[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Oh, and you weren't using the term as a 
 synecdoche, either. Might want to look that
 up too.

I looked it up, but I don't know if it was correct, 'cuz being too
lazy to read Angies whole post. Would Metonymy be a more appropriate term?

 And its as a possessive never, EVER has an
 apostrophe.

Judy, don't come down too hard down on her. This would be a typical
German thing to do. In German, possessives are written with
apostrophes. The problem in Germany right now is, that the English
usage has mixed through popular culture so much that both versions are
officially accepted now.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  And its as a possessive never, EVER has an
  apostrophe.
 
 Judy, don't come down too hard down on her. This would be a typical
 German thing to do. In German, possessives are written with
 apostrophes. The problem in Germany right now is, that the English
 usage has mixed through popular culture so much that both versions 
 are officially accepted now.

That's what illiterates would have you believe. :-)

It's not true, no matter what you might have heard. 
The misuse of 'its' and 'it's' is one of the easiest 
ways to tell whether a writer of English cares enough 
about the readers of his or her writing to use it 
properly. I would venture to say that there is no 
book of English grammar out there that presents 
this misuse as acceptable.

English is a *bitch* to learn. It often seems to
have more exceptions than it does rules, and many
of the rules don't seem to make sense. While what
you say about accepted usage is true about some
things (like the use of try and do something...
instead of the proper try to do something...), 
I for one hope that Americans never get so dumbed 
down as to forget how to properly use 'its'
and 'it's' properly. 

The bottom line of language misuse, in my opinion,
is what we've seen here recently. Someone makes 
a mistake, one that they've been making for a 
long time, someone else corrects it, and the first
person, rather than wising up and *learning a little
something*, claims that they misspelled the word or
used the improper grammar on purpose for effect.

I'm with Judy on this one -- railing about the 
quality of US education while demonstrating an
appalling disregard for the language that educa-
tion is based on just rings false and conveys a
sense of laziness. It's like saying, Yeah...its sad 
that there all so dumm...not like me, and expecting 
people to take you seriously.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 The bottom line of language misuse, in my opinion,
 is what we've seen here recently. Someone makes 
 a mistake, one that they've been making for a 
 long time, someone else corrects it, and the first
 person, rather than wising up and *learning a little
 something*, claims that they misspelled the word or
 used the improper grammar on purpose for effect.

For the record, I may be a little sensitive
to this issue right now because I'm a stranger
in a strange land, trying to learn Spanish as
an absolute beginner in that language.

If no one ever *corrected* my stupid mistakes
(and boy! do I make a lot of them), I'd never
learn that they *are* mistakes, and how to use
the words or phrases or idioms properly. 

One of the things I liked most about France 
was that most of the people I encountered there,
when I'd make a mistake like using the wrong
gender for a noun, would gently repeat the
phrase or words I'd just misused to me, but
using them properly, correcting the mistake as
they repeated them. This wasn't done in any
kind of putdown way...it was more like the 
person was pretending to repeat what I'd said 
to verify that they'd heard it correctly, but 
*at the same time*, correcting my grammar, 
very gently. 

I learned a great deal from people that way,
and continue to do so here in Spain, where the
same technique seems to be employed on a regular
basis. I think it's a very neat form of social
etiquette, a gentle form of teaching and of 
*helping* us newcomers learn the language. 
Those who aren't interested in learning the 
language probably don't even notice that it's 
going on -- they probably think that all these 
people repeating what they've said to them 
are hard of hearing.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   And its as a possessive never, EVER has an
   apostrophe.
  
  Judy, don't come down too hard down on her. This would be a typical
  German thing to do. In German, possessives are written with
  apostrophes. The problem in Germany right now is, that the English
  usage has mixed through popular culture so much that both versions 
  are officially accepted now.
 
 That's what illiterates would have you believe. :-)
 
 It's not true, no matter what you might have heard. 
 The misuse of 'its' and 'it's' is one of the easiest 
 ways to tell whether a writer of English cares enough 
 about the readers of his or her writing to use it 
 properly. I would venture to say that there is no 
 book of English grammar out there that presents 
 this misuse as acceptable.

Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again:
Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive)
Example: Michael's Brief
Correct English: Michaels post.
The mixed English German, Michaels Brief, formerly wrong has now been
labeled as acceptable use in the Duden. Both Michaels Brief and
Michael's Brief are correct now - in German.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again:
 Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive)
 Example: Michael's Brief
 Correct English: Michaels post.
 The mixed English German, Michaels Brief, formerly wrong has 
 now been labeled as acceptable use in the Duden. Both Michaels 
 Brief and Michael's Brief are correct now - in German.

I stand corrected, but really...how sad.

One thing you've got to say for the French is 
that they *protect their language*. Learning
to use it properly is basically the foundation
of their educational system, and a French per-
song who *doesn't* use it properly is viewed 
with a certain amount of disdain by other French. 

They've got whole *departments* in France whose
job it is to try to protect the language from
creeping bastardizations, such as the use of
the English words weekend. Some could say 
that it's a fool's errand, trying to protect
the purity of the language this way, but I
admire it. 

The problems of internationalization and English
having become the de facto lingua franca of 
our age make it really *hard* to keep one's
original language intact and preserve its 
beauty. Maybe a third of the billboards and ads
I see here in Spain have several English words
in them, used because it's assumed that most
people will understand them. At the same time,
it creates a kind of gibberish Spanish, 
similar to the language of Cityspeak used
in the film Blade Runner. That was a hodgepodge
of English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and a 
dozen other languages, all thrown into a blender.
While it is *natural* for such hodge-podge 
languages to develop, part of me still apprec-
iates those who take the time to learn and
preserve the original languages themselves.

Consider it an affectation on my part if you
want. As a writer I invent new language when
I think it might be fun to do so, but I try to
have learned the old language first. In a way
not doing this is like painters who dive straight 
into abstract art, without ever learning how to
paint still lives or landscapes. One of the things
that made Picasso's and Dali's forays into new
ways of painting *work* is that they had *done
their homework*. If you look at their early
work, they had traditional styles of painting
just *nailed* before they moved past them. 

I guess I feel similarly about language. It's
one thing when James Joyce reinvents the language,
knowing what it is he *is* reinventing, and it's
quite another when a rap star reinvents the 
language, with *no clue* what it is he's doing.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Vaj]

On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:

I've lived through carpet bombing.  It was called saturation bombing  
back then. I was using the term as a synecdoche.  a



That's how I got what you said, it wasn't about the oil wells per se,  
but the collective idea of what that implied and on another level  
symbolic image to imply wide devastation -- am I getting that right?


In fact, presumably they'd nuke all the military installations, esp.  
nuclear facilities. What they'd like to think of as a surgical  
strike. 

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  Oh, and you weren't using the term as a 
  synecdoche, either. Might want to look that
  up too.
 
 I looked it up, but I don't know if it was correct, 'cuz being too
 lazy to read Angies whole post. Would Metonymy be a more
 appropriate term?

Carpet bombing is a figure of speech,
but it doesn't really fit the definitions
of either synecdoche or metonymy. Wikipedia
has a pretty good article on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synecdoche

But the main problem is that it's an
*inappropriate* figure of speech for the act
of bombing oil wells. Carpet or saturation
bombing is used to destroy military
installations, supplies, and personnel, and
to demoralize the population of an area.

For oil wells, you have to do *targeted*
bombing. But the U.S. wouldn't be bombing
Iran's oil wells in the first place; we'd
want to capture them, not destroy them.

And finally, carpet bombing per se pretty
much went out with the Vietnam War. Our
bombing technology is so much more efficient
now that carpet bombing--even in the appropriate
situation--would be wasteful and inefficient.

  And its as a possessive never, EVER has an
  apostrophe.
 
 Judy, don't come down too hard down on her. This would be a
 typical German thing to do.

Angela, by her own account, has been teaching
at high levels in the U.S. for many years and
has repeatedly emphasized here how poor her
students' English skills are. If she's in a
position to make that kind of judgment, her own
English skills ought to be above reproach.



 In German, possessives are written with
 apostrophes. The problem in Germany right now is, that the English
 usage has mixed through popular culture so much that both versions 
are
 officially accepted now.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again:
  Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive)
  Example: Michael's Brief
  Correct English: Michaels post.
  The mixed English German, Michaels Brief, formerly wrong has 
  now been labeled as acceptable use in the Duden. Both Michaels 
  Brief and Michael's Brief are correct now - in German.
 
 I stand corrected, but really...how sad.

Yes. There is a certain amount of awareness though, mainly through a
guy called Bastian Sick
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastian_Sick

'Sick wrote three books on common German grammatical mistakes, that
were critically acclaimed for their humour[1] and have become very
popular in Germany.[2] The titles of the books called Der Dativ ist
dem Genitiv sein Tod (literally The Dative is the Genitive its Death)
use puns employing the his genitive, which in official German is
incorrect and often considered unaesthetic, instead of the correct
genitive case.'

We were very much americanized after the war, maybe more than other
European nations, for some time our country was virtually
non-existent, then the Americans re-educated us. Besides that, German
as a language is hard to sing, so through music and advertisement
english is omnipresent in Germany.

 One thing you've got to say for the French is 
 that they *protect their language*. Learning
 to use it properly is basically the foundation
 of their educational system, and a French per-
 song who *doesn't* use it properly is viewed 
 with a certain amount of disdain by other French. 

Surely very different. But then, French don't like to speak anything
else than french, Germans do like to learn other languages.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
snip
  It's not true, no matter what you might have heard. 
  The misuse of 'its' and 'it's' is one of the easiest 
  ways to tell whether a writer of English cares enough 
  about the readers of his or her writing to use it 
  properly. I would venture to say that there is no 
  book of English grammar out there that presents 
  this misuse as acceptable.
 
 Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again:
 Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive)
 Example: Michael's Brief
 Correct English: Michaels post.

Nonono!  Michael's post is correct in English.

But no apostrophe is used with the pronoun:
Michael's post is very long, but it's not
long enough to cover its topic.

It's is a contraction of it is (or it
has); its is the possessive.

Its is like his and hers and theirs.
But unfortunately you'll see not only it's
for the possessive, but also her's and
their's sometimes.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 They've got whole *departments* in France whose
 job it is to try to protect the language from
 creeping bastardizations, such as the use of
 the English words weekend. Some could say 
 that it's a fool's errand, trying to protect
 the purity of the language this way, but I
 admire it.
 
 The problems of internationalization and English
 having become the de facto lingua franca of 
 our age make it really *hard* to keep one's
 original language intact and preserve its 
 beauty.

Actually, one of the reasons English *has*
become an international language is because its
vocabulary is so rich with words borrowed from
other languages. By some estimates, only a third
of the words used in English came from the
original Anglo-Saxon (although these words are
the most frequently used).

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
 
  I've lived through carpet bombing.  It was called saturation
  bombing back then. I was using the term as a synecdoche.  a
 
 That's how I got what you said, it wasn't about the oil wells
 per se, but the collective idea of what that implied and on
 another level symbolic image to imply wide devastation -- am I 
 getting that right?

Nope. The context was specifically oil wells--how
the Chinese would react if we bombed Iran's oil
wells, given that Iran is a major source of oil for
the Chinese.

But by the same token, if the reason we go to war
with Iran is to take control of its oil, as has 
been alleged, the last thing we're likely to do is
bomb its oil wells. (Not to mention that even if
we did, the bombing would have to be highly
targeted.)

 In fact, presumably they'd nuke all the military installations,
 esp. nuclear facilities. What they'd like to think of as a
 surgical strike.

Correct. And carpet bombing is now largely outdated
given the capacity for surgical strikes.

What Angela wanted to do was to convey brutality
and ruthlessness on the part of the U.S. As apt
as that judgment may be, her choice of words
didn't fit at all with the context.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[t3rinity]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
   It's not true, no matter what you might have heard. 
   The misuse of 'its' and 'it's' is one of the easiest 
   ways to tell whether a writer of English cares enough 
   about the readers of his or her writing to use it 
   properly. I would venture to say that there is no 
   book of English grammar out there that presents 
   this misuse as acceptable.
  
  Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again:
  Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive)
  Example: Michael's Brief
  Correct English: Michaels post.
 
 Nonono!  Michael's post is correct in English.

You are right Judy, I got confused, it's just as you say the other way
round: Michael's post is correct english, Michaels Brief is correct
ORIGINAL German, but use of apostrophe in german for genitive has been
now accepted. Sorry.
 
 But no apostrophe is used with the pronoun:
 Michael's post is very long, but it's not
 long enough to cover its topic.
 
 It's is a contraction of it is (or it
 has); its is the possessive.
 
 Its is like his and hers and theirs.
 But unfortunately you'll see not only it's
 for the possessive, but also her's and
 their's sometimes.

Okay, didn't know this. Surely it's, if allowed would be confused with
'it is'

Re: [FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Vaj]

On Oct 28, 2007, at 10:41 AM, authfriend wrote:


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


 On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:

  I've lived through carpet bombing. It was called saturation
  bombing back then. I was using the term as a synecdoche. a

 That's how I got what you said, it wasn't about the oil wells
 per se, but the collective idea of what that implied and on
 another level symbolic image to imply wide devastation -- am I
 getting that right?

Nope. The context was specifically oil wells--how
the Chinese would react if we bombed Iran's oil
wells, given that Iran is a major source of oil for
the Chinese.



That's one take, but it really depends on what Angela's intent was.  
Maybe it was about bombing oil wells very specifically. I assumed what  
I said as a possible interpretation, having listened to A. for a  
couple of years.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Duveyoung]

Judy,

It's not only about getting oil.  It's about making Iraq and Iran
oil UNAVAILABLE.  Then the price of oil goes up and making all of
BigOil's wells vastly more profitable to pump.  The USA only started
importing oil when it got too expensive to pump oil in the USA when
OPEC was pricing oil at $40/barrel.  Now, with oil approaching $100 a
barrel, Texas crude is a profit waiting to be pumped.

Iraq hasn't been pumping much oil due to pipeline destruction.  Iran's
ability to pump can be pretty easily disrupted for years, and this is
what Russia and China fear, cuz then they'd have to pay more for oil
gotten elsewhere.  A whole lotta buncha more.

And, hey, new idea: why not carpet bombing?  Aren't those Persians
famous for carpets?  Maybe one cannot bomb anything in Iran without
hitting a carpet!!!  War, such a funny thingie.

Edg


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
 
  
  On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
  
   I've lived through carpet bombing.  It was called saturation
   bombing back then. I was using the term as a synecdoche.  a
  
  That's how I got what you said, it wasn't about the oil wells
  per se, but the collective idea of what that implied and on
  another level symbolic image to imply wide devastation -- am I 
  getting that right?
 
 Nope. The context was specifically oil wells--how
 the Chinese would react if we bombed Iran's oil
 wells, given that Iran is a major source of oil for
 the Chinese.
 
 But by the same token, if the reason we go to war
 with Iran is to take control of its oil, as has 
 been alleged, the last thing we're likely to do is
 bomb its oil wells. (Not to mention that even if
 we did, the bombing would have to be highly
 targeted.)
 
  In fact, presumably they'd nuke all the military installations,
  esp. nuclear facilities. What they'd like to think of as a
  surgical strike.
 
 Correct. And carpet bombing is now largely outdated
 given the capacity for surgical strikes.
 
 What Angela wanted to do was to convey brutality
 and ruthlessness on the part of the U.S. As apt
 as that judgment may be, her choice of words
 didn't fit at all with the context.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Oct 28, 2007, at 10:41 AM, authfriend wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote:
  
  
   On Oct 27, 2007, at 8:08 PM, Angela Mailander wrote:
  
I've lived through carpet bombing. It was called saturation
bombing back then. I was using the term as a synecdoche. a
  
   That's how I got what you said, it wasn't about the oil wells
   per se, but the collective idea of what that implied and on
   another level symbolic image to imply wide devastation -- am I
   getting that right?
 
  Nope. The context was specifically oil wells--how
  the Chinese would react if we bombed Iran's oil
  wells, given that Iran is a major source of oil for
  the Chinese.
 
 That's one take, but it really depends on what Angela's intent 
 was. Maybe it was about bombing oil wells very specifically.

Maybe? I just told you, it *was* specifically
about bombing oil wells:

Iran is also China's major source of oil.  Would they sit
on their hands while we carpet bomb their oil wells?

Post #152682, if you want to check.






 I assumed what  
 I said as a possible interpretation, having listened to A. for a  
 couple of years.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Judy,
 
 It's not only about getting oil.  It's about making Iraq and Iran
 oil UNAVAILABLE.  Then the price of oil goes up and making all of
 BigOil's wells vastly more profitable to pump.

Doubt it. Oil is in too short supply and too crucial
to the very shaky U.S. economy to risk making any
source of it unavailable or driving the price too high
here.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
 snip
  They've got whole *departments* in France whose
  job it is to try to protect the language from
  creeping bastardizations, such as the use of
  the English words weekend. Some could say 
  that it's a fool's errand, trying to protect
  the purity of the language this way, but I
  admire it.
  
  The problems of internationalization and English
  having become the de facto lingua franca of 
  our age make it really *hard* to keep one's
  original language intact and preserve its 
  beauty.
 
 Actually, one of the reasons English *has*
 become an international language is because its
 vocabulary is so rich with words borrowed from
 other languages. By some estimates, only a third
 of the words used in English came from the
 original Anglo-Saxon (although these words are
 the most frequently used).



I've always undertood one of the reasons English was the worlds 
second language is because it's the language of science, which used 
to be german (and before that latin) every scientist had to speak it 
or not get on very well at conferences.

BTW; all you decent writers are making me painfully aware my grammar 
is crap, I think I can spell alright but apostrophes' I'm ashamed to 
say I don't understand.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[jim_flanegin]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Judy,
  
  It's not only about getting oil.  It's about making Iraq and Iran
  oil UNAVAILABLE.  Then the price of oil goes up and making all of
  BigOil's wells vastly more profitable to pump.
 
 Doubt it. Oil is in too short supply and too crucial
 to the very shaky U.S. economy to risk making any
 source of it unavailable or driving the price too high
 here.

Agreed-- big oil doesn't want to kill the goose that lays the golden 
egg, only strangle it for awhile. Besides they need no justification 
to do so as radical as another war-- they just take a few refineries 
offline for crucial maintenance, let their available inventory fall, 
supply and demand kicks in, and voila! instant profits.

In terms of this being a conspiracy, it doesn't even have to be done 
behind closed doors. Many think that the way to catch these 
monopolists is to find the minutes of a meeting where they all sit 
around and say, yeah let's do this, this and this. 

They are smarter than that. All they have to do is have their ops 
managers attend an industry event and some analyst speaking there that 
recommends x,y, and z to increase profits. Then they all do it. No 
conspiracy or back room deals to uncover. Its all for the seminar 
attendees to read, study and enact. Not rocket science.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, hugheshugo 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ 
wrote:
  snip
   They've got whole *departments* in France whose
   job it is to try to protect the language from
   creeping bastardizations, such as the use of
   the English words weekend. Some could say 
   that it's a fool's errand, trying to protect
   the purity of the language this way, but I
   admire it.
   
   The problems of internationalization and English
   having become the de facto lingua franca of 
   our age make it really *hard* to keep one's
   original language intact and preserve its 
   beauty.
  
  Actually, one of the reasons English *has*
  become an international language is because its
  vocabulary is so rich with words borrowed from
  other languages. By some estimates, only a third
  of the words used in English came from the
  original Anglo-Saxon (although these words are
  the most frequently used).
 
 I've always undertood one of the reasons English was the worlds 
 second language is because it's the language of science, which used 
 to be german (and before that latin) every scientist had to speak 
 it or not get on very well at conferences.

That too. English has its disadvantages (spelling,
lack of case distinctions), but it has a *huge*
vocabulary, which means it's useful in a wide
variety of fields and is capable of very fine
distinctions and nuances.

 BTW; all you decent writers are making me painfully aware my 
 grammar is crap, I think I can spell alright but apostrophes'
 I'm ashamed to say I don't understand.

This is a conversational forum, not an English exam.
Relax! You get more points for content than most here,
and that's a great deal more important.

The only reason anybody is beating up on Angela is
that she's elevated herself to a pedestal as a judge
of English skills when her own leave something to be
desired--and won't even admit it when she makes a
mistake.

We all make grammar and spelling mistakes, including
this professional editor.

Apostrophes in English are pretty straightforward;
it wouldn't take much for you to master their use
if you wanted to consult a grammar book.

Its vs. it's is easy to figure out--if you can
substitute it is or it has and still have the
sentence make sense, then it's is correct. If not,
no apostrophe. Or, if you could substitute his or
hers, then its is correct. (There is never, EVER
an apostrophe in hers or theirs, nor are
apostrophes ever used to form plurals, except
perhaps with numbers and letters--e.g., I got three
A's and two B's, or Take all the 7's out of the
deck.)

Re: [FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Bhairitu]

TurquoiseB wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 Please Barry, I was referring to the German use. Here again:
 Apostrophe is correct for German possessive (genitive)
 Example: Michael's Brief
 Correct English: Michaels post.
 The mixed English German, Michaels Brief, formerly wrong has 
 now been labeled as acceptable use in the Duden. Both Michaels 
 Brief and Michael's Brief are correct now - in German.
 

 I stand corrected, but really...how sad.

 One thing you've got to say for the French is 
 that they *protect their language*. Learning
 to use it properly is basically the foundation
 of their educational system, and a French per-
 song who *doesn't* use it properly is viewed 
 with a certain amount of disdain by other French. 

 They've got whole *departments* in France whose
 job it is to try to protect the language from
 creeping bastardizations, such as the use of
 the English words weekend. Some could say 
 that it's a fool's errand, trying to protect
 the purity of the language this way, but I
 admire it. 

 The problems of internationalization and English
 having become the de facto lingua franca of 
 our age make it really *hard* to keep one's
 original language intact and preserve its 
 beauty. Maybe a third of the billboards and ads
 I see here in Spain have several English words
 in them, used because it's assumed that most
 people will understand them. At the same time,
 it creates a kind of gibberish Spanish, 
 similar to the language of Cityspeak used
 in the film Blade Runner. That was a hodgepodge
 of English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and a 
 dozen other languages, all thrown into a blender.
 While it is *natural* for such hodge-podge 
 languages to develop, part of me still apprec-
 iates those who take the time to learn and
 preserve the original languages themselves.

 Consider it an affectation on my part if you
 want. As a writer I invent new language when
 I think it might be fun to do so, but I try to
 have learned the old language first. In a way
 not doing this is like painters who dive straight 
 into abstract art, without ever learning how to
 paint still lives or landscapes. One of the things
 that made Picasso's and Dali's forays into new
 ways of painting *work* is that they had *done
 their homework*. If you look at their early
 work, they had traditional styles of painting
 just *nailed* before they moved past them. 

 I guess I feel similarly about language. It's
 one thing when James Joyce reinvents the language,
 knowing what it is he *is* reinventing, and it's
 quite another when a rap star reinvents the 
 language, with *no clue* what it is he's doing.
When I studied French back in high school it was touted to become the 
language of the world.  It didn't and English currently playing that 
role.  English truly is a bastardized language.  Languages evolve or 
devolve according to one's POV.   We have English words with spellings 
that we ignore because we no longer pronounce those words the way we did 
centuries ago.  Take the word through for example.  Do we pronounce it 
thrau?  No, we pronounce it like threw or thru.  To try to 
maintain these ancient spellings is impractical or at worst elitism.

Languages are supposed to be communication tools.  The ones that will 
survive are the ones that are practical to use and easier to learn.  We 
need a global engineered language.  There have been attempts but 
nothing yet but eventually it may happen.  Leave the historical 
languages to the museums and history books.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Surely it's, if allowed would be confused with
 'it is'

Well, the grammatical context is usually different
enough that there wouldn't be any actual confusion
(other than, What the hell is that apostrophe
doing there?). In other words, a sentence will
make sense only with the correct spelling.

E.g., The dog wagged it is [it's] tail is
nonsense. A native speaker would either ignore
the apostrophe or be annoyed by it, as opposed
to being confused by it. Might cause trouble
for a non-native speaker who was in the process
of learning to read and write English and didn't
yet have a grasp of English syntax, though.

My guess is that a non-native speaker who had as
good a command of written English as you do would
be likely simply not to notice the apostrophe and
read the example as its, because that's what
naturally fits the syntax of the sentence.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[hugheshugo]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

  BTW; all you decent writers are making me painfully aware my 
  grammar is crap, I think I can spell alright but apostrophes'
  I'm ashamed to say I don't understand.
 
 This is a conversational forum, not an English exam.
 Relax! You get more points for content than most here,
 and that's a great deal more important.
 
 The only reason anybody is beating up on Angela is
 that she's elevated herself to a pedestal as a judge
 of English skills when her own leave something to be
 desired--and won't even admit it when she makes a
 mistake.
 
 We all make grammar and spelling mistakes, including
 this professional editor.
 
 Apostrophes in English are pretty straightforward;
 it wouldn't take much for you to master their use
 if you wanted to consult a grammar book.
 
 Its vs. it's is easy to figure out--if you can
 substitute it is or it has and still have the
 sentence make sense, then it's is correct. If not,
 no apostrophe. Or, if you could substitute his or
 hers, then its is correct. (There is never, EVER
 an apostrophe in hers or theirs, nor are
 apostrophes ever used to form plurals, except
 perhaps with numbers and letters--e.g., I got three
 A's and two B's, or Take all the 7's out of the
 deck.)


Thanks for the lesson! It's much appreciated. I shall endevour to 
implement it. Actually my spelling of endevour looks a bit suspect, 
ah well.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[cardemaister]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 Languages are supposed to be communication tools.  The ones that 
will 
 survive are the ones that are practical to use and easier to learn.  
We 
 need a global engineered language.  There have been attempts but 
 nothing yet but eventually it may happen.  Leave the historical 
 languages to the museums and history books.


My gut feeling is that young people at least here in Finland
like English partly because its spelling feels cool. 
Its wiöd, bat inglish ritn moo akoding tu pronansieishn(shaks!) samhau
luks olmoust agli.

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Duveyoung]

Is is just me or did others here also breathe just a little easier
when Putin said, An attack on Iran is an attack on Russia?

Yeah! Sed moi -- Putin spelled it out for BushCo -- you can't just
take all the oil, and Iran's is Russia's so back off.  But BushCo may
be insane, and this may not even created a stutter in the GlobalBiz
agenda.

But what Putin did do is notch up Americans' consciousness of the dire
state of affairs that would ensue if BushCo goes for Iran's throat. 
Up until Putin, I think most Americans would have been thinking,
What's the down side? Some Iranians are pissed off that we blow up
their nuke making buildings?  I can live with that.  

But after Putin, it's got to be more like, Holy shit, the Ruskies got
ten thousand nukes still pointed and ready to go to downtown D.C.,
uptown NYC and deep in the heart of Texas.  H, NOW do I want an
ape in a ten gallon hat to be a decider?

Putin forced us all to see the real deal just a bit clearer -- as
much as BushCo loves to saber rattle, trying to scare Iran by banging
on a shield just ain't a gonna happen when an Atomic Bear has its paw
draped over the shoulder of Lil' Buddy Ranny.

Gotta love it that GlobalBiz hasn't won the whole planet yet.  Most of
Asia isn't part of that, because, well, they want to do their OWN
versions of Universal Corporate Domination.  This is what passes for a
safety factor in Kali Yuga -- multiple planet rapists at odds with
each other.

Edg

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You
Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I was astonished to learn that in a way somewhat similar to what you've
 described, this resembles how Stalin was killed, for he was planning the
 next world war, initiated by Soviet Beast and involving nuclear
attack upon
 'the West' when he was ruthlessly canceled as a life form and menace to
 humanity.
 
 I also learned that 'very soon', a device will be invented that will
make
 nuclear explosive devices inoperable.  Oh my Brahma!  I surely hope
so, very
 soon!
 
 
 *I will help all beings in every way I can promptly. *
 * *
 *I will not inflict pain or misfortune on anyone through my
thoughts, words
 or deeds. *
 
 
 On 10/26/07, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  I heard a reading one time, by Ron Scalastico, where it was said,
  that, although the 'Higher Beings, Angels, etc.', where usually not
  allowed to interfere with human free will...
  That under certain conditions, they would be allowed to prevent a
  nuclear war, in that 'they' could withdraw someone's soul energy,
  which would put that person 'asleep'...
  So, this is a blessing in disquise, I would say...
 
  r.g. seattle.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Angela Mailander]

Iran is also China's major source of oil.  Would they sit on their hands while 
we carpet bomb their oil wells? a

Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   Is is just 
me or did others here also breathe just a little easier
 when Putin said, An attack on Iran is an attack on Russia?
 
 Yeah! Sed moi -- Putin spelled it out for BushCo -- you can't just
 take all the oil, and Iran's is Russia's so back off.  But BushCo may
 be insane, and this may not even created a stutter in the GlobalBiz
 agenda.
 
 But what Putin did do is notch up Americans' consciousness of the dire
 state of affairs that would ensue if BushCo goes for Iran's throat. 
 Up until Putin, I think most Americans would have been thinking,
 What's the down side? Some Iranians are pissed off that we blow up
 their nuke making buildings?  I can live with that.  
 
 But after Putin, it's got to be more like, Holy shit, the Ruskies got
 ten thousand nukes still pointed and ready to go to downtown D.C.,
 uptown NYC and deep in the heart of Texas.  H, NOW do I want an
 ape in a ten gallon hat to be a decider?
 
 Putin forced us all to see the real deal just a bit clearer -- as
 much as BushCo loves to saber rattle, trying to scare Iran by banging
 on a shield just ain't a gonna happen when an Atomic Bear has its paw
 draped over the shoulder of Lil' Buddy Ranny.
 
 Gotta love it that GlobalBiz hasn't won the whole planet yet.  Most of
 Asia isn't part of that, because, well, they want to do their OWN
 versions of Universal Corporate Domination.  This is what passes for a
 safety factor in Kali Yuga -- multiple planet rapists at odds with
 each other.
 
 Edg
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Samadhi Is Much Closer Than You
 Think -- Really! -- It's A No-Brainer. Who'd've Thunk It?
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  I was astonished to learn that in a way somewhat similar to what you've
  described, this resembles how Stalin was killed, for he was planning the
  next world war, initiated by Soviet Beast and involving nuclear
 attack upon
  'the West' when he was ruthlessly canceled as a life form and menace to
  humanity.
  
  I also learned that 'very soon', a device will be invented that will
 make
  nuclear explosive devices inoperable.  Oh my Brahma!  I surely hope
 so, very
  soon!
  
  
  *I will help all beings in every way I can promptly. *
  * *
  *I will not inflict pain or misfortune on anyone through my
 thoughts, words
  or deeds. *
  
  
  On 10/26/07, Robert Gimbel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   I heard a reading one time, by Ron Scalastico, where it was said,
   that, although the 'Higher Beings, Angels, etc.', where usually not
   allowed to interfere with human free will...
   That under certain conditions, they would be allowed to prevent a
   nuclear war, in that 'they' could withdraw someone's soul energy,
   which would put that person 'asleep'...
   So, this is a blessing in disquise, I would say...
  
   r.g. seattle.
 
 
 
 
   

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Iran is also China's major source of oil.  Would they sit on their 
hands while we carpet bomb their oil wells? a

Um. If what the U.S. wants is Iran's oil, we're not
really too likely to bomb the wells, don't you think?

Much less carpet-bomb them. I think you may have
picked up that phrase without knowing what it really
refers to, just because it sounds satisfyingly brutal.
Might want to look it up.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[Angela Mailander]

I've lived through carpet bombing.  It was called saturation bombing back then. 
I was using the term as a synecdoche.  a

authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   --- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Iran is also China's major source of oil.  Would they sit on their 
 hands while we carpet bomb their oil wells? a
 
 Um. If what the U.S. wants is Iran's oil, we're not
 really too likely to bomb the wells, don't you think?
 
 Much less carpet-bomb them. I think you may have
 picked up that phrase without knowing what it really
 refers to, just because it sounds satisfyingly brutal.
 Might want to look it up.
 
 
 
   

 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 

[FairfieldLife] Russia our White Knight? Gads, YES!!!!! (Re: 'Preventing Nuclear War)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 I've lived through carpet bombing.  It was called saturation 
bombing back then. I was using the term as a synecdoche.  a

Nice try, no cigar.

Doesn't matter what it's called, you wouldn't
use that kind of bombing on oil wells. (You
wouldn't use it much at all these days.)

And I notice you forgot to address the
absurdity of the U.S. bombing Iran's oil wells,
even using the appropriate type of bombing.

Oh, and you weren't using the term as a 
synecdoche, either. Might want to look that
up too.

While I'm at it, it's cui bono, not Qui Bono.
Even without the inappropriate caps, qui bono
is what's known as Dog Latin.

And its as a possessive never, EVER has an
apostrophe.

Congratulations, though, on learning how to
spell dumb.






 
 authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:   --- In 
FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander 
  mailander111@ wrote:
  
   Iran is also China's major source of oil.  Would they sit on 
their 
  hands while we carpet bomb their oil wells? a
  
  Um. If what the U.S. wants is Iran's oil, we're not
  really too likely to bomb the wells, don't you think?
  
  Much less carpet-bomb them. I think you may have
  picked up that phrase without knowing what it really
  refers to, just because it sounds satisfyingly brutal.
  Might want to look it up.
  
  
  

 
  Send instant messages to your online friends 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com