Re: Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
- From: "Chess One" <innes8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:58:28 GMT
Having attempted to write with Mr. Brennen here and in another newsgroup, I
will now relapse, except that I would assure any reader that Anglo Saxon,
which is also called Old English, is comprised of some half dozen usually
mutually incomprehensible.dialects. What Mr. B understands or cares about
this subject, or why he writes his spite in this thread is known best to his
mother and those people listed below, who demonstatrate their knowledge of
these things as the reader may appraise for themselves.
Phil Innes
<Spamscone@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128892912.804198.40940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> Agree! I have another realm of interest than thee. Phil
>
> Innes is alluding to his exciting discoveries in languages. Here is a
> recap.
>
> 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 (sic) 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."
>
.
- References:
- Re: Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
- From: Spamscone
- Re: Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
- Prev by Date: Re: Question for Parr on Evans quote
- Next by Date: Re: Question for Parr on Evans quote
- Previous by thread: Re: Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
- Next by thread: Re: Book sales, Schiller, and USCF
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
