Peter J. Alling wrote:
I looked for a second source for what I knew to be true rather than just baldly asserting something as fact. The Mass. site is wordy but authoritative.
That doesn't seem to be particularly arrogant to me. If I'd been wrong I would have simply have corrected my knowledge. I've accepted Greywolf's derivation of the derogatory use of turkey, if only provisionally, even though I've never heard it before. I couldn't find any references in a cursory examination, it's at least as correct as anything I've heard before. You on the other hand assumed that you were right no matter what. This is especially bad since your facts were wrong. That's arrogance. I'm glad you're not my doctor or lawyer.
Well, I do consider the Oxford University Press to have some standing in the world, and to me it carries a lot of weight.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has NO standing with me, as historically (last 50 years) they've perpetrated a number of heinous and unconscionable acts, in public no less, in the guise of legislatively approved and sanctioned laws... and they're very low on my list of folks I can trust.
Sort of like their legislators that the people keep re-electing!
"Asssumed [I] was right, no matter what?"
No, not quite, sir.
I think that very few of us are able to show original thought, in terms of original research in most matters. We depend heavily on other's research and writings. There's certainly not enough time in THIS lifetime to do all our own research, so we do have to depend on others.
Oxford University Press writings have stood the test of time and checking against other sources, in my experience. I must assume that being only human, they do make mistakes, but... in the origin of the stupid American Turkey? Please.
Small matter, all things considered.
Keith Whaley wrote:
Peter J. Alling wrote:
The Domesticated turkey is in not related to the Guinea foul or imported from New Guinea, as you stated".
I figure if they're all genus Meleagris, but have different species (?) names, like Meleagris gallopavo, etc, they're essentially decended from the same bird.
>>> 2.) Domesticated by the Aztecs.it was:
1) Native to North and South America.
>>> 4.) Spread throughout Eurasia by trade and made it's way to England.3.) Brought to Iberia by the Conquistadors,
5.) Re-introduced to the New World by the English settlers after being renamed for various not particularly certain reasons the Turkey.
How can one tell the #1s from the #5s? Or is there no claim of a difference? What we know as a turkey today is the very same turkey that was native to N. and S. America?
Just for the heck of it, I'll see what sort of confirmation I can get on those claims.
You were totally wrong and you obviously didn't even read the section I quoted.
Totally? Sighhh. Quite frankly, I read only enough to determine how close Massachussets got to what the Oxford Dictionary related. I read enough to tell they were very close (I interepret things a little differently from you...) so I stopped and closed the URL.
No need to read it all.
I don't have a final grade hanging on the whims of a self-important professor. Thank god those days are over.
The only part you got even close to right was how it was probably named.
If I were grading you in College you'd get a F. I'd give you a lower one for arrogance but they don't get lower.
[...]
