Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>America and
>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>
>>Britain
>
>There is no such nation.

its a reasonable shorthand, england isnt.
--
Mike
(remove clothing to email)

Make credence recognised that on Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:37:28 +0100, The
Reid <[email protected]> has scripted:

>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>But it's not a defect of the language, per se.
>>>
>>>what is it a defect of?
>>
>>Duh. The spelling.
>
>I dont see that as not part of the language.

I think he meant it's not a defect, per se.

(which would mean your knackers are in a twist or I'm mistaken!)
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:37:28 +0100, The Reid
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>But it's not a defect of the language, per se.
>>>
>>>what is it a defect of?
>>
>>Duh. The spelling.
>
>I dont see that as not part of the language.

Since a great many languages have existed without any spelling at
all, and some still do, I don't see it as part of the language.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:38:09 +0100, The Reid
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>America and
>>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>>
>>>Britain
>>
>>There is no such nation.
>
>its a reasonable shorthand, england isnt.

What is it a reasonable shorthand for?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:12:58 -0700, Padraig Breathnach
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:40:36 +0100, The Reid
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Following up to [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>>>
>>>>America and
>>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>>
>>>Britain
>>
>>There is no such nation.
>
>There is, to a similar extent that there is a nation called America.

That's an argument?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
viestissä:bpleb357t704k981j9fkia51e26nvgah2r@4ax. com...
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:37:28 +0100, The Reid
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>But it's not a defect of the language, per se.
>>>>
>>>>what is it a defect of?
>>>
>>>Duh. The spelling.
>>
>>I dont see that as not part of the language.
>
> Since a great many languages have existed without any spelling at
> all, and some still do, I don't see it as part of the language.
>
But? Should we say that red automobiles are not automobiles at all because
there are also blue automobiles which are - as a matter of fact -
automobiles?

Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 07:40:36 +0100, The Reid
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Following up to [email protected] (Geoff Miller) wrote:
>>
>>>America and
>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>
>>Britain
>
>There is no such nation.

There is, to a similar extent that there is a nation called America.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Hatunen wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:38:09 +0100, The Reid
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>America and
>>>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>>>
>>>>Britain
>>>
>>>There is no such nation.
>>
>>its a reasonable shorthand, england isnt.
>
>
> What is it a reasonable shorthand for?
>
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Just as 'America' is shorthand for The United States of America.

I believe Mike was pointing out the error of using 'England' as a
shorthand for the UKofGB&NI. That's a bit like saying 'New York', and
meaning the US.

Sheila

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 20:21:52 +0300, Markku Grönroos
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Hatunen" <[email protected]> kirjoitti
>viestissä:bpleb357t704k981j9fkia51e26nvgah2r@4ax .com...
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:37:28 +0100, The Reid
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>But it's not a defect of the language, per se.
>>>>>
>>>>>what is it a defect of?
>>>>
>>>>Duh. The spelling.
>>>
>>>I dont see that as not part of the language.
>>
>> Since a great many languages have existed without any spelling at
>> all, and some still do, I don't see it as part of the language.
>>
>But? Should we say that red automobiles are not automobiles at all because
>there are also blue automobiles which are - as a matter of fact -
>automobiles?

Do you seriously find colors comparable to a major cultural
invention like writing?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:03:12 -0400, S Viemeister <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Hatunen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:38:09 +0100, The Reid
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>America and
>>>>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>>>>
>>>>>Britain
>>>>
>>>>There is no such nation.
>>>
>>>its a reasonable shorthand, england isnt.
>>
>>
>> What is it a reasonable shorthand for?
>>
>The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
>
>Just as 'America' is shorthand for The United States of America.
>
>I believe Mike was pointing out the error of using 'England' as a
>shorthand for the UKofGB&NI. That's a bit like saying 'New York', and
>meaning the US.

I'm aware of that, but I find the analogy poor. "England" has
always been a sort of shorthand for the UK despite any Scot adn
Welsh objections, while New York has never been shorthand for the
USA. Not to mention that whether the non-English parts of the UK
like it or not, England has largely run the UK show. "England" is
probably as good shorthand as "Britain", short for "Great
Britain", which has sometimes been short for "United Kingdom"


--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:18:36 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:03:12 -0400, S Viemeister <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Hatunen wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:38:09 +0100, The Reid
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Following up to Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>America and
>>>>>>>England know what it is to be superpowers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Britain
>>>>>
>>>>>There is no such nation.
>>>>
>>>>its a reasonable shorthand, england isnt.
>>>
>>>
>>> What is it a reasonable shorthand for?
>>>
>>The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
>>
>>Just as 'America' is shorthand for The United States of America.
>>
>>I believe Mike was pointing out the error of using 'England' as a
>>shorthand for the UKofGB&NI. That's a bit like saying 'New York', and
>>meaning the US.
>
>I'm aware of that, but I find the analogy poor. "England" has
>always been a sort of shorthand for the UK despite any Scot adn
>Welsh objections, while New York has never been shorthand for the
>USA. Not to mention that whether the non-English parts of the UK
>like it or not, England has largely run the UK show. "England" is
>probably as good shorthand as "Britain", short for "Great
>Britain", which has sometimes been short for "United Kingdom"

At the moment Scotland seems to run the show.
--

Martin

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:27:20 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
wrote:


>>I'm aware of that, but I find the analogy poor. "England" has
>>always been a sort of shorthand for the UK despite any Scot adn
>>Welsh objections, while New York has never been shorthand for the
>>USA. Not to mention that whether the non-English parts of the UK
>>like it or not, England has largely run the UK show. "England" is
>>probably as good shorthand as "Britain", short for "Great
>>Britain", which has sometimes been short for "United Kingdom"
>
>At the moment Scotland seems to run the show.

From Westminster.

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:51:05 -0700, Hatunen <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:27:20 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>I'm aware of that, but I find the analogy poor. "England" has
>>>always been a sort of shorthand for the UK despite any Scot adn
>>>Welsh objections, while New York has never been shorthand for the
>>>USA. Not to mention that whether the non-English parts of the UK
>>>like it or not, England has largely run the UK show. "England" is
>>>probably as good shorthand as "Britain", short for "Great
>>>Britain", which has sometimes been short for "United Kingdom"
>>
>>At the moment Scotland seems to run the show.
>
>From Westminster.

and from Edinburgh :-)
--

Martin

Hatunen wrote:

> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:27:20 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>I'm aware of that, but I find the analogy poor. "England" has
>>>always been a sort of shorthand for the UK despite any Scot adn
>>>Welsh objections, while New York has never been shorthand for the
>>>USA. Not to mention that whether the non-English parts of the UK
>>>like it or not, England has largely run the UK show. "England" is
>>>probably as good shorthand as "Britain", short for "Great
>>>Britain", which has sometimes been short for "United Kingdom"
>>
>>At the moment Scotland seems to run the show.
>
>
> From Westminster.
>
Which is, of course the _UK_ parliament, not the English one (there
hasn't been and English Parliament since 1707).

The US government is in the Delmarva area - but I doubt if most
Anmericans consider themselves governed by, say, Virginia......

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:45:43 -0400, S Viemeister <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Hatunen wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:27:20 +0200, Martin <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>I'm aware of that, but I find the analogy poor. "England" has
>>>>always been a sort of shorthand for the UK despite any Scot adn
>>>>Welsh objections, while New York has never been shorthand for the
>>>>USA. Not to mention that whether the non-English parts of the UK
>>>>like it or not, England has largely run the UK show. "England" is
>>>>probably as good shorthand as "Britain", short for "Great
>>>>Britain", which has sometimes been short for "United Kingdom"
>>>
>>>At the moment Scotland seems to run the show.
>>
>>
>> From Westminster.
>>
>Which is, of course the _UK_ parliament, not the English one (there
>hasn't been and English Parliament since 1707).

That Parliament sits in England and is composed mostly of
Englishman. Not only that it is the Engllish parliament
augmented; no new Parliament was formed when The Act of Union was
passed.

>The US government is in the Delmarva area - but I doubt if most
>Anmericans consider themselves governed by, say, Virginia......

It's not in Virginia. Nor Delaware. Nor Maryland. We do say we
are governed from the District of Columbia, or more loosely from
the legally non-existent Washington.

Are you saying that most of the UK isn't governed from
Westminster? Although with devolution I'm not sure about how
strong a statement that is. Does Scotland have, say, a foreign
minister?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *