On Sat, Jun 05, 2004 at 07:28:40AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> William Ballard writes:
> > Lincoln is half of the way back to when America was part of Britain.
> > More than half. 1776+(87*2) = 1950.
>
> By 1776 the culture of the colonies had diverged substantially from that of
> Britain. Other
William Ballard writes:
> Lincoln is half of the way back to when America was part of Britain.
> More than half. 1776+(87*2) = 1950.
By 1776 the culture of the colonies had diverged substantially from that of
Britain. Otherwise there would have been no revolution.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECT
Incoming from Tim Connors:
> Tristan Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:53:23 +0100:
> > Then of course American English developed its own idioms and useage
> > patterns independently from those developed in the UK (eg pissed: in the
> > UK it means drunk, in the US it means angr
On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 10:21:02AM -0400, Daniel B. wrote:
> > Plus, it's half the time of the way back.
Lincoln is half of the way back to when America was part of Britain.
More than half. 1776+(87*2) = 1950.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trou
Tristan Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Fri, 04 Jun 2004 15:53:23 +0100:
> Then of course American English developed its own idioms and useage
> patterns independently from those developed in the UK (eg pissed: in the
> UK it means drunk, in the US it means angry).
And in Australia, you have to
On Fri, 2004-06-04 at 15:21, Daniel B. wrote:
> William Ballard wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:36:48PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> >
> ...
> >>
> >>"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
> >
> >
> > That's poetical language.
>
> I don't think so.
William Ballard wrote:
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:36:48PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
...
"Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
That's poetical language.
I don't think so.
Numbers were said differently in the past. (Remember "four and twenty
blackbirds..."?)
A
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 09:09:25PM +1200, cr wrote:
> Errrm, actually, no, that's bureaucracy - a universal failing.To
> attribute every evil to communism is a typically American phobia.
Aw, shit, it started. Of course, that's beaucracies. The Soviet Union
was one big beauracracy.
Havi
On Thu, 27 May 2004 18:34, William Ballard wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 04:27:31PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> > William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 26 May 2004
22:34:19 -0700:
> > > Prolly something to do with the commies :-) I didn't even know "In God
> > > We Trust" was added
On Thu, 27 May 2004 04:57, William Ballard wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 10:03:35PM +1200, cr wrote:
> > > Eh. Go figure. There's no right or wrong. My teachers taught me that
> > > was incorrect, low-class, common.
> >
> > Well then the whole of the UK must be incorrect, low-class and common
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 26 May 2004 22:34:19 -0700:
> Prolly something to do with the commies :-) I didn't even know "In God
> We Trust" was added to the money in the 50s, just thought it was always
> like that.
No doubt the commies.
Incidentally, do American's associa
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 04:27:31PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 26 May 2004 22:34:19 -0700:
> > Prolly something to do with the commies :-) I didn't even know "In God
> > We Trust" was added to the money in the 50s, just thought it was always
> > l
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 02:58:13PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> cr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 25 May 2004 19:50:18 +1200:
> > And in English (I mean 'British English', though that term always strikes me
> > as tautological if not oxymoronic)
>
> Don't get me started on wenglish. I was about
On Thu, May 27, 2004 at 03:05:03PM +1000, Tim Connors wrote:
> As you found out, the way Americans say it was only changed half way
> back to when your "fathers" set up the country, ie., it was you that
> changed the language - everyone else uses the "and" in numbers. *I*
> put it down to Americans
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Wed, 26 May 2004 10:47:35 -0700:
> On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:36:48PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> > "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this
>
> That's poetical language. Plus, it's half the time of the way back.
>
>
cr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Tue, 25 May 2004 19:50:18 +1200:
> And in English (I mean 'British English', though that term always strikes me
> as tautological if not oxymoronic)
Don't get me started on wenglish. I was about to submit a very angry
bugreport that my dictionary changed to American
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 06:36:48PM +0100, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 17:57, William Ballard wrote:
> > Do you also say one million and fourteen thousand and two hundred and
> > thirty seven?
>
> one million, fourteen thousand, two hundred and thirty-seven.
>
> I remember doing
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 17:57, William Ballard wrote:
> Do you also say one million and fourteen thousand and two hundred and
> thirty seven?
one million, fourteen thousand, two hundred and thirty-seven.
I remember doing school exercises when I was 7 on writing out numbers in
words.
But to demo
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 09:57:50AM -0700, William Ballard wrote:
> Do you also say one million and fourteen thousand and two hundred and
> thirty seven?
That would be one million, fourteen thousand, two hundred and thirty
seven
Cheers,
Tom
--
Consider the following axioms carefully:
"E
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 10:03:35PM +1200, cr wrote:
> >
> > Eh. Go figure. There's no right or wrong. My teachers taught me that
> > was incorrect, low-class, common.
>
> Well then the whole of the UK must be incorrect, low-class and common. ;)
>
> >From where I'm standing, "two hundred thir
On Wed, 26 May 2004 04:11, William Ballard wrote:
> On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:50:18PM +1200, cr wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 May 2004 07:47, William Ballard wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> > > > In "123" there is no "one" or "twenty three" written there, but
On Tue, May 25, 2004 at 07:50:18PM +1200, cr wrote:
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 07:47, William Ballard wrote:
> > On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> > > In "123" there is no "one" or "twenty three" written there, but
> > > that doesn't mean those words aren't used in pronou
On Tue, 25 May 2004 07:47, William Ballard wrote:
> On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> > In "123" there is no "one" or "twenty three" written there, but
> > that doesn't mean those words aren't used in pronouncing the number
> > written as "123."
>
> What digit corres
On Mon, May 24, 2004 at 02:30:22PM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote:
> In "123" there is no "one" or "twenty three" written there, but
> that doesn't mean those words aren't used in pronouncing the number
> written as "123."
What digit corresponds to "and"?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
William Ballard wrote:
> ... As I said in another post,
year-first is ...bad for person to person
communication.
That's not true in geneology, even for person-to-person communication.
You're confused about what makes it good or bad. It's not
computers vs. people, it's something else.
Daniel
--
Paul Johnson wrote:
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
One way to avoid the confusion is by using the ISO format:
/mm/dd. Also makes it very easy to sort by date.
Still has potential for ambiguity.
Not really. The only system in use that puts the year first
puts the month next an
Paul Johnson wrote:
...
Checks will bounce unless dated like 5/6/2004, 6 MAY 2004 or May 6, 2004.
Bull.
I've been writing my checks like that for years.
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
richard lyons wrote:
... But it is entirely rational, since we write the
smallest order digit at the right of numbers, to put this in the order
2004/05/06 if we are being orderly and businesslike.
...and given that write times with smaller units to the right.
(Of course, we write addresses with
Damon L. Chesser wrote:
Daniel B. wrote:
Travis Crump wrote:
... Going through it in my mind, I pretty much treat it as any other
list, dropping every 'and' but the last one. Put another way, say
you have 'One thousand women, 3 hundred men, and 46 children'. How
many people do you have? 'One
William Ballard wrote:
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 10:22:31AM -0400, Daniel B. wrote:
I wonder if Damon or his teacher confused the dropping of "ands"
other than the last with dropping all "ands."
My teacher used to tell us: where do you see an "and" written there?
Huh? Written where?
And is your tea
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 07:21:07PM +0800, Alexander Nordström wrote:
> On Tuesday, 4 May 2004 23:13, Wendell Cochran wrote:
>
> > This seems as good a place as any to observe that English is
> > emphatically open source.
>
> I humbly disagree. Free and open source software is not about the abandon
On Tuesday, 4 May 2004 23:13, Wendell Cochran wrote:
[Edited for brevity. The balance of the cited argument may have been
affected.]
> This seems as good a place as any to observe that English is
> emphatically open source.
>
> No one owns English. No dictatorial authority sets rules of
> usage
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 08:27:10PM +1200, cr wrote:
> Okay, you were referring to yourself, then, I take it. It is of course
> entirely acceptable to refer to oneself in mildly deprecatory tones. I have
> occasion to do it all the time
Gee, I'm glad you find me "acceptable."
Listen, guy,
On Fri, 07 May 2004 00:33, William Ballard wrote:
> On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:12:06AM +1200, cr wrote:
> > Yes I know exactly which meaning of the word 'affect' you were using.
> > Since your comment was IIRC in response to my post, I wondered if you
> > thought I was American, or were you referri
At 07:02 PM 5/6/2004, Antonio Rodriguez wrote:
Since I don't mind the thread, the purpose of this comment is very
simple: Please remember in the future, if some go OT, do not
bitch at them. Be courteous.
Antonio, isn't your comment o/t? :) I ain't being discourteous, am I?
Web Installed Formmai
On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 06:38:46PM -0400, David P James wrote:
> But that's not a replacement for won't - it's a replacement of "am not",
> as in "I am not going to do that". I can't think of a case where ain't
> can replace won't/will not/shan't/shall not.
Which was my point since "I'm not goin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David P James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu 6 May 2004 15:41, William Ballard wrote:
>> On Thu, May 06, 2004 at 09:20:21PM +0200, Roel Schroeven wrote:
>> >
>> > One way to avoid the confusion is by using the ISO format:
>> > /mm/dd. Also m
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:55:40PM +0100, Michael Graham wrote:
> Clive wrote:
> >
> > I can't answer your question but what does gb localisation will give
> > you? I've installed firefox and haven't found any need for gb
> > localisation - just curious ;)
>
> Not much to be honest, but it makes
William wrote:
> I didn't realize how different our languages actually are until I ran
> a spell checker.
Don't you mean realise?
I've just been doing some googling here's a nice table you can look at
to brush up on your spelling and vocabulary
http://www.bg-map.com/us-uk.html
There's even a te
William Ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said on Mon, 3 May 2004 15:03:41 -0700:
> On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 10:55:40PM +0100, Michael Graham wrote:
> > Clive wrote:
> > >
> > > I can't answer your question but what does gb localisation will give
> > > you? I've installed firefox and haven't found any n
40 matches
Mail list logo
