Re: Let's argue about... English
- From: Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:17:49 -0400
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007 02:22:57 -0600, boots <no@xxxxx> wrote:
Bill Penrose <penrose@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:43 am, $Zero <zeroi...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Let's argue about... English
I think the votes are in. English has already shown itself to be too
complicated, too hard to pronounce, too arbitrary, and too ambiguous
to make it useful as a real method of communication. Besides, it has
too many words.
The chances of English eclipsing Esperanto as the international
language of mankind are laughable, at best
Dangerous Bill
Politicians and lawyers will never allow the English language to be
eclipsed because no other language so facilitates one's ability to lie
with a straight face and no fear of inescapable reprisal, appear to
promise things unpromised, defame a victim by the delivery of
flattery, or insult authority during a display of abject submission;
it is a scalpel of infinite length, an impenetrable shield, and a
baked potato with sour cream and chives.
Been reading them 19th-century novels?
--
Josh
"Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is
good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
-- Samuel Johnson
.
- References:
- Let's argue about... English
- From: $Zero
- Re: Let's argue about... English
- From: Bill Penrose
- Re: Let's argue about... English
- From: boots
- Let's argue about... English
- Prev by Date: Re: Drs. Cindy and Dave's 237 reasons to have sex list
- Next by Date: Re: The Mega Salvation Army Post
- Previous by thread: Re: Let's argue about... English
- Next by thread: Re: Let's argue about... English
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
