Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- From: "The Historian" <Spamscone@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Sep 2005 21:42:23 -0700
Niemand wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
> > Why am I giving Americans a civics lesson - didn't you guys do this in
> > school? No ethics? No Billof Rights? Or do neither matter these days?
>
> I am reminded of a line from the movie "Quiz Show": "Phil hopes
> someday to be mistaken for an important person."
He's gone beyond mere hope into something more active: in the past week
Philth has announced the discovery of a new pronoun in English:
"He first refers to "O.E.", Old English, a general term by which I take
him
to mean Anglo Saxon, as if it were a language. It is not, it is instead
a
collective pronoun..."
He's claimed a lengthy heritage for a definition that no dictionary is
aware of:
Dr. Peter Groves:
> I realise that your knowledge of English is somewhat rudimentary: we mean
> by
> "a Latin" someone whose native tongue is derived from Latin.
Philth Innes:
"Actually 'a Latin' is someone who has the language and is common as
muck
parlance for the past 250 years."
These are not the only linguistic triumphs the Brattleboro Bedlam has
achieved this week; there's also "New English":
Philth Innes
> This writer doesn't seem to have realised that in New English [sic]
Dr. David Webb:
"New English"? Is that the language that you imagine is spoken in
New England?
And the shocking discovery that Old English is still spoken in the 21st
century:
Philth Innes:
"I need no belief at all. Old english is spoken in the C21st, indeed
the
words Old English are Old English - is it so hard to associate a verb
with
this noun and adjective, and so make a sentence? Isn't that speaking
OE? Do
you have some other contention? If so, no boubt you will say so - but
this
is not a request, it is a rebuke that you have not said so."
Dr. David Webb:
"Even those with no training whatever in linguistics have some notion
of what it means to speak a language. Hint: The ability to use the
word "vodka" does *not* mean that one speaks Russian!"
Neil Brennen:
"So then I can claim to speak German because I know "Volkswagon" means
"people's car"?"
Turning to literature, Innes has manufactured yet another piece of
Orwell, this time a letter asserting that _We_ was banned in the United
States, despite its publication here in 1924:
Dr. David Webb:
"If you know of anything "unreliable" that I said, then why don't you
identify it? Thus far, the only "unreliable" assertions in this whole
discussion appear to be:
(1) Your demonstrably false assertion that _We_ was never published in
Russian,
(2) Your equally false assertion that _We_ was not published in English
in 1924,
(3) Your unsupported (and apparently unsupportable) claim that Orwell
asserted that the novel had been suppressed by the American and British
governments and banned by the latter (Orwell says no such thing in his
_Tribune_ review, and
(4) Your erroneous speculation that Zamyatin was not survived by his
wife Lyudmila Nikolayevna.
"Incidentally, when I inquired earlier about the source for your
claim, you rejoined
"We have the same book, isn't this stated in a letter to Rahv or
Moore in, obviously, 47?"
"I don't know what book, if any, you are reading -- or misreading --
but
if you indeed have a book containing a letter from Orwell in which he
asserts that _We_ was suppressed by the American and British
governments
and banned by the latter, then why don't you simply identify the book
and page number explicitly? Or, why don't you give the letter's exact
date, and I can look it up in the complete works? You do know what a
precise reference is, don't you? I am beginning to wonder."
Philth's also claimed to have "degrees" and "sutdents" (sic):
"Additionally, I am able to assess its worth and discus it without even
mentioning my degrees or bowling scores."
"Will my own sutdents please note this!"
Sadly, despite Philth's best effort (a polite phrase meaning he used a
lot of profanity and libel of his betters in a large number of
semi-literate posts), academia was still unconvinced by his arguments:
Dr. David Kathman:
"I don't really have anything to add to Peter Groves's explanation, so
I
didn't feel a need to post on it. I only pop into this newsgroup from
time to time and rarely have time to post more than something quick and
off the cuff. In any case, I don't have time to bother with the likes
of Phil Innes, whose ignorance and misunderstandings are so pervasive
that correcting them would require a whole course on basic historical
linguistics."
Dr. Peter Groves:
> No, Phil, I was being polite. Let me rephrase it, less politely, since
> subtlety seems to be lost on you: I'm a published scholar, whose opinions
> carry some weight, and you're the sort of ignorant opinionated tosser who
> used to bore people in pubs before the Internet gave you a wider forum.
Dr. Peter Groves:
"Judging from this he's an unpleasant little toad, and a liar to boot.
I had
thought he was just a loud-mouthed ignoramus who was pathetically
unaware of
the amusement his performances were affording other people."
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- From: Chess One
- Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- References:
- Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- From: The Historian
- Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- From: Chess One
- Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- Prev by Date: Re: Mihail Tal (was Re: Computers vs. human opponents -- differences)
- Next by Date: Castling (was questions from a beginner...)
- Previous by thread: Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- Next by thread: Re: Parr the Hypocrite
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
