History

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

James — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 13:28:22 GMT

I actually don't know why we call them "the Elite", it's not like they deserve it... It implies that they have class.

I think I'll just start calling them Scum. It also floats to the top.

language

RothbardsDisciple — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:06:21 GMT

Muffinburg, you do guess correctly on that issue of semantics. My intended meaning was more like "pompous," which I admit to, than implying any sort of inferiority on John's part. I do, after all, believe in traditional bourgeois culture, which is pretty elitist.

Simply because there is an elite group of people does not, as Daniel stated, belittle others.

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

DanielMuff — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:00:35 GMT

Buut do you agree with me that you meant something by "elite" while RD meant something else, at least with regards to connotation?

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

RothbardsDisciple — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:58:22 GMT

John James, this is a subjective personal preference, and I like English culture (I already said I am an anglophile)* as well as traditionalism. What is the issue?

*I should note that I have believed much more egregious things due to this. I used to believe that the American Revolution was wrong, and that England was right, primarily due to this article: http://www.redcoat.me.uk/. I could see the issue with that, as the American Revolution was a Libertarian one, but why take issue with my spelling?

language

John James — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:47:25 GMT

RothbardsDisciple:
I have been spelling them like that for years!

...and that is supposed to make them less wrong because...?

Daniel Muffinburg:
Elite. In America, that word has a very negative connotation. It is often used in an insult to another by someone who feels inferior (I'm not saying that you feel inferior). Elite is also often used by someone to belittle another by describing himself as elite. However, I think RD meant that he considers himself to be amongst the best in the usage of the English language. In other words, I think that you meant something by "elite" while RD meant something else, at least with regards to connotation.

That had nothing to do with my assessment of him being quite invested in this topic...which he initially claimed wasn't the case, and then essentially admitted it was. (And keeps providing evidence for with every subsequent post.)

language

DanielMuff — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:36:15 GMT

John James:

Daniel Muffinburg:
I think JJ was reading too much into the American connotations of the words that you used, instead of focusing on their definitions.

I'd be curious to hear what words you think I misinterpreted.

Elite. In America, that word has a very negative connotation. It is often used in an insult to another by someone who feels inferior (I'm not saying that you feel inferior). Elite is also often used by someone to belittle another by describing himself as elite. However, I think RD meant that he considers himself to be amongst the best in the usage of the English language.

In other words, I think that you meant something by "elite" while RD meant something else, at least with regards to connotation.

language

RothbardsDisciple — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:36:03 GMT

Or was I perhaps more influenced by the fact that he actually misspells words on purpose in some sort of barren petulant protest?

I misspell words? I am the one who uses proper etymology here, so that seems rather unfair. And I have been spelling them like that for years! And it is not a protest, but simply the way I like to spell words. Did this statement evade you?

My usage of English English has more to do with the positive aspects I associate with it (Tolkien, England, archaic writings, etc.) than the negative influence of Webster, American cultural imperialism, improper etymology, etc.

language

John James — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 09:08:55 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:
I think JJ was reading too much into the American connotations of the words that you used, instead of focusing on their definitions.

I'd be curious to hear what words you think I misinterpreted. "Despise" perhaps? Butchering? How about "frustration"? Vandalism? Or was I perhaps more influenced by the fact that he actually misspells words on purpose in some sort of barren petulant protest?

Are you actually going to try and refute what he himself essentially just confirmed?

language

RothbardsDisciple — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:57:26 GMT

Btw, RothbardsDisciple, what dictionary do you use; OED?

Yes, I pirated it for free. It was indeed quite difficult to find the complete dictionary in software form. I wish I could purchase the whole collection in harcover, but it is far too expensive ($1232): http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-English-Dictionary-vol-print/dp/0199573158/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1323064354&sr=8-1

But my version works very well. By the way, this reminds me that I should have mentioned I disagree even with the form of English current in the U.K. I prefer Oxford Spelling like Tolkien, which is more etymologically correct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling

That basically only means that I use realize instead of realise and so forth.

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

DanielMuff — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:48:18 GMT

I think JJ was reading too much into the American connotations of the words that you used, instead of focusing on their definitions.

Btw, RothbardsDisciple, what dictionary do you use; OED?

language

RothbardsDisciple — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:37:19 GMT

It depends on what you mean by a "great deal." It is relatively important and integral to my academic writing, but I do not generally bring the issue up. If you compare this to my Libertarianism, for example, it would rank relatively low on my value scale. If I was faced with the option of adopting American English to achieve an Anarcho-Capitalist society, I would do so in a heartbeat. I think I simply tend to be dramatic about things I care even somewhat about; this probably has more to do with my personality than the subject at hand. If you asked me about Peter Jackson and his butchering of the greatest books of all time, you would get a similarly harsh reaction.

And I hope I was not sounding too negative. My usage of English English has more to do with the positive aspects I associate with it (Tolkien, England, archaic writings, etc.) than the negative influence of Webster, American cultural imperialism, improper etymology, etc.

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

John James — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 06:09:51 GMT

-"I have no fondness for the American variety of English; in fact, I despise Webster and the butchering he did to the language here."

-"I am someone who still uses the spelling "connexion" as opposed to "connection," if that helps explain some of my frustration with Webster and his language vandalism. "

This does not sound like the language and actions of someone who is not worked up. This obviously matters to you a great deal.

language

RothbardsDisciple — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:56:06 GMT

And I don't mean that like "dumb" as in you're so obviously wrong that you're not intelligent, I mean "dumb" as in it's one of the most ridiculous things I can think of to be worrying even half this much about. I mean "dumb" as in you're this worked up and getting this indignant to a point of sounding elitist snob (which is dumb in itself), but what's more, you're reacting this way and getting this emotionally affected for no better reason than the fact that you happen to think a "y" instead of an "a" "looks nicer"...where the "a" makes it "ugly".

1). I have not spent too much time worrying about this, but I rather naturally adopted Tolkien's style, who is my favourite author of fiction. I also intend to write an epic at some point, so perhaps you can see how this would be a normal course of action for someone with the interests of myself?

2). I was neither "worked up" nor "emotional" about this, as far as I know. I was merely sharing my old-fashioned and non-conformist perspective on language.

3). I will admit to being pompous and "elitist" in this instance. I see nothing wrong with that choice.

4). You are also correct that this has to do with my personal aesthetics, and others are free to choose their own.

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

John James — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:48:15 GMT

RothbardsDisciple:
John James, you are probably right; as I said, I am a traditionalist.

Put another way, you believe in, and are inclined to do, and will (obviously) fight for things for no other reason than "that's the way we did it yesterday."

But that would be a pretty ugly "tradition" if what we had now was the old way of spelling. Ugly words like pajamas instead of the proper pyjamas, and plow instead of plough? Proper English, with spellings such as mediæval, simply looks very much nicer. American English is merely the layman's "simplification" of the language.

I don't mean this to be at all insulting, but that's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. And I don't mean that like "dumb" as in you're so obviously wrong that you're not intelligent, I mean "dumb" as in it's one of the most ridiculous things I can think of to be worrying about even half this much. I mean "dumb" as in you're this worked up, and getting this indignant to a point of sounding elitist snob (which is dumb in itself), but what's more, you're reacting this way and getting this emotionally affected for no better reason than the fact that you happen to think a "y" instead of an "a" "looks nicer"...where the "a" makes it "ugly". The whole thing is just dumb.

language

Clayton — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 05:41:30 GMT

the "evolution" of a language depends on conscious choices.

To borrow and alter a famous phrase: Language is the result of human action but not of human design.

Clayton -

History

Re: *** December 2011 low content thread ***

language

Re: *** December 2011 low content thread ***

Re: *** December 2011 low content thread ***

language

language

language

language

language

Re: *** December 2011 low content thread ***

language

Re: *** December 2011 low content thread ***

language

Re: *** December 2011 low content thread ***

language

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *

Re: * December 2011 low content thread *