B Vaughan

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 22:49:12 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

    >On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:04:13 +0100, B Vaughan<[email protected]> wrote:
    >>On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:51:34 GMT, Deep Frayed Morgues
    >><deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
    >>>Given all the off-topic rubbish in this place at the moment, I see no
    >>>harm in launching my site here. Well, it certainly has enough pics of
    >>>Europe in it.
    >>Very nice website. By the way, the saint with the eyeballs on a plate
    >>is St. Lucy. She is usually depicted that way. She's the patron saint
    >>of Syracuse, and in many parts of Italy, she brings presents to good
    >>little boys and girls on December 13(?). Where I live, it's the Befana
    >>(a good witch) who brings presents to good little boys and girls, on
    >>January 6th.
    >Interesting. I took that one in Cisternino, in Puglia. Is she a saint
    >from the south?

I thought she was from near Rome, but I could be wrong. I have heard
of her being the present-bearer in various parts of central and
northern Italy.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:42 -0000, "nightjar"
<nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote:

    >"Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    >message news:[email protected]...
    >> On 16 Nov 2004 00:18:06 -0800, [email protected] (Bjorn Olsson) wrote:
    >>>Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    >>>message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    >>>> Given all the off-topic rubbish in this place at the moment, I see no
    >>>> harm in launching my site here. Well, it certainly has enough pics of
    >>>> Europe in it.
    >>>http://www.deepfriedmars.com/NewPics/Breaky.jpg
    >>>"This is mini blini".
    >>>No, it's an oladye.
    >> Fixed!
    >Want to fix Church of Spilled Blood, to Church on the Spilled Blood too? It
    >gets its name from having been built over the blood-stained cobbles where
    >one of the Tzars was assassinated.

Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?

According to Google, you appear to be correct though. Changes in
progress.
---
DFM

Bjorn Olsson

Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 23:12:42 -0000, "nightjar"
    > <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >"Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    > >message news:[email protected]...
    > >> On 16 Nov 2004 00:18:06 -0800, [email protected] (Bjorn Olsson) wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Deep Frayed Morgues <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    > >>>message news:<[email protected]>. ..
    > >>>> Given all the off-topic rubbish in this place at the moment, I see no
    > >>>> harm in launching my site here. Well, it certainly has enough pics of
    > >>>> Europe in it.
    > >>>
    > >>>http://www.deepfriedmars.com/NewPics/Breaky.jpg
    > >>>
    > >>>"This is mini blini".
    > >>>
    > >>>No, it's an oladye.
    > >>
    > >> Fixed!
    > >
    > >Want to fix Church of Spilled Blood, to Church on the Spilled Blood too? It
    > >gets its name from having been built over the blood-stained cobbles where
    > >one of the Tzars was assassinated.
    >
    > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?

Lonely Planet are pretty ignorant about Russia.

Bjorn

Nightjar

"Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
....
    > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?

Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would have
used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
language is not particularly grammatically advanced. The name is given as
'spilled' on all the bits I bought from the shop in the church.

Colin Bignell

Deep Frayed Morgues

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 18:23:00 -0000, "nightjar"
<nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote:

    >"Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    >message news:[email protected]...
    >....
    >> Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    >> have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?
    >Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
    >whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would have
    >used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
    >language is not particularly grammatically advanced. The name is given as
    >'spilled' on all the bits I bought from the shop in the church.

Either way, it is wrong, and Church on the Spilled Blood does make
grammatical sense.

Lonely Planet made a mistake.
---
DFM

Bjorn Olsson

"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > "Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]...
    > ....
    > > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    > > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?
    >
    > Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
    > whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would have
    > used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
    > language is not particularly grammatically advanced.

What does that have to do with being grammatically advanded? Without
articles, you need endings. As an example, the word "spas" in the
church name
below gets the suffix -a, and becomes "spasa". I can't see why that
would be less "advanced" than using an article.

    > The name is given as
    > 'spilled' on all the bits I bought from the shop in the church.

The Russian name is "Khram Spasa na Krovi". Khram = church, spasa =
saviour, na = on, krovi = blood. In other words, there is no "spilled"
or "spilt" in there, so it is pretty arbitrary which form you decide
to add in English. My preferred translation would be "Church of our
saviour on blood". Naturally, you'll need to know the historical
background to make any sense of the name..

It also goes by the name "Khram Vaskreseniya Khristova", meaning
"Church of the resurrection of Christ".

Bjorn

Nightjar

"Bjorn Olsson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] om...
    > "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected] >...
    >> "Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    >> message news:[email protected]...
    >> ....
    >> > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    >> > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?
    >> Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
    >> whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would
    >> have
    >> used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
    >> language is not particularly grammatically advanced.
    > What does that have to do with being grammatically advanded? Without
    > articles, you need endings. As an example, the word "spas" in the
    > church name
    > below gets the suffix -a, and becomes "spasa". I can't see why that
    > would be less "advanced" than using an article.

As languages develop, they generally become more complex. A language that
has not evolved some of the attributes of a more complex grammar is,
therefore, usually considered to be less advanced linguistically. Most
commonly, languages develop through contact with other languages and Russia
has a long tradtion of isolationism, which would limit that route for
development.

    > The Russian name is "Khram Spasa na Krovi". Khram = church, spasa =
    > saviour, na = on, krovi = blood. In other words, there is no "spilled"
    > or "spilt" in there, so it is pretty arbitrary which form you decide
    > to add in English.

However, the two words do have quite different connotations in English.
Spilled blood would imply that the act of the blood being spilled was the
important feature. Spilt blood would imply that the blood was important in
itself.

    > My preferred translation would be "Church of our
    > saviour on blood". Naturally, you'll need to know the historical
    > background to make any sense of the name.

Which is probably why the official translation is less literal and includes
an indication of the derivation of the name.

Colin Bignell

B Vaughan

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:18:08 -0000, "nightjar"
<nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote:

    >As languages develop, they generally become more complex.

Anglo-Saxon was much more grammatically complex than modern English.
Modern Romance languages are much less grammatically complex than
Latin was. Ancient Chinese was more grammatically complex than modern
Chinese. Ancient Greek was more grammatically complex than modern
Greek. Do you have any counter-examples?

    > A language that
    >has not evolved some of the attributes of a more complex grammar is,
    >therefore, usually considered to be less advanced linguistically.

I don't know where on earth you found that piece of misinformation,
but there is no basis in fact for it.

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Alan Harrison

"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 13:18:08 -0000, "nightjar"
    > <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote:
    > >As languages develop, they generally become more complex.
    > Anglo-Saxon was much more grammatically complex than modern English.
    > Modern Romance languages are much less grammatically complex than
    > Latin was. Ancient Chinese was more grammatically complex than modern
    > Chinese. Ancient Greek was more grammatically complex than modern
    > Greek. Do you have any counter-examples?

While I agree with your main point, Barbara, I'm not sure that the idea of
"more/less complex" is particularly helpful. What has happened with English
as compared with Anglo-Saxon or French/Italian/Spanish as compared with
Latin is that they have moved from an inflected syntax to an analytical
syntax. Russian and German remain inflected languages.

Regarding the Russian church name, I have no idea whether the "explanation"
is true or an urban legend. (See the "Gelert story" for example with regard
to the Welsh place name Beddgelert.)

Alan Harrison

Bjorn Olsson

"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > "Bjorn Olsson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected] om...
    > > "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message
    > > news:<[email protected] >...
    > >> "Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    > >> message news:[email protected]...
    > >> ....
    > >> > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    > >> > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?
    > >>
    > >> Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
    > >> whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would
    > >> have
    > >> used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
    > >> language is not particularly grammatically advanced.
    > >
    > > What does that have to do with being grammatically advanded? Without
    > > articles, you need endings. As an example, the word "spas" in the
    > > church name
    > > below gets the suffix -a, and becomes "spasa". I can't see why that
    > > would be less "advanced" than using an article.
    >
    > As languages develop, they generally become more complex. A language that
    > has not evolved some of the attributes of a more complex grammar is,
    > therefore, usually considered to be less advanced linguistically. Most
    > commonly, languages develop through contact with other languages and Russia
    > has a long tradtion of isolationism, which would limit that route for
    > development.

Now, this sounds like you have no idea. We are talking about two very
specific features here, and you have still not explained why one (use
of articles) would be considered more advanced than the other. Perhaps
you could cite some linguistic theory that supports your statement?
Maybe it can be derived from the "three principles of efficiency and
complexity of grammars" by Hawkins?:

http://kybele.psych.cornell.edu/LU/H...-CSLIpaper.pdf

Or?

    > > The Russian name is "Khram Spasa na Krovi". Khram = church, spasa =
    > > saviour, na = on, krovi = blood. In other words, there is no "spilled"
    > > or "spilt" in there, so it is pretty arbitrary which form you decide
    > > to add in English.
    >
    > However, the two words do have quite different connotations in English.
    > Spilled blood would imply that the act of the blood being spilled was the
    > important feature. Spilt blood would imply that the blood was important in
    > itself.

And which feature is important in this case?

    > > My preferred translation would be "Church of our
    > > saviour on blood". Naturally, you'll need to know the historical
    > > background to make any sense of the name.
    >
    > Which is probably why the official translation is less literal and includes
    > an indication of the derivation of the name.

Well, I guess one might translate the name into: "Church of our
Saviour built on the location of the blood spilt by the tsar when
being shot"..

The original name just says "on blood". No indication whatsoever of
whose blood and how it got there. I don't know why the name should be
made more self-explanatory when translated into other languages.

Bjorn

Xenia

"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > "Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]...
    > ....
    > > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
    > > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?
    >
    > Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
    > whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would have
    > used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
    > language is not particularly grammatically advanced. The name is given as
    > 'spilled' on all the bits I bought from the shop in the church.
    >
    > Colin Bignell

The lack of articles suggests nothing at all. It's better to shut up
than to demonstrate your ignorance to all the world.

There's some basic information for you. Russian has six (not to
mention Vocative, Genitive II and Prepositional II) cases, English has
only two. Russian has three genders, English has one. Verbs conjugate
according to person, number, tense, voice and mood. Verbs have two
aspects: Imperfective and Perfective. Participles exist in 4 forms:
Present Active, Past Active, Present Passive and Past Passive. There
are short participles corresponding to two Passive forms of regular
participles that like short adjectives do not decline. There are
adverbial participles that do not decline and exist in Present and
Past forms. Word order is free, moreover, by changing the word order
any word in a sentence can be emphasized. Russian shares most of these
characteristics with other Slavic languages.

If you think that Slavic languages are "not particularly grammatically
advanced", try to learn at least one of them before making any
sweeping statements concerning its grammar.

Xenia Strizh

Magda

On 21 Nov 2004 02:10:24 -0800, in rec.travel.europe, [email protected] (Xenia) arranged
some electrons, so they looked like this :

... "nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
... > "Deep Frayed Morgues" <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote in
... > message news:[email protected]...
... > ....
... > > Well, Lonely Planet calls it 'Church of Spilled Blood', and I would
... > > have thought grammatically it should be 'spilt' anyway, shouldn't it?
... >
... > Russian is a language that I know virtually nothing of, so I have no idea
... > whether they would have an equivalent adjective or whether they would have
... > used a verb in the name instead. The lack of articles suggests that the
... > language is not particularly grammatically advanced. The name is given as
... > 'spilled' on all the bits I bought from the shop in the church.
... >
... > Colin Bignell
...
... The lack of articles suggests nothing at all. It's better to shut up
... than to demonstrate your ignorance to all the world.
...
... There's some basic information for you. Russian has six (not to
... mention Vocative, Genitive II and Prepositional II) cases, English has
... only two. Russian has three genders, English has one.

Which one ? Male, female or neutral ?

Jeremy Henderson

On 2004-11-17 06:20:22 +0100, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
<[email protected]> said:

    >
    >
    > Deep Frayed Morgues wrote:
    >
    >
    >> Yeah, there's even pictures of me in there, so there's a face to put
    >> on one of the troublemakers in this place.
    >
    > Gee, you're cute! (Too bad I'm not forty years younger.)

<fast show> Ooh! Young man!! </fast show>

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

B Vaughan

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 19:57:36 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Harrison"
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >"B Vaughan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected].. .

    >> Anglo-Saxon was much more grammatically complex than modern English.
    >> Modern Romance languages are much less grammatically complex than
    >> Latin was. Ancient Chinese was more grammatically complex than modern
    >> Chinese. Ancient Greek was more grammatically complex than modern
    >> Greek. Do you have any counter-examples?
    >While I agree with your main point, Barbara, I'm not sure that the idea of
    >"more/less complex" is particularly helpful. What has happened with English
    >as compared with Anglo-Saxon or French/Italian/Spanish as compared with
    >Latin is that they have moved from an inflected syntax to an analytical
    >syntax. Russian and German remain inflected languages.

Actually, I didn't like the word "complex" myself, but stuck with it
because "nightjar" had introduced it. However, I do think that in all
the cases I mentioned, the resulting language is less "complex". The
analytical structure that has replaced the inflections is less
redundant for one, so that multiple inflected endings get replaced by
a single rule about word order, for instance.

I deliberately didn't say that this was a universal law.



    >Regarding the Russian church name, I have no idea whether the "explanation"
    >is true or an urban legend. (See the "Gelert story" for example with regard
    >to the Welsh place name Beddgelert.)
    >Alan Harrison

--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

Xenia

"nightjar" <nightjar@<insert_my_surname_here>.uk.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected] >...
    > As languages develop, they generally become more complex. A language that
    > has not evolved some of the attributes of a more complex grammar is,
    > therefore, usually considered to be less advanced linguistically.

On the contrary, it's clear that ancient languages (Latin, Greek,
Sanskrit, Old English) were MUCH MORE grammatically complex than their
modern descendants.

For example, Old Russian had 7 cases, Modern Russian dropped the
Vocative. Similarly, Modern Russian lacks the dual number which was
present in the Old Russian.

    > Most commonly, languages develop through contact with other languages and

More commonly, it's the centuries of foreign domination that lead to
loss of inflections and development of simplified, or analytical
syntax. I would disagree that analytical syntax represents some
"advanced" stage of language development. So degradation of more
complex Indo-European grammar led to emergence of modern English and
Bulgarian.

    > Russia has a long tradtion of isolationism, which would limit that route for
    > development.

Your ignorance becomes laughable. Don't you know that Russia is the
home to more nationalites than any other country of the world?

Unlike Western Europe, Southern Russia was a primary route for the
great medieval Volkerwanderung. So Hunnic, Illyric, Chinese, Baltic,
and Finnish borrowings were woven into the fabric of Russian language,
as even the earliest 11th-century texts show.

There are deep layers of Scythian (e.g., bogatstvo, radi), Gothic
(e.g., kupit, khudozhestvo, iskustvo), Norse (e.g., kolodets, skot,
knut), Greek (e.g., korabl, krovat) and Turkic (e.g., kniga, khozyain)
loanwords present in the core of Russian as well as other Slavic
languages.

Russian grammar faithfully preserves most characteristics of the Old
Slavic. Alhough Russian had close contacts with non-Indo-European
language families of its neighbours, one can hardly discern any
influence of Uralic, Caucasian or Altaic languages on the Russian
grammar.

    > > The Russian name is "Khram Spasa na Krovi". Khram = church, spasa =
    > > saviour, na = on, krovi = blood. In other words, there is no "spilled"
    > > or "spilt" in there, so it is pretty arbitrary which form you decide
    > > to add in English.
    >
    > However, the two words do have quite different connotations in English.
    > Spilled blood would imply that the act of the blood being spilled was the
    > important feature. Spilt blood would imply that the blood was important in
    > itself.

Russian churches "on the blood" were traditionally built where a
regicide had taken place, both to hallow the cursed spot and to comply
with the Orthodox doctrine that "the church of Christ is founded on
the blood of martyrs". Other famous examples of the practice are the
blood-red church in Uglich where Czarevich Dimitri was murdered in
1591 and the new cathedral in Ekaterinburg, on the spot where the last
czar was executed in 1918.

Xenia