NationStates Jolt Archive

It created the English language and the English Common Law, the two greatest gifts ever bestowed by on the world.

The phenomenon of English as the lingua franca is a relatively recent one - and throughout European history other languages have served equally well as the tongue of international relations - Latin, Greek, French - there is nothing inherently special about the English language which particularly predisposes its role as the current lingua franca, other than the political and economic power which spread its speakers across the globe. In fact, its very nature as a convoluted mish-mash of roots and irregular formations renders it as a difficult tongue to learn, compared to previous widespread ones.

Am I knocking the English language? Nope, but it is nothing special in the big scheme of things and to privelege it by believing its international role to be anything other than a passing historical trend is to take a shortsighted view of the world.

Fuck. That's brilliant.

It should be borne in mind though that in the modern world rich people make shit art, as a basic rule of thumb. Sectioning off the state in such a manner will lead to a bland and ossified cultural life. The cast-off areas will rise again and overshadow the negligent parent that ignored them. You may end up with an initially prosperous society, but you will have to pay the price of more bloody McCartney oratorios and spoilt brats like the Strokes while the 'liberated' zones crank out the Goldies and the Roni Sizes of the world.

The things that make life worth living are born of desparation.

The phenomenon of English as the lingua franca is a relatively recent one - and throughout European history other languages have served equally well as the tongue of international relations - Latin, Greek, French - there is nothing inherently special about the English language which particularly predisposes its role as the current lingua franca, other than the political and economic power which spread its speakers across the globe. In fact, its very nature as a convoluted mish-mash of roots and irregular formations renders it as a difficult tongue to learn, compared to previous widespread ones.

Am I knocking the English language? Nope, but it is nothing special in the big scheme of things and to privelege it by believing its international role to be anything other than a passing historical trend is to take a shortsighted view of the world.


Beyond a historical trend, it is the greatest language in history, by virtue of its enormous vocabulary and etymology.

It should be borne in mind though that in the modern world rich people make shit art, as a basic rule of thumb. Sectioning off the state in such a manner will lead to a bland and ossified cultural life. The cast-off areas will rise again and overshadow the negligent parent that ignored them. You may end up with an initially prosperous society, but you will have to pay the price of more bloody McCartney oratorios and spoilt brats like the Strokes while the 'liberated' zones crank out the Goldies and the Roni Sizes of the world.

The things that make life worth living are born of desparation.

Meh. I'd get fox hunting back. And that's what really counts.

No doubt some form of visa program would have to be arranged to ensure the quality of the cricket team however.

Beyond a historical trend, it is the greatest language in history, by virtue of its enormous vocabulary and etymology.

To quote that Usenet hero, James D Nicholl, regular rec.arts.sf.written denizen and survivor of catastrophes* that seldom happen to the likes of normal people like you and me:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.**


* give me time and I'll root out the things the poor man has faced: it makes sobering reading.

** and, yes, it was he that originated these lines. Click. (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.sf-lovers/browse_thread/thread/e6d4059cd6ef37cd/c961c46670ca97d6?lnk=st&q=%22cribhouse+whore%22+author:James&rnum=16&hl=en#c961c46670ca97d6)

To quote that Usenet hero, James D Nicholl, regular rec.arts.sf.written denizen and survivor of catastrophes* that seldom happen to the likes of normal people like you and me:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.**


* give me time and I'll root out the things the poor man has faced: it makes sobering reading.

** and, yes, it was he that originated these lines. Click. (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.arts.sf-lovers/browse_thread/thread/e6d4059cd6ef37cd/c961c46670ca97d6?lnk=st&q=%22cribhouse+whore%22+author:James&rnum=16&hl=en#c961c46670ca97d6)


You misunderstand completely... it isnt that english is in any sense pure, quite the contrary. The OED is perhaps the greatest scholarly undertaking in history, precisely because the language is so constantly expanding and because it is already so vast.

There is no other language on earth which can express the same number of things as english in the same ammount of detail. There is a reason other languages dont have dictionaries like the OED.

I speak English..so obviously I am glad English is THE business language of the World...butBeyond a historical trend, it is the greatest language in history, by virtue of its enormous vocabulary and etymology.
_________________________
I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men, and German to my horse.
-King Charles VIf English is so great...Why did KingCharlesV needed to speak in French to men? ..and speak in Spanish to God?

MiOpinion: I dont think one language is superior to the others

The OED is perhaps the greatest scholarly undertaking in history, precisely because the language is so constantly expanding and because it is already so vast.

Really? I would have gone for the 'Almagest' personally.


There is no other language on earth which can express the same number of things as english in the same ammount of detail.
Thats not a good thing always. English is actually the stupidest and most difficult language when you look at it.
Why is Cat not Kat- why is King not Cing.
Why is t-ough not d-ough
Why is burrow not borough

I could go on. Its not exactly the most thought out language in the world and therefore it certainly isn't the greatest as you claim.

There is a reason other languages dont have dictionaries like the OED.

Again, rehashing Grampus' point- this is merely because English is the lingua franca of today (and when was the OED first published? This might give you a clue as to the lingua france of that day too)

why didnt you veto or trade-embargo Ireland?

:confused:

Because at the time of the Irish secession from the Union of Crowns, the United Nations did not exist - therfore, no veto could be enforced. Also, the Alien Act 1705 was specifically for the Scottish - the Irish were showing no signs of rebelling against Westminster at the time.

Alien Act 1705 was specifically for the Scottish - the Irish were showing no signs of rebelling against Westminster at the time.
Are you being serious?

No signs of rebellion against Westminster in Ireland n 1705? There have always been signs of rebelling against Westminster and the English in Ireland.

Really? I would have gone for the 'Almagest' personally.


Thats not a good thing always. English is actually the stupidest and most difficult language when you look at it.
Why is Cat not Kat- why is King not Cing.
Why is t-ough not d-ough
Why is burrow not borough

I could go on. Its not exactly the most thought out language in the world and therefore it certainly isn't the greatest as you claim.



Again, rehashing Grampus' point- this is merely because English is the lingua franca of today (and when was the OED first published? This might give you a clue as to the lingua france of that day too)

By thought-out language are you comparing it to something like Esperanto?

The complexities which you point to are some of the thingns which best exemplifly the grandeur of English. It is not a perfectly cut-and-dry language, its enormous irregularity is one of the things which makes it so effective and interesting.

Next, you might also show the benefits the African/Carribean-American population received during their slavery and how oppression= good!

That sounds almost racist.

Are you being serious?

No signs of rebellion against Westminster in Ireland n 1705? There have always been signs of rebelling against Westminster and the English in Ireland.
Oh yeah. we were quiet little bunnies going about our daily farming without a care in the world... much like Hobbits in Tolkien :rolleyes:

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.**

I must say if I was chased down an alley I wouldn't worry if all the pursuer wanted was new vocabulary.

The complexities which you point to are some of the thingns which best exemplifly the grandeur of English. It is not a perfectly cut-and-dry language, its enormous irregularity is one of the things which makes it so effective and interesting.
So, the idiotic aspects of it are what make it so great....

Riiight. At least now I know you're taking the piss.

Are you being serious?

No signs of rebellion against Westminster in Ireland n 1705? There have always been signs of rebelling against Westminster and the English in Ireland.

To be fair though, post-1690 things were relatively quiet for a while.

Oh yeah. we were quiet little bunnies going about our daily farming without a care in the world... much like Hobbits in Tolkien :rolleyes:
I thought that Hobbits lived in Yorkshire Dales

I thought that Hobbits lived in Yorkshire Dales
Kinda Welsh though if you take into account his love of Welsh mythology :p

Was trying to find a suitable, docile bunch of people who never cause trouble and who are the quietest on earth... and contrast that with Irish history.

To be fair though, post-1690 things were relatively quiet for a while.
1605 Hugh O'Neill? Massive rebellion.

Bloody Spanish screwed it all up :mad:

1605 Hugh O'Neill? Massive rebellion.

Bloody Spanish screwed it all up :mad:

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but 1605 is an uneasy fit in the post-1690 category, no?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but 1605 is an uneasy fit in the post-1690 category, no?
Sorry :D Though I saw pre-

Anywho, overall point stands- we weren't exactly 'happy' for any long period of time.

*Phew, see how I managed to turn a cock up back into my favour :D *

If it weren't for the union you can bet your bottom dollar Scotland wouldn't be as relatively developed as it is now, neither would it have produced as many great people.

On the other hand, Scotland was essential in making Britain as influential as it was. For example, if it weren't for the 78th Scottish Highlanders, it is likely Wellington would have lost the battle of Assaye, which might have meant India would be colonised by France.

As for oh so poor opressed Ireland - they were constantly making raids where rape and pillage would take place on English and Welsh coasts after the Romans left. If you can dish it out you should be able to take it. Loose the victim status. ;)

As for oh so poor opressed Ireland - they were constantly making raids where rape and pillage would take place on English and Welsh coasts after the Romans left. If you can dish it out you should be able to take it. Loose the victim status. ;)

Screw it. :p We proved we could take care of ourselves on our own.

I was defending the notion of..... *flips back a few pages*.... ah yes, Scottish independence.

I don't mind the English, in fact I like you guys a lot.:D I just don't like the whole revisionist history that appears to be creeping back in slightly...

To be fair though, post-1690 things were relatively quiet for a while.
In the same way that the western front was relatively quiet at Christmas in 1914.

So, the idiotic aspects of it are what make it so great....

Riiight. At least now I know you're taking the piss.


I suppose you criticize the "idiotic aspects" of impressionist painting too, and of painters like Van Gogh and Picasso.

What kind of idiot would look at blurry paintings when he could just look at perfectly clear photographs, after all?

I suppose you criticize the "idiotic aspects" of impressionist painting too, and of painters like Van Gogh and Picasso.

What kind of idiot would look at blurry paintings when he could just look at perfectly clear photographs, after all?

You're now comparing language to art.

I never decreed that Picasso was the greatest, nor that the silly aspects of his work makes him the best.

What you were saying was
Beyond a historical trend, it is the greatest language in history, by virtue of its enormous vocabulary and entymology.

i.e. Its great because its big (Chinese is bigger) and its origin (bastardised from German, Latin, Gaelic, French and Scandanavian languages)

The OED is perhaps the greatest scholarly undertaking in history
Which is a bit rich considering the extent of your claim. The Rosetta Stone, The Almagest, the works of Cicero, Aristotle, and Socrates to name but a few are greater scholarly works.

its enormous irregularity is one of the things which makes it so effective and interesting.

And then this gem. From which the only sense I can gleam is... Its so irregular (see: weird, silly, higgildy piggildy), thats its great. Thats a bad argument.

I thought that Hobbits lived in Yorkshire Dales
Who, me?

My comment on the things that have come up so far:

English is not the best language in the world, or at leas if your dislexic.

If scotland want to scede from the union they should, but with a democratic vote.

Rule Britannia should be the nation anthem not God save the queen.

The royal familly should A) Be ditched or B) Be streamlined to just the King/Queen, her husband/wife, their kids, their parents. The others should be allowed to keep there land but should be stripped of there titals.

Under the above system The queen should have no powers at all, be given just enough money to maintain her household and veicals and should just act as the focal point of the nation-ie, the head of state but with no power.

The 11 plus should be scrapped, as shoudl grammer schools and private schools.

If wellington ahd lost at Aysse the Martain state would have lasted longer udner but would have fallen udner British rule eventually, the french never had the fleet to truely compete with the British forces.

No doubt most the people who posted on ehre are idio...I mean conservatives...

Who, me?

My comment on the things that have come up so far:

English is not the best language in the world, or at leas if your dislexic.

If scotland want to scede from the union they should, but with a democratic vote.

Rule Britannia should be the nation anthem not God save the queen.

The royal familly should A) Be ditched or B) Be streamlined to just the King/Queen, her husband/wife, their kids, their parents. The others should be allowed to keep there land but should be stripped of there titals.

Under the above system The queen should have no powers at all, be given just enough money to maintain her household and veicals and should just act as the focal point of the nation-ie, the head of state but with no power.

The 11 plus should be scrapped, as shoudl grammer schools and private schools.

If wellington ahd lost at Aysse the Martain state would have lasted longer udner but would have fallen udner British rule eventually, the french never had the fleet to truely compete with the British forces.

No doubt most the people who posted on ehre are idio...I mean conservatives...

what a lefty....sorry mongooses been too busy to look recently for presidential estimates but should get to it soon

You're now comparing language to art.

I never decreed that Picasso was the greatest, nor that the silly aspects of his work makes him the best.

What you were saying was


i.e. Its great because its big (Chinese is bigger) and its origin (bastardised from German, Latin, Gaelic, French and Scandanavian languages)


Which is a bit rich considering the extent of your claim. The Rosetta Stone, The Almagest, the works of Cicero, Aristotle, and Socrates to name but a few are greater scholarly works.



And then this gem. From which the only sense I can gleam is... Its so irregular (see: weird, silly, higgildy piggildy), thats its great. Thats a bad argument.

In what sense is chinese "bigger" than english?
How much effort and how many years went into the works of Aristotle and Socrates. Which are philosophical, not scholarly per se. To what thorough standard were they produced?

You still seem unable to grasp the idea that the beauty of english is in its enormity and irregularity and the extreme diversity of expression which this allows.

You obviously arent a linguist.

If it weren't for the union you can bet your bottom dollar Scotland wouldn't be as relatively developed as it is now, neither would it have produced as many great people.



yeah i mean whoever heard of a country who was allowed to use its own oil reserves being developed

In what sense is chinese "bigger" than english?I dont know...maybe because more people speak mandarin than english...

It created the English language ....(one of the) the two greatest gifts ever bestowed by on the world.
:rolleyes:
I still think no language is superior to others...

and no ...imposed languages are NOT a "great gift".

The Rosetta Stone, The Almagest, the works of Cicero, Aristotle, and Socrates to name but a few are greater scholarly works.


Care to name me a work of Scorates?

Care to name me a work of Scorates?Is that Socrates Sicilian cousin?
:D

Is that Socrates Sicilian cousin?
:D

Yeah, squiggly fingers all over the keyboard. I'll try again:

Care to name me a work of Socrates?

Yeah, squiggly fingers all over the keyboard. I'll try again:

Care to name me a work of Socrates?
http://www.icons.com/images/fantasy/socrates.jpg

?

;)

image

?

;)ahhh...damn you. :D

I was reading up a pic of the man.
http://im.rediff.com/sports/2004/mar/05soc.jpg

ahhh...damn you. :D

I was reading up a pic of the man.
Just too easy to resist, eh?

Just too easy to resist, eh?I cant always be numero 1 ...

I realize.

Mandarin is a great big imposed language!

Back to the Royal Family...

What does everyone think of Prince Charles?

Back to the Royal Family...

What does everyone think of Prince Charles?
Very nice man, I met him once and had a chat. Very friendly. Well intentioned, anyway, and the Princes Trust does a very good job.

Bit of a goof though.

In what sense is chinese "bigger" than english?
How much effort and how many years went into the works of Aristotle and Socrates. Which are philosophical, not scholarly per se. To what thorough standard were they produced?


There are more characters in Mandarin then in English- hence bigger in volume.

Since when does philosophy not count as scholarly!? Philistine!
When the OED is still used in over two thousand years, then I'll call it a scholarly work.

Care to name me a work of Scorates?
Damn you... I know Socrates didn't leave a literary legacy of his own and that we have to rely on Plato. I still count the Phaedo, Apology, Crito and the Euthyphro as well as the Meno and the Protagoras as Socrates'. plato merely transcribed what those present recounted when in Socrates' company.

Very nice man, I met him once and had a chat. Very friendly. Well intentioned, anyway, and the Princes Trust does a very good job.

Bit of a goof though.

He may be goofy, but surely it'd be more embarassing if he wore a baseball cap and dropped his hs? Being goofy does give him an odd sort of loveable charm...

Camilla for Queen :)

Since when does philosophy not count as scholarly!? Philistine!
When the OED is still used in over two thousand years, then I'll call it a scholarly work.OED? is that like a book or something?

OED? is that like a book or something?
Oxford English Dictionary.

There are more characters in Mandarin then in English- hence bigger in volume.

Since when does philosophy not count as scholarly!? Philistine!
When the OED is still used in over two thousand years, then I'll call it a scholarly work.




What possible relevence is the number of characters used to write a language?

You are obviously neither a linguist nor even remotely interested in linguistics.

You also misunderstand scholarly endevor as I used the term. The OED has been under constant, vigorous work for 120 years, the tast is not finished.

Nothing rivaling its scope or rigor exists.

OED? is that like a book or something?

20 books, plus supplements.

The Oxford English Dictionary is the 120-year work in progress which includes every sense of every word in english, no matter how archaic, obscure or technical.

It also provides the etymology and the first time used in print.

It also provides contextual examples of every word, culled from its use in print.

20 books, plus supplements.

The Oxford English Dictionary is the 120-year work in progress which includes every sense of every word in english, no matter how archaic, obscure or technical.

It also provides the etymology and the first time used in print.

It also provides contextual examples of every word, culled from its use in print.To be honest...I do not have a use for that Oxtord dictionary...

You talk about it like if it was a bible or something... :rolleyes:

I Think Wikipedia is more useful...and it did not take freaking 120 year to complete.:rolleyes:

To be honest...I do not have a use for that Oxtord dictionary...

You talk about it like if it was a bible or something... :rolleyes:

I Think Wikipedia is more useful...and it did not take freaking 120 year to complete.:rolleyes:


Then you, sir, are not a linguist!

It also provides the etymology and the first time used in print.


It's actually not all that accurate in those respects.

It's actually not all that accurate in those respects.

Well, the first time they found it when they made it.

Never forget, it is perpetually a Work In Progress!

Well, the first time they found it when they made it.

Never forget, it is perpetually a Work In Progress!

They can also be quite truculent about any percieved errors.

Just heard on the news that a threat to the Queen has been posted on an Islamic jihadist Website! Apparently, these asshats will stoop to anything that gains them notoriety or which will incite their followers. :mad:
If a thread was created in General every time I threatened the life of a world leader on the net, I would warrant my own jolt Forum...

They can also be quite truculent about any percieved errors.


They've been at it 120 years, lets give them another 120 to work out the problems.

The OED is a work for the ages.

This news should inspire no more concern, anger, or condemnation than if al-Qaeda had threatened the life of any other person. There's nothing special about a royal, who by definition has attained undue attention, admiration, and status merely because of the accident of being fortunate enough to be born or marry into a particular family.

I agree. The only thing that makes them different from any other person is they tend to have metal hats now and then. Big whoop. It still doesn't change the fact I could pwn them at a game of Halo: CE, anytime and any place of their choosing.

Like or dislike the royal family (I'm pretty indifferent to them) if this threat is carried out, it will have a huge impact on many nations around the world, not just the UK.

It's not who the Queen is, she is just a person like everyone else, its what she represents. The head of state of numerous nations assasinated. Imagine the chaos that would cause. It would be a huge blow to the UK and the Commonwealth, not because a person is dead, but because a major symbol has been destroyed. It would be a huge victory for the terrorists. They would be puffing themselves up over this and bragging about it for years, if not longer.

Like or dislike the royal family (I'm pretty indifferent to them) if this threat is carried out, it will have a huge impact on many nations around the world, not just the UK.

It's not who the Queen is, she is just a person like everyone else, its what she represents. The head of state of numerous nations assasinated. Imagine the chaos that would cause. It would be a huge blow to the UK and the Commonwealth, not because a person is dead, but because a major symbol has been destroyed. It would be a huge victory for the terrorists. They would be puffing themselves up over this and bragging about it for years, if not longer.


Chaos? I sincerely doubt it.
As you said, it's not about the person, but the symbol. Persons can die, symbols can't. If the queen is assassinated, the symbol will be filled by another person. Charles, or William, or whoever survives and is next in line.

There will be severe consequences for the attackers, but I seriously doubt that Britain would even consider going to war over this.

Chaos? I sincerely doubt it.
As you said, it's not about the person, but the symbol. Persons can die, symbols can't. If the queen is assassinated, the symbol will be filled by another person. Charles, or William, or whoever survives and is next in line.

There will be severe consequences for the attackers, but I seriously doubt that Britain would even consider going to war over this.

I think it will cause chaos, for a while anyway. The Queen has been a stable and solid symbol for a long time. I can't imagine if she were murdered that people would just shrug and look to the next in line. Especially considering Charles popularity is nowhere near as high as hers.

Don't forget this wouldn't just affect the UK. The Queen is head of state of Australia, Canada and New Zealand, plus numerous other commonwealth nations. Even if the UK didn't go to war if she was assasinated by terrorists (and personally I think they would), that doesn't mean Australia or some of the other commonwealth nations wouldn't.

but I seriously doubt that Britain would even consider going to war over this.

I think we would.

The question is, war with who? bearing in mind that to have a war with someone you need to be able to find the buggers. And until the countries of the western world can boast one decent intelligence service between them that is going to be a problem.

What possible relevence is the number of characters used to write a language?

*sigh* You said English was so great becuase it was so big (paraphrase) See back a page or so when i used your own quotes to show that. Mandarin is larger in volume, there are so many words in it that some people cannot learn them all. Therefore it has more descriptive powers than English. Therefore by your rational, it is the 'best'. :rolleyes:

]
You are obviously neither a linguist nor even remotely interested in linguistics.
And?



You also misunderstand scholarly endevor as I used the term. The OED has been under constant, vigorous work for 120 years, the tast is not finished.

Nothing rivaling its scope or rigor exists.
The Bible.

Whether its true or not is up for debate. However, as a written text it has taken over 120 yrs to write. So I claim that to be the 'best' if lifespan is your standard.
:rolleyes:

What this has to do with the topic, I fail to see.

They've been at it 120 years, lets give them another 120 to work out the problems.

The OED is a work for the ages.

120 years pales into insignificance compared to the time spent on something like the Encyclopaedia Britannica (330+ years). However, its glory days are long past now. Still given the choice between the OED and the Britannica I would go for the Encyclopaedia every time. But, hey, I'm obviously biased, having had the luck to share a house with the 12th edition when I was but a child.

*sigh* You said English was so great becuase it was so big (paraphrase) See back a page or so when i used your own quotes to show that. Mandarin is larger in volume, there are so many words in it that some people cannot learn them all. Therefore it has more descriptive powers than English. Therefore by your rational, it is the 'best'. :rolleyes:





The Bible.




The fact that english uses a small alphabet while chinese uses logograms, and that there are more of the latter than the former does not imply that chinese has more words than english. Chinese doesnt have more words than english, obviously.

Who researched the bible?
To what rigorous standard?
Towards what scholarly end?

Back to the Royal Family...

What does everyone think of Prince Charles?
Mte him once...he walked into a hedge, what a fool.

And you got somthing against leftys?

Under the above system The queen should have no powers at all, be given just enough money to maintain her household and veicals and should just act as the focal point of the nation-ie, the head of state but with no power.

That is the system we already have - except that the Royal Family is quite large.

As I have said countless times - mainly on other threads - the Queen has NO power. She is a figurehead, and not an active member of the legislature, executive or judiciary.

Chinese doesnt have more words than english, obviously.
What? So which is it then? Number of descriptive words that makes it great?

Look at the Mandarin alphabet will you?!
Actually, I don't care. Your claims that any language is the 'best' are laughable at any rate.


Who researched the bible?
Bill did. :rolleyes:


To what rigorous standard?
Moving the goalposts yet again eh? First it was size, then age, now its standard. Which is it to make a language the 'best' in your opinion?

Towards what scholarly end?
Not everything written in the history of language has to have a scholarly end. Britney Spears' biography shows that :p

My opinion, greatest 'scholarly' piece would be the Almagest or the Rosetta Stone- without either of these, humanity would be waaaay behind where it is now.

What? So which is it then? Number of descriptive words that makes it great?

Look at the Mandarin alphabet will you?!
Actually, I don't care. Your claims that any language is the 'best' are laughable at any rate.


Bill did. :rolleyes:


Moving the goalposts yet again eh? First it was size, then age, now its standard. Which is it to make a language the 'best' in your opinion?


Not everything written in the history of language has to have a scholarly end. Britney Spears' biography shows that :p

My opinion, greatest 'scholarly' piece would be the Almagest or the Rosetta Stone- without either of these, humanity would be waaaay behind where it is now.

I mean exactly what I said originally.

The bible isnt a language. What are you talking about?

Britney Spears' Biography isnt a "scholarly work". What are you talking about?

The Rosetta Stone wasnt a vigorous work of scholarship. It was a lucky find. What are you talking about?

Do you think they could be persuaded to just blow up Charles and Camilla?

Do we really want our future king to be a man who talks to plants and says he wants to be reincarnated as a tampon?

Seriously though, if they did attack the queen the English would be outraged, just because we don't like our monarchy doesn't give Johnny Foreigner a right to.:mad:

amen.

yeah i mean whoever heard of a country who was allowed to use its own oil reserves being developed

Whoever heard of a country with oil being under developed? Oh wait..

The bible isnt a language. What are you talking about?

Nor is the OED.

Nor is the OED.


Of course not. Why would you type something like that?

Britney Spears' Biography isnt a "scholarly work". What are you talking about?

Well duh. That was my point- not every piece of literature has to have a 'scholarly' end to it. A dictonary has as much of a scholarly end to it as... say, an encyclopedia. In fact, I would pose that encyclopedias have more of a scholarly end then a dictonary.

Heck, even the Book of Kells is a greater feat then the OED... lasted longer too.


The Rosetta Stone wasnt a vigorous work of scholarship. It was a lucky find. What are you talking about?

*sigh* Not the people who dug it up. :rolleyes: The people who composed it! You do know that the Rosetta Stone is don't you? Or the
Almagest.

You're going around in circles now, you realise that?