Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Racist, funny or who cares?Follow

#552 Mar 23 2011 at 10:03 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Quote:
Well, I'm not going to make any assumptions. Either you didn't understand my argument or you're comprehension level of the concept is not yet high enough. You choose for yourself.


It's refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you're unable to consider the possibility of yourself being wrong.


Saves me the time, I guess. Either way, I'm done here. History has shown that you'll take even the most trivial of points to 10+ pages just to avoid conceding to simple reason.

Alma's going on ignore from here on out.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:09am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#553 Mar 23 2011 at 11:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Shador wrote:
We don't want the world to lose that. It's really nothing against others for most of us. We just don't want our own kind to go extinct.


White people aren't going anywhere, they're still the predominant race in most of europe, canada, australia, & russia. Could white people become a minority in the USA in our lifetime? It's a possibility, but with the advantage of white power/privilege white people will still hold most of the power, money, & influence.

Quote:
It's like, imagine you woke up one day and found that one entire breed of dogs had been wiped out. There were no more pure-blooded varieties of the breed to recreate it, just mutts. No more rottweilers, for instance (or Labs, or whatever your favorite breed is). Sure, there are plenty of other breeds. Sure, the mutts are just as lovable. But still, there would be a hole there. It would be sad.


White people aren't going extinct you idiot, they may become the minority in the USA, but that's all. As for your "purebred" argument, do you realize that many of us share DNA with neanderthals? Did you know Italians have dark skin because the moors, a people of color, conquered it way back in the day?

We're all "mutts" already.

Shador wrote:
Maybe.... maybe our fears are unfounded. We don't know.


Shador wrote:
So that's what it is, okay. Behind all the "statistics" and the rhetoric. Behind all the posturing and epithets. We're scared sh*tless.


If you weren't a racist, you wouldn't be scared.

Shador wrote:
Look. I'm really sorry if I offended anyone. Or everyone. Omega, in all honesty, I wish you and your bride-to-be all the best. I hope you have a long and happy life together and have as many (or as few) kids as you want and that they grow up healthy and happy.

I somehow manage to keep coming out as an awful human being by spouting polarized rhetoric. Like I said before, I have trouble with grey areas. I tend to think in a binary fashion, so this is what happens. Then, eventually, I look at the wreckage I leave in my wake, and I regret it.

Once again, really sorry to everyone.


You'll stop being an awful person if you can wrap your head around the fact that we're all humans of various races, sexes, religions, & sexual orientations & that race doesn't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#554 Mar 24 2011 at 12:04 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
School is free to teach about Greek Mythology, but will go ape **** if you just mention Intelligent Design.


Oh, I think it's fine if you teach them both as mythology, yeah?



Sure, only if you teach the big bang theory (or any other relevant explanation) as mythology as well.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#555 Mar 24 2011 at 12:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
If anyone responds to him, I will strangle them to death. This is an honest threat, and if you reply you better call the FBI before you wake up strangled.

This is not an honest threat, and if you reply you'll be fine, don't worry about calling the FBI before you wake up strangled.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#556 Mar 24 2011 at 12:58 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Well, I'm not going to make any assumptions. Either you didn't understand my argument or you're comprehension level of the concept is not yet high enough. You choose for yourself.


It's refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you're unable to consider the possibility of yourself being wrong.


Saves me the time, I guess. Either way, I'm done here. History has shown that you'll take even the most trivial of points to 10+ pages just to avoid conceding to simple reason.

Alma's going on ignore from here on out.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:09am by Eske


???

You're doing the exact same thing that you're accusing me of. The only difference is, you haven't provided anything to support your claim.

History has shown me acknowledging inaccuracies, errors, ignorance, etc. throughout every single thread, so you can put that card away. It wont work here. That's just some pitiful final attempt to avoid admittance. There is not a single 10+ page thread where I haven't admitted to being wrong or ignorant on something.

I mean, our country is The United States OF America, not United States America. The "of" denotes that we are part of the American continent. To accept the fact that the U.S. picked a general broad name to describe their citizens, yet still believe that it isn't indicative of not having an identity is quite silly.

Cognate usages may cause cultural friction between U.S. nationals and Latin Americans who object to American English's exclusionary denotations of American.


This page describes the history of the term "American" and how other countries view and refer to it. As I've been stating all of the along, non American countries will simply say some form of "America", but Latin Americans often make differentiations as they are also Americans.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#557 Mar 24 2011 at 3:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Well, I'm not going to make any assumptions. Either you didn't understand my argument or you're comprehension level of the concept is not yet high enough. You choose for yourself.


It's refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you're unable to consider the possibility of yourself being wrong.


Saves me the time, I guess. Either way, I'm done here. History has shown that you'll take even the most trivial of points to 10+ pages just to avoid conceding to simple reason.

Alma's going on ignore from here on out.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:09am by Eske
I'm telling you, it's a nice thing. You still get the really stupid stuff, as people quote him, but it's still an improvement. I like how, in his quoted post above, he fails to understand English by giving you 2 options that mean the same thing.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#558 Mar 24 2011 at 5:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Well, I'm not going to make any assumptions. Either you didn't understand my argument or you're comprehension level of the concept is not yet high enough. You choose for yourself.


It's refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you're unable to consider the possibility of yourself being wrong.


Saves me the time, I guess. Either way, I'm done here. History has shown that you'll take even the most trivial of points to 10+ pages just to avoid conceding to simple reason.

Alma's going on ignore from here on out.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:09am by Eske
I'm telling you, it's a nice thing. You still get the really stupid stuff, as people quote him, but it's still an improvement. I like how, in his quoted post above, he fails to understand English by giving you 2 options that mean the same thing.


I'll give into your provocation. I made sure that my two options were actually different given the similarity of the two. Once again, your failure to understand is your own personal problem, but I'll assist you.

"Not understanding my argument" is specific to my argument, while "not comprehending the concept" is referring to the bigger picture. In other words, it's possible to comprehend the concept but failed to understand my argument potentially due to a failure on my explanation. This is why Eske said that she didn't misunderstand me, she just didn't agree.

My options, which were obviously over your understanding, were attacking the notion that it's possible to understand the concept and disagree with my argument. Her prior response was stating that it was possible.

Edit: Who are you fooling? You're not "ignoring" me. You responded to statements that weren't even quoted by anyone else. Besides, if you're going to ignore me, why even respond to me?

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 2:00pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#559 Mar 24 2011 at 6:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,345 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Zeus exists, he's in my living room.



Fucking a swan.


I thought HE was the swan. Oh, man, I've been doing this religion thing all wrong.

If only I'd been allowed to take a comparative religion class.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#560 Mar 24 2011 at 8:15 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Well, I'm not going to make any assumptions. Either you didn't understand my argument or you're comprehension level of the concept is not yet high enough. You choose for yourself.


It's refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you're unable to consider the possibility of yourself being wrong.


Saves me the time, I guess. Either way, I'm done here. History has shown that you'll take even the most trivial of points to 10+ pages just to avoid conceding to simple reason.

Alma's going on ignore from here on out.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:09am by Eske
I'm telling you, it's a nice thing. You still get the really stupid stuff, as people quote him, but it's still an improvement. I like how, in his quoted post above, he fails to understand English by giving you 2 options that mean the same thing.



Yeah, seriously.

It is nice. Wow. Like a whole new forum.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 10:19am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#561 Mar 24 2011 at 8:23 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
Quote:
Well, I'm not going to make any assumptions. Either you didn't understand my argument or you're comprehension level of the concept is not yet high enough. You choose for yourself.


It's refreshing to hear you acknowledge that you're unable to consider the possibility of yourself being wrong.


Saves me the time, I guess. Either way, I'm done here. History has shown that you'll take even the most trivial of points to 10+ pages just to avoid conceding to simple reason.

Alma's going on ignore from here on out.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 12:09am by Eske
I'm telling you, it's a nice thing. You still get the really stupid stuff, as people quote him, but it's still an improvement. I like how, in his quoted post above, he fails to understand English by giving you 2 options that mean the same thing.



Yeah, seriously.

It is nice. Wow. Like a whole new forum.

Edited, Mar 24th 2011 10:19am by Eske


It is nice. When people pretend to ignore me, it really cuts down on the nonsense that I have to deal with. Now go play with your unicorns..
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#562 Mar 24 2011 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Quote:
You're not "ignoring" me
Uh, yes I am.

Quote:
You responded to statements that weren't even quoted by anyone else.
What I responded to was quoted by Eske.


Quote:
Besides, if you're going to ignore me, why even respond to me?
Because sometimes, when I feel like being abusive to myself, I open up your posts and read them. But for the most part, they automatically made to be skipped by. Basically, it comes down to what's convenient for me at the time. If you say something I feel like responding to in the 30-40 characters that I can see, I'll open it up. Most times, I get to skip right by though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#563 Mar 24 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Ugly wrote:
Uh, yes I am.
.....
Because sometimes, when I feel like being abusive to myself, I open up your posts and read them. But for the most part, they automatically made to be skipped by. Basically, it comes down to what's convenient for me at the time. If you say something I feel like responding to in the 30-40 characters that I can see, I'll open it up. Most times, I get to skip right by though.


So we basically have two different definitions of "ignoring". What you are doing is no different than what you and every other poster do anyway. According to you, all you have done was to make what you were already doing easier. You are still responding to my posts.


Ugly wrote:
What I responded to was quoted by Eske.


You responded to just about every post that I've made including the ones that weren't quoted by anyone... Bottom line is that you thought that I would stop posting or reduce my word count if you pretended to "ignore" me. You're a self admitted troll, responding is what you do. So obviously this is just another game that you failed at. Nice try though.. Thanks for playing. ;)
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#564 Mar 24 2011 at 7:53 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Samira wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Zeus exists, he's in my living room.



Fucking a swan.


I thought HE was the swan. Oh, man, I've been doing this religion thing all wrong.

If only I'd been allowed to take a comparative religion class.


He said something about role reversal, but by that point he was eyeing up my bull, too, and I thought it best to leave.

I don't know, maybe this indoor petting zoo wasn't such a great idea after all.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#565 Mar 28 2011 at 1:48 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Samira wrote:
Kavekk wrote:
Zeus exists, he's in my living room.



Fucking a swan.


I thought HE was the swan. Oh, man, I've been doing this religion thing all wrong.

If only I'd been allowed to take a comparative religion class.

Zeus does it every which way.

By the way, SwanZeus raping Queen Leda of Sparta lead to Leda giving birth to two eggs, out of which hatched Castor and Pollux, and Helen and Clytemnestra. Helen was the beautiful princess that Aphrodite stole away to reward the Prince of Troy, leading to Greece attacking Troy, and the defeated Trojan refugees settling in Italy and founding the city of Rome, which later conquered Greece. True mythology.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 3:50am by Aripyanfar
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#566 Mar 28 2011 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
As I'm enjoying my time in the P.I, I noticed how everyone is speaking "Tagalish". As a result, I;m asking everyone who don't see the term "American" as not unique, do you feel the same way about the terminology of "Speaking American"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#567 Mar 28 2011 at 8:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
As a result, I;m asking everyone who don't see the term "American" as not unique, do you feel the same way about the terminology of "Speaking American"?

Was this written in American? Or English?

I have no idea what the question is here. I'll admit that I've skipped 98% of this thread.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 9:57pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#568 Mar 28 2011 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
I read the relevant part of the thread, and also have no idea what he's asking.
#569 Mar 28 2011 at 9:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
As a result, I;m asking everyone who don't see the term "American" as not unique, do you feel the same way about the terminology of "Speaking American"?

Was this written in American? Or English?

I have no idea what the question is here. I'll admit that I've skipped 98% of this thread.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 9:57pm by Jophiel


I made the argument that the term "America/n" to represent the U.S. demonstrates a lack of identity to the U.S. Even though the term is primarily only used to represent the U.S., the term is generic to the point that it can be equated to the other 50+ countries in the Americas.

The rebuttal was that since the word "America" is in our nation's title, the term is unique enough to represent our citizens, products and services.

So, I'm simply asking if that extends to the language spoken in the U.S. as well? Most people ridicule the phrase "Do you speak American?". So, do "you all" (the people who think the term "American" is a good term to be used to describe U.S citizens, products and services) agree that that the term "American" should be used to to describe the U.S. language as well as it's people, products and services?

If not, why not?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#570 Mar 28 2011 at 10:02 PM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I made the argument that the term "America/n" to represent the U.S. demonstrates a lack of identity to the U.S. Even though the term is primarily only used to represent the U.S., the term is generic to the point that it can be equated to the other 50+ countries in the Americas.

The rebuttal was that since the word "America" is in our nation's title, the term is unique enough to represent our citizens, products and services.

So, I'm simply asking if that extends to the language spoken in the U.S. as well? Most people ridicule the phrase "Do you speak American?". So, do "you all" (the people who think the term "American" is a good term to be used to describe U.S citizens, products and services) agree that that the term "American" should be used to to describe the U.S. language as well as it's people, products and services?

If not, why not?


The US doesn't have a language.
#571 Mar 28 2011 at 10:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd call it American English as its a variant of the older and more universal English language. But simply saying "Do you speak English?" is sufficient since, dialects aside, the different variants can generally communicate without much trouble. It's also shorter.

The United States of America being condensed to "America" is a matter of convenience and the fact that the US was the first recognized "Western" nation in the Americas (I phrase that intentionally to discount Native American nations). Lack of identity doesn't have anything much to do with it. There's probably an argument to be made about American identity, or lack thereof, but "Americans" vs "United Statesians" isn't part of it.

Edited, Mar 28th 2011 11:12pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#572 Mar 28 2011 at 10:59 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
The US doesn't have a language.


The US has a language only spoken in the U.S.

Quote:
I'd call it American English as its a variant of the older and more universal English language. But simply saying "Do you speak English?" is sufficient since, dialects aside, the different variants can generally communicate without much trouble. It's also shorter.

The United States of America being condensed to "America" is a matter of convenience and the fact that the US was the first recognized "Western" nation in the Americas (I phrase that intentionally to discount Native American nations). Lack of identity doesn't have anything much to do with it. There's probably an argument to be made about American identity, or lack thereof, but "Americans" vs "United Statesians" isn't part of it.


You're making the argument that the term "America" is a matter of convenience of less words, yet you would rather ADD a word saying, "American English", instead of simply saying "American". It's not like people wont know what you're talking about since the term "American" is primarily reserved for the US. So what's the difference?

So, it's ok to call the people "American", the food "American", the music "American", but not the language? Why do you have to further distinguish the language but nothing else?

The answer is because we don't speak "American" as "America" isn't a country, we speak an American dialect of the English language. This holds true for everything else we call "American", but it's just that we only recognize it with language. America isn't a country, so it's silly to label a language that isn't unique to two entire American continents as a spoken language. Under the same logic, that applies to everything else we call "American".

This is why this supports the argument of the lack of identity, because not only do we not have an official language, we don't have a name that uniquely identifies our citizens.

To be fair, you would be right about the term "American" not being related to having an identity IF we actually had one. Given the fact that one can easily make the argument of the lack of an identity, then not having an unique name for your citizens completely supports that argument.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#573 Mar 28 2011 at 11:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
You're making the argument that the term "America" is a matter of convenience of less words, yet you would rather ADD a word saying, "American English", instead of simply saying "American".

No, I said "English" was sufficient to describe the language, just as "American" is sufficient when referring to the nation.

The rest of your post was based off you getting this basic premise wrong.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#574 Mar 28 2011 at 11:10 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
5,159 posts
Are you back to being a massive ******? Not every country has a unique language. Many of them have dialects of different languages. This is not a semantic difference, it's a linguistic one. Please stick to subjects where you're at least subjectively wrong.
#575 Mar 28 2011 at 11:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Majivo wrote:
Are you back to being a massive ******? Not every country has a unique language.

No way, man. The reason why you speak "Spanish" and not "Argentinian" is because "Argentina" isn't a country, you speak an Argentinian dialect of the Spanish language.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#576 Mar 29 2011 at 1:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
Quote:
I'd call it American English as its a variant of the older and more universal English language. But simply saying "Do you speak English?" is sufficient since, dialects aside, the different variants can generally communicate without much trouble. It's also shorter.


I believe "English, ************, do you speak it?" is the correct colloquialism for American English.

I'm not really a linguistic scholar, persay.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#577 Mar 29 2011 at 2:29 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You're making the argument that the term "America" is a matter of convenience of less words, yet you would rather ADD a word saying, "American English", instead of simply saying "American".

No, I said "English" was sufficient to describe the language, just as "American" is sufficient when referring to the nation.

The rest of your post was based off you getting this basic premise wrong.


Uh, no. The question was about the single usage of the term "American", not "English". You can't change the focus of the question from "American" to "English" and then claim that my premise was wrong. Your response was "wrong".

So, do you have a problem with people saying "I speak American"? Why or why not?

Using the term "English" as opposed to "American" is like using "U.S citizen" as opposed to "American". One is more specific, which is my entire point. So, if you prefer "English" as opposed to "American", given that everyone knows the exact location of "American", but not "English", you're just supporting my point.


[edit] You said that you prefer "American English", I was referring to that statement [/edit]

So, you can finish addressing the rest of my post now.


Majivo wrote:
Are you back to being a massive ******? Not every country has a unique language. Many of them have dialects of different languages. This is not a semantic difference, it's a linguistic one. Please stick to subjects where you're at least subjectively wrong.


I ask the same question to you. Are you incapable of reading and/or comprehending or are you just plum stupid? Your "counter" doesn't even make any sense. What argument are you even trying to counter? No one stated that countries have unique languages.

The point is, we call everything in the U.S. "American" except for the spoken language, so why is it ok to label our music, food, citizens, etc. "American" but not our language? What's wrong with saying "I speak American"?

Jophiel wrote:
No way, man. The reason why you speak "Spanish" and not "Argentinian" is because "Argentina" isn't a country, you speak an Argentinian dialect of the Spanish language.


Well if Argentina didn't have an official language, you know like every other country in the world, then you might have been on to something. People don't say "I speak Asian", because Aisa is not a country, it's a continent made up of various countries that speak different languages.

The same applies to the term "American". The Americas are two continents composed of various countries that speak various languages.

I'm sorry if you fail to understand that concept.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 10:42am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#578 Mar 29 2011 at 4:31 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I made the argument that the term "America/n" to represent the U.S. demonstrates a lack of identity to the U.S. Even though the term is primarily only used to represent the U.S., the term is generic to the point that it can be equated to the other 50+ countries in the Americas.

The rebuttal was that since the word "America" is in our nation's title, the term is unique enough to represent our citizens, products and services.

So, I'm simply asking if that extends to the language spoken in the U.S. as well? Most people ridicule the phrase "Do you speak American?". So, do "you all" (the people who think the term "American" is a good term to be used to describe U.S citizens, products and services) agree that that the term "American" should be used to to describe the U.S. language as well as it's people, products and services?

If not, why not?


The US doesn't have a language.
Canada has two and they aren't Canadian and Newfanesse. They're English and French.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#579 Mar 29 2011 at 6:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Uh, no. The question was about the single usage of the term "American", not "English". You can't change the focus of the question from "American" to "English" and then claim that my premise was wrong. Your response was "wrong".

Hahaha... Look, just because you're illiterate, don't make it my problem. I clearly said that saying "English" was sufficient. You turned that into "Oh HO! So you'd use the LONGER term of American English!"

Quote:
So, do you have a problem with people saying "I speak American"? Why or why not?

I would, because in the case of shortening 'American English', you don't use the modifier. That's like taking "I have a silver maple in my yard" and shortening it to "I have a silver in my yard" rather than "I have a maple in my yard". In almost every case, just saying 'Maple' is sufficient. In no case is 'silver' the correct word.

Quote:
Using the term "English" as opposed to "American" is like using "U.S citizen" as opposed to "American". One is more specific, which is my entire point. So, if you prefer "English" as opposed to "American", given that everyone knows the exact location of "American", but not "English", you're just supporting my point.

Ummm... what? 'English' is less specific than 'American English'. 'American' is less specific than 'Citizen of the United States of America'. Both shorter terms are entirely appropriate.

Quote:
So, you can finish addressing the rest of my post now.

You can start understanding what I said before I continue and confuse you further.

Quote:
The point is, we call everything in the U.S. "American" except for the spoken language, so why is it ok to label our music, food, citizens, etc. "American" but not our language?

Because our food, music, et al isn't based off a single origin in the same manner that our commonly used language is. Food & music are more unique to this country and are universally understood to be "American".

Quote:
Well if Argentina didn't have an official language, you know like every other country in the world, then you might have been on to something. People don't say "I speak Asian", because Aisa is not a country, it's a continent made up of various countries that speak different languages.

No, people in Argentina say "I speak Spanish", as in the language originating from the larger country on the Iberian peninsula. Kind of like saying "I speak English", as in the language originating from the larger country in the British Isles. Even though... get this, cause this will blow your mind... the Spanish spoken in Argentina is different from the Spanish spoken in Spain! Wild, huh? I know! And it's still called Spanish!

Quote:
I'm sorry if you fail to understand that concept.

Heh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#580 Mar 29 2011 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
tl;dr Even Simpler Version:

We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language. It's just a dialect. Just as Spanish spoken throughout Mexico, Central & South America is "Spanish", French spoken in Canada, Haiti or Congo is "French", Portuguese spoken in Brazil is "Portuguese", English spoken in Canada, Australia or Liberia is "English", the Dutch spoken in Suriname or Antigua is "Dutch", etc.

None of the European colonized places have taken their European language and renamed it after their own nation. With globalization, it's unlikely that any language will deviate enough to linguistically count as a new tongue any time soon. Bizarrely, this somehow means America alone has an identity crisis.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#581 Mar 29 2011 at 8:39 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language.


Exactly. Aside from the point that we don't have an official language, it's the height of arrogance to take a language that's already established and declare that it's "ours" and we somehow own it.
#582 Mar 29 2011 at 8:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Whoops, I meant to say Aruba speaks Dutch. They speak English in Antigua. Or, as they call it there, "Antiguaese".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#583 Mar 29 2011 at 9:06 AM Rating: Decent
**
272 posts
All Haitians I know (which numbers in the hundreds) consider their language to be Creole. Similar to Jamaicans using Patois (which is derived from English) it is different enough from French (far more than Canadian French) that they generally drop the modifier status and just omit the word French entirely.

The snowbirds from Quebec have a heck of a time communicating to the Haitians in Miami, which is fairly similar to the difficulty understanding Patois.

At some point dialects differ enough that you just start calling them different languages. If they didn't half the world would still be speaking "French Latin" or "Spanish Latin".
____________________________
Always check for black-on-black text.
#584 Mar 29 2011 at 9:22 AM Rating: Good
******
30,643 posts
Also? They speak English in Australia, as well. I guess they don't have an identity, either.
#585 Mar 29 2011 at 9:24 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
SwiftAusterity wrote:
All Haitians I know (which numbers in the hundreds) consider their language to be Creole. Similar to Jamaicans using Patois (which is derived from English) it is different enough from French (far more than Canadian French) that they generally drop the modifier status and just omit the word French entirely.

Fair enough. And I'll state unequivocally that it was my error. Although my error helps to prove my point -- you call a language something new when it has changed enough from its parent that communication between the two is compromised. Haitian creole is incompatible with Canadian French but Canadian French is not incompatible with European French. Likewise, Patois is incompatible with American English but American English is not incompatible with UK English. Also, I'm glad I didn't cite Jamaica for anything.

Quote:
At some point dialects differ enough that you just start calling them different languages. If they didn't half the world would still be speaking "French Latin" or "Spanish Latin".

I assume you agree that American English is not at that point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#586 Mar 29 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Jophiel wrote:

I assume you agree that American English is not at that point.
Defining American English could be a real problem. Mainers still give me a blank look when I ask them what kind of pop they have?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#587 Mar 29 2011 at 9:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's what they speak on Friends, naturally.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#588 Mar 29 2011 at 3:51 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Hahaha... Look, just because you're illiterate, don't make it my problem. I clearly said that saying "English" was sufficient. You turned that into "Oh HO! So you'd use the LONGER term of American English!"


I purposely edited my post to specifically point out what I was referring to and you still overlooked it. YOU said the following:

"I'd call it American English as its a variant of the older and more universal English language."

"The United States of America being condensed to "America" is a matter of convenience and the fact that the US was the first recognized "Western" nation in the Americas "

You did not mention "simply English" in any of those phrases. You did, however, in the phrase,
"But simply saying "Do you speak English?" is sufficient since, dialects aside, the different variants can generally communicate without much trouble. It's also shorter. ".

Except, my question was about the term "American", not "English". This is how you tried to turn the discussion on "English", when it was always on "American". I saw the potential innocent confusion, so that's why I edited my post to tell you the exact phrase I was responding to.

Jophiel wrote:
I would, because in the case of shortening 'American English', you don't use the modifier. That's like taking "I have a silver maple in my yard" and shortening it to "I have a silver in my yard" rather than "I have a maple in my yard". In almost every case, just saying 'Maple' is sufficient. In no case is 'silver' the correct word.


I know you corrected yourself later down in the thread,but I had already anticipated that response, do you have a problem with "Do you speak the American language?".

Jophiel wrote:

Ummm... what? 'English' is less specific than 'American English'. 'American' is less specific than 'Citizen of the United States of America'. Both shorter terms are entirely appropriate.


Uhhh. you missed the point. "American" is MORE specific than "English" in reference to language, because the term "American" is primarily exclusive to the U.S. Most people outside the U.S are actually taught British English, not U.S. English. So if you were to simply say "English", that would be less specific than simply saying "American".


Look at China, there is no such language, "Chinese", the two main dialects are Mandarin and Cantonese, but people often say "Chinese". In this case, it makes sense as the term "Chinese" refer to the single country "China" and they are not using a term like "East", "Oriental" or "Asia" that can represent multiple countries.

Jophiel wrote:
Because our food, music, et al isn't based off a single origin in the same manner that our commonly used language is. Food & music are more unique to this country and are universally understood to be "American


You mean like the people, you know who are based off a single origin? Weren't the settlers European who spoke English? I didn't know that there was an "America" in Europe.

Jophiel wrote:
No, people in Argentina say "I speak Spanish", as in the language originating from the larger country on the Iberian peninsula. Kind of like saying "I speak English", as in the language originating from the larger country in the British Isles. Even though... get this, cause this will blow your mind... the Spanish spoken in Argentina is different from the Spanish spoken in Spain! Wild, huh? I know! And it's still called Spanish!


Wow, did you completely over look my first sentence? Argentina has an official language. Argentia said "Our official language is 'Spanish'". The language could have easily been called "Fairy Cow Goldenese" with absolutely no change and that would be the name of the language.

If you actually study different languages, you'll see many countries actually do that. Their language or dialect will greatly resemble another language, but instead of just simply calling it a derivative of it's parent's name, they will call it another language all together. Hmmmm... I wonder why....?!?!


Belkira wrote:
Also? They speak English in Australia, as well. I guess they don't have an identity, either.


Read above...

Belkira wrote:

Exactly. Aside from the point that we don't have an official language, it's the height of arrogance to take a language that's already established and declare that it's "ours" and we somehow own it.


You do realize that's how we have so many languages now? Once you learn one foreign language, the rest are typically much easier to learn. No one is really creating their own language. What have been done are derivations of already existing languages.

Besides, having an official language has nothing to do with declaring an established language as our own. The U.S. can simply say "English" is the official language.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#589 Mar 29 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Sorry Joph. You're doomed, doomed I say!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#590 Mar 29 2011 at 3:55 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
tl;dr Even Simpler Version:

We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language. It's just a dialect. Just as Spanish spoken throughout Mexico, Central & South America is "Spanish", French spoken in Canada, Haiti or Congo is "French", Portuguese spoken in Brazil is "Portuguese", English spoken in Canada, Australia or Liberia is "English", the Dutch spoken in Suriname or Antigua is "Dutch", etc.

None of the European colonized places have taken their European language and renamed it after their own nation. With globalization, it's unlikely that any language will deviate enough to linguistically count as a new tongue any time soon. Bizarrely, this somehow means America alone has an identity crisis.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel


I wont beat a dead horse since most of this was already addressed. Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them. We don't have an official language, so I'm not asking if you're ok with changing the official language. I'm asking about your acceptance of the unofficial terminology "American" being used to represent our language as it does everything else.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#591 Mar 29 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sorry Joph. You're doomed, doomed I say!


Well, as long as he doesn't post a link that contradicts his claim, he has a little bit more left in him..

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 12:09am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#592 Mar 29 2011 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
tl;dr Even Simpler Version:

We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language. It's just a dialect. Just as Spanish spoken throughout Mexico, Central & South America is "Spanish", French spoken in Canada, Haiti or Congo is "French", Portuguese spoken in Brazil is "Portuguese", English spoken in Canada, Australia or Liberia is "English", the Dutch spoken in Suriname or Antigua is "Dutch", etc.

None of the European colonized places have taken their European language and renamed it after their own nation. With globalization, it's unlikely that any language will deviate enough to linguistically count as a new tongue any time soon. Bizarrely, this somehow means America alone has an identity crisis.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel


I wont beat a dead horse since most of this was already addressed. Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them. We don't have an official language, so I'm not asking if you're ok with changing the official language. I'm asking about your acceptance of the unofficial terminology "American" being used to represent our language as it does everything else.


Oh, FFS. The CULTURE we choose to call "American" (including its food, music, etc.) did not exist before the creation of the U.S.A. The LANGUAGE spoken here DID exist. In England. Hence, English.
#593 Mar 29 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
tl;dr Even Simpler Version:

We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language. It's just a dialect. Just as Spanish spoken throughout Mexico, Central & South America is "Spanish", French spoken in Canada, Haiti or Congo is "French", Portuguese spoken in Brazil is "Portuguese", English spoken in Canada, Australia or Liberia is "English", the Dutch spoken in Suriname or Antigua is "Dutch", etc.

None of the European colonized places have taken their European language and renamed it after their own nation. With globalization, it's unlikely that any language will deviate enough to linguistically count as a new tongue any time soon. Bizarrely, this somehow means America alone has an identity crisis.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel


I wont beat a dead horse since most of this was already addressed. Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them. We don't have an official language, so I'm not asking if you're ok with changing the official language. I'm asking about your acceptance of the unofficial terminology "American" being used to represent our language as it does everything else.


Oh, FFS. The CULTURE we choose to call "American" (including its food, music, etc.) did not exist before the creation of the U.S.A. The LANGUAGE spoken here DID exist. In England. Hence, English.


Did the English PEOPLE not exist either? You know that's what this entire debate is over, calling the people "American". This has nothing to do with what came first, as the term "American" for our food, music, etc. can still be used to describe the same things in Peru, because you know, they're South American.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#594 Mar 29 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them.

And we base that "want" on some actual reasons rather than casual whims. You've yet to present any reasons why we should have wanted to change the name of the language.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#595 Mar 29 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
***
1,149 posts
Almalieque wrote:
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
tl;dr Even Simpler Version:

We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language. It's just a dialect. Just as Spanish spoken throughout Mexico, Central & South America is "Spanish", French spoken in Canada, Haiti or Congo is "French", Portuguese spoken in Brazil is "Portuguese", English spoken in Canada, Australia or Liberia is "English", the Dutch spoken in Suriname or Antigua is "Dutch", etc.

None of the European colonized places have taken their European language and renamed it after their own nation. With globalization, it's unlikely that any language will deviate enough to linguistically count as a new tongue any time soon. Bizarrely, this somehow means America alone has an identity crisis.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel


I wont beat a dead horse since most of this was already addressed. Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them. We don't have an official language, so I'm not asking if you're ok with changing the official language. I'm asking about your acceptance of the unofficial terminology "American" being used to represent our language as it does everything else.


Oh, FFS. The CULTURE we choose to call "American" (including its food, music, etc.) did not exist before the creation of the U.S.A. The LANGUAGE spoken here DID exist. In England. Hence, English.


Did the English PEOPLE not exist either? You know that's what this entire debate is over, calling the people "American". This has nothing to do with what came first, as the term "American" for our food, music, etc. can still be used to describe the same things in Peru, because you know, they're South American.


Perhaps we call ourselves American because of the unique nature of the U.S.A. Essentially, a coalition of smaller governments (state governments) combining to form one larger government (the US federal government). Thing was, initially, it was supposed to be focused more on the individual States than the combined entity. Hence, the name United States of America. They were a bunch of STATES in the area called AMERICA that had UNITED together, but still retained quasi-autonomy. Even today, people may call themselves by their state (i.e. a Kentuckian, a New Yorker, a Californian, etc.). But as a united people, we call ourselves American. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with this.

Also, I love how you keep arguing hypotheticals. Yes, Peruvians, Brazilians, Mexicans, ****, even Canadians COULD call themselves "American" but, guess what? THEY DON'T. Only people from the USA call themselves "American".
#596 Mar 29 2011 at 4:53 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them.

And we base that "want" on some actual reasons rather than casual whims. You've yet to present any reasons why we should have wanted to change the name of the language.


If you didn't ignore an entire post, you would have realized that I explicitly said that I was not arguing for a change of name of the language. I'm asking if you accept the unofficial terminology of "American" to refer to the spoken English here. You argued against the dangling modifier "American", so do you accept the terminology "Do you speak the American language"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#597 Mar 29 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If you didn't ignore an entire post, you would have realized that I explicitly said that I was not arguing for a change of name of the language. I'm asking if you accept the unofficial terminology of "American" to refer to the spoken English here. You argued against the dangling modifier "American", so do you accept the terminology "Do you speak the American language"?

I already answered that and explained why which led to you babbling on about us calling languages whatever we want.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#598 Mar 29 2011 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
The One and Only ShadorVIII wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
tl;dr Even Simpler Version:

We call English spoken here in the States "English" because it hasn't changed enough from its origin to be a new language. It's just a dialect. Just as Spanish spoken throughout Mexico, Central & South America is "Spanish", French spoken in Canada, Haiti or Congo is "French", Portuguese spoken in Brazil is "Portuguese", English spoken in Canada, Australia or Liberia is "English", the Dutch spoken in Suriname or Antigua is "Dutch", etc.

None of the European colonized places have taken their European language and renamed it after their own nation. With globalization, it's unlikely that any language will deviate enough to linguistically count as a new tongue any time soon. Bizarrely, this somehow means America alone has an identity crisis.

Edited, Mar 29th 2011 8:29am by Jophiel


I wont beat a dead horse since most of this was already addressed. Bottom line up front is that we name languages what we want to name them. We don't have an official language, so I'm not asking if you're ok with changing the official language. I'm asking about your acceptance of the unofficial terminology "American" being used to represent our language as it does everything else.


Oh, FFS. The CULTURE we choose to call "American" (including its food, music, etc.) did not exist before the creation of the U.S.A. The LANGUAGE spoken here DID exist. In England. Hence, English.


Did the English PEOPLE not exist either? You know that's what this entire debate is over, calling the people "American". This has nothing to do with what came first, as the term "American" for our food, music, etc. can still be used to describe the same things in Peru, because you know, they're South American.


Perhaps we call ourselves American because of the unique nature of the U.S.A. Essentially, a coalition of smaller governments (state governments) combining to form one larger government (the US federal government). Thing was, initially, it was supposed to be focused more on the individual States than the combined entity. Hence, the name United States of America. They were a bunch of STATES in the area called AMERICA that had UNITED together, but still retained quasi-autonomy. Even today, people may call themselves by their state (i.e. a Kentuckian, a New Yorker, a Californian, etc.). But as a united people, we call ourselves American. You seem to be the only one who has a problem with this.

Also, I love how you keep arguing hypotheticals. Yes, Peruvians, Brazilians, Mexicans, ****, even Canadians COULD call themselves "American" but, guess what? THEY DON'T. Only people from the USA call themselves "American".


There really needs to be a rule about posting without reading posts...I posted a link of South America/Latin America expressing dislike of the term "American" being exclusively to the U.S., hence their terminologies that refer to U.S. citizens....


Edit: Doing a little research, from the same link I provided earlier, it stated that the term "America" referred to the "New World", all of the masses to include North and South America, but had evolved throughout time to simply refer to the U.S.

Thank you..

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 1:11am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#599 Mar 29 2011 at 5:05 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If you didn't ignore an entire post, you would have realized that I explicitly said that I was not arguing for a change of name of the language. I'm asking if you accept the unofficial terminology of "American" to refer to the spoken English here. You argued against the dangling modifier "American", so do you accept the terminology "Do you speak the American language"?

I already answered that and explained why which led to you babbling on about us calling languages whatever we want.


No, you answered the question in response to "Do you speak American"? You made a grammatical counter. So I changed it to ask "Do you speak the American language" which is more grammatically correct.

In any case, that doesn't explain how you skipped an entire post.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#600 Mar 29 2011 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's not more grammatically correct. "American" is a dialect of the English language, it is not a language in of itself.

Saying "I speak the American language" is like saying "I have a Skyline tree" rather than "I have a Skyline honeylocust" or "I have a honeylocust tree".

I skipped the post because it's not addressing anything that hasn't been addressed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#601 Mar 29 2011 at 5:27 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,090 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's not more grammatically correct. "American" is a dialect of the English language, it is not a language in of itself.

Saying "I speak the American language" is like saying "I have a Skyline tree" rather than "I have a Skyline honeylocust" or "I have a honeylocust tree".

I skipped the post because it's not addressing anything that hasn't been addressed.


Exactly my point, which is no different than calling a U.S. citizen "American" as opposed to U.S. American. It's the same concept. Like I said, there is no "Chinese" language, yet the world still refers to Mandarin as "Chinese". Unless you're claiming that people wouldn't understand "I speak American", then it is no different than saying "I speak Chinese".

You don't approve the saying "speaking American" because it's stupid. It has nothing to do with any grammar argument as the term American can be used as a noun as well as an adjective.

Edit: You're full of BS, I reread my post that you skipped and that stuff was not already addressed. You just chose to skip it. Oh well...as long as you realize you were wrong, we can move on

Edited, Mar 30th 2011 1:33am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 35 All times are in CST
Jophiel, r1ng0sc4rr, Anonymous Guests (33)