| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
06 May 2004 11:48:16 AM |
| Object: |
The American Language |
Look how the B.B.C. defines atheism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml
It is only abstract by one layer(the most inabstract definition is
"not a thiest").
Is the definition of atheism as a belief mainly an American thing?
It's more likely to be viewed as such there, mainly because the word
is used there more(I assume most British atheists know not what the
word means).
Of course, the structure of the word should make the definition
obvious, although American is characterised by its lack of uniform
logic("theater"\"theatrical", "scratch" instead of "foul" etc).
~Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Callipygian Nullifidian" |
|
| Title: Re: The American Language |
06 May 2004 03:14:13 PM |
|
|
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0405060848.3c3c3177@posting.google.com...
: Look how the B.B.C. defines atheism:
: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml
:
: It is only abstract by one layer(the most inabstract definition is
: "not a thiest").
:
: Is the definition of atheism as a belief mainly an American thing?
: It's more likely to be viewed as such there, mainly because the word
: is used there more(I assume most British atheists know not what the
: word means).
Where did you ever get that idea? Try looking at the OED's
definition.
: Of course, the structure of the word should make the definition
: obvious, although American is characterised by its lack of uniform
: logic("theater"\"theatrical", "scratch" instead of "foul" etc).
I'm assuming that your problem with "theater"\"theatrical" lies with
the position of the "r"...if so, have you heard this? "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines. - Ralph Waldo Emerson"
As for the scratch vs. foul thing, whatever do you mean?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: The American Language |
07 May 2004 04:40:43 AM |
|
|
"Callipygian Nullifidian" <mulberry@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<c7e6al$h58$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>...
"Iain" <iain_inkster@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6feb9a89.0405060848.3c3c3177@posting.google.com...
: Look how the B.B.C. defines atheism:
: http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml
:
: It is only abstract by one layer(the most inabstract definition is
: "not a thiest").
:
: Is the definition of atheism as a belief mainly an American thing?
: It's more likely to be viewed as such there, mainly because the word
: is used there more(I assume most British atheists know not what the
: word means).
Where did you ever get that idea? Try looking at the OED's
definition.
: Of course, the structure of the word should make the definition
: obvious, although American is characterised by its lack of uniform
: logic("theater"\"theatrical", "scratch" instead of "foul" etc).
I'm assuming that your problem with "theater"\"theatrical" lies with
the position of the "r"...if so, have you heard this? "A foolish
consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little
statesmen and philosophers and divines. - Ralph Waldo Emerson"
As for the scratch vs. foul thing, whatever do you mean?
I am talking about pool(game) terminology. Americans talk about
"scratching"(e.g. potting the white) whereas "fouling" is better is it
indicates "foul play".
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The American Language |
06 May 2004 05:26:35 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2004 09:48:16 -0700, (Iain) wrote:
Look how the B.B.C. defines atheism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml
It is only abstract by one layer(the most inabstract definition is
"not a thiest").
Is the definition of atheism as a belief mainly an American thing?
It's more likely to be viewed as such there, mainly because the word
is used there more(I assume most British atheists know not what the
word means).
It's not particularly American. It happens anywhere where there is a
large theistic majority without experience of other religious/etc
beliefs who haven't seen another religion from outside it.
Britain is nothing like as theistic as the USA, and is also
multicultural.
So there is no single theistic majority to tell us what we :really
believe".
My Lady Friend is Indian, from a province where Hindus, Catholics and
Muslims live side by side.
She grew up realising that to her neighbours, her most cherished
beliefs were simply "somebody else's religion", and respecting
people's right to their own religion.
So she understood what my (and other atheists') position from outside
her religion, was from the day one.
Of course, the structure of the word should make the definition
obvious, although American is characterised by its lack of uniform
logic("theater"\"theatrical", "scratch" instead of "foul" etc).
They mix the various nouns derived from verbs too.
Strictly, the -er form means the person or thing doing the action,
-ing is the action itself and -ee is the object of the action.
Eg an employer performs the act of employing an employee.
Yet there is no consistence in US English. So people standing on buses
are called standees. A wrecker (or wrecking crane) is what cleans up
after a wreck (in England a wrecker was somebody who deliberately
caused a shipwreck).
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: The American Language |
06 May 2004 08:00:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 May 2004 22:26:35 GMT, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
They mix the various nouns derived from verbs too.
Strictly, the -er form means the person or thing doing the action,
-ing is the action itself and -ee is the object of the action.
Eg an employer performs the act of employing an employee.
Yet there is no consistence in US English. So people standing on buses
are called standees. A wrecker (or wrecking crane) is what cleans up
after a wreck (in England a wrecker was somebody who deliberately
caused a shipwreck).
The standee bit is somewhat weak. I don't know exactly how it came into
being, but it's not difficult to imagine it being grammatical in origin.
The stander is the one directing passengers to stand, perhaps. That makes
those stood up standees. Think more like standing a pole up, rather than
standing yourself up.
The wrecker bit is a southern thing. It sounds very peculiar to people in
the north, where we use tow trucks to remove cars involved in accidents.
When the car no longer rolls, we use flatbeds.
There are some other oddities in southern US speech as well. Such as
burning headlights, and package stores instead of liquor stores. Also,
the bridge doesn't freeze before the road surface, it ices.
Then again, Brits don't have flashlights (in itself a bit odd), but
torches. If you say you have a torch here, you're expected to be wielding
an open flame of some sort.
There's no consistency in any version of the English language.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Ruskai" |
|
| Title: Re: The American Language |
06 May 2004 07:52:55 PM |
|
|
On 6 May 2004 09:48:16 -0700, Iain wrote:
Look how the B.B.C. defines atheism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml
It is only abstract by one layer(the most inabstract definition is
"not a thiest").
Is the definition of atheism as a belief mainly an American thing?
It's more likely to be viewed as such there, mainly because the word
is used there more(I assume most British atheists know not what the
word means).
Of course, the structure of the word should make the definition
obvious, although American is characterised by its lack of uniform
logic("theater"\"theatrical", "scratch" instead of "foul" etc).
English is characterized by its lack of uniform logic, to use your terms.
The kind spoken on your side of the pond is no different.
For example, why pronounce the H in "herb", but not in "hour"?
And all of England is littered with town names where the pronunciation has
little relationship to the spelling.
--
- Mike
Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: The American Language |
07 May 2004 04:35:56 AM |
|
|
"Mike Ruskai" <spamten.knilhtrae@begonedynnaht.net> wrote in message news:<gunaalqrneguyvaxarg.hxbjs53.pminews@news.east.earthlink.net>...
On 6 May 2004 09:48:16 -0700, Iain wrote:
Look how the B.B.C. defines atheism:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/index.shtml
It is only abstract by one layer(the most inabstract definition is
"not a thiest").
Is the definition of atheism as a belief mainly an American thing?
It's more likely to be viewed as such there, mainly because the word
is used there more(I assume most British atheists know not what the
word means).
Of course, the structure of the word should make the definition
obvious, although American is characterised by its lack of uniform
logic("theater"\"theatrical", "scratch" instead of "foul" etc).
English is characterized by its lack of uniform logic, to use your terms.
The kind spoken on your side of the pond is no different.
For example, why pronounce the H in "herb", but not in "hour"?
And all of England is littered with town names where the pronunciation has
little relationship to the spelling.
I'm not talking about phoneticness, which ebs and flows every few
decades whilst spelling remains unchanged(or changes slower).
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
