English is such an inferior, shitty language!

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!

neither does 'warriate' but we have 'warrior'!

Post by Ramon F Herrera
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

Fancy! :-)

Post by Ramon F Herrera
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

The beautiful language of the former British Empire and the benign and
growing American Empire! :-D

--
NfE

Hisler

2012-04-09 17:41:42 UTC

Post by Nick from England

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!

neither does 'warriate' but we have 'warrior'!

Post by Ramon F Herrera
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

While the word uncouth exists, there is no "couth." Ramon F Herrera is
uncouth.

Post by Nick from England
Fancy! :-)

Post by Ramon F Herrera
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

The beautiful language of the former British Empire and the benign and
growing American Empire! :-D
--
NfE

Ian Jackson

2012-04-09 18:53:57 UTC

In message <jlv70l$92e$***@dont-email.me>, Hisler <***@cocks.net>
writes

Post by Hisler
While the word uncouth exists, there is no "couth." Ramon F Herrera is
uncouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couth

--
Ian

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-09 21:45:40 UTC

On Apr 9, 1:53 pm, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

While the word uncouth exists, there is no "couth." Ramon F Herrera is
uncouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couth
--
Ian

Here's one that actually is holds true: While "Semitic" refers both to
Jews and Arabs, "Antisemitic" only refers to Jews.

"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same.

-Ramon The Couth

R H Draney

2012-04-10 03:06:21 UTC

On Apr 9, 1:53=A0pm, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

While the word uncouth exists, there is no "couth." =A0Ramon F Herrera i=

Post by Ian Jackson

uncouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couth

Here's one that actually is holds true: While "Semitic" refers both to
Jews and Arabs, "Antisemitic" only refers to Jews.
"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same.

As do "fat chance" and "slim chance"...it's a fuddy owd worlb....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Nick from England

2012-04-14 09:54:29 UTC

Post by R H Draney

On Apr 9, 1:53=A0pm, Ian Jackson

Post by Ian Jackson
writes

While the word uncouth exists, there is no "couth." =A0Ramon F Herrera i=

Post by Ian Jackson

uncouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couth

Here's one that actually is holds true: While "Semitic" refers both to
Jews and Arabs, "Antisemitic" only refers to Jews.
"Flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same.

As do "fat chance" and "slim chance"...it's a fuddy owd worlb....r

'Cheap at half the price' and 'Cheap at twice the price'!

Post by R H Draney
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Nah!

--
NfE

Hisler

2012-04-10 06:13:29 UTC

Post by Ian Jackson

While the word uncouth exists, there is no "couth." Ramon F Herrera is
uncouth.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/couth

Ooops.

Peter Moylan

2012-04-09 10:04:07 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

For some value of "exists". As far as I can tell, most dictionaries
don't list it. Have you found any evidence that it is used by anyone who
is not a Spanish speaker?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Mr.Sandman

2012-04-09 15:24:29 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?
-Ramon
http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=propugnar

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease
the ignorant lowlifes. You said that you studied linguistics; if you
did, you would know that the English language is the most advanced
language. It is more advanced than German by a thousand years. German
and the Romance languages still use special endings for verbs and nouns
called conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns. English got rid
of most of that unnecessary stuff a thousand years ago.

aruzinsky

2012-04-09 16:02:13 UTC

Post by Mr.Sandman
It is more advanced than German by a thousand years.

I suppose you care about the German language assigning sex to innately
sexless nouns and the resulting mess with pronouns. Some might say
that these needless complications are good exercise for the brain and,
without them, Einstein wouldn't have discovered relativity and Japan
would have won World War II.

The stupidest thing about the English language is BARE PLURAL USAGE
because it is bad exercise for the brain which results in insanity.

Mr.Sandman

2012-04-09 16:41:03 UTC

Post by aruzinsky

Post by Mr.Sandman
It is more advanced than German by a thousand years.

You could have a point there. Did Einstein learn English at the same
time that he was learning math? Learning a difficult second language
helps the brain. European Jews became very smart because they all learn
to speak Hebrew secretly.

Post by aruzinsky
The stupidest thing about the English language is BARE PLURAL USAGE
because it is bad exercise for the brain which results in insanity.

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-09 17:31:33 UTC

Post by aruzinsky

Post by Mr.Sandman
It is more advanced than German by a thousand years.

New York Times: Why Bilinguals Are Smarter.

http://tinyurl.com/82cweug

-Ramon

aruzinsky

2012-04-09 17:58:32 UTC

Post by Mr.Sandman
helps the brain. European Jews became very smart because they all learn
to speak Hebrew secretly.

There is a scientific rumor that the genes that make European Jews
smart also promote certain kinds of cancer.

Skitt

2012-04-09 18:43:02 UTC

Post by aruzinsky

Post by Mr.Sandman
helps the brain. European Jews became very smart because they all learn
to speak Hebrew secretly.

There is a scientific rumor that the genes that make European Jews
smart also promote certain kinds of cancer.

Yeah, but I was wondering why do they have to speak Hebrew secretly.

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

Ian Jackson

2012-04-09 18:56:41 UTC

Learning a difficult second language helps the brain. European Jews
became very smart because they all learn to speak Hebrew secretly.

In my opinion, anyone who even learns even the Hebrew alphabet is 'very
smart'!

--
Ian

Jerry Avins

2012-04-10 18:39:10 UTC

On 4/9/2012 12:41 PM, Mr.Sandman wrote:

...

Post by Mr.Sandman
You could have a point there. Did Einstein learn English at the same
time that he was learning math? Learning a difficult second language
helps the brain.

Why difficult? almost any second language helps.

Post by Mr.Sandman
European Jews became very smart because they all learn to speak Hebrew secretly.

Secretly? When was that? It is necessary to be literate in Hebrew to be
an observant Jew, man or woman. Since the diaspora, Jews were the only
group in the West that was almost universally literate. They were hired
as notaries and record keepers, and their frequent assignment as tax
collectors made them widely hated. It is no coincidence that many
languages (or language derivatives) are written -- by Jews, at least --
using a Hebrew alphabet. Aramaic (Judeo-Syrian), Yiddish (Judeo-German),
Ladino (Judeo-Spanish), Gruzinic (Judeo-Georgian), and others are the
result of transliterating a local language using Hebrew characters.

Jerry

--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Mr.Sandman

2012-04-10 20:23:26 UTC

Post by Mr.Sandman
You could have a point there. Did Einstein learn English at the same
time that he was learning math? Learning a difficult second language
helps the brain.

Why difficult? almost any second language helps.

Post by Mr.Sandman
European Jews became very smart because they all learn to speak Hebrew secretly.

Jews or some group closely related to them were the ones who made the
"great leap" into phonetic writing.

Jerry Avins

2012-04-13 18:10:41 UTC

Post by Mr.Sandman
You could have a point there. Did Einstein learn English at the same
time that he was learning math? Learning a difficult second language
helps the brain.

Why difficult? almost any second language helps.

Post by Mr.Sandman
European Jews became very smart because they all learn to speak Hebrew secretly.

Jews or some group closely related to them were the ones who made the
"great leap" into phonetic writing.

There is emerging archeological evidence of continuing trade between
Egypt and Canaan during the time that the Hebrews lived in Egypt.
Organized commerce requires written records of some sort (the origins of
cuneiform speak to that) and according to some archeologists, the
traders phoneticized a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphics for the purpose.
Our letter A can be traced to a glyph representing a bull, ultimately
becoming aleph, then (via Phoencian) alpha.

Jerry

Mr.Sandman

2012-04-13 19:16:35 UTC

Post by Mr.Sandman
You could have a point there. Did Einstein learn English at the same
time that he was learning math? Learning a difficult second language
helps the brain.

Why difficult? almost any second language helps.

Post by Mr.Sandman
European Jews became very smart because they all learn to speak Hebrew secretly.

Jews or some group closely related to them were the ones who made the
"great leap" into phonetic writing.

Trade is indeed what advances civilization. The Phoenicians were the
first sea traders and needed to keep records. Some people claim that
those Phoenicians later became Jews. The first phonetic symbols were all
consonants. The Greeks copied those symbols and then added symbols for
the vowels.

Jerry Avins

2012-04-13 21:47:36 UTC

Post by Mr.Sandman
You could have a point there. Did Einstein learn English at the same
time that he was learning math? Learning a difficult second language
helps the brain.

Why difficult? almost any second language helps.

Post by Mr.Sandman
European Jews became very smart because they all learn to speak Hebrew secretly.

Secretly? When was that? It is necessary to be literate in Hebrew to be
an observant Jew, man or woman. Since the diaspora, Jews were the only
group in the West that was almost universally literate. They were hired
as notaries and record keepers, and their frequent assignment as tax
collectors made them widely hated. It is no coincidence that many
languages (or language derivatives) are written -- by Jews, at least --
using a Hebrew alphabet. Aramaic (Judeo-Syrian), Yiddish
(Judeo-German),
Ladino (Judeo-Spanish), Gruzinic (Judeo-Georgian), and others are the
result of transliterating a local language using Hebrew characters.
Jerry

Jews or some group closely related to them were the ones who made the
"great leap" into phonetic writing.

The Phoenicians were Semitic, but not Jewish. (Indeed, Jezebel would
have been Phoenician, a.k.a Lebanese.) It now seems likely that the
Phoenician alphabet is derived from ancient Hebrew, rather than the
other way round, as had once been widely believed. Semitic languages
don't have vowels because they don't need them. Word roots consist of
three consonants; vowel sounds -- if any -- being determined by grammar
and syntax. Prefixes serve as articles and prepositions in Hebrew and, I
understand, in Arabic and Aramaic. Wikipedia has some decent articles on
this. I'm hazy on it, so read with a grain of salt.

Jerry

Peter Brooks

2012-04-14 00:17:42 UTC

Post by Jerry Avins
The Phoenicians were Semitic, but not Jewish. (Indeed, Jezebel would
have been Phoenician, a.k.a Lebanese.)

I hadn't thought of that, but it does rather explain Jezebel's less
than unworldly approach to life.

Jerry Friedman

2012-04-15 05:02:14 UTC

...

Post by Mr.Sandman
Trade is indeed what advances civilization. The Phoenicians were the
first sea traders and needed to keep records. Some people claim that
those Phoenicians later became Jews. The first phonetic symbols were all
consonants. The Greeks copied those symbols and then added symbols for
the vowels.

Up to a point. Opening my Ben Yehudah Hebrew-English dictionary for
the first time in a long time, I see "pisul" ("sculpturing; chiseling;
cutting") and "psul" ("disqualification; blemish, defect"). Or
"davar" ("word, saying; thing"), "diber" ("speech, commandment"),
"dabar" ("leader, dictator"), "dover" ("pasture"), and
"dever" ("plague, pestilence"). (As you know but some may not, "b"
and this "v" are written the same way in writing without vowels.) So
there can be nouns that look the same without the vowels, and readers
can only tell them apart by context.

Post by Jerry Avins
Prefixes serve as articles and prepositions in Hebrew

And as other things--I agree with you in recommending the Wikipedia
article.

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

Post by Jerry Avins
and, I
understand, in Arabic and Aramaic. Wikipedia has some decent articles on
this. I'm hazy on it, so read with a grain of salt.

I'm pretty hazy on it too.

--
Jerry Friedman

Odysseus

2012-04-15 22:07:24 UTC

<snip>

Post by Jerry Avins
There is emerging archeological evidence of continuing trade between
Egypt and Canaan during the time that the Hebrews lived in Egypt.
Organized commerce requires written records of some sort (the origins of
cuneiform speak to that) and according to some archeologists, the
traders phoneticized a subset of Egyptian hieroglyphics for the purpose.
Our letter A can be traced to a glyph representing a bull, ultimately
becoming aleph, then (via Phoencian) alpha.

[...] The first phonetic symbols were all consonants. The Greeks
copied those symbols and then added symbols for the vowels.

Some of the Greek vowel-symbols were adapted from Semitic
consonant-symbols they didn't need; for example the ancestor of Hebrew
_aleph_ and Arabic _alif_ represented a glottal stop. Conversely some
consonants, _psi_ e.g., were added to the inventory.

Modern Hebrew (sometimes?) uses _vau_ (V) and _yod_ (Y) for its U and I
vowels respectively, sort of an opposite development to the later
Romans' differentiation of I from J and U from V (& W).

--
Odysseus

Jerry Friedman

2012-04-16 03:55:38 UTC

Post by Odysseus
<snip>

[...] The first phonetic symbols were all consonants. The Greeks
copied those symbols and then added symbols for the vowels.

Some of the Greek vowel-symbols were adapted from Semitic
consonant-symbols they didn't need; for example the ancestor of Hebrew
_aleph_ and Arabic _alif_ represented a glottal stop. Conversely some
consonants, _psi_ e.g., were added to the inventory.
Modern Hebrew (sometimes?) uses _vau_ (V) and _yod_ (Y) for its U and I
vowels respectively, sort of an opposite development to the later
Romans' differentiation of I from J and U from V (& W).

The vav (as it's now pronounced--I imagine it was originally
pronounced something like "wow") is also used for "o". And
"sometimes" is definitely right. Supposedly there is or was a
difference between the sounds written with the consonant letter and
without. It gets complicated.

According to this site, the letters aleph and hei can also be
considered "matres lectionis", and the practice started about 3000
years ago.

http://www.ulpan.net/matres-lectionis

--
Jerry Friedman

Nick from England

2012-04-16 08:50:07 UTC

Post by Odysseus
<snip>

[...] The first phonetic symbols were all consonants. The Greeks
copied those symbols and then added symbols for the vowels.

Some of the Greek vowel-symbols were adapted from Semitic
consonant-symbols they didn't need; for example the ancestor of Hebrew
_aleph_ and Arabic _alif_ represented a glottal stop. Conversely some
consonants, _psi_ e.g., were added to the inventory.
Modern Hebrew (sometimes?) uses _vau_ (V) and _yod_ (Y) for its U and I
vowels respectively, sort of an opposite development to the later
Romans' differentiation of I from J and U from V (& W).

**************************************************************
The vav (as it's now pronounced--I imagine it was originally
pronounced something like "wow") is also used for "o". And
"sometimes" is definitely right. Supposedly there is or was a
difference between the sounds written with the consonant letter and
without. It gets complicated.

According to this site, the letters aleph and hei can also be
considered "matres lectionis", and the practice started about 3000
years ago.

http://www.ulpan.net/matres-lectionis
***************************************************************

Gordon BENNETT! Stroll on!! LOL!!!

--
NfE, "a bear of very little brain"

Mike L

2012-04-13 21:03:40 UTC

[...]

Post by Mr.Sandman
Jews or some group closely related to them were the ones who made the
"great leap" into phonetic writing.

I'm not sure any scholar now believes the Hebrews as a group were in
Egypt; and of course the Hebrews were Canaanites. I presume the legend
of Egyptian captivity referred to an extension of the Egyptian empire.

--
Mike.

Jerry Avins

2012-04-13 22:14:42 UTC

Post by Mike L
[...]

Post by Mr.Sandman
Jews or some group closely related to them were the ones who made the
"great leap" into phonetic writing.

Here's my take on it: there were probably a few, perhaps for a few
generations. In those times, most people in organized societies were
either priests or serfs. The exceptions were nomads, and even among them
life was hierarchical. Life in the Canaan cities was oppressive enough
to drive citizen-serfs to a nomadic existence in the hills. They
probably conducted the trade I wrote of earlier, and so were tolerated
by the authorities. The group of herders invited to Egypt by Joseph
overstayed the drought, and were assimilated into serfdom by force. They
didn't like it and ultimately left. They joined forces with the other
Canaanite "free" nomads, and joined with them to overthrow the urban
rulers. Some probably saw the coalition as liberators, others as
conquerors. Somehow, they prevailed.

Jerry

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-09 16:04:31 UTC

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that.
You must be trying to tease [...]

Indeed, in a "room" so crowded, with so much competition one is forced
to look for an angle. The most common ones are sex ("sex sells!) and
sensationalism.

Seriously, each language is good for some things, not so great for
others.

English can be very inconsistent. It drives people mad. Ask the
specialists in the audience.

-Ramon

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-09 17:38:55 UTC

The one advantage of English is succinctness, making it perfect for
scientific papers (with terms derived from Latin) and Computer
Programming Languages.

In the USA, the far right folks are linguistically challenged
(unilinguals/monoglots). Mitt Romney has to keep the fact that he is
francophone as a guarded secret.

-Ramon

--------------

"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to
my horse."

-Charles V

aruzinsky

2012-04-09 17:53:31 UTC

The one advantage of English is succinctness, making it perfect for
scientific papers (with terms derived from Latin) and Computer
Programming Languages.
In the USA, the far right folks are linguistically challenged
(unilinguals/monoglots). Mitt Romney has to keep the fact that he is
francophone as a guarded secret.
-Ramon
--------------
"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to
my horse."
-Charles V- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

"Terse" is terse for "succinct." Most typically, English is brief,
but not succinct because "succinct" means brief and clear. Typical
bare plural usages, for brevity, result in a lack of clarity.

Glenn Knickerbocker

2012-04-09 18:01:59 UTC

Post by aruzinsky
Typical
bare plural usages, for brevity, result in a lack of clarity.

I don't find that sentence unclear. Is "typical bare plural usages"
somehow atypical?

¬R

aruzinsky

2012-04-09 21:29:33 UTC

Post by aruzinsky
Typical
bare plural usages, for brevity, result in a lack of clarity.

I don't find that sentence unclear. Is "typical bare plural usages"
somehow atypical?
¬R

No. "Typical bare plural usages" is not a bare plural because
"typical" is the determiner.

Glenn Knickerbocker

2012-04-10 02:18:15 UTC

Post by aruzinsky
No. "Typical bare plural usages" is not a bare plural because
"typical" is the determiner.

Some typical bare plural usages might be "cats are grey" and "weasels
ripped my flesh." Now, what makes "typical" a determiner in your
sentence when it's not in mine?

¬R

Jerry Avins

2012-04-10 18:51:41 UTC

On 4/9/2012 1:53 PM, aruzinsky wrote:

...

Typical bare plural usages, for brevity, result in a lack of clarity.

It is evident that bare plurals bug you. You might find it soothing to
read http://semantics.uchicago.edu/kennedy/classes/f11/na/docs/carlson77.pdf

Jerry

Dennis M

2012-04-09 18:08:03 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease
the ignorant lowlifes.

No, he can't wait for the day when Spanish takes over for English in the US
and unlucky drug dealers are hung headless from overpasses like in his
beloved Mehico.

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-09 18:21:46 UTC

Post by Dennis M

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease
the ignorant lowlifes.

[Denni M the bagger:]

Post by Dennis M
No, he can't wait for the day when Spanish takes over
for [sic] English in the US

Why would we want to reduce the number of languages? Such variety
happens to be a critical component of our strength over youse,
linguistically-challenged baggers.

We Hispanics are not interested in linguistic domination (Spanish is
fine in the 2nd. place), rather in the acquisition of our share of
political -and consequently economic- power.

Speaking of which:

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???

- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???

-Ramon The Poliglot

"If the baggers can have their country back, why can't the Mexicans?"

Bill McCray

2012-04-09 21:32:18 UTC

Post by Dennis M

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease
the ignorant lowlifes.

[Denni M the bagger:]

Post by Dennis M
No, he can't wait for the day when Spanish takes over
for [sic] English in the US

Why would we want to reduce the number of languages? Such variety
happens to be a critical component of our strength over youse,
linguistically-challenged baggers.
We Hispanics are not interested in linguistic domination (Spanish is
fine in the 2nd. place), rather in the acquisition of our share of
political -and consequently economic- power.
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???

It wasn't my day to keep up with them. Where did you see them last?

Bill in Kentucky

Espanuelo

2012-04-10 19:28:04 UTC

Post by Dennis M

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease
the ignorant lowlifes.

[Denni M the bagger:]

Post by Dennis M
No, he can't wait for the day when Spanish takes over
for [sic] English in the US

Why would we want to reduce the number of languages? Such variety
happens to be a critical component of our strength over youse,
linguistically-challenged baggers.
We Hispanics are not interested in linguistic domination (Spanish is
fine in the 2nd. place), rather in the acquisition of our share of
political -and consequently economic- power.
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon The Poliglot
"If the baggers can have their country back, why can't the Mexicans?"

El castellano no es la lengua de los que son llamados "hispánicos",
estos proceden de más de 200 lenguas. Los "hispánicos" que hablen
castellano no se les ha de reconocer como su lengua madre el castellano.

Jerry Avins

2012-04-10 19:47:10 UTC

On 4/10/2012 3:28 PM, Espanuelo wrote:

...

Post by Espanuelo
El castellano no es la lengua de los que son llamados "hispánicos",
estos proceden de más de 200 lenguas. Los "hispánicos" que hablen
castellano no se les ha de reconocer como su lengua madre el castellano.

I wonder how many Native American languages are written in Spanish
transliteration.

Jerry

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-10 20:02:28 UTC

Post by Jerry Avins
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

Hey guys!

We have MacGyver in the audience!

-Ramon

http://en.wikipedia.org/

Patok

2012-04-10 21:24:48 UTC

Post by Jerry Avins
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Hey guys!
We have MacGyver in the audience!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGyver

Hardware, Software, and so Forth.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

Peter Moylan

2012-04-11 10:55:00 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
We Hispanics are not interested in linguistic domination (Spanish is
fine in the 2nd. place), rather in the acquisition of our share of
political -and consequently economic- power.
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...

You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably it's a country
that has elections, or you'd be phrasing your complaint differently. I
presume, too, that you're talking about people who can vote, because
non-voters don't get representatives in any country.

So what's the problem? If people in your group, whatever that is, aren't
getting representatives, then apparently they're not voting the way you
think they should vote. Is that because the voters are stupid, or is it
simply because they're voting according to priorities that are different
from your priorities?

Either way, I can assure you that both of those problems are completely
standard for any democratic country.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-11 11:56:31 UTC

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from

Let's say that a domain is *.com, *.edu, *.org, *.mil, *.net, ... Pray
tell, what country would that be?

-Ramon The Internet/Usenet Pioneer (along with a cast of thousands)

(Gracias, Al!!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Al_Gore_and_information_technology

Peter Moylan

2012-04-11 13:28:25 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
You don't say where you're posting from

Let's say that a domain is *.com, *.edu, *.org, *.mil, *.net, ... Pray
tell, what country would that be?

Australia? We have all of those here.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-11 13:39:24 UTC

> You don't say where you're posting from
Let's say that a domain is *.com, *.edu, *.org, *.mil, *.net, ... Pray
tell, what country would that be?

Australia? We have all of those here.

Look again: notice that after the domain designators there is nothing.

There are known as "Top Level Domains".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains

-Ramon

Peter Moylan

2012-04-11 13:50:50 UTC

Post by Peter Moylan
You don't say where you're posting from

Let's say that a domain is *.com, *.edu, *.org, *.mil, *.net, ... Pray
tell, what country would that be?

Australia? We have all of those here.

Look again: notice that after the domain designators there is nothing.
There are known as "Top Level Domains".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains

Look again at my domain name.

Those top-level domains without a country code are international. They
do not belong to any country. The fact that you are in the .net
hierarchy and I am in the .org hierarchy says exactly nothing about
where we live.

The page you cited has some errors. That is not unusual for Wikipedia.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-11 17:08:21 UTC

> You don't say where you're posting from
Let's say that a domain is *.com, *.edu, *.org, *.mil, *.net, ... Pray
tell, what country would that be?

> Australia? We have all of those here.
Look again: notice that after the domain designators there is nothing.
There are known as "Top Level Domains".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains

Look again at my domain name.
Those top-level domains without a country code are international.
They do not belong to any country.

In practice they are heavily concentrated in one country, the creator
of the Internet. That must be obvious to a reader of an alt.USAGE NG.

Try to register an non-US organization under .gov, .mil or .edu and
tell us what happened:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#USA_top-level_domains

Post by Peter Moylan
The page you cited has some errors. That is not unusual for

Wikipedia.

When can we expect your corrections?

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-11 13:44:00 UTC

> You don't say where you're posting from
Let's say that a domain is *.com, *.edu, *.org, *.mil, *.net, ... Pray
tell, what country would that be?

Australia? We have all of those here.

If it ends in .mil, .edu or .gov it cannot be Australia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains#USA_top-level_domains

-Ramon

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-11 12:17:02 UTC

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
it's a country that has [...]

- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States

(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

-Ramon

Bill McCray

2012-04-11 13:07:30 UTC

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
it's a country that has [...]

- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States
(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

If you are in the U.S. (which appears to be true from this), you get
only one governor, one representative, and two senators. After all,
that's all any of the rest of us get. (Mine are Beshear, chandler,
McConnell, and Paul, respectively).

Bill in Kentucky

tony cooper

2012-04-11 14:34:05 UTC

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:07:30 -0400, Bill McCray

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
it's a country that has [...]

- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States
(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

I think the poster is speaking as an Hispanic person and not as a
resident of any state. He is asking why his group - Hispanics - are
not represented proportionally.

He evidently does not understand the voting process.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Adam Funk

2012-04-11 15:00:39 UTC

Post by tony cooper
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:07:30 -0400, Bill McCray

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
it's a country that has [...]

- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States
(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

I think the poster is speaking as an Hispanic person and not as a
resident of any state. He is asking why his group - Hispanics - are
not represented proportionally.
He evidently does not understand the voting process.

I thought Ramon was being facetious about the numbers (not about the
general principle).

--
No right of private conversation was enumerated in the Constitution.
I don't suppose it occurred to anyone at the time that it could be
prevented. [Whitfield Diffie]

Peter Moylan

2012-04-11 22:45:08 UTC

Post by tony cooper
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:07:30 -0400, Bill McCray

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
it's a country that has [...]

- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States
(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

I think the poster is speaking as an Hispanic person and not as a
resident of any state. He is asking why his group - Hispanics - are
not represented proportionally.
He evidently does not understand the voting process.

Thanks, Tony. You've answered the questions that RFH has been so deftly
avoiding answering. (He snipped my questions and responded to a side issue.)

The answer to my original question appears to be that Hispanics in the
US are not voting the way he thinks they should vote. I still don't know
where he gets his numbers from [1] but I've lost interest in
corresponding with someone who keeps ducking the issue.

[1] Is it actually known what proportion of Hispanics in the country are
registered as voters? I'm left wondering whether he's actually asking
for representation for people who don't bother to vote. That, however,
is a domestic issue so I'll leave the arguing to others.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Peter Moylan

2012-04-11 13:30:48 UTC

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...
You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
it's a country that has [...]

- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States
(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

Mexico?

So how many of those did you personally vote for?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-11 13:48:22 UTC

I'll probably regret entering this conversation, but still ...

> You don't say where you're posting from, but presumably
> it's a country that has [...]
- 100 Senators
- 435 Representatives
- 50 States
(all the numbers were/are up there, in my post)

Mexico?

Mexico has 31 states and one DC-like. I just learned that in
Wikipedia:

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

That means that if/when NAS becomes a reality, it will have 81 states,
plus the canuck ones.

-Ramon

americua

2012-04-09 18:12:08 UTC

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease the
ignorant lowlifes. You said that you studied linguistics; if you did, you
would know that the English language is the most advanced language. It is
more advanced than German by a thousand years. German and the Romance
languages still use special endings for verbs and nouns called
conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns. English got rid of most
of that unnecessary stuff a thousand years ago.

If English is advanced because of this, then the native language of Hawai'i
is another millenium more advanced than English.

Not Sure

2012-04-09 19:20:03 UTC

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that.

Why are you talking to yourself? :)

You must be trying to tease

Post by Mr.Sandman
the ignorant lowlifes. You said that you studied linguistics; if you
did, you would know that the English language is the most advanced
language. It is more advanced than German by a thousand years. German
and the Romance languages still use special endings for verbs and nouns
called conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns. English got rid
of most of that unnecessary stuff a thousand years ago.

Nick from England

2012-04-14 09:58:13 UTC

Ramon, I can't believe that you said that. You must be trying to tease the
ignorant lowlifes. You said that you studied linguistics; if you did, you
would know that the English language is the most advanced language. It is
more advanced than German by a thousand years. German and the Romance
languages still use special endings for verbs and nouns called
conjugations for verbs and declensions for nouns. English got rid of most
of that unnecessary stuff a thousand years ago.

and it is the language of the Internet.

Well, it would be, as the Internet is American! :-D

--
NfE

Bill McCray

2012-04-09 15:39:17 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!

Did anyone suggest that it does?

Post by Ramon F Herrera
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

I've never heard of it. I've heard of "pugnacious" (looking for a fight
or willing to fight, perhaps), so "pugnate" might mean "fight" and
"pugnator" mean "fighter". So is "propugnator" one who advocates
fighting?

Anyway, as far as my experience goes, neither word exists. If either
does, it certainly isn't in common use. If one exists and the other
doesn't, it is because some group saw a need for the first, but not for
the second. But if someone knows "propugnator", I doubt that he would
have any trouble understanding "propugnate" or "propugnation". If you
want the word to exist, just start using it. If it turns out to be a
useful word, others will pick it up.

Post by Ramon F Herrera
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

It's one that hasn't been designed, but has just developed through use.
Consequently, there is a lot of irregularity in it. It is such a bad
language that it has apparently become the international language (much
to the dismay of the French). If you dislike the language, feel free to
not use it.

(Checking on-line, I see that a "propugnator" is a "front-rank fighter",
so I'm at least in the right ball park with my guess. I'd guess that
the word was much more useful in the days of hand-to-hand combat, so
that could explain why it isn't used much, if at all, anymore.)

Bill in Kentucky

americua

2012-04-09 19:07:06 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!

Did anyone suggest that it does?

Post by Ramon F Herrera
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

I've never heard of it. I've heard of "pugnacious" (looking for a fight
or willing to fight, perhaps), so "pugnate" might mean "fight" and
"pugnator" mean "fighter". So is "propugnator" one who advocates
fighting?
Anyway, as far as my experience goes, neither word exists. If either
does, it certainly isn't in common use. If one exists and the other
doesn't, it is because some group saw a need for the first, but not for
the second. But if someone knows "propugnator", I doubt that he would
have any trouble understanding "propugnate" or "propugnation". If you
want the word to exist, just start using it. If it turns out to be a
useful word, others will pick it up.

Post by Ramon F Herrera
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

It's one that hasn't been designed, but has just developed through use.
Consequently, there is a lot of irregularity in it. It is such a bad
language that it has apparently become the international language (much to
the dismay of the French). If you dislike the language, feel free to not
use it.
(Checking on-line, I see that a "propugnator" is a "front-rank fighter",
so I'm at least in the right ball park with my guess. I'd guess that the
word was much more useful in the days of hand-to-hand combat, so that
could explain why it isn't used much, if at all, anymore.)

Good answer. The best English equivalents I can think of are to
"advocate", "champion", or "defend," none of which are exactly right, but
the meaning is encompassed by all three.

D. Stussy

2012-04-09 19:23:34 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!

Did anyone suggest that it does?

Post by Ramon F Herrera
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

I've never heard of it. I've heard of "pugnacious" (looking for a fight
or willing to fight, perhaps), so "pugnate" might mean "fight" and
"pugnator" mean "fighter". So is "propugnator" one who advocates
fighting?
Anyway, as far as my experience goes, neither word exists. If either
does, it certainly isn't in common use. If one exists and the other
doesn't, it is because some group saw a need for the first, but not for
the second. But if someone knows "propugnator", I doubt that he would
have any trouble understanding "propugnate" or "propugnation". If you
want the word to exist, just start using it. If it turns out to be a
useful word, others will pick it up.

Post by Ramon F Herrera
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

It's one that hasn't been designed, but has just developed through use.
Consequently, there is a lot of irregularity in it. It is such a bad
language that it has apparently become the international language (much
to the dismay of the French). If you dislike the language, feel free to
not use it.
(Checking on-line, I see that a "propugnator" is a "front-rank fighter",
so I'm at least in the right ball park with my guess. I'd guess that
the word was much more useful in the days of hand-to-hand combat, so
that could explain why it isn't used much, if at all, anymore.)

The interesting thing about this is:

If such a word as "to propugnate" exists, it obviously comes from Latin
roots. If spanish lacks such a word, that means that it has LOST the word
over the two millenia where one converted to the other. In contrast,
English would have added a "foreign word" to its lexicon. That by itself
implies that English is a superior language to spanish; exactly the
opposite of what the OP intended to prove.

Troll RFH loses again.

John Varela

2012-04-09 20:25:11 UTC

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 19:23:34 UTC, "D. Stussy"

Post by D. Stussy

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!

Did anyone suggest that it does?

Post by Ramon F Herrera
The noun "propugnator" exists however.

I've never heard of it. I've heard of "pugnacious" (looking for a fight
or willing to fight, perhaps), so "pugnate" might mean "fight" and
"pugnator" mean "fighter". So is "propugnator" one who advocates
fighting?
Anyway, as far as my experience goes, neither word exists. If either
does, it certainly isn't in common use. If one exists and the other
doesn't, it is because some group saw a need for the first, but not for
the second. But if someone knows "propugnator", I doubt that he would
have any trouble understanding "propugnate" or "propugnation". If you
want the word to exist, just start using it. If it turns out to be a
useful word, others will pick it up.

Post by Ramon F Herrera
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

It's one that hasn't been designed, but has just developed through use.
Consequently, there is a lot of irregularity in it. It is such a bad
language that it has apparently become the international language (much
to the dismay of the French). If you dislike the language, feel free to
not use it.
(Checking on-line, I see that a "propugnator" is a "front-rank fighter",
so I'm at least in the right ball park with my guess. I'd guess that
the word was much more useful in the days of hand-to-hand combat, so
that could explain why it isn't used much, if at all, anymore.)

If such a word as "to propugnate" exists, it obviously comes from Latin
roots. If spanish lacks such a word, that means that it has LOST the word
over the two millenia where one converted to the other. In contrast,
English would have added a "foreign word" to its lexicon. That by itself
implies that English is a superior language to spanish; exactly the
opposite of what the OP intended to prove.

Simon and Schuster's Concise International Dictionary
English/Spanish
Spanish/English

propugnar, tr. v. to defend, protect, advocate.

Post by D. Stussy
Troll RFH loses again.

Try again.

--
John Varela

plainolamerican

2012-04-09 16:09:13 UTC

English is such an inferior, shitty language
---
The domination of the English language globally is undeniable. English
is the language of diplomacy and international communications,
business, tourism, education, science, computer technology, media and
Internet. Because English was used to develop communication,
technology, programming, software, etc, it dominates the web. 70% of
all information stored electronically is in English.

Jerry Avins

2012-04-10 19:08:26 UTC

French was alright for diplomacy in slower times. Why say, "L'Orchestre
de la Societe de Concerts du Conservatoire de Paris" when "The Paris
Conservatory Concert Society Orchestra" will do?

Jerry

Peter Moylan

2012-04-11 10:56:07 UTC

Post by Jerry Avins
French was alright for diplomacy in slower times. Why say, "L'Orchestre
de la Societe de Concerts du Conservatoire de Paris" when "The Paris
Conservatory Concert Society Orchestra" will do?

Because the latter is a tongue-twister for anyone whose native language
is French.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Jerry Avins

2012-04-13 18:20:02 UTC

Because the latter is a tongue-twister for anyone whose native language
is French.

English has the capacity to deal with "The Orchestra of the Society for
Concerts of the Conservatory of Paris", but not the need. Our chaining
rules permit the simpler expression.

Jerry

R H Draney

2012-04-13 21:12:18 UTC

Because the latter is a tongue-twister for anyone whose native language
is French.

English has the capacity to deal with "The Orchestra of the Society for
Concerts of the Conservatory of Paris", but not the need. Our chaining
rules permit the simpler expression.

Thus the French expression that literally means "the screw of the handle of the
faucet of the room of the bath"....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-10 20:06:22 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???

- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???

-Ramon

"Vote early, vote often!"

plainolamerican

2012-04-10 21:23:52 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes
---
we'll also keep our country from becoming another shit hole like
mexico.

bring your favorite weapons and your will

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-10 21:29:18 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

It is ballots versus bullets -not to mention wombs versus bombs- then!

-Ramon

plainolamerican

2012-04-10 21:36:57 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

> You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
> we Latinos will keep the votes
> ---
> we'll also keep our country from becoming another shit hole like
> mexico.
>
> bring your favorite weapons and your will
It is ballots versus bullets -not to mention wombs versus bombs- then!
-Ramon

It is ballots versus bullets
---
we control both ... not to mention the prisons for illegals

plainolamerican

2012-04-10 21:22:50 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???

- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
---
go ask the jews

Harold Burton

2012-04-10 22:05:27 UTC

In article

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

Molesting little boys?

plainolamerican

2012-04-11 14:10:01 UTC

Post by Harold Burton
In article

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

Molesting little boys?

Molesting little boys?
----

Espanuelo

2012-04-11 20:59:40 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
---
go ask the jews

Let us to ask to the Jews (I suppose). You use a telegraphic language.

plainolamerican

2012-04-12 19:24:19 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"

- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
---
go ask the jews

Let us to ask to the Jews (I suppose). You use a telegraphic language.

You use a telegraphic language.
---
you should see my firearm collection

Harold Burton

2012-04-10 22:04:41 UTC

In article

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

Molesting little boys?

snicker

chicagonut

2012-04-11 14:34:12 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Why would any American regardless of their race/ethnicity need someone
of like race/ethnicity to represent them in congress? I thought all
congressmen were supposed to represent all Americans. Don't we all
share the same concern for our national interests as a whole?

plainolamerican

2012-04-11 15:43:01 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I thought all
congressmen were supposed to represent all Americans.
---
that's the way it used to be ... now minorities can influence
politicians looking for votes

Don't we all
share the same concern for our national interests as a whole?
---
not anymore ... ethnic, racial and religious minorities are only
concerned about their klans and the political power they can garner
from their minority status.
they are something other than Americans

chicagonut

2012-04-11 22:46:00 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I thought all
congressmen were supposed to represent all Americans.
---
that's the way it used to be ... now minorities can influence
politicians looking for votes
Don't we all
share the same concern for our national interests as a whole?
---
not anymore ... ethnic, racial and religious minorities are only
concerned about their klans and the political power they can garner
from their minority status.
they are something other than Americans- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I totally agree.

Peter Moylan

2012-04-12 14:47:56 UTC

Post by plainolamerican
not anymore ... ethnic, racial and religious minorities are only
concerned about their klans and the political power they can garner
from their minority status.
they are something other than Americans- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I totally agree.

Which do you agree with? "Hide quoted text" or "Show quoted text"?

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-11 16:53:50 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Why would any American regardless of their race/ethnicity need someone
of like race/ethnicity to represent them in congress?
I thought all congressmen were supposed to represent all Americans.

Nope. The whole of Congress represents the whole of America.

Each Senator represents his/her state. Each representative represents
the district where they come from.

Additionally, each Congressperson SPECIALLY represents the folks who
voted for him/her, the ones who sent him to Washington. They are
called "constituents".

Civics 101.

-Ramon

chicagonut

2012-04-11 22:13:34 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Why would any American regardless of their race/ethnicity need someone
of like race/ethnicity to represent them in congress?

> I thought all congressmen were supposed to represent all Americans.
Nope. The whole of Congress represents the whole of America.
Each Senator represents his/her state. Each representative represents
the district where they come from.
Additionally, each Congressperson SPECIALLY represents the folks who
voted for him/her, the ones who sent him to Washington. They are
called "constituents".
Civics 101.
-Ramon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You of course missed the point (on purpose I am sure). All
congressmen are supposed to represent the interests of Americans, not
foreign invaders and ethnocentric racists like yourself that don't
have the national interests at heart.

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-11 23:14:24 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Why would any American regardless of their race/ethnicity need someone
of like race/ethnicity to represent them in congress?

You of course missed the point (on purpose I am sure). All
congressmen are supposed to represent the interests of Americans

Indeed. Americans, however, have a W-I-D-E variety of opinions and
interests.

For instance, religious folks follow the teachings of their churches
(which support a Path to Citizenship). Similar for business-oriented
people, and the owners of their stock are We The People.

How do you feel about the Israel Lobby? Women's Lobby? Black Caucus?
NRA?

One person's invader is another person's hard working employee.

-Ramon

Harold Burton

2012-04-12 02:32:44 UTC

In article

For instance, religious folks follow the teachings of their churches . . .

and idiot Hispanics blindly follow the "teachings" of the Catholic
church. Talk about stupid.

snicker

chicagonut

2012-04-12 17:39:45 UTC

No problemo. You Anglos can go ahead and keep the dominant language,
we Latinos will keep the votes. Which reminds me...
- WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 435 x 0.16 = 69.6 REPRESENTATIVES!!!???
- WHERE ARE MY 8 GOVERNORS!!!???
-Ramon
"Vote early, vote often!"- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Why would any American regardless of their race/ethnicity need someone
of like race/ethnicity to represent them in congress?

> You of course missed the point (on purpose I am sure). All
> congressmen are supposed to represent the interests of Americans
Indeed. Americans, however, have a W-I-D-E variety of opinions and
interests.
For instance, religious folks follow the teachings of their churches
(which support a Path to Citizenship). Similar for business-oriented
people, and the owners of their stock are We The People.
How do you feel about the Israel Lobby? Women's Lobby? Black Caucus?
NRA?
One person's invader is another person's hard working employee.
-Ramon- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so. And you're ok with that?

Peter Brooks

2012-04-12 17:43:23 UTC

It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so.

That's how you dehumanise people. You stop calling them 'illegal
immigrants' but, simply 'illegals' - as if their only characteristic,
as human beings, is their illegality.

Ramon F. Herrera

2012-04-12 18:02:51 UTC

It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so.

That's how you dehumanise people. You stop calling them
'illegal immigrants' but, simply 'illegals' - as if their
only characteristic, as human beings, is their illegality.

Well said, Peter!!

Peter 4 prez!!!

-Ramon

Dennis M

2012-04-12 19:58:37 UTC

In article

It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so.

That's how you dehumanise people. You stop calling them 'illegal
immigrants' but, simply 'illegals' - as if their only characteristic,
as human beings, is their illegality.

Look how far you've come though, they used to be commonly called illegal
aliens and "immigrant" had nothing to do with it. Genesis even wrote a song
with that title back in 1983.

chicagonut

2012-04-14 00:37:06 UTC

It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so.

That's how you dehumanise people. You stop calling them 'illegal
immigrants' but, simply 'illegals' - as if their only characteristic,
as human beings, is their illegality.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that "illegals" is just short
for illegal aliens. Get a grip already.

Peter Moylan

2012-04-14 02:53:17 UTC

Post by chicagonut
It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so.

That's how you dehumanise people. You stop calling them 'illegal
immigrants' but, simply 'illegals' - as if their only characteristic,
as human beings, is their illegality.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that "illegals" is just short
for illegal aliens. Get a grip already.

Unlawful means against the law. Illegal is a sick bird.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Mike L

2012-04-14 20:36:48 UTC

It was nothing to do with hard work. It has to do with employers
hiring these illegals for more profit and in direct violation of laws
by doing so.

That's how you dehumanise people. You stop calling them 'illegal
immigrants' but, simply 'illegals' - as if their only characteristic,
as human beings, is their illegality.

Oh, don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows that "illegals" is just short
for illegal aliens. Get a grip already.

As I say from time to time, if our choice of words didn't matter much,
admen wouldn't be well paid, and poets wouldn't be fussy.

--
Mike.

Pablo

2012-04-09 18:29:07 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

And Spanish doesn't have a verb "fartear" although English has "fart".

The Spanish have to say "tirarse un pedo" - I mean, what kind of a language
is that? :-)

--
Pablo

Mike L

2012-04-09 22:21:27 UTC

On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

Clearly one of which you aren't yet entirely a master.

The corresponding verb in English is "propugn". The other derivatives
are more predictable.

Post by Ramon F Herrera
-Ramon
http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=propugnar

Next question?

--
Mike.

Ramon F Herrera

2012-04-09 22:49:45 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 00:03:39 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

Clearly one of which you aren't yet entirely a master.
The corresponding verb in English is "propugn". The other derivatives
are more predictable.

Post by Ramon F Herrera
-Ramon
http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=propugnar

Next question?
--
Mike.

Thanks, Mike!

Now I can form my sentence:

If baggers can get their country back, why can't the Mexicans?

We Hispanics are only interested in peaceful and Constitutional means,
as opposed to the baggers, who are propugning "Second. Amendment
solutions".

Another variation:

I fully support La Reconquista de Aztlan, PROVIDED that it is achieved
through constitutional means...
... which reminds me:

WHERE ARE MY 16 SENATORS!!!???

-Ramon

Mr. Malthus

2012-04-11 02:43:07 UTC

In article

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

English lacks a language academy that sets standards. In my opinion,
that does make it inferior. Also, most European languages, in the first
decade of the past century, had a spelling reform, and English did not
participate.

On the other hand, superior languages who have language academies work
overtime to try and create alternatives to the anglicisms that keep
creeping into their language no matter how hard they try. I am thinking
of France saying "ordinateur" when all their people are saying
"computer".

In the end, languages are fluid and leak into each other. It is a
people's dedication to its quality that makes a language respectable.

It does amuse me that most monoglots speak their one language poorly. I
would finger people in both Mexico and in the US with that accusation.

¿Qué les parece?

plainolamerican

2012-04-11 14:12:42 UTC

Post by Harold Burton
In article

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

English lacks a language academy that sets standards. In my opinion,
that does make it inferior. Also, most European languages, in the first
decade of the past century, had a spelling reform, and English did not
participate.
On the other hand, superior languages who have language academies work
overtime to try and create alternatives to the anglicisms that keep
creeping into their language no matter how hard they try. I am thinking
of France saying "ordinateur" when all their people are saying
"computer".
In the end, languages are fluid and leak into each other. It is a
people's dedication to its quality that makes a language respectable.
It does amuse me that most monoglots speak their one language poorly. I
would finger people in both Mexico and in the US with that accusation.
¿Qué les parece?

monoglots speak their one language poorly. I
would finger people in both Mexico and in the US with that
accusation.
---
the purpose is communication ... not eloquence or accuracy

Nick from England

2012-04-15 00:43:34 UTC

Post by Ramon F Herrera
I just found out that the verb "propugnate" does not exist!!
The noun "propugnator" exists however.
What kind of crappy language is this, anyway?

It's superb! :-)

--
NfE

DanS.

2012-04-16 05:32:43 UTC