparently also on the list: Q: I was born in Canada and have dual citizenship, Canadian and Japanese. When I go to Japan, which passport should I use? A: According to the Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act, Japanese citizens are required to use their Japanese passport to enter Japan. http://www.vancouver.ca.emb-japan.go.jp/en/visa/visit_faq.htm According to the Australian government, so is Australia: Australian citizens who hold dual or multiple nationalities must hold an Australian passport and use it to enter or leave Australia, even if they use a foreign passport overseas. The only exception is where they have been issued an Australian Declaratory Visa. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/95documents.htm And South Africa: A condition of attaining dual citizenship for all South African citizens aged eighteen (18) years or older is that they must apply and be granted permission to retain South African citizenship prior to the acquisition of a foreign citizenship. Once granted, the holder must always enter and leave South Africa on their valid South African passport. http://www.sahc.org.au/citizenship/Dual_Citizenship.htm SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |To express oneself 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |In seventeen syllables Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Is very diffic | Tony Finch kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 28 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > Well, remember that there's going to be some bias in that > direction just because most things written by the governments > for their citizens are likely to not be in English. (And for > those with only one nationality there's no issue.) Here's a > somewhat more authoritative one for Mexico: -snip re: countries requiring citizens with dual citizenship to use their national passport when entering/leaving the country -- Mexico, Sweden, Japan, Australia, South Africa, etc.- As you say, this isn't a wildly uncommon requirement (although I suspect many citizens of countries where it applies aren't fully aware of it). And if a dual citizen was travelling between countries which both have "use your local passport" rules -- say a dual Mexican/Aus citizen -- they would need to enter each country with their respective passports. But even that gets complex. In the case of countries where the rule *doesn't* apply, you can find yourself being asked awkward questions as to why you're doing that: it's considered suspicious behaviour. (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, and was told in no uncertain terms when she travelled out on one and back on the other that she shouldn't do that: she should choose one or the other, and travel both ways on the same passport.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 28 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > their national passport when entering/leaving the country -- > Mexico, Sweden, Japan, Australia, South Africa, etc.- I can re-enter Australia on a British passport so long as I am prepared to carry and show the pretty piece of paper that shows I am an Australian citizen. > As you say, this isn't a wildly uncommon requirement (although I > suspect many citizens of countries where it applies aren't fully [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > choose one or the other, and travel both ways on the same > passport.) I've never been told this in so many words, and really, despite terrorism laws, they barely look at your passport when you're leaving, but still - just on the off-chance they're going to stamp your passport when you leave - it seems a good idea to use the same one when you come back. It's not exactly difficult with 2 passports, although I suppose those who have a suitcase full of them, may need to keep notes. I try to do this (use the same passport, not keep notes) with every country I enter and exit. I always feel it's particularly important in countries where the customs/immigration officials are accompanied by rather excitable young men with used-looking machine guns. SignatureRob Bannister >I've never been told this in so many words, and really, despite >terrorism laws, they barely look at your passport when you're leaving, >but still - just on the off-chance they're going to stamp your passport >when you leave - it seems a good idea to use the same one when you come >back. The only person that I can remember looking at my passport when I left the US was the person selling the ticket for the form of transportation. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK > passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, > and was told in no uncertain terms when she travelled out on one > and back on the other that she shouldn't do that: she should > choose one or the other, and travel both ways on the same > passport.) Which country told her not to switch? SignatureIn the 1970s, people began receiving utility bills for -£999,999,996.32 and it became harder to sustain the myth of the infallible electronic brain. (Stob 2001) >> (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK >> passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Which country told her not to switch? All this depends on the fact that one is flying out of one country to another. The airline at least needs to know you have your passport to show at your destination so the airline doesn't have to bring you back. I don't have to show my passport to anyone when I drive from the US into Mexico (or walk across the border). Coming back I only have to show my passport to the Americans. It wasn't that long ago that I could walk or drive across that border barely stopping; the Americans rarely asked me for any sort of documentation when returning, although they might ask briefly what I'm bringing back. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>> (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK >>> passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > your passport to show at your destination so the airline doesn't > have to bring you back. Yes, but you don't (AFAICT, IME, etc.) have to show the same passport when you check in for a flight and when you go through immigration after you land from the same flight. SignatureI heard that Hans Christian Andersen lifted the title for "The Little Mermaid" off a Red Lobster Menu. [Bucky Katt] >>>> (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK >>>> passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > when you check in for a flight and when you go through immigration > after you land from the same flight. Once upon a time you did have to do that, I believe. The immigration officials would look for the exit stamp from the country you had just left. If your passport showed that you had just mysteriously appeared, without leaving any other country, you could get into some tedious arguments. I ran into a similar problem once, years ago, when re-entering the USA from Canada. The border official didn't want to let me into the US, on the grounds that I had never left it. The problem was that nobody had stamped my passport on the way out. For a while there it looked as if I was going to be left stranded in the border area. These days nobody seems to bother with exit stamps. Sometimes you don't even get the entry stamp. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>> (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK >>>>> passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >These days nobody seems to bother with exit stamps. Sometimes you don't >even get the entry stamp. How did the US people know you weren't American? Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >> I ran into a similar problem once, years ago, when re-entering the USA >> from Canada. The border official didn't want to let me into the US, on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > How did the US people know you weren't American? That's the easy part. I had an Australian passport. Even without that they probably could have figured it out from my speech. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. Peter Moylan filted: >>> I ran into a similar problem once, years ago, when re-entering the USA >>> from Canada. The border official didn't want to let me into the US, on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >That's the easy part. I had an Australian passport. Even without that >they probably could have figured it out from my speech. Or your pouch....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > Peter Moylan filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Or your pouch....r Um, actually the pouch is a female thing. A year or so ago I had to take my then girlfriend to hospital, and she asked me to find her medical card in her handbag. It was one of the most difficult searches I've ever done. It's amazing how much you can fit in one little handbag. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>> I ran into a similar problem once, years ago, when re-entering the USA >>> from Canada. The border official didn't want to let me into the US, on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >That's the easy part. I had an Australian passport. Even without that >they probably could have figured it out from my speech. See there was your problem. Years ago Americans didn't need to show a passport coming into the USA. In the mid-1960s when my first wife and I lived in Montral, my old college roommate and his wife lived there. He was a Canadian who became an American citizen when his parents moved south, but had returned to Canada. The four of us decided to drive down to Schenectady to visit his parents. At the border the official asked our places of birth, to which my wife and I replied "Warren, Ohio", my ex-roomie replied "Saskatoon" (Canadins didn't need passports) and his wife, an ethinic Chinese born in Guyana, replied, "Georgetown, Guyana" but apparently he wasn't listening very carefully and he waved us on. The wife started talking about how she was in the USA and told her hubby she wanted to stay, etc, etc, etc. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * >>>> (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ and UK >>>> passports, neither of which country has "local passport" policies, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >when you check in for a flight and when you go through immigration >after you land from the same flight. And I didn't say you didn't. While it's gotten a lot more irritating to come back from Mexico into the USA, leaving the USA the Mexicans don't ask for a thing in the way of identification. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > While it's gotten a lot more irritating to come back from Mexico > into the USA, leaving the USA the Mexicans don't ask for a thing > in the way of identification. If you drive. If you fly, they require a passport. And when my wife and son went down there on vacation without me back in 1999, the Mexican government required a notarized letter from me that she had my permission to take him. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I need to get a new colander. My 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |old one has holes in it. Palo Alto, CA 94304 kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> While it's gotten a lot more irritating to come back from Mexico >> into the USA, leaving the USA the Mexicans don't ask for a thing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > my > permission to take him. Considering the cases recently in the news (Japan and Brazil) I think that was wise. Apparently there had been similar international "abduction" cases back then. Do you know if wives of men equally encumbered would have had to sign? I think that there were cases of husbands holding or absconding with children in/to Saudi Arabia and Iceland back in the early '90s. >>> While it's gotten a lot more irritating to come back from Mexico >>> into the USA, leaving the USA the Mexicans don't ask for a thing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > husbands holding or absconding with children in/to Saudi Arabia and > Iceland back in the early '90s. It depends on the country. Certainly there have been cases of men absconding with their children to foreign countries - and sometimes those countries have laws favouring the father over the mother in custody matters, so retrieving the child, even with a custody order in the original country, can be extremely difficult. And then you get people who marry a foreigner, live and have their children in the foreign country, and then want to go home - with the children - when the marriage breaks up. They often find that the assumptions they make about custody based on their country of origin just don't apply. Many countries are making more of an effort to ensure that children aren't just taken away by non-custodial parents. Someone I knew who had emigrated to the US wanted to bring his daughter from one of the Arab countries of origin to live with him and his new American wife, and the process took months. He had to have proof for the original country, not just the US, that his ex-wife agreed to let the girl go with her father, since the ex-wife had originally had custody. Fortunately, the ex-wife did agree, but the whole process took ages and mountains of paperwork, but at least it was done properly and not through 'kidnapping'. SignatureCheryl >>> While it's gotten a lot more irritating to come back from Mexico >>> into the USA, leaving the USA the Mexicans don't ask for a thing [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > were cases of husbands holding or absconding with children in/to > Saudi Arabia and Iceland back in the early '90s. Yes, it worked both ways. I remember assuming at the time that it was something the US government had put in place to prevent child abductions and learned later that it was actually a Mexican law. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |As the judge remarked the day that 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | he acquitted my Aunt Hortense, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |To be smut |It must be ut- kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Terly without redeeming social (650)857-7572 | importance. | Tom Lehrer http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> While it's gotten a lot more irritating to come back from Mexico >> into the USA, leaving the USA the Mexicans don't ask for a thing >> in the way of identification. > >If you drive. That was one of the parameters I set for my comments a few posts upthread, but I now notice it has been excised along the way. >If you fly, they require a passport. And when my wife >and son went down there on vacation without me back in 1999, the >Mexican government required a notarized letter from me that she had my >permission to take him. Yeah. It now takes both parent's permission. I think this is a reaction to some of the parental kidnpping cases. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * On 30 Dec 2009, Adam Funk wrote >> (My wife discovered this a few years ago. She holds both NZ >> and UK passports, neither of which country has "local passport" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Which country told her not to switch? It's been a few years, and I'm not entirely certain -- but NZ, I think. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>> I suspect it's an American thing. Having some other passport in >>> addition to an American one is an unamerican activity. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > citizen of such a country and you travel between it and the US, you > would need both. Not just the US. I find it much easier to enter England with a British passport and return to Australia with an Australian one. (Those damned Norman invaders won't let me have an English passport.) SignatureRob Bannister > I don't believe that the US is alone in requiring its citizens to > enter and leave the country on its passport. (What you do while > outside the country is your own business.) I'll be amazed when the US government starts to mind its own ******* business outside its borders. SignatureClassical Greek lent itself to the promulgation of a rich culture, indeed, to Western civilization. Computer languages bring us doorbells that chime with thirty-two tunes, alt.sex.bestiality, and Tetris clones. (Stoll 1995) >>> James Hogg wrote, in <hgg2r0$ht$1@news.eternal-september.org> >>> on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:15:38 +0100: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I can't imagine it being an issue - just about everybody born in >Northern Ireland is entitled to dual citizenship. That is different. Most Americans have to expend some effort. In my case, I had to wait out the required time period as an "alien" in the country, subject to some very strict requirements, before I could obtain my second citizenship. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE Chuck Riggs wrote, in <i2ppi591s8fvu2e8u5n5f433obtcppoq6p@4ax.com> on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:39:53 +0000: > >I was born in England to a mother born in Belfast and I have both > >British and Irish passports. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > passport, said something like "Oh, so you have dual citizenship", in a > deprecating manner. Not at all. I had no trouble renewing my British passport after acquiring my Irish one, there is a question about it on the form. The Irish didn't even ask. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >Chuck Riggs wrote, in <i2ppi591s8fvu2e8u5n5f433obtcppoq6p@4ax.com> > on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:39:53 +0000: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >acquiring my Irish one, there is a question about it on the form. The >Irish didn't even ask. Apparently, only certain Americans have the hang up, the same ones who have the "we're the greatest" attitude, no doubt. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> Today, along with "Brit" for the person, I find "UK" for the country >> being used more and more. Is this just my impression, or do British and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >It might also exclude Scillonians and Manx people, and all the other island >communities around the British Isles. And then there are the British Channel Islands, which are part of the British Isles, but not part of the United Kingdom. I believe the monarch of the UK does rule them, but in her capacity as the Duke (Duchess?) of Normandy. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >Thus spake Robert Bannister (robban1@bigpond.com) unto the assembled >multitudes: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >England/Scotland/Wales are all >mutually exclusive, so UK is least likely to offend :-) GB is, I understand, the ISO two-letter country code for the United Kingdom. What do they use in the Olympic Games and other international athletic competitions? I think it's GBR, the corresponding three-letter code for when space is less tight. >It does of course mean that a Northern Irish person cannot be called a Brit. >It might also exclude Scillonians and Manx people, and all the other island >communities around the British Isles. The wider world doesn't seem to care too much for our native sensibilities in these matters. SignaturePaul Paul Wolff: > GB is, I understand, the ISO two-letter country code for the United > Kingdom. What do they use in the Olympic Games and other international > athletic competitions? I think it's GBR, the corresponding three-letter > code for when space is less tight. It's only coincidentally the same. The Olympics have their own series of 3-letter codes, which is a bit older than ISO 3166. (And the codes used on cars in foreign countries are older still.) Wikipedia has a "Comparison of IOC, FIFA, and ISO 3166 country codes" article; I have not checked it for accuracy. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | English is just getting used to the telephone. msb@vex.net | -- John Lawler My text in this article is in the public domain. >> Thus spake Robert Bannister (robban1@bigpond.com) unto the assembled >> multitudes: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > GB is, I understand, the ISO two-letter country code for the United > Kingdom. It is (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2), but there is a second "exceptionally reserved" two-character code for the UK, which is, er, "UK". Whoever set up the Internet TND made a mistake by allocating UK for the UK (not at the time reserved), but this was a fortunate slip as we wouldn't especially want to live with "GB". SignatureDavid >>> Thus spake Robert Bannister (robban1@bigpond.com) unto the >>> assembled multitudes: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (not at the time reserved), but this was a fortunate slip as we > wouldn't especially want to live with "GB". According to Wikipedia (which accords with my memory), it's a holdover from the earlier JANET network in the UK, which had a similar hierarchical naming scheme, but with the components the other way around and all(?) beginning with "uk". So uk.ac.cam.cs was the Cambridge CS department. When DNS was introduced, you would still get mail with return addresses like that via the JANET gateway, and so it was easier to imply make the DNS equivalent be the name reversed for British machines on the Internet (many of whom were also on JANET for some time and whose users still thought of their addresses that way). Typically, this translation happened (on the Internet side, at least) via address translation rules in the mail software. (Yeah, the rules could have substituted "GB", but they didn't.) Yes, this did cause fun when Czechoslovakia came onto the net in the '80s and got assigned the "CS" domain. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken. | Larry Wall kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >>>> Thus spake Robert Bannister (robban1@bigpond.com) unto the >>>> assembled multitudes: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >around and all(?) beginning with "uk". So uk.ac.cam.cs was the >Cambridge CS department. Very close! Those names were in upper case: UK.AC.CAM.CS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured_Book_protocols JANET still exists and uses IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JANET > When DNS was introduced, you would still get >mail with return addresses like that via the JANET gateway, and so it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Yes, this did cause fun when Czechoslovakia came onto the net in the >'80s and got assigned the "CS" domain. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>According to Wikipedia (which accords with my memory), it's a holdover >>from the earlier JANET network in the UK, which had a similar [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Very close! Those names were in upper case: UK.AC.CAM.CS. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloured_Book_protocols Do you happen to know whether there were (pre-DNS) JANET hosts that didn't start with "UK"? 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/ >Do you happen to know whether there were (pre-DNS) JANET hosts that >didn't start with "UK"? I believe the Coloured Book protocols were also used in Australia, with "OZ". South Africa might have used them as well, and one source claims Ireland, without giving any more specifics. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > I believe the Coloured Book protocols were also used in Australia, > with "OZ". South Africa might have used them as well, and one source > claims Ireland, without giving any more specifics. At the time, I do recall seeing Australian email addresses which used OZ. SignatureZhang Dawei: Stoke-on-Trent, UK, and Zhangjiajie, Hunan, China. Use Reply-To field, where this email address is guaranteed to be valid for 2 weeks after the date of message it appears in. >> Do you happen to know whether there were (pre-DNS) JANET hosts that >> didn't start with "UK"? > > I believe the Coloured Book protocols were also used in Australia, > with "OZ". South Africa might have used them as well, and one source > claims Ireland, without giving any more specifics. The Australian names were in little-endian order, though, as they still are, so certainly that aspect of the Coloured Book system didn't apply. I'm not sure about the rest. For a long time my e-mail address ending in ".oz.au". From vague memory, I think the ".oz" was originally the domain of the Australian academic network, before networking had extended very far beyond the universities. The ".au" would have been tacked on once the international domain name system came into being. I think the ".oz.au" addresses were eventually migrated to a new ".edu.au" domain. Domain name management in Australia was for a long time handled by a single person, Robert Elz, who was a computer science academic at Melbourne University. Initially, in the 1970s, this was because the only large network in the country was ACSnet, which connected the Australian computer science departments. In the 1980s, after the national ".au" domain came into existence, Elz was formally given responsibility for it by Jon Postel, who was then the person in charge of global domain naming. Elz also created and managed the second level domains (".edu.au", ".com.au", etc.). Initially there was no monetary charge for domain name registration. Elz was subsequently treated very shabbily for the years of work he had put in. In the late 1990s the governing council of Melbourne University set up a new company to take control of ".com.au" domains. That was at about, or at any rate not long after, the time that it was recognised that domain name registration could be a very profitable business. As I understand it, some members of the university council did very well financially out of this deal, but Elz didn't get a penny. The official histories say that Elz delegated the authority to the new company. From my own knowledge of Australian universities, I would imagine that, in return for this "voluntary" delegation, he was graciously permitted to avoid joining the ranks of the unemployed. At roughly the same time, the entire ".au" domain was taken over by an authority appointed by the Australian government. This too was somewhat controversial. While googling to check some of the dates, I was struck by the fact that there is now very little I could find on the web about the controversy. The histories of a mere 10 years ago appear to have been cleaned up. The best I could do was this quote from a business publication, at http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-77796366.html " Sep 4, 2001 (The Australian ABIX via COMTEX) -- Authority for the Australian .au Internet domain is to be re-delegated to the .au Domain Administration (auDA). The move is being opposed by the Internet pioneer, Robert Elz, and Melbourne IT. auDA asked the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority to re-delegate the authority after Elz stopped communicating with auDA." From very vague memory, I think the background to this was that Elz was refusing to hand over the zone files. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>Do you happen to know whether there were (pre-DNS) JANET hosts that >>didn't start with "UK"? > >I believe the Coloured Book protocols were also used in Australia, >with "OZ". South Africa might have used them as well, and one source >claims Ireland, without giving any more specifics. I attended a Uninet conference in 1988, when the South African academic network was just being set up. One of the speakers was from JANET, and explained how it worked. There was some discussion about connection to the Internet, and I suggested using Fidonet until something better came along. The suggestion was adopted, and Rhodes University in Grahamstown joined Fidonet, and gated all traffic from Uninet. It was sent over a 9600 bps modem line to Randy Bush's BBS in Oregon, USA, who gated Internet traffic to the Internet, and there was some means of translating JANET addresses. At the same conference someone read a paper on OSI migration, which, like Canada geese in the UK, didn't happen. In the end everyone adopted TCP/IP, and South African universities adopted the .ac.za domain.. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. > > This brings up another tack. When and why would someone say "I'm > English" vs. "I'm a Brit" ? Interchangeable? Something PC involved > here? Please elaborate. That is an immensely complex issue for which this margin does not contain sufficient space. However, to start the ball rolling, I am a West-Midlander, English, British and European, with a North-West England overlay. British is my nationality, but I *feel* English and European. That doesn't mean that I am any sort of English nationalist - my wife probably considers herself Yorkshire before English. People from Cornwall may not include English in there at all. SignatureDavid On 09 Dec 2009, the Omrud wrote >>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > before English. People from Cornwall may not include English in > there at all. And such perceptions can change substantially over time. I'm a native of Canada[1], but after 27+ years of not living there and just 3 (I think) visits in the interim, I'd find it both silly and presumptuous to claim that I'm still a "Canadian". [1] That's as opposed to being a Native Canadian, although my sister in Manitoba has treaty status. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 09 Dec 2009, the Omrud wrote > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >[1] That's as opposed to being a Native Canadian, although my >sister in Manitoba has treaty status. You were born a man and a Canadian. For all practical purposes, you can change neither fact. Unless you renounce your citizenship, and perhaps even if you do, you are a Canadian. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> And such perceptions can change substantially over time. I'm a >> native of Canada[1], but after 27+ years of not living there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you can change neither fact. Unless you renounce your > citizenship, and perhaps even if you do, you are a Canadian. We'll have to disagree, then. I am, of course, a Canadian citizen and will remain as such for my life; that's a simple fact. But whether "native-born citizen of Whateverland" = "a Whateverian" is, in my experience, another matter; it has to do with identity, and that's not at all fixed for life. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >is, in my experience, another matter; it has to do with identity, >and that's not at all fixed for life. When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it revolves only around where the person was born. The wording of my own birth certificate, for example, remains fixed and I'll never have another one. No matter how conversant I become with Irish culture or how long I live in the country, I remain an American, simply because I was born in America. Whether I've acquired Irish citizenship, and Xland citizenship in the future, is immaterial. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 18 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> But whether "native-born citizen of Whateverland" = "a >> Whateverian" is, in my experience, another matter; it has to [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > acquired Irish citizenship, and Xland citizenship in the future, > is immaterial. We shall have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it > revolves only around where the person was born. It doesn't, you know - that's a US convention, but many other countries have different ones. Being born in the UK no longer automatically gives you British citizenship and I believe there are some people of Turkish descent in Germany who don't have German citizenship despite being the fourth or fifth generation born there. SignatureDavid >> When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it >> revolves only around where the person was born. > It doesn't, you know - that's a US convention, but many other countries > have different ones. Being born in the UK no longer automatically gives > you British citizenship and I believe there are some people of Turkish > descent in Germany who don't have German citizenship despite being the > fourth or fifth generation born there. Citizenship laws can be very convoluted. My elder daughter, from the days of the first Mrs Y, was born in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. We registered her with the British Consulate to make sure she became British, though we were told that she could decide to be Ethiopian when she reached the age of 18. She now lives in Australia, and decided that she and her children should have joint British and Australian citizenship. This has meant, in spite of the fact that her British citizenship is not in doubt, that she has had to produce my birth certificate to prove that I was British born. With best wishes, Peter. SignaturePeter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004. (US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired. http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk Dr wrote on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:39:59 GMT: >>> When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for >>> it revolves only around where the person was born. >> It doesn't, you know - that's a US convention, but many other >> countries have different ones. Being born in the UK no >> longer automatically gives you British citizenship and I >> believe there are some people of Turkish descent in Germany >> who don't have German citizenship despite being the fourth or >> fifth generation born there. > Citizenship laws can be very convoluted. My elder daughter, > from the days of the first Mrs Y, was born in Addis Ababa, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > not in doubt, that she has had to produce my birth certificate > to prove that I was British born. I was not aware that multiple citizenship existed when I became a citizen of the US. I took the oath: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." Strangely enough, I don't think the words have been changed. My wife was born American but I had registered my son at the British Embassy to obtain a British birth certificate, just in case he might decide to move to Britain. My daughter was born after I became a US citizen and I did not register her. However, when it became difficult to obtain a European permit for her to work in a German bank after graduation here, we investigated and found out that, despite the oath, not only was I a dual citizen but so was she and could obtain a British passport, which made easy getting a work permit. It is possible that I might be able to get triple citizenship through an Irish grandmother but I have not looked into it. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not James Silverton wrote, in <hgips4$vsl$1@news.eternal-september.org> on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:01:27 -0500: > It is possible that I might be able to get triple citizenship through an > Irish grandmother but I have not looked into it. I'm pretty sure you would have no difficulty if you have the chain of birth and marriage certificates to prove it. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE > Dr wrote on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 14:39:59 GMT: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > It is possible that I might be able to get triple citizenship through an > Irish grandmother but I have not looked into it. That connection would qualify you to play for the Irish football team. SignatureJames [ ... ] >> It is possible that I might be able to get triple citizenship through >> an Irish grandmother but I have not looked into it. > > That connection would qualify you to play for the Irish football team. But I suspect that there might be other considerations that would disqualify him! Signatureathel > I was not aware that multiple citizenship existed when I became a > citizen of the US. I took the oath: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I > absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and > fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of > whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen." Strangely > enough, I don't think the words have been changed. They haven't, although they apparently almost got changed recently to Solemnly, freely, and without mental reservation, I hereby renounce under oath all allegiance to any foreign state. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward is to the United States of America. I pledge to support, honor, and be loyal to the United States, its Constitution, and its laws. Where and if lawfully required, I further commit myself to defend the Constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, either by military, noncombatant, or civilian service. But the way it was explained to me, what you renounce is "allegience" and "fidelity", not citizenship or other affiliation. Basically, it boils down to "If we go to war against your old country, you've declared that you're on our side." Along, I guess, with the notion that "We don't have to treat you as a national of your old country when it comes to things governed by treaties between the two countries". (For example, we don't have to notify their embassy if you get arrested.) But you can remain a citizen of the other country as far as the other country is concerned. You do have to enter and leave the US under your US passport, but you can use any passport outside the country. > My wife was born American but I had registered my son at the British > Embassy to obtain a British birth certificate, just in case he might [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not only was I a dual citizen but so was she and could obtain a > British passport, which made easy getting a work permit. The US takes the same view if you become naturalized elsewhere. Even if the naturalization requires you to renounce your former allegience or nationality, their presumption is that you mean to retain it unless you tell them otherwise. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |The mystery of government is not how 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Washington works, but how to make it Palo Alto, CA 94304 |stop. | P.J. O'Rourke kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 20 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> My wife was born American but I had registered my son at the >> British Embassy to obtain a British birth certificate, just in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > allegience or nationality, their presumption is that you mean to > retain it unless you tell them otherwise. But isn't that relatively recent -- 20 years or so -- following the former US policy being overturned by your courts? I'm fairly certain that when I moved to the UK in the early 1980s -- before the court ruling, when I discussed this with an expat American over here -- the official US position was that by taking a foreign citizenship, you were deemed to have automatically renounced renounced your US citizenship. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 20 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >foreign citizenship, you were deemed to have automatically >renounced renounced your US citizenship. The way it has been explained to me, the only way I can lose my Irish citizenship is if Ireland and America go to war against each other and I fight on the Irish side. I don't think I have a worry on that score. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On 20 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > foreign citizenship, you were deemed to have automatically > renounced renounced your US citizenship. I don't believe so. Looking at Wikipedia, _Kawakita v. US_ (1952) established that this did not happen, but this was in the case of someone who asserted that because he had become a Japanese citizen (though, he claimed upon reentry, never renouncing his US citizenship) he couldn't be charged with treason for torturing American POWs during World War II. So if nearly 60 years ago you couldn't even claim it as a defense, it couldn't have been a requirement. The fact that Kawakita was apparently asked, when applying for a US passport specifically whether he had renounced his US citizenship would indicate that the presumption was the same: They ask you, and if you say "no", they take it at face value. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It does me no injury for my neighbor 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to say there are twenty gods, or no Palo Alto, CA 94304 |God. | Thomas Jefferson kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 21 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> On 20 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I don't believe so. Looking at Wikipedia, Hmmm.... Let's see what else is out there.... > _Kawakita v. US_ > (1952) established that this did not happen, but this was in the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So if nearly 60 years ago you couldn't even claim it as a > defense, it couldn't have been a requirement. It's been a while since I looked at this, but poking around a bit, it looks like it took a statute of 1986 before the State Department finally -- in 1990 -- explicitly altered its policy of "deemed renunciation"; that dating that sits neatly with my expat American friend's comments on the subject in the mid 1980s. These pages -- http://www.richw.org/dualcit/law.html -- seem fairly clear about the main laws and policies (in particular the entries under "Loss of Citizenship" and the "1986 Citizenship Law Amendments"). And this one -- from a commercial site that assists with naturalisation -- deals with it in question-and-answer form: (http://www.uscitizenship.info/en_US/faq/citizenship/ans/g55.jsp): (quote) [Q] But I thought US law didn't permit one to be a dual citizen -- that if you were (by birth or otherwise), you either had to give up the other citizenship when you came of age, or else you'd lose your US status. And that if you became a citizen of another country, you'd automatically lose your US citizenship. So what's all this talk about dual citizenship? [A] It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down in 1967 by the US Supreme Court. The court's decision in this case, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second case in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas, eventually made its way explicitly into the statute books in 1986; up till that time, the old laws were still on the books, but the State Department was effectively under court order to ignore them. Rules against dual citizenship still apply to some extent to people who wish to become US citizens via naturalization. The Supreme Court chose to leave in place the requirement that new citizens must renounce their old citizenship during US naturalization. However, in practice, the State Department is no longer doing anything in the vast majority of situations where a new citizen's "old country" refuses to recognize the US renunciation. The official US State Department policy on dual citizenship today is that the United States does not favor it as a matter of policy because of various problems they feel it may cause, but the existence of dual citizenship is recognized in individual cases. That is, if you ask them if you ought to become a dual citizen, they will recommend against doing it; but if you tell them you are a dual citizen, they'll usually say it's OK. (/quote) (Bites tongue about the wisdom of inferring detailed law and policy from a Wikipedia entry...) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Re: "deemed renunciation" There was a case, as I recall it, of an Australian Jew who visited Israel some years ago, and who because of Israeli laws automatically obtained Israeli citizenship. Without realising it, she automatically lost Australian citizenship, and then had to fight to once more become an Australian citizen even though she had never applied for Israeli citizenship, and was simply an Australian tourist who had happened to visit Israel. The legal situation has changed since then, and Australia now has treaties with several countries recognising dual citizenship. (But not with every country. The default rule continues to be that you will automatically lose your Australian citizenship if you become a citizen of another country.) Two of my children had dual nationality until the age of 18, but were supposed to choose one nationality once they reached the age of 18. As it happens, the rules changed just before they turned 18, so they still have dual passports. That was the result of a treaty with just one country (Belgium), so the rules continue to be governed by bilateral treaties rather than global rules. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. On 22 Dec 2009, Peter Moylan wrote > Re: "deemed renunciation" > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > continues to be that you will automatically lose your Australian > citizenship if you become a citizen of another country.) That (as I understand it -- I'm a bystander on this) remained the US policy default until the 1986 statute and 1990 policy restatement, and in spite of the 1967 and 1980 court rulings to the contrary. > Two of > my children had dual nationality until the age of 18, but were [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > treaty with just one country (Belgium), so the rules continue to > be governed by bilateral treaties rather than global rules. > On 22 Dec 2009, Peter Moylan wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > policy default until the 1986 statute and 1990 policy restatement, > and in spite of the 1967 and 1980 court rulings to the contrary. As an American, I have to say that that statement doesn't make sense to me. When the Supreme Court overturns a law, regulation, or policy, it's no longer in force and ceases to be official, even if it doesn't get removed from official documents. Anyone acting on the basis of such a law is acting in the same way as if they were acting on the basis of a law that had been repealed. Or worse, since if the law was overturned by the court, it must have been on the basis that the law itself was illegal, and so carrying it out would be as well. If the policy was struck down in 1967, then it simply wasn't officially US policy after that point unless the executive branch declared itself in defiance of the decision. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Voting in the House of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Representatives is done by means of a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |little plastic card with a magnetic |strip on the back--like a VISA card, kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |but with no, that is, absolutely (650)857-7572 |*no*, spending limit. | P.J. O'Rourke http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 24 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >>> Re: "deemed renunciation" >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > officially US policy after that point unless the executive > branch declared itself in defiance of the decision. I didn't say it remained "offical US policy": it remained "operational US policy" as applied by the State Department. What you describe is certainly how things should work, and how one would imagine they normally do work. But some of the counter-indicators -- your compatriot's statement to me c.1984 that if he took out UK citizenship he'd automatically lose his US citizenship, and the perceived necessity in 1986 to enshrine the clarification in a statute (rather than simply amending or clarifying the relevant regulations) -- suggest that whilst the 1967 and 1980 judgements overturned the official policy, it remained operational State Department policy until the late 1980s. I'm afraid that your sincere disbelief that that would happen doesn't outweigh the evidence of the statements I recall from the 1980s and the statutory and regulatory sequence. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 24 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > doesn't outweigh the evidence of the statements I recall from the > 1980s and the statutory and regulatory sequence. A couple of comments. First, I wouldn't read in a whole lot of "perceived necessity" to the fact that the statute changed in 1986. What typically happens is that the next time somebody feels the need to amend a particular section, they'll roll in amendments to remove things that have been rendered inoperative, and I'd guess that this statutory change was part of a larger reworking of immigration law, not the focus. Second, I still don't see a whole lot of evidence that this was "US (or State Department) policy" in any sense following the court decisions. I can well believe that it was unofficial State Department policy to *tell* people that it would happen and so discourage them from acquiring dual citizenship, but I don't think anybody's stepped forward and said that they were actually treated as though they had lost their US citizenship, e.g., by being refused a passport, by being deported, or by being denied representation by a US consulate. The way that the government represents the law doesn't always accord with the actual law. (I've quoted before the section from the California drivers' handbook that states flat out that it's against the law to drive faster than a posted speed limit...and also the Vehicle Code section that states that while doing so is prima facie evidence that you are driving at an illegal speed, it is explicitly a rebuttable presumption.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |He seems to be perceptive and 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |effective because he states the Palo Alto, CA 94304 |obvious to people that don't seem |to see the obvious. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Tony Cooper http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >A couple of comments. First, I wouldn't read in a whole lot of >"perceived necessity" to the fact that the statute changed in 1986. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >statutory change was part of a larger reworking of immigration law, >not the focus. Which is exactly what did happen in 1986. That was the year of a big "immigration reform" act that included an amnesty for long-time undocumented residents, changes in the quota system, and the requirement for employers to verify and document employees' work eligibility (which gave us the I-9 form). Google "Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986". -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > On 21 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 96 lines] > (Bites tongue about the wisdom of inferring detailed law and policy > from a Wikipedia entry...) While, of course, a web site whose small print says "not legal advice" and "not a law firm oe affiliated with the United States government" can certainly be assumed to be credible. :-) But what you should have said was that I drew an incorrect conclusion from what I read: According to your page, Kawakita was a dual citizen by birth, not by naturalization. And the laws remained on the books until 23 years ago, though they were essentially voided 43 years ago. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |All tax revenue is the result of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |holding a gun to somebody's head. Palo Alto, CA 94304 |Not paying taxes is against the law. |If you don't pay your taxes, you'll kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |be fined. If you don't pay the fine, (650)857-7572 |you'll be jailed. If you try to |escape from jail, you'll be shot. http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | P.J. O'Rourke >> I'm fairly certain that when I moved to the UK in the early 1980s >> -- before the court ruling, when I discussed this with an expat [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > presumption was the same: They ask you, and if you say "no", they take > it at face value. They didn't in the past, and more recently than 1952. I was told this by several people, including the officials at a US consulate where I got a US passport. At the time, I had US citizenship by birth and through my father, but had lived essentially all my life in Canada with my Canadian mother and landed immigrant father. This meant, under the Canadian law at the time (since changed) I had no claim on Canadian citizenship since I couldn't claim through my mother because she was married to my father, and my father, who would normally have the right to take out Canadian citizenship for the underage children of his marriage couldn't because he never took it out himself. So I got a US passport. The events then, and later when I came of age and after running into another snag due to being a landed immigrant and not a citizen of Canada, and finally fixed the confusion myself, made a deep impression on me at the time, and whatever happened to Kawakita, I was warned that if I took out Canadian citizenship, that would be seen as taking an oath to a foreign power and losing my claim to American citizenship. I know both US and Canadian citizenship law has changed in the years since then - the initial incident was in the early 1970s. Nowadays dual citizenship is more accepted in the US and all that stuff about married women being unable to apply on behalf of their children's citizenship change (it would have been OK had my mother been a widow, or divorced with full custody!) sounds very archaic. But at the time, it was made crystal clear to me by American and Canadian authorities that I would lose my claim to US citizenship if I took out another citizenship. SignatureCheryl On 22 Dec 2009, Cheryl wrote >>> I'm fairly certain that when I moved to the UK in the early >>> 1980s -- before the court ruling, when I discussed this with [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > to me by American and Canadian authorities that I would lose my > claim to US citizenship if I took out another citizenship. Indeed; it appears that the US supreme court rulings of 1967 and 1980 -- which established that revocation of citizenship wasn't automatic -- weren't enshrined in statute until 1986, and finally made it intoo formalised State Department policy in 1990. (That dating certainly chimes with your experience of the policy.) SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >>> When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it >>> revolves only around where the person was born. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >British citizenship is not in doubt, that she has had to produce my >birth certificate to prove that I was British born. The situation is convoluted, indeed, for your family. It makes my situation seem simple. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it >> revolves only around where the person was born. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >descent in Germany who don't have German citizenship despite being the >fourth or fifth generation born there. It is more complicated that I said for an American, too. For example, my brother was born in Germany, was given American citizenship because of his parentage, but was also offered German citizenship when he became of age. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > was born in America. Whether I've acquired Irish citizenship, and > Xland citizenship in the future, is immaterial. That attitude isn't universal. Last year we had our bathrooms re-tiled. A couple of Hispanics did the heavy labor of breaking up and removing the old tile. The skilled and presumably much higher-paid man who laid the new tile was Vietnamese. Evidently there was some friction. The Hispanics referred to the tiler as "the Chinese guy". The Vietnamese confided to my wife with some pride, "*I* am an American," clearly implying something about the Hispanics. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> >On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >"*I* am an American," clearly implying something about the >Hispanics. No matter what he said about himself, I notice that you called him Vietnamese just now. I suspect that either of us would, in time, call him American, but that is because of the American tradition of welcoming people from all lands. Other countries are not so welcoming, not that the Irish have been rude. But I am sure no one here will ever call me an Irishman. Not ever. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > not that the Irish have been rude. But I am sure no one here will ever > call me an Irishman. Not ever. On the other hand, lots of Americans (and Australians and probably some other nationalities) seem happy to call themselves Irish even though they have never set foot in the country and are in no way Irish except in their minds and in a sort burlesque way. This actually becomes a bit more complicated when you consider people who have been in some way divorced from their home culture whether by choice or by force - West Indians in the UK, African-Americans and many others. SignatureRob Bannister > On the other hand, lots of Americans (and Australians and probably some > other nationalities) seem happy to call themselves Irish even though [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > choice or by force - West Indians in the UK, African-Americans and many > others. Quite often the first generation identifies with 'back home' and may well plan to return there after making its fortune. Next generation mostly identifies with the new place, third or later develops a nostalgic fascination with 'back home' without losing their primary identification with the no-longer 'new place'. It doesn't always work that way - I've known at least one family, admittedly fleeing unpleasantness back home, which identified on arrival with their new country, while it was one of their children who became interesed in the ancestral language and culture. There's legal nationality, personal identification with a nationality or culture, and the nationality or culture ascribed to someone by the people around them. They don't always agree, and some of them may change over time. It's complicated. SignatureCheryl >> On the other hand, lots of Americans (and Australians and probably >> some other nationalities) seem happy to call themselves Irish even [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > people around them. They don't always agree, and some of them may change > over time. It's complicated. Absolutely. Thanks for adding to my suggestion. SignatureRob Bannister >>>>> On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >they have never set foot in the country and are in no way Irish except >in their minds and in a sort burlesque way. <snip> How true. We have a saying in America that everyone (meaning everyone in the country) is Irish on St Patrick's Day. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > >>>> On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > they have never set foot in the country and are in no way Irish except > in their minds and in a sort burlesque way. I was going to make the same point. Similarly, there are people from Chicago and Hamtramck who call themselves Poles though their families have been here for a century. The examples could be multiplied. If pressed on the point, however, they would all call themselves Americans. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >I was going to make the same point. Similarly, there are people from >Chicago and Hamtramck who call themselves Poles though their >families have been here for a century. The examples could be >multiplied. If pressed on the point, however, they would all call >themselves Americans. There's a distinction to be made here between ethnic identity and citizenship. People of many different nationalities were, at various times, looked down upon by the socio-cultural establishment in the United States, and naturally settled in enclaves populated by those of similar background. (They still do, as witness the significant Cape Verdean, Dominican, Vietnamese, Brazilian, and Russian enclaves in places like Boston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles.) Even as they integrate into wider society and move away, they are still encouraged by their parents and grandparents to identify with their ancestral culture (despite, in many cases, no longer speaking the language). There is often a pattern in which first- and third-generation immigrants will identify more with the "home country" than second-generation immigrants will. If they marry within their ethnic grouping, this ethnic identification may continue for multiple generations. Outmarriage, however, tends to weaken ethnic identification (at least among those of European ancestry[1]); I don't identify as Acadian, or French, or Polish, or German, or Irish, although my ancestors three generations back likely would have (despite all but one having been born in the United States). -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >Outmarriage, however, tends to weaken ethnic identification (at least >among those of European ancestry[1]); and once again forgot to include the footnote: [1] I don't know whether or how this works for the most common non-European ethnic groups. I do know that, among Asians, those who outmarry are far more likely to marry someone of European ancestry than a fellow Asian from a different country or region. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> I was going to make the same point. Similarly, there are people from >> Chicago and Hamtramck who call themselves Poles though their [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > although my ancestors three generations back likely would have > (despite all but one having been born in the United States). At one time, Perth like many Australian capital cities, contained a large number of ethnic clubs - the former Yugoslavia, with its many differences, spawned the largest number. There is, or rather was a club for just about every largish ethnic group. Today, I get the impression that only the Irish and Italian clubs are still going strong; the others have either quietly closed or are in financial difficulties as the older people die and the young ones simply have no interest. SignatureRob Bannister Perth, Western Australia >At one time, Perth like many Australian capital cities, contained a >large number of ethnic clubs - the former Yugoslavia, with its many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >have either quietly closed or are in financial difficulties as the older >people die and the young ones simply have no interest. The science-fiction author Julian May had humans organized into two different kinds of settlements: some planets were "cosmopolitan", to be settled by mixed-heritage populations, and others -- typically more difficult ones with problematic environments in out-of-the-way star systems -- were "ethnic worlds", settled primarily by members of a specific ethnic group. In order to get an ethnic world, the population in question had to show sufficient "ethnic dynamism", "an elusive quality that had to be certified by exotic anthropologists." She continues, "A good deal of bitterness resulted when some nations were found wanting and denied a world of their own". A character of Lithuanian extraction in one of the books expresses resentment that Albanians were given an ethnic world to settle but Lithuanians were not. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 > >That attitude isn't universal. Last year we had our bathrooms > >re-tiled. A couple of Hispanics did the heavy labor of breaking up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > No matter what he said about himself, I notice that you called him > Vietnamese just now. I had to call the tiler a Vietnamese because it was essential to the story. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email I called the tiler a Vietnamese because it was essential to the story. > When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it > revolves only around where the person was born. The wording of my own [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > was born in America. Whether I've acquired Irish citizenship, and > Xland citizenship in the future, is immaterial. That does not work for me. If you had been removed from America at the age of a couple of weeks or months and had never returned, you might occasionally say you were American as a joke and you might use an American passport as a convenience, but you would not be in any true sense an American. In your case, you spent all your formative years in the US and that is why you will always be American, just as I, despite my Australian passport and occasional accent, will always be English at heart. SignatureRob Bannister >> When it comes to a person's nationality, I think it is, for it >> revolves only around where the person was born. The wording of my own [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >my Australian passport and occasional accent, will always be English at >heart. Nope. The four years I spent in Germany when I was growing up were substantially more formative than my American years because of Europe's positive impression on me compared to Virginia's. Nevertheless, I remained an American because that is where I was born. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. >> This brings up another tack. When and why [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > herself Yorkshire before English. People from Cornwall may not include > English in there at all. I tend to describe myself as a Londoner, although it's a long time since I lived there. I am also English. My friend in Chicago tells me she has a new acquaintance who, although having lived in the US for the last thirty years, describes herself as coming from Yorkshire. This lady entertained the mah-jongg group by saying: "Give me a minute, I'm egg-blocked", an expression they had never heard before. I hadn't either. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) On 09 Dec 2009, LFS wrote >>>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. >>> This brings up another tack. When and why [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I'm egg-blocked", an expression they had never heard before. I > hadn't either. These ex-pat designations are tricky. Recently I read something that described John Singer Sargent as "one of the finest American painters". Sargent always retained the American citizenship he had by virtue of his parents and was certainly famous in America, but he was born in Italy; studied art in Italy and France; didn't set foot in America until he was 20; was based in Paris and then (from the 1880s) in London, where he died in 1925; and appears to have visited and lived in the US only during those periods when he was carrying out commissions. So he was definitely an American citizen and a painter, but to call him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- none of his influences as a painter were American. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Dec 2009, LFS wrote > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > These ex-pat designations are tricky. As are the expat designations SignatureJohn Dean Oxford HVS filted: >These ex-pat designations are tricky. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- none of his >influences as a painter were American. It's not just the Euro-based world that has these issues...here's an annotated video of the song "Beijing Welcomes You" from last year's Olympics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLTy2kpxOjM The singer at 0:42 is identified in this version as "Leehom Wang (U.S.)"...other versions of the *same* video show him as "Wang Lee Hom (Taiwan)"...Wikipedia identifies him as "an American singer-songwriter, record producer, and actor of Chinese ancestry"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? R wrote on 9 Dec 2009 08:06:57 -0800: > HVS filted: >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> to call him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- >> none of his influences as a painter were American. > It's not just the Euro-based world that has these > issues...here's an annotated video of the song "Beijing > Welcomes You" from last year's Olympics: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLTy2kpxOjM > The singer at 0:42 is identified in this version as "Leehom > Wang (U.S.)"...other versions of the *same* video show him as > "Wang Lee Hom (Taiwan)"...Wikipedia identifies him as "an > American singer-songwriter, record producer, and actor of > Chinese ancestry"....r Was Handel British or German? His application for British citizenship still exists. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote > R wrote on 9 Dec 2009 08:06:57 -0800: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Was Handel British or German? His application for British > citizenship still exists. Dual, I'd say -- Germano-English or something. AFAICT he's long been classified as an "English composer". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Dual, I'd say -- Germano-English or something. AFAICT he's long > been classified as an "English composer". Handel was English but Händel was German. SignatureJames >> On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Handel was English but Händel was German. And both of them were Italian composers. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >Dual, I'd say -- Germano-English or something. AFAICT he's long >been classified as an "English composer". Handel's Messiah was conceived in England and born in Dublin. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >> On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote [born and bread] >>> Was Handel British or German? His application for British >>> citizenship still exists. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Handel's Messiah was conceived in England and born in Dublin. And born in a stable. >> On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Handel's Messiah was conceived in England and born in Dublin. It was legally born in Dublin, but the birth was rehearsed in Chester Cathedral a few weeks before. SignatureDavid >>On 09 Dec 2009, James Silverton wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > >Handel's Messiah was conceived in England and born in Dublin. The lyrics were conceived, almost verbatim, by the various people who wrote the Bible and since no human could conceive the music for a work of that length and complexity in just three weeks, you can bet your last penny Handel stole snippets of melody from here and from there, as was the custom at that time. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > These ex-pat designations are tricky. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- none of his > influences as a painter were American. I don't see the problem. He was an American citizen and a painter, so he was an American painter. Someone who is a Polish citizen and a plumber is a Polish plumber. It doesn't really matter where he learned the theory of plumbing. Sargent certainly wasn't any *other* nationality. You would prefer he was called an Italian painter? The Wikipedia biography indicates his (American) parents were important in his upbringing, homeschooling him and his siblings, and encouraging his art skills which they shared. All that would have shaped his identity. Also, a quick search showed his family was American for several centuries: The family of John Singer Sargent (1856-1925) had deep roots in New England. His grandfather, Winthrop Sargent IV, descended from one of the oldest colonial families ... Identity is personal. If in his last years, Sargent described himself as an American (I don't know if he did or not), then the only possible reason to contradict him would be one of legality -- and it's not easy to renounce American citizenship. SignatureDonna Richoux On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> These ex-pat designations are tricky. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I don't see the problem. He was an American citizen and a > painter, so he was an American painter. The description I objected to was in an art-historical discussion. In that field, an "American painter" means much more than "an American citizen who paints". It implies "a painter whose primary cultural and artistic influences were rooted in his American character". And Sargent's weren't. > Someone who is a Polish > citizen and a plumber is a Polish plumber. It doesn't really > matter where he learned the theory of plumbing. I disagree. If a Polish citizen who's never been to Poland is born, raised, and studies plumbing in the US -- and works entirely within US regulations, plumbing practices, and measurements -- he's not a "Polish plumber". He's an American plumber with Polish citizenship. > Sargent certainly wasn't any *other* nationality. You would > prefer he was called an Italian painter? Unadorned "painter" would do; if an adjective is needed, I'd opt for "European-school painter". > The Wikipedia biography [snipped; non-citeable source] > Also, a quick search showed his family was American for several > centuries: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sargent IV, descended from one of the oldest colonial > families ... His own upbringing, however, was entirely divorced from that setting. It doesn't work like osmosis. My ancestors were farmers in Ontario; my grandfather moved to Winnipeg with the CNR in the early 20th century; and my father moved to Ottawa as a civil servant, where I was raised. I don't somehow, magically, have some claim to deep-rooted affinities with farmers or railwaymen. Sargent's artistic schooling, training, and development were entirely unrelated to American painting. Ergo, he's not "one of the finest American painters" -- he wasn't an "American painter" at all. > Identity is personal. If in his last years, Sargent described > himself as an American (I don't know if he did or not), then the > only possible reason to contradict him would be one of legality > -- and it's not easy to renounce American citizenship. I don't know if Sargent called himself an "American painter". He clearly remained an American, and he was a painter -- but I don't see how that makes him an "American painter". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > clearly remained an American, and he was a painter -- but I don't see > how that makes him an "American painter". Wikipedia begins its article by describing him as "an American painter", so that settles it, doesn't it? SignatureJames On 09 Dec 2009, James Hogg wrote >> I don't know if Sargent called himself an "American painter". >> He clearly remained an American, and he was a painter -- but I >> don't see how that makes him an "American painter". > > Wikipedia begins its article by describing him as "an American > painter", so that settles it, doesn't it? [grin] Glad someone spotted my Wiki-snip comment up there. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >Wikipedia begins its article by describing him as "an American painter", >so that settles it, doesn't it? Throughout most of its history, the requirements for being an American have not been rigorous. From its founding and before, the region, then the country, welcomed immigrants from everywhere. The slavery issue was a disgrace, but America was not alone in pirating people from Africa as cheap labour. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > And Sargent's weren't. Looking at Google Books, I see that Sargent has an entry in a 1913 _Biographical Sketches of American Artists_. In 1917, I see John Singer Sargent (1856) is an artist who cannot be limited to any country or any time. We are proud to claim him as an American, but we are still prouder to recognize that he is one of the great portrait painters of the world. Lorinda Munson Bryant, _American Pictures and Their Painters_, 1917 In 1899, I seem him identified as an "American portrait painter" by an author who gives her adress as "Southbourne-on-Sea". When he was elected to the Royal Academy in 1897, the _Daily Graphic_ is quoted as saying When the most British and conservative academy thus elects Americans we may fairly wonder at our maganinimity and large-mindedness. so apparently he was considered to be American by at least some in the UK during his lifetime. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |quite another to be willfully Palo Alto, CA 94304 |ignorant | Cecil Adams kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 09 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > so apparently he was considered to be American by at least some > in the UK during his lifetime. That's part of my point about the trickiness: no one is disputing that Sargent was an American citizen who was a painter -- it's whether he should be called "one of the finest American painters" as opposed to "one of America's finest painters". "American painter" uses "American" as an adjective to modify "painter"; of the various sub-categories of national painting styles, Sargent's was definitely not "American painting". Of your three quotes, the first and last seem to me to make a distinction between his nationality and his painting (or, at least, they don't merge the two). The middle one seems (like the newspaper article I referred to upthread) to be a mis-description. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >> These ex-pat designations are tricky. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > plumber is a Polish plumber. It doesn't really matter where he > learned the theory of plumbing. [...] Well, perhaps you'd be willing to take the word of those who _can_ see the problem, which is a real and interesting one. A comparison with plumbing, forsooth! (Mind you, for that matter, I have in my time been the victim of more than one national style of plumbing...) SignatureMike. [snip re John Singer Sargent] > >> So he was definitely an American citizen and a painter, but to call > >> him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- none of his [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > plumbing, forsooth! (Mind you, for that matter, I have in my time been > the victim of more than one national style of plumbing...) Well, I'd be happier if those who can see the problem would take a stab at explaining what it is. You indicate that painting is a more prestigious occupation than plumbing, but what does prestige have to do with it? I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or "Polish plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian cafeteria manager" simply pair the nationality of the person with their occupation. It doesn't matter what else influenced them during their lives. SignatureDonna Richoux > [snip re John Singer Sargent] > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > simply pair the nationality of the person with their occupation. It > doesn't matter what else influenced them during their lives. You're making it too black and white. A person's "nationality" is not simply what it says on his/her official papers, whatever the relevant officials may have to say about it. If people spend most of their lives in another country and feel they are members of that culture, then their official nationality is merely of interest, but irrelevant to what they do. Van Gogh is a French painter whatever his origins. SignatureRob Bannister > You're making it too black and white. A person's "nationality" is not > simply what it says on his/her official papers, whatever the relevant > officials may have to say about it. If people spend most of their > lives in another country and feel they are members of that culture, > then their official nationality is merely of interest, but irrelevant > to what they do. Van Gogh is a French painter whatever his origins. Does the person involved get any say in the matter? Sarrgent had made his first trip to America in 1876, at twenty. While thorogoughly Europeanized--he spoke fluent French, Italian and German--he always considered himself American, and on this trip obtained official citizenship. "As for the question of nationality," he wrote to fellow expatriat James McNeill Whistler in 1895, "I have not been invited to retouch it and I keep my twang. If you should hear anything to the contrary, please state...that I am an American." Carl Little, _The Watercolors of John Singer Sargent_, 1998, p. 13 SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there |all resemblance ends. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> You're making it too black and white. A person's "nationality" >> is not simply what it says on his/her official papers, whatever [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Does the person involved get any say in the matter? > Sarrgent had made his first trip to America in 1876, at > twenty. While thorogoughly Europeanized--he spoke fluent [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hear anything to the contrary, please state...that I am an > American." > Carl Little, _The Watercolors of John > Singer Sargent_, 1998, p. 13 Again, this deals simply with his nationality, which is not in dispute. It's his professional sensibilities that are at issue. The usage question I raised -- remember, I was criticising the use of a phrase in an art-historical piece -- is whether "American painter" can mean simply "an American citizen who paints", or whether it implies "a painter whose works are influenced by his American nationality". The (UK) Dictionary of National Biography has this: "Painter, born in Florence of American parentage; began his serious artistic training on entering the studio of Carolus Duran in Paris, 1874". I'd say that "American painter" doesn't come close to describing the same person. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > whether it implies "a painter whose works are influenced by his > American nationality". If his nationality is American, it would seem that by that definition, his only options are to be an "American painter" or a generic "painter". No matter how influenced he was by the Italian and French painters he encountered, his works couldn't be influenced by his Italian or French nationality, because he didn't have one. Conversely, if a painter was thoroughly influenced by French artists and styles, but spoke no French, never visited France, and had no French ancestors, would you call him a "French painter"? > The (UK) Dictionary of National Biography has this: "Painter, born > in Florence of American parentage; began his serious artistic > training on entering the studio of Carolus Duran in Paris, 1874". > > I'd say that "American painter" doesn't come close to describing > the same person. He's a painter who considered himself (and was considered to be) American. I don't think I have any further requirements. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |I like giving talks to industry, 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |because one of the things that I've Palo Alto, CA 94304 |found is that you really can't |learn anything at the Harvard kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |Business School. (650)857-7572 | Clayton Christensen | Harvard Business School http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote -snip- >> The usage question I raised -- remember, I was criticising the >> use of a phrase in an art-historical piece -- is whether [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > definition, his only options are to be an "American painter" or > a generic "painter". I disagree that those are the only options. He's a generic "painter"; he's a "European-school painter"; I'd even accept a "European-based American painter". Sometimes accurate description can't be achieved with a single adjective. This is a good example: unqualified "American painter" is highly misleading. > No matter how influenced he was by the > Italian and French painters he encountered, his works couldn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and had no French ancestors, would you call him a "French > painter"? I'd call him a painter of the French school -- a "French-school painter". Again, this is a case where an accurate description can't be achieved with a single adjective. >> The (UK) Dictionary of National Biography has this: "Painter, >> born in Florence of American parentage; began his serious [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He's a painter who considered himself (and was considered to be) > American. I don't think I have any further requirements. But you're not, it seems, operating within the context of art history; the disputed article was. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > adjective. This is a good example: unqualified "American > painter" is highly misleading. Then I'd say that you're assuming a field's jargon. I don't think anybody outside, perhaps, of those schooled in the terminology of art history (I have no experience there, so I have to take you at your word) would have the slightest hesitation calling an American who is a painter an "American painter" or would read anything more into that phrase. >> No matter how influenced he was by the >> Italian and French painters he encountered, his works couldn't [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > But you're not, it seems, operating within the context of art > history; the disputed article was. It wasn't clear from your posting that they were (mis)using jargon. Taken at face value, it seemed that what you were objecting to was calling him "American" even though he wasn't born and raised in America. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |And the wildest dreams of Kew 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | are the facts of Khatmandhu, Palo Alto, CA 94304 |And the crimes of Clapham | chaste in Martaban. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | (650)857-7572 | Rudyard Kipling http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote -snip- >>> He's a painter who considered himself (and was considered to >>> be) American. I don't think I have any further requirements. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > objecting to was calling him "American" even though he wasn't > born and raised in America. Apologies; I guess I didn't make it clear that it was the association with American painting that I was objecting to. It wasn't that Sargent someonen didn't qualify, by parentage, as an American citizen -- it's that since he was born, raised, and trained entirely in other countries and cultures, calling him an "American painter" seems....deeply wrong. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >>> On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >entirely in other countries and cultures, calling him an "American >painter" seems....deeply wrong. On the other hand (using very recently gained superficial knowledge) it would not be wrong to call Mary Cassatt a French Impressionist even though she was an American painter. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) On 10 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> It wasn't that Sargent someonen didn't qualify, by parentage, >> as an American citizen -- it's that since he was born, raised, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > knowledge) it would not be wrong to call Mary Cassatt a French > Impressionist even though she was an American painter. Well, she certainly wasn't an American Impressionist, but nor was she a "French painter". This strikes me as another case where a single-adjective description is bound to be misleading -- she was an American-born French Impressionist. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 10 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > is bound to be misleading -- she was an American-born French > Impressionist. Best description so far. SignatureRob Bannister >> On 10 Dec 2009, Peter Duncanson (BrE) wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Best description so far. She is another American painter, but if we are writing her CV, more description is needed. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >>> On 10 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >entirely in other countries and cultures, calling him an "American >painter" seems....deeply wrong. Shitfire, I was born in the Midwest of East and West Coast parents, lived in the New York area before moving to the South, lived in Germany before hanging my hat in Texas and then lived in the Washington, D.C. area for years before moving to Maine and then to Ireland. That said and done, I am still an American. When I paint, which I don't do well, I am an American painter. Go figure, keeping in mind that the requirements for that title are not stringent. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> Apologies; I guess I didn't make it clear that it was the >> association with American painting that I was objecting to. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Go figure, keeping in mind that the requirements for that title > are not stringent. I'm not going to rehash the argument out all over again, Chuck, but you're not going to convince me with a counter-argument that amounts, as far as I can tell, to little more than "I say it is so". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed >On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >you're not going to convince me with a counter-argument that amounts, >as far as I can tell, to little more than "I say it is so". My arguments are a tad more thoughtful than that, as you would probably realize if it weren't your policy to refuse to listen to them. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 18 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > probably realize if it weren't your policy to refuse to listen > to them. The prefacing of your dismissal of my view with "Shitfire" suggests to me that I've not been given even the minor courtesy of a formulaic acknowledgement that I might -- just might -- have given this subject some thought. All I see is a simple and crude dismissal, followed by a restatement of an opposing conclusion view as if it's a self- evident and incontrovertible truth. You seem to consider that to be "thoughtful argument". So be it; I don't. (I also don't see any point in continuing to flog this one, so feel free to have the final word if it pleases you. I'm done.) >On 18 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >one, so feel free to have the final word if it pleases you. I'm >done.) ObAUE: It is probably not surprising that my Canadian interlocutor, HVS, misunderstood a term I learned when I was a teenager in Virginia, since those were never his stomping grounds. "Shitfire" is an expression of glee or of surprise. It is not an expletive as Virginians use it and as I occasionally use it in the group. He may have misinterpreted it to mean "sh.t fire", a rather meaningless expression, I would say, but then so is "shitfire". Who said English has to make sense? SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 19 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> On 18 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > fire", a rather meaningless expression, I would say, but then so > is "shitfire". Who said English has to make sense? SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed On 19 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> On 18 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>> then lived in the Washington, D.C. area for years before >>>>> moving to Maine and then to Ireland. -snip- >> All I see is a simple and crude dismissal, followed by a >> restatement of an opposing conclusion view as if it's a self- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fire", a rather meaningless expression, I would say, but then so > is "shitfire". Who said English has to make sense? (Sorry about the other empty-post reply; keyboard mistake.) Yes, I took "shitfire" to mean "That's sh.t/crap/rubbish/nonsense"; the following restatement of your view didn't seem at all inconsistent with that, so there was no obvious disjunction with that interpretation. (And there we shall rest.) >Yes, I took "shitfire" to mean "That's sh.t/crap/rubbish/nonsense"; >the following restatement of your view didn't seem at all >inconsistent with that, so there was no obvious disjunction with >that interpretation. > >(And there we shall rest.) Good thing, too. "Shitfire" is used by some Americans at the beginning of a statement just as I sometimes use "Damn!": "Damn, but that's news to me". It's just emphasis. Not used the same, but said, is "Shitfire and save matches". SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >On 19 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >(And there we shall rest.) Well, I'm glad that's straightened out. I see now that I should have explained the usage of the word years ago, for I've probably offended several members by it. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > ObAUE: It is probably not surprising that my Canadian interlocutor, > HVS, misunderstood a term I learned when I was a teenager in Virginia, > since those were never his stomping grounds. > "Shitfire" is an expression of glee or of surprise. Precisely. As an adjective it means excited or exciting, but sometimes is ironic implying excitement is not warranted. > It is not an expletive as Virginians use it and as I occasionally use it > in the group. He may have misinterpreted it to mean "sh.t fire", a rather > meaningless expression, Do come for chili at our place whenever you are in town. > I would say, but then so is "shitfire". Who said English has to make > sense? SignatureLars Eighner <http://larseighner.com/> Warbama's Afghaninam day: 17 426.8 hours since Warbama declared Viet Nam II. Warbama: An LBJ for the Twenty-First century. No hope. No change. >> ObAUE: It is probably not surprising that my Canadian interlocutor, >> HVS, misunderstood a term I learned when I was a teenager in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> I would say, but then so is "shitfire". Who said English has to >> make sense? I didn't remember the expression until "Virginia" cropped up; then I heard it in Southern-speak - "shitFAHR!" - and there it was, expletive appropriate to amazement or hammered thumbs. SignatureFrank ess >>> ObAUE: It is probably not surprising that my Canadian interlocutor, >>> HVS, misunderstood a term I learned when I was a teenager in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >heard it in Southern-speak - "shitFAHR!" - and there it was, expletive >appropriate to amazement or hammered thumbs. You have the pronunciation down pat. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> ObAUE: It is probably not surprising that my Canadian interlocutor, >> HVS, misunderstood a term I learned when I was a teenager in Virginia, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Do come for chili at our place whenever you are in town. I'd like to. Here in the land of bland, I greatly miss having serious chili when eating out. I often made it when I did my own cooking, so it is not that the ingredients are unavailable. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE > If his nationality is American, it would seem that by that definition, > his only options are to be an "American painter" or a generic > "painter". No matter how influenced he was by the Italian and French > painters he encountered, his works couldn't be influenced by his > Italian or French nationality, because he didn't have one. What does his nationality have to do with it? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > > If his nationality is American, it would seem that by that definition, > > his only options are to be an "American painter" or a generic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What does his nationality have to do with it? You mean, an American painter is one who uses American paints? Or one who paints Americans? Can we back up? This began when HVS said, Recently I read something that described John Singer Sargent as "one of the finest American painters". I believe the count so far is that those who consider themselves Americans don't see any problem with this, and those who aren't, do. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux On 10 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >>> If his nationality is American, it would seem that by that >>> definition, his only options are to be an "American painter" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Or one who paints Americans? An "American painter", to me, is one whose work is identifiably American -- in one or more of subject matter, concept, realisation, handling of paint, figuration, and the rest of that stuff. And Sargent's work wasn't that sort of painting. > Can we back up? This began when HVS said, > > Recently I read something that described John Singer > Sargent as "one of the finest American painters". Precisely: he wasn't one of the finest "American painters", he was one of America's finest "European-school painters" (or perhaps "Beaux-Arts painters"). > I believe the count so far is that those who consider themselves > Americans don't see any problem with this, and those who aren't, > do. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 10 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And Sargent's work wasn't that sort of painting. Which just goes to show that "seeming typically American" is not the true test of being American. > > Can we back up? This began when HVS said, > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of America's finest "European-school painters" (or perhaps > "Beaux-Arts painters"). But then it just sounds like there are other American painters you like better. When you reduce the larger set to a subset, you are quibbling with the judgement of "one of the finest," not whether he's American. I wonder if you are starting with the assumption that there is an identifiable "American School", like the "Hudson River School." This article says that Sargent was *part* of the "American School": http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/3aa/3aa583.htm Paris 1900: The "American School" at the Universal Exposition ... the Universal Exposition of 1900 held in Paris ... established a distinct and important American school of art, rivaling many contemporary European schools and putting American art and artists definitively on the international cultural map. ... works by such masters as William Merritt Chase, Childe Hassam Theodore Robinson, J. Alden Weir, Winslow Homer, John Singer Sargent, Thomas Eakins, Charles Sprague Pearce and George Inness [were] included in the exhibition. Have you got a different "American School" in mind? SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux On 10 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote >> An "American painter", to me, is one whose work is identifiably >> American -- in one or more of subject matter, concept, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which just goes to show that "seeming typically American" is not > the true test of being American. We'll have to differ on that. In art (and architecture) -- and perhaps in science and research -- I think the manifestation of nationality in the end product carries vastly more weight than the blood line. >>> Can we back up? This began when HVS said, >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But then it just sounds like there are other American painters > you like better. No, it's not remotely a personal "like/dislike" thing. (I find that accusation a bit reductionist and, to be honest, slightly offensive.) > When you reduce the larger set to a subset, you > are quibbling with the judgement of "one of the finest," not > whether he's American. Wildly not the case: I have no problem with Sargent being judged as one of the finest portrait painters of the late 19th/early 20th century; he clearly was. It's the simplistic equation of nationality with sensibility and character -- "Peter Ustinov, the Russian bon vivant", or "Audrey Hepburn, the Belgian actress" -- that strikes me as misleading. > I wonder if you are starting with the assumption that there is > an identifiable "American School", like the "Hudson River > School." I don't think one can divorce American painting from America, if that's what you mean -- at least, not when the discontinuity is as vast as Sargent and American painting. That a workk is by an American doesn't make it an American work. > This article says that Sargent was *part* of the > "American School": > > http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/3aa/3aa583.htm (snipped for brevity, not for duplicity) I recall reading about that somewhere. My reaction was (and remains) that it was a propaganda thing by the State Department to promote the idea that Americans who painted constituted an identifiable artistic set. (Clearly, I don't accept that they did constitute a set.) > Have you got a different "American School" in mind? Yes -- the one that's rooted in American sensibilities in the way that Louis Sullivan was an American architect. Painters like Hopper, Rothko, or even Warhol, who produced work that simply wouldn't have emanated from any other place. This view clearly reflects my own history, but (as I've said elsethread) I think the classification of people and their work on the basis of technical citizenship is a bit fatuous. It's immensely more complex than that. I suspect this horse is now sufficiently flogged, and now lies bleeding on the virtual ground of Usenet, so I'll close with the comment that started this discussion: These expat designations are tricky. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Harvey Van Sickle: > It's the simplistic equation of nationality with sensibility and > character -- "Peter Ustinov, the Russian bon vivant", or "Audrey > Hepburn, the Belgian actress" -- that strikes me as misleading. But you seem to be the one that's making it an "equation". "Belgian actress" describes Audrey Hepburn by two unrelated characteristics. Likewise for the others. I'm reminded of the time that Jamie Salé and David Pelletier were cheated out of a gold medal<*> in the 2002 Olympics. A writer in Newsweek commented that that the public would have been less outraged if instead of being "cute, charismatic, Canadians" they were "bucktoothed, balding and Bulgarian". Which I'm sure is true. But at least one reader took offense -- misreading the sentence as impugning Bulgarians instead of referring to independent characteristics. <*>They eventually were given it, but the pair originally declared the winners got to keep theirs as well. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | Subway Emergency Instructions... msb@vex.net | * Do not pull the emergency cord. -- MTA, NYC My text in this article is in the public domain. Donna Richoux: > I believe the count so far is that those who consider themselves > Americans don't see any problem with this, and those who aren't, do. Not any more; my reaction to the thread has been identical to Evan Kirshenbaum's. SignatureMark Brader | "[These] articles should be self-explanatory. Toronto | If they *don't* explain themselves, msb@vex.net | you'll have to read them." -- Michael Wares >>> If his nationality is American, it would seem that by that definition, >>> his only options are to be an "American painter" or a generic [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I believe the count so far is that those who consider themselves > Americans don't see any problem with this, and those who aren't, do. Certainly, we Australian ought to keep fairly quiet about this, since we (or at least our media) routinely claim as Australian any successful celebrity who has spent any time here at all, whilst forgetting all association with people like Rupert Murdoch. SignatureRob Bannister >Certainly, we Australian ought to keep fairly quiet about this, since we >(or at least our media) routinely claim as Australian any successful >celebrity who has spent any time here at all, whilst forgetting all >association with people like Rupert Murdoch. You may forget but we certainly have not. -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> If his nationality is American, it would seem that by that definition, >> his only options are to be an "American painter" or a generic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What does his nationality have to do with it? "By that definition" referred to Harvey's The usage question I raised -- remember, I was criticising the use of a phrase in an art-historical piece -- is whether "American painter" can mean simply "an American citizen who paints", or whether it implies "a painter whose works are influenced by his American nationality". If an "American painter" is one "whose works are influenced by his American nationality", then I'd expect the same to be true of a French painter or an Italian painter. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |A burro is an a.s. A burrow is a 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |hole in the ground. As a Palo Alto, CA 94304 |journalist, you are expected to |know the difference. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | UPI Stylebook (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> You're making it too black and white. A person's "nationality" is not >> simply what it says on his/her official papers, whatever the relevant [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Carl Little, _The Watercolors of John > Singer Sargent_, 1998, p. 13 I believe strongly that he/she does, but I knew nothing about Sargent. SignatureRob Bannister Donna Richoux filted: >I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or "Polish >plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian cafeteria manager" >simply pair the nationality of the person with their occupation. It >doesn't matter what else influenced them during their lives. But then you've got Emil Jannings in "Der Blaue Engel", playing an "English teacher"....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? > I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or "Polish > plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian cafeteria manager" > simply pair the nationality of the person with their occupation. It > doesn't matter what else influenced them during their lives. French polisher? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >> I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or "Polish >> plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian cafeteria manager" >> simply pair the nationality of the person with their occupation. It >> doesn't matter what else influenced them during their lives. > > French polisher? I'm not the French polisher, I'm the French polisher's apprentice, And I'm only polishing Frenchmen 'Til the polisher's back from the tennis. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>> I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or "Polish >>> plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian cafeteria manager" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > And I'm only polishing Frenchmen > 'Til the polisher's back from the tennis. Give that man a pheasant. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or "Polish >>>> plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian cafeteria manager" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> > Give that man a pheasant. My old man's a cotton-pickin', finger-lickin' chicken plucker--wadya think about that? SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>>> I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or >>>>> "Polish plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > My old man's a cotton-pickin', finger-lickin' chicken plucker--wadya > think about that? I think you'd better be careful. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |Pious Jews have a category of 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |questions that can harmlessly be Palo Alto, CA 94304 |allowed to go without an answer |until the Messiah comes. I suspect kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |that this is one of them. (650)857-7572 | Joseph C. Fineman http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > I remain stuck in the position that "American painter" or > "Polish plumber" or "Swiss mushroom farmer" or "Canadian > cafeteria manager" simply pair the nationality of the person > with their occupation. It doesn't matter what else influenced > them during their lives. Let's take a fellow who was born to Swiss parents in Boston. He was registered by his parents as a Swiss citizen, but was apprenticed to a farmer in upstate New York, where he learned about state and federal regulations, banned pesticides, and farm subsidy programs, and where he struck out on his own as a mushroom-grower on his own farm. He finally visited Switzerland as an adult, where in his 20s he made life-long friends with farmers in the Appenzell, but he remained based at his mushroom farm in upstate New York, where after a long and successful life he died and was buried in the local cemetery. You're happy calling him a "Swiss mushroom farmer"? I find that very odd. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 09 Dec 2009, Donna Richoux wrote > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > a long and successful life he died and was buried in the local > cemetery. I thought you had enough of this topic, so I didn't post any followup to your other recent message. Your little story makes it clear why John S. S. is an unusual case. His living in Europe is not a typical mirror image of people emigrating to America. Most farmers who came here became citizens, and so on. > You're happy calling him a "Swiss mushroom farmer"? I find that very > odd. That's where you go wrong, "you're happy calling him..." It's up to him, not to me, to determine whether he calls himself a Swiss mushroom farmer. If he does, and he's legally entitled to, *then* if I had any reason to refer to his nationality at all, I'd follow suit. You keep implying that what the person says about himself doesn't matter. Cue old joke: Boston grande dame: And where are you from, my dear? Young woman: I'm from Iowa, ma'am. Boston grande dame: Here in Boston, my dear, we pronounce it O-hi-o. If he called himself Swiss, and I met him, I would ask him with surprise and interest why he considered himself Swiss in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. If I was an American or Swiss government official, I would investigate the legalities and the payment of taxes. What he calls himself, and what the legal standards are, are the only two criteria I can think of. I suppose in some international sports competitions, it matters what the nationality of a player is. So if I worked for the International Mushroom Growers Society and this guy was enrolling for a competition or something, I might ask for clarification. Which relates to my point elsewhere about which subset of others he is compared with. I'm trying to think if there are any more realistic examples. I know that after the lifting of the Iron Curtain and breakup of the USSR, various young-ish Americans went back to live in their native or ancestral lands in Eastern Europe. Sometimes I heard them on TV as their country's Foreign Minister or whatever. I suppose they renounced their American citizenship to take those high level positions, but I don't know how to research that any further. I assume these were people who were raised bilingually and who felt themselves to be Armenian or whatever even though their birth and education and English fluency said otherwise. They might also have gone because they accompanied their happy parents and other elderly relatives back to live in their beloved homeland. Which relates to why I pointed earlier to the family upbringing and the centuries of previous forbears -- sometimes this matters more in one's identity than other times. You brushed it off as unimportant to you, but I think JSS's unusual family upbringing and his distinguished Yankee heritage was quite likely important *to him," especially as someone of the mid-19th century. SignatureBest -- Donna Richoux >Well, I'd be happier if those who can see the problem would take a stab >at explaining what it is. You indicate that painting is a more [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >simply pair the nationality of the person with their occupation. It >doesn't matter what else influenced them during their lives. I can't speak for painting, but in music it is pretty common to attach a nationality to the *style* of someone's work, as when Roland describes Handel as an Italian composer. (I would have said only half Italian, but that's by the way). Plumbing tends not to have strongly identifiable national or regional styles. Of course it leads to potential ambiguity, but so do many other useful linguistic habits. I have been singing music by one Rosenmueller (strongly recommended), who is universally described as a Venetian composer. Nobody assumes he was born in Venice, but it's much more interesting and useful to know what sort of music he wrote, rather than where he was born. Does that explain what the "problem" is? Katy > Plumbing tends not to have strongly identifiable national or regional > styles. Except for sanitary fittings, of course. SignatureOnline waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk development version: http://canalplan.eu >> Plumbing tends not to have strongly identifiable national or regional >> styles. > >Except for sanitary fittings, of course. Indeed. In 1954, age 17, I was in Tripoli Airport, Libya, waiting while the plane I had come on from London Heathrow was serviced and refuelled. I was travelling alone. It was the first time I had been on a plane. My fellow passengers had wandered off in various directions to buy things. I was left on my own among non-English speakers in unfamiliar surroundings. That combined with my shyness left me unsettled and disoriented. I was inordinately cheered-up when I went to the gents' toilet and found that the sanitary fittings were made in England, in Staffordshire, I seem to recall. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> Plumbing tends not to have strongly identifiable national or >>> regional styles. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I went to the gents' toilet and found that the sanitary fittings were > made in England, in Staffordshire, I seem to recall. Other parts of Libya used to be less Anglicized. As examples of exotic plumbing style, I'll restrict myself to a) certain bizarre loos whose swallowing capacity was by our standards most inadequate, and b) the engaging practice of connecting the cistern to the hot supply. SignatureMike. >>>> Plumbing tends not to have strongly identifiable national or regional >>>> styles. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > swallowing capacity was by our standards most inadequate, and b) the > engaging practice of connecting the cistern to the hot supply. My town here in bee-utiful suburban New Jersey is known (inter alia) for the distinctive traps found under the sinks in older homes. They used to be required by a very local plumbing code. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:38:07 +0000, ke10 wrote: > I can't speak for painting, but in music it is pretty common to attach a > nationality to the *style* of someone's work, as when Roland describes > Handel as an Italian composer. (I would have said only half Italian, but > that's by the way). Quite right. Or perhaps we could begin to distinguish, sandwich-like, between Italian composers and "Italian" composers. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) Mike Lyle: > (Mind you, for that matter, I have in my time been > the victim of more than one national style of plumbing...) Ah, something interesting comes up in this thread! Do tell. SignatureMark Brader, Toronto | "Gadgetry abounded everywhere, almost all of which msb@vex.net | he could justify." -- Robert Asprin >On 09 Dec 2009, LFS wrote > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- none of his >influences as a painter were American. Give the poor man a break, Harvey Van. You'll agree that having American parentage is more than enough to be an American and American artists, like artists from anywhere else, receive their influence from countless sources. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote re: Sargent >> So he was definitely an American citizen and a painter, but to >> call him an "American painter" seems a misnomer to me -- none [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > American artists, like artists from anywhere else, receive their > influence from countless sources. I don't hink Sargent belongs on the list of "American painters" any more than the New-York-born Boris Johnson belongs on the list of "American politicians". SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > more than the New-York-born Boris Johnson belongs on the list of > "American politicians". Or, say, Charlie Chaplin or Stan Laurel belong in a list of "English film comedians". SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |In the beginning, there were no 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |reasons, there were only causes. Palo Alto, CA 94304 | Daniel Dennet kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ On 17 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote >> I don't hink Sargent belongs on the list of "American painters" >> any more than the New-York-born Boris Johnson belongs on the >> list of "American politicians". > > Or, say, Charlie Chaplin or Stan Laurel belong in a list of > "English film comedians". Yes, I'd agree entirely with that. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 17 Dec 2009, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, I'd agree entirely with that. At least you're consistent, then. I wouldn't. The case with Johnson is a bit different from the others (including Sargent) in that he doesn't present himself as, and apparently doesn't consider himself to be, "American". I take the point that with "American politician" the sense of "one involved in American politics" is a fair bit stronger than "an American involved in politics", but I don't see it generalizing to other domains. Obviously, you feel that in art circles (in which I don't travel), it does. Certainly, I would be surprised to see somebody described as, say, a French Impressionist who wasn't and didn't consider himself French, but merely painted in that style. SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |"It makes you wonder if there is 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |anything to astrology after all." Palo Alto, CA 94304 | |"Oh, there is," said Susan. kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com |"Delusion, wishful thinking and (650)857-7572 |gullibility." http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Or, say, Charlie Chaplin or Stan Laurel belong in a list of "English >film comedians". Shirley, Chaplin, who chronicled some aspects of American life better than anyone of his day, was borderline American, English. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >more than the New-York-born Boris Johnson belongs on the list of >"American politicians". Frankly, I don't know where Boris Johnson belongs. If someone could convince him to join AUE, I'm sure we'd have a right good time. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Frankly, I don't know where Boris Johnson belongs. If someone could >convince him to join AUE, I'm sure we'd have a right good time. I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that they know nothing about anything but have lots to say about everything. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do >it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that >they know nothing about anything but have lots to say about >everything. You haven't seen him on comedy quiz shows on TV. He is not a typical politician. He is a former journalist and editor of The Spectator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Johnson#Journalism_and_history Upon graduating from Oxford, he only spent a week as a management consultant at L.E.K. Consulting: Try as I might, I could not look at an overhead projection of a growth profit matrix, and stay conscious. .... Johnson is a popular historian and his first documentary series, The Dream of Rome, comparing the Roman Empire and the modern-day European Union, was broadcast in 2006. After being elected mayor, he announced that he would be resuming his weekly column for The Daily Telegraph. The Guardian reported that he had agreed a £250,000 annual salary for doing so. The report added that he will donate £25,000 each towards two scholarships: one for students of journalism, and the other for the teaching of classics. .... SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do >>it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that >>they know nothing about anything but have lots to say about >>everything. > >You haven't seen him on comedy quiz shows on TV. [Boris Johnson] Right. >He is not a typical politician. He may be the exception that proves the rule. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England >>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do >>> it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > He may be the exception that proves the rule. Quite likely. Ignoring his politics (about which I know little), he does appear to be an erudite, entertaining and likeable bloke. The other week, he was cycling home (he cycles all round London) when he saw a woman being set upon by a gang of teenage girls. He chased them away and then walked the lady home. She said that she didn't agree with his politics and had voted for Ken, but was grateful. He issued a statement that the incident had happened but that he would not comment further. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8340865.stm And I was touched by his simple and honest astonishment during the BBC Programme "Who Do You Think You Are?" when he discovered that he is descended from George II. SignatureDavid the Omrud wrote, in <qucXm.17015$Ym4.10786@text.news.virginmedia.com> on Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:30:46 GMT: > >>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do > >>> it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Programme "Who Do You Think You Are?" when he discovered that he is > descended from George II. That was one of the best of those programmes. Another line of descent included a Turk who was murdered by a mob for his opposition to Kemal Ataturk. SignatureNick Spalding BrE/IrE >>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do >>>> it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Programme "Who Do You Think You Are?" when he discovered that he is >descended from George II. ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before today. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group wouldn't do >>>>> it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It seems to me that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before > today. I don't use it wantonly - I have to really mean it - but it is a normal part of my vocabulary. SignatureDavid >>>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group >>>>>> wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > I don't use it wantonly - I have to really mean it - but it is a > normal part of my vocabulary. I use it, but ordinarily at a little distance: "That was a touching moment". If cornered, "Yes, I was touched". SignatureFrank ess >>>>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group >>>>>>> wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >I use it, but ordinarily at a little distance: "That was a touching >moment". If cornered, "Yes, I was touched". Yes, I might go so far as to say "that was a touching moment", but never "I was touched". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group >>>>>>>> wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >Yes, I might go so far as to say "that was a touching moment", but >never "I was touched". I probably wouldn't say that on its own, but I might say, for example, "I was touched by his generosity to X". The sentence "I was touched" can have as least one more interpretation as an abbreviation of "I was touched in the head", slightly insane. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>>>>>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group >>>>>>>>> wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > The sentence "I was touched" can have as least one more interpretation > as an abbreviation of "I was touched in the head", slightly insane. Also, "I was touched for a tenner". SignatureRob Bannister >> The sentence "I was touched" can have as least one more interpretation >> as an abbreviation of "I was touched in the head", slightly insane. > > Also, "I was touched for a tenner". How should we parse "I was touched by an angel for a tenner."? SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>>>>>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > >Also, "I was touched for a tenner". You beat me to it. I should have read ahead before posting. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>>>>>> I can only believe that adding politicians to this group >>>>>>>>> wouldn't do it any favours, no matter what their viewpoint. It [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >The sentence "I was touched" can have as least one more interpretation >as an abbreviation of "I was touched in the head", slightly insane. Also, "I was touched for some money the last time I went to my pub". SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >> the Omrud wrote: [about Boris Johnson] <snip> >>> And I was touched by his simple and honest astonishment during the >>> BBC Programme "Who Do You Think You Are?" when he discovered that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't use it wantonly - I have to really mean it - but it is a > normal part of my vocabulary. When were you touched for the very first time? SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>> the Omrud wrote: >>>> And I was touched by his simple and honest astonishment during the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > When were you touched for the very first time? September 28th, 1973. Oh, no, that's when I took my driving test. SignatureDavid >>>> the Omrud wrote: >>>>> And I was touched by his simple and honest astonishment during the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >September 28th, 1973. Oh, no, that's when I took my driving test. "To be touched for" in BrE means to be asked for a loan or gift (usually of money), so David was probably touched for the first time when his elder child first demanded pocket money. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > the Omrud wrote: >>>>> ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was >>>>> touched" is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (usually of money), so David was probably touched for the first time > when his elder child first demanded pocket money. That's not what Madonna had in mind. SignatureSkitt (AmE) >>>>> the Omrud wrote: >>>>>> And I was touched by his simple and honest astonishment during the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > (usually of money), so David was probably touched for the first time > when his elder child first demanded pocket money. Or by my younger sister. SignatureDavid Robin Bignall filted: >>> When were you touched for the very first time? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >(usually of money), so David was probably touched for the first time >when his elder child first demanded pocket money. Same meaning existed in AmE up until at least the early 1920s, as witness this verse from a very popular song of the era: Oh, Mister Gallagher! Oh, Mister Gallagher! If you're a friend of mine, you'll lend me a couple of bucks. I'm so broke and badly bent, and I haven't got a cent. I'm so clean you'd think that I was washed with Lux. Oh, Mister Shean! Oh, Mister Shean! Do you mean to say you haven't got a bean? On my word as I'm alive, I intended touching you for five. Oh, I thank you Mister Gallagher. You are welcome, Mister Shean. ....r SignatureA pessimist sees the glass as half empty. An optometrist asks whether you see the glass more full like this?...or like this? >>> the Omrud wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > When were you touched for the very first time? That would be Father O'Donnell[1], the parish priest at the time when I was an altar boy. But he's now in prison, so it doesn't count. [1] To be perfectly honest, I can't remember his name, but the bit about being in prison is correct. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. > ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" > is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before > today. So what would you say? - "Deeply moved"? or is it thought unmanly to have emotions? SignatureRob Bannister >> ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" >> is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before >> today. > >So what would you say? - "Deeply moved"? or is it thought unmanly to >have emotions? It is not unmanly to have emotions, including some very strong ones, IMO, nor is it unmanly to express them, but I've never heard a man say he was touched before yesterday. That is why I asked, as a language question, if the expression is likely to appear in men's BrE. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" >>> is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >he was touched before yesterday. That is why I asked, as a language >question, if the expression is likely to appear in men's BrE. It would not be unmanly in BrE, just uncommon. SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) >>> ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" >>> is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > he was touched before yesterday. That is why I asked, as a language > question, if the expression is likely to appear in men's BrE. OK then. I'll say I would use it, but not very often. SignatureRob Bannister >>>> ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" >>>> is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >OK then. I'll say I would use it, but not very often. Peter and you have restored the impression I had before this thread began, that British men, like American ones, use the expression, in the feelings sense, sparingly, if at all. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>>> ObAUE: Perhaps because I am not exposed to much BrE, "I was touched" >>>>> is not a statement I've heard from many men, if from any man before [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >began, that British men, like American ones, use the expression, in >the feelings sense, sparingly, if at all. Some of us are old and sentimental, and are touched by all sorts of trivial happenings. Whether we would tell anyone else depends on the relationship. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > Some of us are old and sentimental, and are touched by all sorts of > trivial happenings. Whether we would tell anyone else depends on the > relationship. I'm touched by your openness. That's enough of that. Back to talking about cars. My car was rendered unusable by a software fault today. It seems that a recent Jaguar software upgrade has introduced a fault which locks the transmission in Park without reason. It's apparently triggered by spinning the wheels on snow without first disengaging the Diff-Lock. Normally, stopping the car, turning off the engine and restarting it clears any warning event (until it recurs) but because this is a bug and not a deliberate event, it had the effect of locking up my car in the road about 100 yards from home, where I'd stopped to restart it. Fortunately, there was just enough space for the bus, Tesco delivery vans and (strangely) a car towing a horse box which contained a bull to squeeze past onto the roundabout, but I sat there for 2 hours waiting for Jaguar Assistance. I couldn't even push it to the side of the road because the transmission was locked. Annoyingly, there was nothing wrong with the car, other than that its brain told it not to allow me to use it, even though I could start the engine. It's only on diesels, as the software change was introduced to fix a different problem with the Diesel Particulate Filter. However, the technician diagnosed it over the phone and arrived as quickly as he could. He said they aren't currently going to breakdowns which are off the road. In case you don't know, England is largely closed at the moment because of snow and freezing temperatures. I tried the AA as well - they quoted six hours. SignatureDavid >> Some of us are old and sentimental, and are touched by all sorts of >> trivial happenings. Whether we would tell anyone else depends on the [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >I tried the AA as well - they quoted six hours. An interesting, and almost moving tale. I don't know whether my ETC is a diff lock or what. The handbook says that if the light comes on (indicating wheel spin) one should turn ETC off. The ETC switch is immediately adjacent to the gear lever on the driver's side. My drive is snowbound so I tried it with ETC on this morning, and slipped. However, one of the three gearbox settings is "snow" and with that I couldn't make the wheels slip. I also have a button marked "gearbox override". I have no idea what it does and will have to look at the book tomorrow, but if it lets one select gears manually, that could be the solution to computer glitches. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > An interesting, and almost moving tale. I don't know whether my ETC > is a diff lock or what. The handbook says that if the light comes on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > book tomorrow, but if it lets one select gears manually, that could be > the solution to computer glitches. It's not really a Diff-Lock, which was a mechanical device I think - this is some sort of electronic Traction Control which I think is called DTC, presumably the same thing as your ETC. This car doesn't have a Snow setting, but my previous cars did and I missed it this morning - it locks the transmission in third gear (but will never change down to second or first) which is what I would do if I were trying to drive carefully on a snowy or icy surface with a manual gearbox. However, I love the Jaguar's gearbox, which pulls back to D for general driving, and can be pushed sideways and away (a sort of J shape) allowing one to reduce the highest gear to suit driving conditions in sort of limited semi-manual fashion. SignatureDavid >> An interesting, and almost moving tale. I don't know whether my ETC >> is a diff lock or what. The handbook says that if the light comes on [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >allowing one to reduce the highest gear to suit driving conditions in >sort of limited semi-manual fashion. I notice when I set mine to "snow" the dashboard display shows "ETC snow". My gearbox works similarly to yours, in that the stick can be moved to the right from "drive" into another slot, which changes up a gear when the stick is pushed forward or down a gear when pulled back. The third position of the gearbox control, in addition to normal and snow, is power, which sets a higher RPM limit on each gear except top before changing up. SignatureRobin (BrE) Herts, England > The third position of the gearbox control, in addition to normal and > snow, is power, which sets a higher RPM limit on each gear except top > before changing up. I think that's what's called "Sport" on mine. SignatureDavid > I tried the AA as well - they quoted six hours. Not bad. Our RAC frequently quotes an hour and a half on perfectly fine days. I wonder whether that fault is confined to Jags - sometimes my brain decides the body is not going to move too. SignatureRob Bannister >> I tried the AA as well - they quoted six hours. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I wonder whether that fault is confined to Jags - sometimes my brain > decides the body is not going to move too. Have you been spinning your feet on snow? SignatureDavid >>>On 17 Dec 2009, Chuck Riggs wrote >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >they know nothing about anything but have lots to say about >everything. You mean I have to know something to post here? I still think we'd do well to have a few professional politicians here, we have so many amateurs. (Like myself.) SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. >>> This brings up another tack. When and why [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I tend to describe myself as a Londoner, although it's a long time since >I lived there. I am also English. You will always be English, but after a time away from London, you are, IMO, no longer a Londoner. I'm in a similar boat. Even though I will always be an American, I've been away from Maine too long to call myself either a Mainer or a Maniac, as many Maine natives and a handful of residents from "away", do. SignatureRegards, Chuck Riggs, An American who lives near Dublin, Ireland and usually spells in BrE >>> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >herself Yorkshire before English. People from Cornwall may not include >English in there at all. Aue is probably the only place where I might say "I'm a Brit". I don't find I'm often asked my nationality in conversation -- it's more often "Where are you from?", to which I might reply "the United Kingdom" if asked by an official in another country, and "England" in casual or social situations. On official forms I tend to put "English" if I think I can get away with it, but I suspect this isn't what the form-designer has in mind; I suspect this because I don't recall ever seeing "English" or "England" on a drop-down choose-from list. I've never been chalenged: as long as every box has been completed, who cares? SignatureKaty Jennison spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ >"English" if I think I can get away with it, but I suspect this isn't >what the form-designer has in mind; I suspect this because I don't >recall ever seeing "English" or "England" on a drop-down choose-from >list. I've never been chalenged: as long as every box has been >completed, who cares? "England" does not have an ISO 3166 country code, so therefore it doesn't exist (or at least, it is subnational and therefore irrelevant) to the database designer. Whenever you see one of those menus, it's almost certain that the database uses ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes. (You'll know for certain if the options include the Crown Dependencies or the "United States Minor Outlying Islands".) -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >> Speak for yourself. *I* am a native of England. > >This brings up another tack. When and why would someone say "I'm >English" vs. "I'm a Brit" ? Interchangeable? Something PC involved >here? Please elaborate. Great Britain contains the nations[*] of Wales, Scotland, and England. "I'm Brit" says you're from any one of them, "I'm English" says you're from England. [*] Or countries, or whatever they are. That's a different topic, though. Signature************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps * > Similarly, if you say "Her grandfather was born in Calcutta", your > listener knows what you mean by 'Indian'. The Duke of Wellington dealt with this more than 150 years ago. Born in Ireland, he disliked being called Irish and explained: "Being born in a stable does not make you a horse." SignatureDon Phillipson Carlsbad Springs (Ottawa, Canada) >> Similarly, if you say "Her grandfather was born in Calcutta", your >> listener knows what you mean by 'Indian'. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Irish and explained: "Being born in a stable does not > make you a horse." I should have finished reading the thread! This is the quotation I was mis-remembering. SignatureCheryl Holger wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:24:57 +0100: > here is a new query. When I read or hear about someone who has > Indian blood how do I know whether her/his ancestor came from India or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mountain man in the Rockies. She has Indian blood." What do > you think? I'd be more inclined to say "Indian ancestry" these days tho' I guess you could do genomic typing from a blood sample. Outside the US, I would assume ancestors from the Indian subcontinent but there is vast range of racial types there. It is interesting how the term "Anglo-Indian" changed from once meaning "born in India" to having Indian ancestry during the Raj. In the US, I'd probably say "American Indian ancestry" if it was appropriate. A number of Americans have some American Indian ancestry and, these days, are often quite proud of it, however minimal it may be. The professor I worked with at Cornell certainly was. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not > Holger wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:24:57 +0100: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > "Anglo-Indian" changed from once meaning "born in India" to having > Indian ancestry during the Raj. "Creole" has made the same transition. I suppose it began by being used as a polite euphemism, with an intermediate application to those of mixed ancestry. In English usage: did you mean "changed ... during the Raj" (for which I would have used a comma after "'having... ancestry'") or "'having Indian ancestry during the Raj'"? > [Indian claim] CDB wrote on Wed, 9 Dec 2009 09:51:42 -0500: >> Holger wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:24:57 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >> [Indian claim] Yes, I'd have used a comma too, if I'd thought about it. SignatureJames Silverton Potomac, Maryland Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not [...] > In English usage: did you mean "changed ... during the Raj" (for which > I would have used a comma after "'having... ancestry'") or "'having > Indian ancestry during the Raj'"? Let's remember that this now-popular expression "the Raj" is irrational and wasn't much, if at all, used during British Rule. The word just means "rule", "regime", etc, and has in itself no implication of Britishness. I don't recall hearing it or reading it from older people who'd been involved. SignatureMike. >Let's remember that this now-popular expression "the Raj" is irrational >and wasn't much, if at all, used during British Rule. The word just >means "rule", "regime", etc, and has in itself no implication of >Britishness. I don't recall hearing it or reading it from older people >who'd been involved. No more than "l'ancien regime" implies the pre-Revolutionary French aristocracy, you mean? -GAWollman SignatureGarrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft wollman@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993 >[...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Britishness. I don't recall hearing it or reading it from older people >who'd been involved. Agreed. It does seem to be a retrospective title. The fuller version is "British Raj". SignaturePeter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english) > [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > implication of Britishness. I don't recall hearing it or reading it > from older people who'd been involved. But later on it was all the Raj. > > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > But later on it was all the Raj. Roger that. -- Jerry Friedman > "Creole" has made the same transition. I suppose it began by being > used as a polite euphemism, with an intermediate application to those > of mixed ancestry. OED: "A. n. In the West Indies and other parts of America, Mauritius, etc.: orig. A person born and naturalized in the country, but of European (usually Spanish or French) or of African Negro race: the name having no connotation of colour, and in its reference to origin being distinguished on the one hand from born in Europe (or Africa), and on the other hand from aboriginal. a. But now, usually, = creole white, a descendant of European settlers, born and naturalized in those colonies or regions, and more or less modified in type by the climate and surroundings. The local use varies: in the European colonies of the W. Indies it is usually applied to the descendants of any Europeans there naturalized; in Mauritius to the naturalized French population. It is not now used of the people of Spanish race in the independent South American states, though sometimes of the corresponding natives of Mexico, and in the U.S. it is applied only to the French-speaking descendants of the early French settlers in Louisiana, etc." Note that Creole != Cajun. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> "Creole" has made the same transition. I suppose it began by being >> used as a polite euphemism, with an intermediate application to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Note that Creole != Cajun. Agreed, but perhaps it = Black who shares Cajun culture and probably has some Cajun ancestors. A cousin of mine is married to a Cape-Breton Acadienne, and when I went down East for the wedding I found I got on very well with her grandmother. A year or two later, I saw a Black Louisiana woman in a TV documentary who was the granny's spit and image, except for being very black, speaking Cajun French (the doc was in French). Creole lady, for sure. Have we mentioned "zydeco" here before? Try saying "Ces gens-là, ils mangent souvent des haricots," with a Louisiana accent (and making the liaison). Beaner music. More in my response to Peter. >Have we mentioned "zydeco" here before? Try saying "Ces gens-là, ils >mangent souvent des haricots," with a Louisiana accent (and making the >liaison). Beaner music. Interesting choice of description there. "Beaner", in the US, is a derogatory term to describe Mexicans. "Beaner music" would be the type of music you'd hear in a Mexican restaurant. Yes, I know that "zydeco" comes from "green beans" or "snap beans", but the term "beaner" - as we use it - comes from the type of beans used in Mexican food. As a follower of folk music, I'm quite familiar with zydeco. There's usually a zydeco group at every folk festival. Enjoyable to watch, as well as to listen to, because the musicians appear to be having so much fun playing. That's not always the case in music. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> Have we mentioned "zydeco" here before? Try saying "Ces gens-là, >> ils mangent souvent des haricots," with a Louisiana accent (and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > derogatory term to describe Mexicans. "Beaner music" would be the > type of music you'd hear in a Mexican restaurant. Maybe that was a little mischievous, but I thought the coincidence was funny; and I have had the Firesign Theatre on my mind. They divided the human race into four types: Beaners , Bozos, and a couple I would have to find mislaid album covers in order to bring to memory, on the basis of psychological characteristics, not primarily of race. I remember that Beanerhood involved a dislike of crowds; most American Indians were Beaners. The word "haricot" is used for things like green beans in English, but in French it can also be the kind Mexicans (and others -- me, for instance) use as a staple. Atilf does add that the word is used "en particulier" for the kind of bean you said. > Yes, I know that "zydeco" comes from "green beans" or "snap beans", > but the term "beaner" - as we use it - comes from the type of beans [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to watch, as well as to listen to, because the musicians appear to > be having so much fun playing. That's not always the case in music. I like it too. And Mexican music. >>> Have we mentioned "zydeco" here before? Try saying "Ces gens-là, ils >>> mangent souvent des haricots," with a Louisiana accent (and making the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to find mislaid album covers in order to bring to memory, on the basis > of psychological characteristics, not primarily of race. Bozos, Boogies, Beaners, Zips and Berserkers, saith many a web page. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >>>> Have we mentioned "zydeco" here before? Try saying "Ces >>>> gens-là, ils mangent souvent des haricots," with a Louisiana [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bozos, Boogies, Beaners, Zips and Berserkers, saith many a web page. Ah. Thank you, and them. It was a long time before I could listen to that record all the way through. A lot of it is like the stream-of-consciousness babble that goes through my mind as I fall asleep, and I usually did fall asleep before the first side was finished. Must have dreamed the four races. > Agreed, but perhaps it = Black who shares Cajun culture and probably > has some Cajun ancestors. A cousin of mine is married to a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > spit and image, except for being very black, speaking Cajun French > (the doc was in French). Creole lady, for sure. Not in Louisiana she wasn't Creole. She was Cajun. The Creoles lived in and near the city of New Orleans and claimed descent from the 18th century French and, to a much lesser extent, Spanish settlers. The Cajuns lived in the swamplands west and south of New Orleans and were descended from the Acadians. The cultural differences were great, though much attenuated in modern times. WIWAL growing up in New Orleans, Cajuns were considered to be ignorant rural folk who talked funny, while Creoles were Kings of Mardi Gras and leaders of high society. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >> Agreed, but perhaps it = Black who shares Cajun culture and >> probably has some Cajun ancestors. A cousin of mine is married to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Orleans and were descended from the Acadians. The cultural > differences were great, though much attenuated in modern times. Are you saying that Blacks were/are considered Cajun? I didn't realise that. How does that use of "Creole" march with the AHD definition I quoted in my response to Peter? > WIWAL growing up in New Orleans, Cajuns were considered to be > ignorant rural folk who talked funny, while Creoles were Kings of > Mardi Gras and leaders of high society. Were those Creoles Black, White, or (perhaps most likely) of mixed race? > >> Agreed, but perhaps it = Black who shares Cajun culture and > >> probably has some Cajun ancestors. A cousin of mine is married to [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > realise that. How does that use of "Creole" march with the AHD > definition I quoted in my response to Peter? I guess they can be. Ditto for Creoles, according to the dictionary. WIWAL I never encountered or heard of any black Cajuns or Creoles. > > WIWAL growing up in New Orleans, Cajuns were considered to be > > ignorant rural folk who talked funny, while Creoles were Kings of > > Mardi Gras and leaders of high society. > > > Were those Creoles Black, White, or (perhaps most likely) of mixed > race? Creoles and Cajuns were, as far as I knew, exclusively white. We find nowadays black musicians who are called Cajuns and dictionaries that say Creoles can be black. I don't know that the latter usage has ever been common in New Orleans. I suppose there are blacks, descended from the slaves of Cajuns, who have lived for generations in Cajun culture so naturally consider themselves Cajun even though it may be that none of their ancestors passed through Acadia. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email >>>> Agreed, but perhaps it = Black who shares Cajun culture and >>>> probably has some Cajun ancestors. A cousin of mine is married [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > in Cajun culture so naturally consider themselves Cajun even though > it may be that none of their ancestors passed through Acadia. Maybe the transition came about chiefly in the usage of outsiders. Wikip, for what it's worth, says that the lyricist for "Way Down Yonder", Henry Creamer, was born in Richmond, VA and worked in New York. Also, something that I didn't remember, that they're "Creole *babies* (not 'ladies') with flashing eyes". > Creoles and Cajuns were, as far as I knew, exclusively white. We > find nowadays black musicians who are called Cajuns and dictionaries [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > in Cajun culture so naturally consider themselves Cajun even though > it may be that none of their ancestors passed through Acadia. I recall an episode of the short-lived TV series _Frank's Place_ (about a northern black man, a college professor, who inherits and winds up deciding to run a restaurant in New Orleans) in which Frank is invited to join the "Creole Club", an exclusive, all-black club. It comes out that Frank is the first person so invited who fails the "paper bag test" by having skin darker than a brown paper bag. (Frank winds up deciding that he's lived his life being the only black member in this group and that group, but he'd be damned if he was going to be the token black in an all-black club.) SignatureEvan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------ HP Laboratories |First Law of Anthropology: 1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 | If they're doing something you Palo Alto, CA 94304 | don't understand, it's either an | isolated lunatic, a religious kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | ritual, or art. (650)857-7572 http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ >> Creoles and Cajuns were, as far as I knew, exclusively white. We find >> nowadays black musicians who are called Cajuns and dictionaries that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that group, but he'd be damned if he was going to be the token black in > an all-black club.) That was a fine series! The restaurant bore an uncanny resemblace to Joseph Sisko's place, now that I think about it. Might be the same place, you know. SignatureRoland Hutchinson He calls himself "the Garden State's leading violist da gamba," ... comparable to being ruler of an exceptionally small duchy. --Newark (NJ) Star Ledger ( http://tinyurl.com/RolandIsNJ ) >> Holger wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:24:57 +0100: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >used as a polite euphemism, with an intermediate application to those >of mixed ancestry. Creole means many different things in different places. In some places it referrs to ancestry (people who were born in a place, but whose ancestors came from somewhere else). In other places it refers to language, where the language is of mixed ancestry. SignatureSteve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk >>> Holger wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:24:57 +0100: >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > whose ancestors came from somewhere else). In other places it refers to > language, where the language is of mixed ancestry. Let us not forget the three old ladies with flashing eyes. SignaturePeter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org For an e-mail address, see my web page. >>>> Holger wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:24:57 +0100: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > Let us not forget the three old ladies with flashing eyes. That's the transition I was thinking of. It's a borrowed French word, and the atilf says clearly that it originally meant a white person born in the colonies. They mention the usage "noir créole" for Blacks born there and not in Africa. "(Personne) qui est de race blanche, d'ascendance européenne, originaire des plus anciennes colonies d'outre-mer. Planteur créole, populations créoles; un créole, une créole. Les hommes de couleur (...) domineront un jour la race amollie des créoles (A. FRANCE, Pierre bl., 1905, p. 223). P. ext. Nègre, noir créole. Né dans les colonies (et non en Afrique). Les noirs créoles [de Saint-Domingue] professaient (...) le plus profond mépris pour les nègres congos (HUGO, Bug-Jargal, 1826, p. 51)." As in Peter's song, it has come, in some contexts, to mean persons of mixed race. The OneLook AHD has "4. often creole A person of mixed Black and European ancestry who speaks a creolized language, especially one based on French or Spanish." I agree entirely that the word has a number of other meanings. On Dec 9, 3:43 am, the Omrud <usenet.om...@gEXPUNGEmail.com> wrote: British is my > nationality, but I *feel* English and European. This is what I was getting at. To this American, I don't understand the distinction. Isn't England a sovereign nation? Maybe I need to bone up on the 'composition' of the UK and Great Britain. Would an analogy be....that Maine is part of New England, where New England is NOT a country, or state but a region? signed, Ignorant Amurikan |
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.