 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Languages Forum » Can you ID this language?... |
|
Page 5 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ruud Harmsen... |
 Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:7b759e4149]Does a Parsi from Mumbai, who looks like Freddie Mercury, not look
like an Indian?
[/quote:7b759e4149]
Mon, 27 Jul 2009 04:20:45 -0700 (PDT): "Peter T. Daniels"
<grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net>: in sci.lang:
[quote:7b759e4149]I suppose he looks like a Parsi. It's especially clear-cut in the case
of Parsis, because Parsis do not intermarry.
[/quote:7b759e4149]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsi
===
Genealogical DNA tests to determine purity of lineage have brought
mixed results. One study supports the Parsi contention (Nanavutty
1970, p. 13) that they have maintained their Persian roots by avoiding
intermarriage with local populations. In that 2002 study of the
Y-chromosome (patrilineal) DNA of the Parsis of Pakistan, it was
determined that Parsis are genetically closer to Iranians than to
their neighbours (Qamar et al. 2002, p. 1119). However, a 2004 study
in which Parsi mitochondrial DNA (matrilineal) was compared with that
of the Iranians and Gujaratis determined that Parsis are genetically
closer to Gujaratis than to Iranians. Taking the 2002 study into
account, the authors of the 2004 study suggested "a male-mediated
migration of the ancestors of the present-day Parsi population, where
they admixed with local females [...] leading ultimately to the loss
of mtDNA of Iranian origin" (Quintana-Murci 2004, p. 840)
/===
--
Ruud Harmsen, http://rudhar.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz... |
| Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 11:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 27, 11:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:fff3c68de9]On Jul 27, 12:07 am, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 7:28 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Jul 27, 8:37 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 26, 3:12 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Jul 27, 1:45 am, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 25, 11:08 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:51 am, "ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com"
ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:02 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 24, 10:54 am, Romanise <josh... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 1:17 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 24, 5:12 am, "ranjit_math... at (no spam) yahoo.com"
Did Freddie Mercury look like an Indian?http://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Mercury
He looked like a Parsee Zanzibarian. Why would you call him an Indian?
A Znzibarian Parsee looks different from Indian Parsee?
No idea.
That was not the point.
The point was to wonder why ranjit would expect him to look like an
Indian, since he wasn't one.
His parents were Indians. His surname Bulsara makes his origin Bulsar
(Valsad) in Gujarat.http://www.google.com/search?q=bulsar+gujarat&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&...
And he was schooled in India from age 8 to 17.-
Yeah, that would _really_ make him look like an Indian!
No, but it would support the view that he _was_ an Indian, contrary to
your assertion.-
If he was born before Tanzanian independence (which seems likely), he
was a subject of Her Majesty and presumably turned into a Tanzanian
afterward. If after, he was a Tanzanian, not an Indian. ("Indian"
isn't an ethnicity.)
Yes, he was born in 1946.
So much older than me???
By the time Tanzania came into existence, he
was probably in England. But this was not a discussion about the
technicalities of citizenship. It arose from someone's comment that
the speaker in the backward-speaking video clip didn't "look Indian".
In reply to which some people said something roughly equivalent to
your parenthetical above -- that Indian people look many different
(That wasn't me)
ways. FM was mentioned as an Indian who didn't "look Indian". His
parents were both born in India, of ancestry resident in India for
many centuries. They moved to Zanzibar as adults, and sent their son
back to India where he spent almost all his school years. If you want
to state dogmatically that he was "not Indian" on the grounds of his
place of birth, probably nobody cares much.-
"Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship.
Indeed? What penalties will be imposed if it attempts to mean
something else?
Hunh?
What could "Indian" mean before there was a country named "India"?
There were dozens of polities (with all those rajahs and maharajahs
and such), which would claim the allegiance of South Asians before
there was an "India" -- people from Lahore were "Indian" before 1947:
but would any of them have claimed to be such a thing?
[/quote:fff3c68de9]
There has been a place named "India" for many centuries, and people
from there have been called "Indians" in English since long before
there was an independent nation-state bearing the name.
[quote:fff3c68de9]
And in 1946, he wouldn't
have been a citizen of India, either!
I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
before 1947?
Who invented the notion of "India"?
[/quote:fff3c68de9]
Somebody long before 1947.
[quote:fff3c68de9]
And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
linguistic communities.
We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
Exactly.
[/quote:fff3c68de9]
So what was the relevance of your comment above?
[quote:fff3c68de9]Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
[/quote:fff3c68de9]
That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 5:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 27, 5:50 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
[quote:5ba0711854]On Jul 27, 11:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:07 am, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship.
Indeed? What penalties will be imposed if it attempts to mean
something else?
Hunh?
What could "Indian" mean before there was a country named "India"?
There were dozens of polities (with all those rajahs and maharajahs
and such), which would claim the allegiance of South Asians before
there was an "India" -- people from Lahore were "Indian" before 1947:
but would any of them have claimed to be such a thing?
There has been a place named "India" for many centuries, and people
from there have been called "Indians" in English since long before
there was an independent nation-state bearing the name.
And in 1946, he wouldn't
have been a citizen of India, either!
I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
before 1947?
Who invented the notion of "India"?
Somebody long before 1947.
[/quote:5ba0711854]
You mean, you don't know the answer? The Greeks. It's not an autonym,
and it never named a people, let alone all the people from Pakistan to
Burma.
[quote:5ba0711854]And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
linguistic communities.
We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
Exactly.
So what was the relevance of your comment above?
Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype.-[/quote:5ba0711854] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| benlizro at (no spam) ihug.co.nz... |
| Posted: Mon Jul 27, 2009 6:30 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 28, 3:16 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
[quote:d019266e05]On Jul 27, 5:50 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:07 am, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship.
Indeed? What penalties will be imposed if it attempts to mean
something else?
Hunh?
What could "Indian" mean before there was a country named "India"?
There were dozens of polities (with all those rajahs and maharajahs
and such), which would claim the allegiance of South Asians before
there was an "India" -- people from Lahore were "Indian" before 1947:
but would any of them have claimed to be such a thing?
There has been a place named "India" for many centuries, and people
from there have been called "Indians" in English since long before
there was an independent nation-state bearing the name.
And in 1946, he wouldn't
have been a citizen of India, either!
I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
before 1947?
Who invented the notion of "India"?
Somebody long before 1947.
You mean, you don't know the answer? The Greeks. It's not an autonym,
[/quote:d019266e05]
Nobody in this discussion has claimed that it was an autonym.
[quote:d019266e05]and it never named a people, let alone all the people from Pakistan to
Burma.
[/quote:d019266e05]
Uh-huh. So when the Greeks referred to "Indoi", who were they talking
about?
[quote:d019266e05]
And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
linguistic communities.
We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
Exactly.
So what was the relevance of your comment above?
Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype.-
[/quote:d019266e05] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Jul 28, 12:30 am, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz>
wrote:
[quote:244f27a0c5]On Jul 28, 3:16 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 27, 5:50 pm, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz> wrote:
On Jul 27, 11:19 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
On Jul 27, 12:07 am, "benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz" <benli... at (no spam) ihug.co.nz
wrote:
On Jul 27, 3:21 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> wrote:
"Indian" can't mean anything but citizenship.
Indeed? What penalties will be imposed if it attempts to mean
something else?
Hunh?
What could "Indian" mean before there was a country named "India"?
There were dozens of polities (with all those rajahs and maharajahs
and such), which would claim the allegiance of South Asians before
there was an "India" -- people from Lahore were "Indian" before 1947:
but would any of them have claimed to be such a thing?
There has been a place named "India" for many centuries, and people
from there have been called "Indians" in English since long before
there was an independent nation-state bearing the name.
And in 1946, he wouldn't
have been a citizen of India, either!
I think you have gently led your definition into a little blind alley
of absurdity. So if we take you seriously, there were no Indians
before 1947?
Who invented the notion of "India"?
Somebody long before 1947.
You mean, you don't know the answer? The Greeks. It's not an autonym,
Nobody in this discussion has claimed that it was an autonym.
[/quote:244f27a0c5]
People whom we would call Indians today have adopted the term from the
British. Their own terms for (parts of) their country are Bharatam
(the Hindi version Bharat occurs in the constitution as another name
for India and Indian postage stamps would say both India and Bharat),
SaptaSaindhava, AryAvarta etc. Mughal/Muslim conquerors called a big
part of Northern India Hindustan.
In the West the name comes from the Greeks for whom it was the land
beyond the Indus. Shakespeare mentions India and Indians a few times.
[quote:244f27a0c5]and it never named a people, let alone all the people from Pakistan to
Burma.
Uh-huh. So when the Greeks referred to "Indoi", who were they talking
about?
And Crone notes that Parsi genetic ethnicity correlates with non-Indic
linguistic communities.
We are talking about "Indian", not "Indic".-
Exactly.
So what was the relevance of your comment above?
Language tells us nothing about ethnicity. You could say "he
looks Persian," if his DNA patterns with that of Persians.
That would seem to be a serious confusion of genotype and phenotype.-- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote:244f27a0c5] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 1:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[quote:dce04f32f7]In message
ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a... at (no spam) y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution..
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens,"
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalité is BRITISH CITIZEN.
[/quote:dce04f32f7]
Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
discussion happened. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Herring... |
| Posted: Thu Aug 27, 2009 4:09 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message
<ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0aef9 at (no spam) y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
[quote:b4c3110264]On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens,"
[/quote:b4c3110264]
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalité is BRITISH CITIZEN.
--
Richard Herring |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 1, 4:51 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[quote:d82bee3bc6]In message
41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70-85e1-d0de842e4... at (no spam) g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a... at (no spam) y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens,"
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalité is BRITISH CITIZEN.
Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
(But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
discussion happened.
"Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
[/quote:d82bee3bc6]
This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum. The
conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
but not _de facto_. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Herring... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:51 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message
<41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70-85e1-d0de842e4de3 at (no spam) g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
[quote:cfb1c515bd]On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a... at (no spam) y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens,"
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalité is BRITISH CITIZEN.
Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
[/quote:cfb1c515bd]
(But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
[quote:cfb1c515bd]
Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
discussion happened.
[/quote:cfb1c515bd]
"Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
--
Richard Herring |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter T. Daniels... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Sep 1, 12:45 pm, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
[quote:cdd9fe77bc]In message
830bbe2b-d919-4d71-b580-10177db2f... at (no spam) k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Sep 1, 4:51 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70-85e1-d0de842e4... at (no spam) g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a... at (no spam) y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens,"
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalité is BRITISH CITIZEN.
Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
(But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
discussion happened.
"Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum.
I'm talking about your post of July 2009, not an urban legend raised in
some irrelevant earlier discussion, whenever it was.
The
conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
but not _de facto_.
No doubt. The fact that some people continue to use incorrect or
outdated terminology should hardly be a surprise to anyone in this
forum.
Nevertheless, the present-tense, unquantified statement "they're not
called 'British citizens'" is false by counterexample.
[/quote:cdd9fe77bc]
July 2009 was the first time I _ever_ saw the expression "British
citizen," so it is true by experience. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Herring... |
| Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In message
<830bbe2b-d919-4d71-b580-10177db2f806 at (no spam) k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
[quote:66d3a660f5]On Sep 1, 4:51 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
41c3ae4a-e84e-4d70-85e1-d0de842e4... at (no spam) g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Aug 27, 6:09 am, Richard Herring <junk at (no spam) [127.0.0.1]> wrote:
In message
ec8ae2f2-c351-489e-b8eb-7623b4c0a... at (no spam) y19g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <gramma... at (no spam) verizon.net> writes
On Jul 27, 12:02 am, ModerateMallu <KalluMallu... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
1963: FM returns to Zanzibar from India. Zanzibar becomes independent
and a constitutional monarchy. But there are rumblings of a revolution.
FM and FM's parents flee Zanzibar to Britain. Presumably entering
Britain would have been easy only for British passport holders. FM and
family would have become British citizens.
(This was discussed here a while ago -- they're not called "British
citizens,"
Who aren't, and when?
Since the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on 1
January 1983, most inhabitants of the UK are indeed British Citizens,
and current British passports state that the holder's
Nationality/Nationalité is BRITISH CITIZEN.
Hmm. 31 days. You've outfunked Funk.
(But not out-Gillivered Gilliver.)
Even after 31 days an uncorrected error is still an error.
Subjects of Her Majesty. They were called British subjects, when the
discussion happened.
"Were", not "are". Your post said "they're", which implies now.
This forum didn't exist in 1981. This was discussed in this forum.
[/quote:66d3a660f5]
I'm talking about your post of July 2009, not an urban legend raised in
some irrelevant earlier discussion, whenever it was.
[quote:66d3a660f5]The
conclusion, then, is that the terminology changed _de jure_ in 1981,
but not _de facto_.
[/quote:66d3a660f5]
No doubt. The fact that some people continue to use incorrect or
outdated terminology should hardly be a surprise to anyone in this
forum.
Nevertheless, the present-tense, unquantified statement "they're not
called 'British citizens'" is false by counterexample.
--
Richard Herring |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Joachim Pense... |
| Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Adam Frunk (in sci.lang):
[quote:364f0aadc8]On 2009-08-27, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Hmm. 31 days.
That's nothing. Have you never heard of the longest thread ever on
the USERNET?
[/quote:364f0aadc8]
Maybe I'll reply next year, in scri.larng
Joachim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Sir F. A. Rien... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 8:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Adam Funk <a24061 at (no spam) yahoo.com> found these unused words:
[quote]On John D Salt wrote:
[Snips]
What is 'USERNET' ???
ITYM 'The USERNET'.
It's a well-known part of teh interweb.
Same as in town.
Is it connected to the intersewer, or the intertubes?
[/quote]
Also part of the iterbreuning knowledge base.
Not get the "R"s outtahere! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:31 am
|
|