dagblog - Comments for "Now for something completely different: But nor ..."

I think you're

Anonymous — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 17:06:50 +0000

In reply to Now for something completely different: But nor ...

I think you're misunderstanding the 'but nor' construction (in at least some of its uses). It is not synonymous with "nor". It is synonymous with "Nor, however, ..... ", which has some clearly acceptable uses. Consider:

You can't buy fish at any supermarket in this city. Nor, however, does anyone want to.

You can't buy fish at any supermarket in this city. But nor does anyone want to.

Those are distinct in meaning from:

You can't buy fish at any supermarket in this city. Nor does anyone want to.

¿Que? Those were the numbers

Nebton — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:48:28 +0000

In reply to Have you switched to the

¿Que? Those were the numbers from the Wikipedia article on Nobel Prizes. Of course, combined with acanauck's observation, one conclusion might be that, like wealth, 90% of our nation's brains are owned by 10% of its population. Zombie Reagan calls for brain redistribution!

And you... are a

quinn esq — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:47:34 +0000

In reply to I thought that a poutine was

And you... are a Butnor.

Total.

Have you switched to the

Orlando — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:40:34 +0000

In reply to Which is why we're better

Have you switched to the Senate's system of counting for everything or are you limiting it to Nobel Prizes only?

Absolutely! That's what I

Contrarian — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:10:10 +0000

In reply to It's axiomatic to the French

Absolutely! That's what I had in mind with flexibility vs. beauty & English vs. .

French. One may perform it's function with elegance, but if you have to use the same tool ever day...

It's axiomatic to the French

acanuck — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 23:15:39 +0000

In reply to Am I the only one who thinks

It's axiomatic to the French that their language is the most beautiful in the world. But yeah, Nebbie, I've heard some really grating French spoken. Still, the language is more fluid and internally consistent than English, giving a good speaker, writer or singer a bit of a head start in creating beauty.

English, with its mostly French vocabulary grafted onto a Germanic base, is not as smooth (and its spelling is nightmarish). But turning its mongrel nature into a virtue, English has absorbed words, phrases and concepts from everywhere the Royal Navy ever stopped for R&R. No language matches it for richness of vocabulary (except Inuktitut when it comes to varieties of snow).

So English and French have different kinds of beauty: French is a painting by Monet; English is a well-made power tool. French guards its consistency with an Académie Française. English is essentially democratic, even anarchic. You want to coin a word -- truthiness, google, bling -- knock yourself out. If it survives in the linguistic marketplace, it's English.

I love my language, the best communication tool man has yet invented -- although I do regret that it's helping drive so many other lovely ones out of existence.

I'm guessing it's the German

Contrarian — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 22:10:36 +0000

In reply to Am I the only one who thinks

I'm guessing it's the German thing. French reminds me of housecats. German reminds me of a steam engine.

Am I the only one who thinks

Nebton — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:16:50 +0000

In reply to The beauty of English lies in

Am I the only one who thinks the beauty of the French language is vastly overrated? Maybe it has something to do with me being born in Germany…

The beauty of English lies in

Contrarian — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 21:14:53 +0000

In reply to The beauty of English lies in

The beauty of English lies in its flexibility

Hmmm. I'd say that the flexibility of the English language is what gives it (IMHO) its superior ability to accurately represent even the most complex and subtle thoughts. I'm not sure if I'd give it much more than average marks for beauty. French is probably more beautiful.

[I knew what you meant- just giving you a hard time.]

Public schools here are government-funded; private schools are often government-subsidized. That includes universities, so tuition fees are amazingly affordable.

I understood that your funding of education and health care are more like what they have in the UK (ie, more just, fair, socially responsible) than what we have. I was just curious if you used the same (crazy) terminology. Here a public school is one that is funded publicly, while a private school is funded privately. There public schools are funded privately.

Go for it. Make sure to ping

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 20:48:11 +0000

In reply to Thank you. I think I'll

Go for it. Make sure to ping me after because reader blogs need to be manually approved due to spamming. (If your views on abortion reflect a conservative political perspective, you may incite some spirited responses because this is a pretty liberal place, but we appreciate intelligent opposition, so don't let that stop you. Neither/nor is it necessary to blog about politics, as acanuck has just demonstrated.)

PS I'm still trying to suss out what this place is too.