| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Lawrence Hyde" |
| Date: |
19 Apr 2004 09:16:47 PM |
| Object: |
Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to
promote science in education, lobby the governement in fighting
against religious organizations who try to skew the law and to
uniting it's members in achiving wealth and coordinate verious
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments,
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic
faith forever. Anyone want to join?
.
|
|
| User: "Mylon" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
23 Apr 2004 07:13:41 AM |
|
|
G.A.W.D.S - Giddy Atheist Without Diddly Squat
Or something.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 08:37:38 AM |
|
|
In article <f925918f.0404191816.27486e3c@posting.google.com>, Lawrence Hyde
says...
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to
promote science in education, lobby the governement in fighting
against religious organizations who try to skew the law and to
uniting it's members in achiving wealth and coordinate verious
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments,
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic
faith forever. Anyone want to join?
Sorry, not much of a "joiner". That and you have to improve your spelling and
grammar - Your post makes a very poor first impression.
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
19 Apr 2004 11:33:15 PM |
|
|
In talk.philosophy.humanism Lawrence Hyde <revolutionarian@earthlink.net> wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to
promote science in education, lobby the governement in fighting
against religious organizations who try to skew the law and to
uniting it's members in achiving wealth and coordinate verious
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments,
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic
faith forever. Anyone want to join?
It doesn't seem like a good way to control people.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam Marczyk" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
21 Apr 2004 12:07:40 PM |
|
|
Lawrence Hyde <revolutionarian@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f925918f.0404191816.27486e3c@posting.google.com...
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to
promote science in education, lobby the governement in fighting
against religious organizations who try to skew the law and to
uniting it's members in achiving wealth and coordinate verious
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments,
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic
faith forever. Anyone want to join?
Too late. The Evil Atheist Conspiracy already has that niche sewn up.
--
"If God dwells inside us, | a.a. #2001
like some people say, | http://www.ebonmusings.org
I sure hope he likes enchiladas, | e-mail: ebonmuse!hotmail.com
because that's what he's getting." | ICQ: 8777843
--Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey | PGP Key ID: 0x5C66F737
----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
19 Apr 2004 09:23:33 PM |
|
|
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted
to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's
members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate
verious[sic] covert activities around the world to
manipulate goverments[sic], economies and societies with
the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone
want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4
spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 05:57:54 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:23:33 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted
to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's (SIC) *
members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate
verious[sic] covert activities around the world to
manipulate goverments[sic], economies and societies with
the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone
want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4
spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive pronoun with an errant
apostrophe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Seib" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 09:28:49 AM |
|
|
JPG <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<eh0a80dlt51vk2b1fo8vctj5s7pmb9rihe@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:23:33 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted
to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's (SIC) *
members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate
verious[sic] covert activities around the world to
manipulate goverments[sic], economies and societies with
the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone
want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4
spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive
pronoun with an errant
apostrophe.
Hmm, it seems that all contractions use an apostrophe
with the ecxeption if its, or are there more?
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "JPG" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 11:24:15 AM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2004 07:28:49 -0700, (Lawrence Seib) wrote:
JPG <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<eh0a80dlt51vk2b1fo8vctj5s7pmb9rihe@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:23:33 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted
to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's (SIC) *
members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate
verious[sic] covert activities around the world to
manipulate goverments[sic], economies and societies with
the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone
want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4
spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive
pronoun with an errant
apostrophe.
Hmm, it seems that all contractions use an apostrophe
with the ecxeption if its, or are there more?
"its" meaning belonging to "it" is actually not a contraction, any more than
"his" or "hers" is.
"it's" is a contraction of "it is", so its apostrophe is correct; it's not
acceptable to put an apostrophe in the pronoun.
JPG
Larry
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 06:35:24 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 07:28:49 -0700 in episode
<75ab6396.0404200628.5ae780df@posting.google.com> we saw our hero
lseib@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Lawrence Seib):
JPG <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:<eh0a80dlt51vk2b1fo8vctj5s7pmb9rihe@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:23:33 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to promote
science in education, lobby the governement[sic] in fighting against
religious organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's
(SIC) * members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate verious[sic]
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments[sic],
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith
forever. Anyone want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4 spelling
errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive pronoun with
an errant
apostrophe.
Hmm, it seems that all contractions use an apostrophe with the ecxeption
if its, or are there more?
It's not a contraction. <g>
No, seriously. The possessive "its" is parallel to "his" and "hers" which
are not contractions. "It's" meaning "it is" is a contraction.
This is but one of the many perversities of English. <g>
I *never flame anybody over "its" verses "it's." I can *never keep them
straight myself. I also tend to never notice when somebody else gets them
backwards so I, well, *can't flame them. <g>
(On the other hand, I'll actually argue with people over whether "they"
and "their" can be used as singular)
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mylon" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
21 Apr 2004 03:26:56 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.20.23.35.23.576301@hoo.com-amikchi...
(On the other hand, I'll actually argue with people over whether "they"
and "their" can be used as singular)
You will? What's your stance on the issue, as for or against? I use "they"
and "their" for the purpose of gender neutrality. Having to use "his/hers"
gets annoying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
21 Apr 2004 08:57:58 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:56 +0000 in episode
<kOAhc.471747$B81.7938129@twister.tampabay.rr.com> we saw our hero "Mylon"
<someone@somewhere.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.20.23.35.23.576301@hoo.com-amikchi...
(On the other hand, I'll actually argue with people over whether "they"
and "their" can be used as singular)
You will? What's your stance on the issue, as for or against? I use
"they" and "their" for the purpose of gender neutrality. Having to use
"his/hers" gets annoying.
For. Definitely for.
Languages do things like that all the time. We're finding a need for
gender neutral third person. Why not adapt the third person plural?
The people who complain about it don't seem to be bothered by "you/yours."
Second person singular and plural are the same. "You are" can mean "you,
the one person" or "you bunch of people." Nobody seems bothered by that.
Every other technique I've seen to deal with the matter is a total
clunker. Like the "his/hers" you mentioned. Or the atrocity "s/he." Or the
one that's really big right now in the tech writing field of "write one
chapter using 'she' and then the next chapter using 'he'" (I am not making
that up, it's in writing guidelines).
And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
"they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be standard...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mylon" |
|
| Title: RE: Grammar |
22 Apr 2004 01:37:28 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.22.01.57.57.70703@hoo.com-amikchi...
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:56 +0000 in episode
<kOAhc.471747$B81.7938129@twister.tampabay.rr.com> we saw our hero "Mylon"
<someone@somewhere.com>:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.20.23.35.23.576301@hoo.com-amikchi...
(On the other hand, I'll actually argue with people over whether "they"
and "their" can be used as singular)
You will? What's your stance on the issue, as for or against? I use
"they" and "their" for the purpose of gender neutrality. Having to use
"his/hers" gets annoying.
For. Definitely for.
Languages do things like that all the time. We're finding a need for
gender neutral third person. Why not adapt the third person plural?
The people who complain about it don't seem to be bothered by "you/yours."
Second person singular and plural are the same. "You are" can mean "you,
the one person" or "you bunch of people." Nobody seems bothered by that.
Every other technique I've seen to deal with the matter is a total
clunker. Like the "his/hers" you mentioned. Or the atrocity "s/he." Or the
one that's really big right now in the tech writing field of "write one
chapter using 'she' and then the next chapter using 'he'" (I am not making
that up, it's in writing guidelines).
And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
"they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
standard...
Yeah, I've had a few marks on school papers for my use of the words in this
way. I've never really known of any elegant alternative, so I just ignored
the mistakes and took the hit to my grade, since it's usually pretty
negligible anyway.
Silly teachers punishing their students for trying to allow language to
evolve.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Holbach" |
|
| Title: Re: Grammar |
22 Apr 2004 08:10:49 PM |
|
|
Katie wrote:
"Mylon" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<
IhUhc.71548$I83.1402157@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
If we're going to talk about atheism, we need to be clear on one thing:
basic grammar.
Atheist is a noun.
Atheistic is an adjective.
Atheist is not an adjective.
So, please don't say, "I'm atheist." You're not atheist. You're AN atheist,
or you're atheistic.
[...]
There is an adjective "atheist", but it can only occur in attributive
function, that is, as a nounīs premodifier.
For example, "Peter has atheist leanings" is grammatically correct but
"Peter is atheist" isnīt!
Regards
PH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Katie" |
|
| Title: Re: Grammar |
25 Apr 2004 07:21:49 PM |
|
|
"Paul Holbach" <paulholbachSPAMBAN@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:881c8779.0404221710.769dc454@posting.google.com...
Katie wrote:
"Mylon" <someone@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<
IhUhc.71548$I83.1402157@twister.tampabay.rr.com>...
If we're going to talk about atheism, we need to be clear on one thing:
basic grammar.
Atheist is a noun.
Atheistic is an adjective.
Atheist is not an adjective.
So, please don't say, "I'm atheist." You're not atheist. You're AN
atheist,
or you're atheistic.
[...]
There is an adjective "atheist", but it can only occur in attributive
function, that is, as a nounīs premodifier.
For example, "Peter has atheist leanings" is grammatically correct but
"Peter is atheist" isnīt!
Regards
PH
Works for me :)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Grammar |
22 Apr 2004 02:47:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.01.57.57.70703@hoo.com-amikchi> Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
[Grammatical sex issues]
: And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be standard...
Winning? Pick up an Oxford. It has been proper English for this problem
for the last, say, 400 years. (IIRC)
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
"Of ghoulies and ghosties,
Of longleggetie beasties,
Of things that go
bump in the night,
Good Lord deliver us."
- Vincent O'Neil
the Son of Borley Rectory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mylon" |
|
| Title: Re: Grammar |
22 Apr 2004 03:54:56 PM |
|
|
"John M Price PhD" <jmprice@calweb.com> wrote in message
news:40882136$0$7556$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.01.57.57.70703@hoo.com-amikchi>
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
[Grammatical sex issues]
: And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
standard...
Winning? Pick up an Oxford. It has been proper English for this problem
for the last, say, 400 years. (IIRC)
I need to call up all of my English teachers (and everyone else that graded
a paper I wrote) and give them a good talking to, then...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Grammar |
22 Apr 2004 04:29:42 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:47:02 +0000 in episode
<40882136$0$7556$d368eab@news.calweb.com> we saw our hero John M Price PhD
<jmprice@calweb.com>:
In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.01.57.57.70703@hoo.com-amikchi>
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
[Grammatical sex issues]
: And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
: standard...
Winning? Pick up an Oxford. It has been proper English for this problem
for the last, say, 400 years. (IIRC)
Really? That I did not know.
That makes the squawking about it that much more amusing. <g>
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: Grammar |
22 Apr 2004 05:41:42 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.21.29.41.483952@hoo.com-amikchi> Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
: On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:47:02 +0000 in episode
: <40882136$0$7556$d368eab@news.calweb.com> we saw our hero John M Price PhD
: <>:
: > In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.01.57.57.70703@hoo.com-amikchi>
: > Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
: >
: > [Grammatical sex issues]
: >
: > : And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: > : pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: > : "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
: > : standard...
: >
: > Winning? Pick up an Oxford. It has been proper English for this problem
: > for the last, say, 400 years. (IIRC)
: Really? That I did not know.
: That makes the squawking about it that much more amusing. <g>
Sense 2 for 'they' in my compact Oxford, 1971, page 297 of 'T':
Part B.I.2. [it has a very interesting history, hence so many parts]
often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by /every/,
/any/, /no/, atc., or applicable to one of either sex (='he or she').
usages follow, starting in 1526.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
One of the most irrational of all the conventions of modern society is the
one to the effect that religious opinions should be respected. [This]
convention protects them, and so they proceed with their blather unwhipped
and almost unmolested, to the great damage of common sense and common
decency. That they should have this immunity is an outrage. There is
nothing in religious ideas, as a class, to lift them above other ideas.
On the contrary, they are always dubious and often quite silly.
- H.L. Mencken (Minority Report, 1956)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Grammar |
23 Apr 2004 12:14:36 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:41:42 +0000 in episode
<40884a26$0$7529$d368eab@news.calweb.com> we saw our hero John M Price PhD
<jmprice@calweb.com>:
In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.21.29.41.483952@hoo.com-amikchi>
Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
: On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 19:47:02 +0000 in episode
: <40882136$0$7556$d368eab@news.calweb.com> we saw our hero John M Price
: PhD <jmprice@calweb.com>:
: > In alt.atheism article <pan.2004.04.22.01.57.57.70703@hoo.com-amikchi>
: > Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
: >
: > [Grammatical sex issues]
: >
: > : And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether
: > : the pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: > : "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
: > : standard...
: >
: > Winning? Pick up an Oxford. It has been proper English for this
: > problem for the last, say, 400 years. (IIRC)
: Really? That I did not know.
: That makes the squawking about it that much more amusing. <g>
Sense 2 for 'they' in my compact Oxford, 1971, page 297 of 'T':
Part B.I.2. [it has a very interesting history, hence so many parts]
often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by /every/,
/any/, /no/, atc., or applicable to one of either sex (='he or she').
usages follow, starting in 1526.
1526?
I'll be damned.
Sounds about right. A number of things the self-appointed guardians of
English ***** about turn out to be centuries old. Something that's been
around for ages but, for whatever reasons, is revived...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
22 Apr 2004 06:13:38 PM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
:
: And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be standard...
This is just another case of something that already happened in the
past. You don't hear too many people saying "thee" and "thou" anymore.
It used to be that "thee" and "thou" were for speaking to a singular
second person, and "you" was only for plural second person. This
changed over time, partly because of the pretentious "royal we".
People who wanted to put on airs, being pretentious, began insisting
that you refer to them in the plural, as you would to royalty.
After enough time, it became common to say the plural "you" for
every individual.
And I've heard an even worse ugly term for fixing the gender-neutral
problem. It's "zhe" for she/he, and "zhir" for
"his/her", and "zhis" hers/his, and so on. The "Zh" is supposed to be
pronouced like a soft 'g' or 'j' combined with a hiss like an 'sh' sound.
It's not gaining in popularity becuase: 1 - It's not a phoneme that
comes naturally to English speakers, and 2 - It's been co-opted by the
'transgender' community to mean "person you can't tell the gender of
(or don't want to reveal) even when you know who it is specifically.",
instead of its original connotation of "person whom you can't tell
the gender of because you haven't specified who you're talking about."
.
|
|
|
| User: "John M Price PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
23 Apr 2004 11:50:42 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism article <c69jj2$58d$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> Steve Mading <spammersMustDie@real-addr-is-madings-at-bmrb-wisc-edu.invalid> wrote:
: In talk.atheism Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
: :
: : And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: : pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: : "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be standard...
: This is just another case of something that already happened in the
: past. You don't hear too many people saying "thee" and "thou" anymore.
: It used to be that "thee" and "thou" were for speaking to a singular
: second person, and "you" was only for plural second person. This
: changed over time, partly because of the pretentious "royal we".
: People who wanted to put on airs, being pretentious, began insisting
: that you refer to them in the plural, as you would to royalty.
: After enough time, it became common to say the plural "you" for
: every individual.
This is likely from the Germanic, as there the 'polite' you is in fact
plural. So too Russian. A kid would never call an adult the singular
form, and formal meetings are all plural.
It is not simply pretentiousness.
(c) 2004. Copyright, John M. Price, PhD. All Rights Reserved.
Contents may not be republished in any form or medium without prior
written consent of the author with the express and only exception of
followup postings limited to and within usenet.
--
John M. Price, PhD
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or FTP!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated Atheist# 683
Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than half of the people
are right more than half of the time.
- E. B. White
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mylon" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
23 Apr 2004 05:57:39 PM |
|
|
"John M Price PhD" <jmprice@calweb.com> wrote in message
news:40894962$0$7569$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
This is likely from the Germanic, as there the 'polite' you is in fact
plural. So too Russian. A kid would never call an adult the singular
form, and formal meetings are all plural.
As is the case in French where "vous" is used in plural and in formality.
On a sidenote, in French there is a specific gender-neutral pronoun, "on",
which roughly means in English, "One." For example,
On va au biblioteque. Or, "One goes to the library."
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
23 Apr 2004 12:08:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:13:38 +0000 in episode
<c69jj2$58d$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> we saw our hero Steve Mading
<spammersMustDie@real-addr-is-madings-at-bmrb-wisc-edu.invalid>:
In talk.atheism Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
:
: And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
: pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
: "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
: standard...
This is just another case of something that already happened in the past.
You don't hear too many people saying "thee" and "thou" anymore. It used
to be that "thee" and "thou" were for speaking to a singular second
person, and "you" was only for plural second person. This changed over
time, partly because of the pretentious "royal we". People who wanted to
put on airs, being pretentious, began insisting that you refer to them in
the plural, as you would to royalty. After enough time, it became common
to say the plural "you" for every individual.
Which, by the way, I've read people bitching about. That is, the
"corruption" of the language, "kids these days," the usual. All over the
loss of "thee" and "thou."
The language mavens are just too amusing. They always fight losing battles
and eventually fade into obscurity. Yet there are always plenty to take
their places in... losing battles and fading into irrelevance...
And I've heard an even worse ugly term for fixing the gender-neutral
problem. It's "zhe" for she/he, and "zhir" for "his/her", and "zhis"
hers/his, and so on. The "Zh" is supposed to be pronouced like a soft 'g'
or 'j' combined with a hiss like an 'sh' sound. It's not gaining in
popularity becuase: 1 - It's not a phoneme that comes naturally to English
speakers, and 2 - It's been co-opted by the 'transgender' community to
mean "person you can't tell the gender of (or don't want to reveal) even
when you know who it is specifically.", instead of its original
connotation of "person whom you can't tell the gender of because you
haven't specified who you're talking about."
Erm...
I have to go lie down now...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Mading" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
26 Apr 2004 04:54:59 AM |
|
|
In talk.atheism Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
: On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:13:38 +0000 in episode
: <c69jj2$58d$1@news.doit.wisc.edu> we saw our hero Steve Mading
: <spammersMustDie@real-addr-is-madings-at-bmrb-wisc-edu.invalid>:
:
:> In talk.atheism Mark K. Bilbo <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
:> :
:> : And it's one of those things that a language is going to do whether the
:> : pedants like it or not. If you pay attention, you can see that
:> : "they/their" is winning. Given a couple of generations, it'll be
:> : standard...
:>
:> This is just another case of something that already happened in the past.
:> You don't hear too many people saying "thee" and "thou" anymore. It used
:> to be that "thee" and "thou" were for speaking to a singular second
:> person, and "you" was only for plural second person. This changed over
:> time, partly because of the pretentious "royal we". People who wanted to
:> put on airs, being pretentious, began insisting that you refer to them in
:> the plural, as you would to royalty. After enough time, it became common
:> to say the plural "you" for every individual.
:
: Which, by the way, I've read people bitching about. That is, the
: "corruption" of the language, "kids these days," the usual. All over the
: loss of "thee" and "thou."
:
: The language mavens are just too amusing. They always fight losing battles
: and eventually fade into obscurity. Yet there are always plenty to take
: their places in... losing battles and fading into irrelevance...
This language battle doesn't matter, but others often DO - specifcally
ones where the change in language is due to predjudice of a group
instead of being based on wanting to change a grammar or spelling
practice. The obvious example to use here is the word "atheist".
Webster's attempt to turn it into a word that only refers to strong
atheism is not an irrelevant struggle we should just roll over and
accept.
Also, take the word "hacker" in relation to a computer programmer.
The hackers lost that one and now there's no word to use to describe
a Macgyver-like person who can string together a good novel use of
a programming tool (the original meaning of "hacker" in reference
to computer programming). What happened there is that the early
security-violating-computer-programmers were, in addition to
being engaged in criminal activity, also using these Macgyver-like
programming tricks to pull off those activities. Upon hearing other
programmers refer to these people as "hackers", the media got the
wrong impression that the word was referring to the breaking-in
activity, when it was actually referring to the clever techniques
being used to pull it off. And so the ignorance of the public
destroyed the usability of that jargon word, in essence, it
stole it away from the original users of it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence Hyde" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 10:24:50 AM |
|
|
JPG <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<eh0a80dlt51vk2b1fo8vctj5s7pmb9rihe@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:23:33 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted
to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's (SIC) *
members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate
verious[sic] covert activities around the world to
manipulate goverments[sic], economies and societies with
the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone
want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4
spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive pronoun with an errant
apostrophe.
Well, I am the leader. And, I appologize for my splemissings, but
wizenhimers who care more abuot grammer than grandure can't join either. ;P
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 10:27:30 AM |
|
|
In article <f925918f.0404200724.78803e9a@posting.google.com>, Lawrence Hyde
says...
JPG <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<eh0a80dlt51vk2b1fo8vctj5s7pmb9rihe@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:23:33 -0700, "David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted
to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's (SIC) *
members in achiving[sic] wealth and coordinate
verious[sic] covert activities around the world to
manipulate goverments[sic], economies and societies with
the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone
want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But with 4
spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive pronoun with an errant
apostrophe.
Well, I am the leader. And, I appologize for my splemissings, but
wizenhimers who care more abuot grammer than grandure can't join either. ;P
No problem ;)
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 09:49:14 AM |
|
|
JPG wrote:
"David V." <spam@hotmail.com> wrote:
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization
devoted to promote science in education, lobby the
governement[sic] in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting
it's (SIC) * members in achiving[sic] wealth and
coordinate verious[sic] covert activities around the
world to manipulate goverments[sic], economies and
societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic faith
forever. Anyone want to join?
The christians claim such a group already exists. But
with 4 spelling errors in one paragraph, you can't be
the leader.
* Plus the ultimate grammatical sin - a neuter possessive
pronoun with an errant apostrophe.
That was such a horrible mistake that my mind must have
blocked it out. Oh the horrors!
:-)
--
David V.
UDP for WebTV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SoF" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
20 Apr 2004 12:03:02 PM |
|
|
Lawrence Hyde wrote:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to
promote science in education, lobby the governement in fighting
against religious organizations who try to skew the law and to
uniting it's members in achiving wealth and coordinate verious
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments,
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic
faith forever. Anyone want to join?
Will there be membership cards?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Kolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
21 Apr 2004 07:20:53 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2004 19:16:47 -0700, (Lawrence
Hyde) thought hard and said:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to
promote science in education, lobby the governement in fighting
against religious organizations who try to skew the law and to
uniting it's members in achiving wealth and coordinate verious
covert activities around the world to manipulate goverments,
economies and societies with the aim of eliminating dogmatic
faith forever. Anyone want to join?
Is this non-existant like the EAC? Is so, sign me up!
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, and Krzysztof Penderecki are my Gods.
Madly Insane EAC Scientist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Join G.A.W.D.S. (Grand Atheist World Domination Scheme) |
22 Apr 2004 10:43:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 19:20:53 -0500 in episode
<eu3e80hskp98h41dbm26jvgf21baqpv9ml@4ax.com> we saw our hero Daniel Kolle
<DKolle@hotmail.com>:
On 19 Apr 2004 19:16:47 -0700, (Lawrence
Hyde) thought hard and said:
I propose the formation of a private organization devoted to promote
science in education, lobby the governement in fighting against religious
organizations who try to skew the law and to uniting it's members in
achiving wealth and coordinate verious covert activities around the world
to manipulate goverments, economies and societies with the aim of
eliminating dogmatic faith forever. Anyone want to join?
Is this non-existant like the EAC? Is so, sign me up!
The problem with non-existent organizations is you might already *be
signed up...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism,
because it is a merger of State and corporate power."
- Mussolini
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
