ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland Scotland,
Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the important
Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
controversial debate on the status of Scots and download ScotsGate's
free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com

From:	Country_Chiel
Subject:	Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 20:24:02 +1300

wrote in message
news:2d6b0f07.0411291210.48e80c14@posting.google.com...
> ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
> extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland Scotland,
> Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the important
> Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
> controversial debate on the status of Scots and download ScotsGate's
> free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com

I see they have missed Doric off their list of Scottish languages as usual -
we don't all talk like Rabbie Burns any more min - ken.

Country Chiel

From:	allan connochie
Subject:	Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal
Date:	Sat, 18 Dec 2004 08:51:34 -0000

"Country_Chiel" wrote in message
news:1103354634.166551@ftpsrv1...
>
> wrote in message
> news:2d6b0f07.0411291210.48e80c14@posting.google.com...
> > ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
> > extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland Scotland,
> > Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the important
> > Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
> > controversial debate on the status of Scots and download ScotsGate's
> > free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com
>
> I see they have missed Doric off their list of Scottish languages as
usual -
> we don't all talk like Rabbie Burns any more min - ken.

The term 'Scots' covers all the dialects of Scots including the Doric.
'Throughout Lowland Scotland' includes the North-East Lowlands as well as
the Southern Uplands and Central Lowlands and the east coast burghs.

Allan

From:	Mike Lyle
Subject:	Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:09:47 -0000

wabmaister@scotsgate.com wrote:
> ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
> extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland
Scotland,
> Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the
important
> Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
> controversial debate on the status of Scots and download
ScotsGate's
> free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com

Duly bookmarked: a valuable site. Thank you.

(By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out of
alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
cross-border political compromise is necessary!)

Mike.

From:	Alan Smaill
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid"
Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:07:58 +0000

jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean O'Leathlobhair) writes:

> Bob Cunningham wrote in message
> news:...
>> On 2 Dec 2004 08:21:52 -0800, jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean
>> O'Leathlobhair) said:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > But if it is restricted to England then I would prefer
>> > English English. I sense a reluctance among many
>> > non-British English speakers to use this term.
>>
>> Five years or so ago when I wrote "English English" in
>> alt.usage.english there were some highly indignant responses
>> from Englandish posters. They thought it was ridiculous.
>> Apparently to them "English" was the language of England and
>> was the one variety of English that didn't need a qualifier.
>
> I was not around here five years ago so I missed that. It surprises
> me. So far Alan also fails to feel this injustice and no one has said
> that they do. Any more English out there with opinions either way?

I should say that I am not English, in case anyone gets
the wrong impression; but some of my best friends etc. etc.

--
Alan Smaill

From:	Sean O'Leathlobhair
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid"
Date:	4 Dec 2004 02:43:34 -0800

Alan Smaill wrote in message news:...
> jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean O'Leathlobhair) writes:
>
> > Bob Cunningham wrote in message
> > news:...
> >> On 2 Dec 2004 08:21:52 -0800, jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean
> >> O'Leathlobhair) said:
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> > But if it is restricted to England then I would prefer
> >> > English English. I sense a reluctance among many
> >> > non-British English speakers to use this term.
> >>
> >> Five years or so ago when I wrote "English English" in
> >> alt.usage.english there were some highly indignant responses
> >> from Englandish posters. They thought it was ridiculous.
> >> Apparently to them "English" was the language of England and
> >> was the one variety of English that didn't need a qualifier.
> >
> > I was not around here five years ago so I missed that. It surprises
> > me. So far Alan also fails to feel this injustice and no one has said
> > that they do. Any more English out there with opinions either way?
>
> I should say that I am not English, in case anyone gets
> the wrong impression; but some of my best friends etc. etc.

I understand. I am only English when I chose to be. Other times I am
Irish. I have tried being Filipino but I am not very convincing.

One reason for choosing a nationality is in order to take offence. So
when anti-Irish sentiments are expressed I am Irish but when there are
anti-English remarks I am English.

This is just in jest; part of the purpose of my flip-flopping between
nationalities is to mock racism.

Seán O'Leathlóbhair

From:	Maria Conlon
Subject:	Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 23:07:22 -0500

Mike Lyle wrote:
>
> (By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out of
> alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
> cross-border political compromise is necessary!)

When we did an AUE survey in June (covering how old we are and where
we're from), there were 27 US residents responding.

But there were also 4 Australians, 1 South African, 1 New Zealander, 1
from Japan, 3 from Germany, 2 from The Netherlands, 1 from Taiwan, 2
Canadians, and (ta-da!) 23 from the UK.

That's 27 Americans and 38 non-Americans.

True, more people responded from the US than from any other single
country, but they were outnumbered by the total of non-Americans.

A bit more regarding the survey: Of the 65 responses, there were 55 from
men and 10 from women. The average age was 49.56 years. (That was six
months ago... are we averaging 50+ now?)

See http://tinyurl.com/6wrlx for the "Final Report"
and http://tinyurl.com/6legt for a brief add-on.

All that aside, I think "more Scots popping in and out" would certainly
be welcome. (But what did you mean about cross-border political
compromise?)

Maria Conlon

From:	Mike Lyle
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000

Maria Conlon wrote:
> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>
>> (By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out
of
>> alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
>> cross-border political compromise is necessary!)
>
> When we did an AUE survey in June (covering how old we are and
where
> we're from), there were 27 US residents responding.
>
> But there were also 4 Australians, 1 South African, 1 New
Zealander, 1
> from Japan, 3 from Germany, 2 from The Netherlands, 1 from Taiwan,
2
> Canadians, and (ta-da!) 23 from the UK.
>
> That's 27 Americans and 38 non-Americans.
>
> True, more people responded from the US than from any other single
> country, but they were outnumbered by the total of non-Americans.

OK, I'm duly chastened. Let's compromise and say a majority of
non-Brits. And of the Brits some aren't English.

> A bit more regarding the survey: Of the 65 responses, there were 55
> from men and 10 from women. The average age was 49.56 years. (That
> was six months ago... are we averaging 50+ now?)
>
> See http://tinyurl.com/6wrlx for the "Final Report"
> and http://tinyurl.com/6legt for a brief add-on.
>
> All that aside, I think "more Scots popping in and out" would
> certainly be welcome. (But what did you mean about cross-border
> political compromise?)

A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
than "English".

Mike.

From:	Bob Cunningham
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:25:21 GMT

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
said:

[...]

> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
> than "English".

"English" can certainly be ambiguous, and "British" is too
often used when we don't intend to encompass such a large
and diverse population. I suggest that we henceforth say
"Englandish" when we want to refer to the people or the
language of England.

From:	Daniel Mac an Toisich
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	30 Nov 2004 11:09:34 -0800

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message news:<313acbF36kv4cU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Maria Conlon wrote:
> > Mike Lyle wrote:
> >>
> >> (By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out
> of
> >> alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
> >> cross-border political compromise is necessary!)
> >
> > When we did an AUE survey in June (covering how old we are and
> where
> > we're from), there were 27 US residents responding.
> >
> > But there were also 4 Australians, 1 South African, 1 New
> Zealander, 1
> > from Japan, 3 from Germany, 2 from The Netherlands, 1 from Taiwan,
> 2
> > Canadians, and (ta-da!) 23 from the UK.
> >
> > That's 27 Americans and 38 non-Americans.
> >
> > True, more people responded from the US than from any other single
> > country, but they were outnumbered by the total of non-Americans.
>
> OK, I'm duly chastened. Let's compromise and say a majority of
> non-Brits. And of the Brits some aren't English.
>
> > A bit more regarding the survey: Of the 65 responses, there were 55
> > from men and 10 from women. The average age was 49.56 years. (That
> > was six months ago... are we averaging 50+ now?)
> >
> > See http://tinyurl.com/6wrlx for the "Final Report"
> > and http://tinyurl.com/6legt for a brief add-on.
> >
> > All that aside, I think "more Scots popping in and out" would
> > certainly be welcome. (But what did you mean about cross-border
> > political compromise?)
>
> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
> than "English".
>
> Mike.

If himself is not invited is oneself at least?

From:	Mike Lyle
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:33:12 -0000

Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
> "Mike Lyle" wrote in message
> news:<313acbF36kv4cU1@uni-berlin.de>...
>> Maria Conlon wrote:
>>> Mike Lyle wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and
out
>> of
>>>> alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
>>>> cross-border political compromise is necessary!)
>>>
>>> When we did an AUE survey in June (covering how old we are and
>> where
>>> we're from), there were 27 US residents responding.
>>>
>>> But there were also 4 Australians, 1 South African, 1 New
>> Zealander, 1
>>> from Japan, 3 from Germany, 2 from The Netherlands, 1 from
Taiwan,
>> 2
>>> Canadians, and (ta-da!) 23 from the UK.
>>>
>>> That's 27 Americans and 38 non-Americans.
>>>
>>> True, more people responded from the US than from any other
single
>>> country, but they were outnumbered by the total of non-Americans.
>>
>> OK, I'm duly chastened. Let's compromise and say a majority of
>> non-Brits. And of the Brits some aren't English.
>>
>>> A bit more regarding the survey: Of the 65 responses, there were
55
>>> from men and 10 from women. The average age was 49.56 years.
(That
>>> was six months ago... are we averaging 50+ now?)
>>>
>>> See http://tinyurl.com/6wrlx for the "Final Report"
>>> and http://tinyurl.com/6legt for a brief add-on.
>>>
>>> All that aside, I think "more Scots popping in and out" would
>>> certainly be welcome. (But what did you mean about cross-border
>>> political compromise?)
>>
>> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
>> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English"
rather
>> than "English".
>>
>> Mike.
>
>
> If himself is not invited is oneself at least?

Onie time! (In a nice sense, of course: we're not affstaunin.)

Mike.

From:	James Cameron
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:00:37 +0000

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

>A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
>pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
>than "English".

An easy mistake to make.

--
Am fear a phosas bean posaidh e dragh

From:	Michilín
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:52:58 GMT

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:00:37 +0000, James Cameron
wrote:

>Am fear a phosas bean posaidh e dragh
(The man who marries a wife marries trouble)

Dána gach fear go túlaig
every man is bold until the assembly (Irish proverb)

Bithidh i Caismeachd Chloinn Chamrain - glan as an taigh!
It will be the March of the Cameron Men - right out of the house!

Michilín

From:	Paul Wolff
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Tue, 7 Dec 2004 00:58:02 +0000

In message <42u9r09j6egjndutivs1cj4hn7q8g98lr9@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper
writes
>On 6 Dec 2004 15:35:10 -0800, "Daniel Mac an Toisich"
> wrote:
>
>>Either an indirect way of referring to Gaidhlig (insofar as that is not
>>referrable outside of Gaidhlig without harming Gaidhlig - i.e. such a
>>usage is never used though it is valid) Or a purely mediatory immediacy
>>whose purpose is to remove english speakers from english and called the
>>english removed from 'standard english' thus objectifying it to their
>>fellow "us" -ed dialect speakers disadvantage. Deliberately.
>>Professional losers for the spitting upon. Westministrers Anti-saxon
>>Pluralist diaspora enforcers. Wasp's.
>
>Here you go, Charles. Your imaginative poster is back to amaze and
>delight you.
>
>Since you were so defensive of his style the last time he wandered in
>here, perhaps you'll be kind enough to give us your take on what he is
>saying.
>
>I'll provide a clue: Ghàidhlig is Scottish Gaelic. What I'll be
>looking for from you is the meaning of "mediatory immediacy",
>"Westministers Anti-Saxon Pluralist diaspora enforcers", and "Wasp's"
>(sic) in this context. Have at it.
>
Here's another: no main verb in a whole posting. Cue Alfred Jingle,
Esq., of No Hall, Nowhere.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

From:	Michilín
Subject:	Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:23:55 GMT

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:09:47 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
wrote:

>wabmaister@scotsgate.com wrote:
>> ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
>> extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland
>Scotland,
>> Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the
>important
>> Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
>> controversial debate on the status of Scots and download
>ScotsGate's
>> free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com
>
>Duly bookmarked: a valuable site. Thank you.
>
>(By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out of
>alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
>cross-border political compromise is necessary!)
>
>Mike.
>
>
You're very politically savvy!

You must work for the State Department...

Michilín

From:	Tony Cooper
Subject:	Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:33:19 GMT

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:23:55 GMT, micheil@shaw.ca (Michilín) wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:09:47 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> wrote:
>
>>wabmaister@scotsgate.com wrote:
>>> ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
>>> extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland
>>Scotland,
>>> Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the
>>important
>>> Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
>>> controversial debate on the status of Scots and download
>>ScotsGate's
>>> free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com
>>
>>Duly bookmarked: a valuable site. Thank you.
>>
>>(By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out of
>>alt.usage.english: most contributors are American, so no great
>>cross-border political compromise is necessary!)
>>
>>Mike.
>>
>>
>You're very politically savvy!
>
>You must work for the State Department...
>
Send Auld Bob over from soc.culture.scottish. He's one of the most
interesting posters on Usenet.

From:	Jess Askin
Subject:	Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal
Date:	Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:50:32 -0600

"Mike Lyle" wrote in message
news:311hguF366pqdU1@uni-berlin.de...
> wabmaister@scotsgate.com wrote:
> > ScotsGate is a new portal to the Scots language, spoken to varying
> > extent by an estimated 1.6 million people throughout Lowland
> Scotland,
> > Ulster, Orkney and the Shetland Islands. Easily find all the
> important
> > Scots web sites and resources, discover news items about the
> > controversial debate on the status of Scots and download
> ScotsGate's
> > free guide to Scots Grammar. Visit www.scotsgate.com
>
> Duly bookmarked: a valuable site. Thank you.
>
> (By the way, it would be fine to see more Scots popping in and out of
> alt.usage.english: most contributors are American,

Only by a narrow margin. Probably more Brits per capita.

From:	Alan Smaill
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was
Date:	Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000

"Carmen L. Abruzzi" writes:

> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
>>news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
>>
...
>>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
>>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!
>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question. What IS
>> wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
>
> No one knows what it means.

Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...

--
Alan Smaill

From:	Michilín
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2004 01:40:50 GMT

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000, Alan Smaill
wrote:

>"Carmen L. Abruzzi" writes:
>
>> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
>>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
>>>news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>..
>>>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
>>>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!
>>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question. What IS
>>> wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
>>
>> No one knows what it means.
>
>Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
>Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...
>
>--
>Alan Smaill
>

I believe "tosh" may be a deliberate homonym invented to rhyme with
the Turkish word "bosh", meaning rubbish or nonsense; an apt summary
of your remark above.

.. Mac an Tòisich means son of the chief; any resemblance to an English
word being coincidental.

Should you peer beyond the provincially rarified atmosphere of
Edinburgh, you may note that the Irish Prime Minister is always known
as the Taoiseach (Chief); the variant spelling hinting at the
differences between the two languages.

To his credit, Mr. Mac an Toisich writes in excellent Gaelic,
something that most Lowlanders are thankfully not qualified to
pronounce on, although that does not seem to have created any
reluctance to do so to date.

Michilín

From:	allan connochie
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:06:50 -0000

"Michilín" wrote in message news:41afbf44.6774150@news...
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000, Alan Smaill
> wrote:
>
> >"Carmen L. Abruzzi" writes:
> >
> >> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
> >>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
> >>>news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
> >>>
> >..
> >>>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
> >>>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!
> >>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question. What IS
> >>> wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
> >>
> >> No one knows what it means.
> >
> >Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
> >Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...
> >
> >--
> >Alan Smaill
> >
>
> I believe "tosh" may be a deliberate homonym invented to rhyme with
> the Turkish word "bosh", meaning rubbish or nonsense; an apt summary
> of your remark above.
>
> . Mac an Tòisich means son of the chief; any resemblance to an English
> word being coincidental.
>
> Should you peer beyond the provincially rarified atmosphere of
> Edinburgh, you may note that the Irish Prime Minister is always known
> as the Taoiseach (Chief); the variant spelling hinting at the
> differences between the two languages.
>
> To his credit, Mr. Mac an Toisich writes in excellent Gaelic,
> something that most Lowlanders are thankfully not qualified to
> pronounce on, although that does not seem to have created any
> reluctance to do so to date.

I don't think Alan was talking about his Gaelic posts though. He made a
joke concerning the word tosh and it must be admitted that 90% of Daniel's
posts written in English are totally incomprehensible and once deciphered
tend to be tosh anyway. He's either the worst writer of English I've ever
come across for a literate person native to this country, or he's trolling.
I suspect the latter.

Allan
>
>
> Michilín

From:	Michilín
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:45:28 GMT

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:06:50 -0000, "allan connochie"
wrote:

>
>"Michilín" wrote in message news:41afbf44.6774150@news...
>> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000, Alan Smaill
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Carmen L. Abruzzi" writes:
>> >
>> >> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
>> >>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
>> >>>news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
>> >>>
>> >..
>> >>>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
>> >>>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!
>> >>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question. What IS
>> >>> wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
>> >>
>> >> No one knows what it means.
>> >
>> >Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
>> >Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...
>> >
>> >--
>> >Alan Smaill
>> >
>>
>> I believe "tosh" may be a deliberate homonym invented to rhyme with
>> the Turkish word "bosh", meaning rubbish or nonsense; an apt summary
>> of your remark above.
>>
>> . Mac an Tòisich means son of the chief; any resemblance to an English
>> word being coincidental.
>>
>> Should you peer beyond the provincially rarified atmosphere of
>> Edinburgh, you may note that the Irish Prime Minister is always known
>> as the Taoiseach (Chief); the variant spelling hinting at the
>> differences between the two languages.
>>
>> To his credit, Mr. Mac an Toisich writes in excellent Gaelic,
>> something that most Lowlanders are thankfully not qualified to
>> pronounce on, although that does not seem to have created any
>> reluctance to do so to date.
>
>I don't think Alan was talking about his Gaelic posts though. He made a
>joke concerning the word tosh and it must be admitted that 90% of Daniel's
>posts written in English are totally incomprehensible and once deciphered
>tend to be tosh anyway. He's either the worst writer of English I've ever
>come across for a literate person native to this country, or he's trolling.
>I suspect the latter.
>
>Allan
>>
>>
>> Michilín
>
>
I don't think Mr. Smaill was talking about his Gaelic posts either.
However, Mr. Smaill has seen fit to be roundly offensive to me without
provocation on my part in the past year, so I see no reason to waste
good manners on one who so clearly has not yet found a use for them.

I don't know why Mr. Mac an Toisich either chooses to or is unable to
prevent himself from writing in a convoluted style, but I presume he
has his reasons. I think your assumption that he does so deliberately
may not be accurate, and as someone perhaps a little older than you
and with a little more experience of the world, I am more than willing
to give him elbow room to express himself.

I must say I deplore the habit of assuming that everyone is "wrong" if
they don't fit into the smug mould of self-righteousness and
self-importance that characterises so many who post in this group. A
willingness to look beyond one's narrow viewpoint was ever considered
a characteristic of the "enlightened" Scot; most of whom have fled.

Michilín

From:	allan connochie
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:14:49 -0000

"Michilín" wrote in message news:41b083ed.1963032@news...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:06:50 -0000, "allan connochie"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michilín" wrote in message
news:41afbf44.6774150@news...
> >> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000, Alan Smaill
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Carmen L. Abruzzi" writes:
> >> >
> >> >> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
> >> >>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
> >> >>>news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
> >> >>>
> >> >..
> >> >>>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
> >> >>>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and
everything!
> >> >>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question. What
IS
> >> >>> wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
> >> >>
> >> >> No one knows what it means.
> >> >
> >> >Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
> >> >Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Alan Smaill
> >> >
> >>
> >> I believe "tosh" may be a deliberate homonym invented to rhyme with
> >> the Turkish word "bosh", meaning rubbish or nonsense; an apt summary
> >> of your remark above.
> >>
> >> . Mac an Tòisich means son of the chief; any resemblance to an English
> >> word being coincidental.
> >>
> >> Should you peer beyond the provincially rarified atmosphere of
> >> Edinburgh, you may note that the Irish Prime Minister is always known
> >> as the Taoiseach (Chief); the variant spelling hinting at the
> >> differences between the two languages.
> >>
> >> To his credit, Mr. Mac an Toisich writes in excellent Gaelic,
> >> something that most Lowlanders are thankfully not qualified to
> >> pronounce on, although that does not seem to have created any
> >> reluctance to do so to date.
> >
> >I don't think Alan was talking about his Gaelic posts though. He made a
> >joke concerning the word tosh and it must be admitted that 90% of
Daniel's
> >posts written in English are totally incomprehensible and once deciphered
> >tend to be tosh anyway. He's either the worst writer of English I've
ever
> >come across for a literate person native to this country, or he's
trolling.
> >I suspect the latter.
> >
> >Allan
> >>
> >>
> >> Michilín
> >
> >
> I don't think Mr. Smaill was talking about his Gaelic posts either.
> However, Mr. Smaill has seen fit to be roundly offensive to me without
> provocation on my part in the past year, so I see no reason to waste
> good manners on one who so clearly has not yet found a use for them.
>
> I don't know why Mr. Mac an Toisich either chooses to or is unable to
> prevent himself from writing in a convoluted style, but I presume he
> has his reasons. I think your assumption that he does so deliberately
> may not be accurate, and as someone perhaps a little older than you
> and with a little more experience of the world, I am more than willing
> to give him elbow room to express himself.
>
> I must say I deplore the habit of assuming that everyone is "wrong" if
> they don't fit into the smug mould of self-righteousness and
> self-importance that characterises so many who post in this group. A
> willingness to look beyond one's narrow viewpoint was ever considered
> a characteristic of the "enlightened" Scot; most of whom have fled.

How can we tell if he's wrong or not if we can't even figure out what he's
writing? It's not only in this newsgroup either. I've seen totally
incomprehensible posts in other forums. The only time I have figured out
what he was saying he seemed to be writing in a derogatory manner over the
nationality of my wife. I don't agree with everything Alan writes but I
don't believe I've ever seen him express such narrow views. There are four
possibilities as far as I can see

1. One is that he has an intellect far above any other group member and we
simply haven't tuned into his thinking yet. Pretty long odds on that one
though.

2. Another is that he's virtually illiterate, though you say his Gaelic
posts are well written so that seems to count that out.

3. There is a possibility that he has very little knowledge of English
though the words he uses tends to discount that. People with little
knowledge of a language tend to use simpler words.

4. He's a troll taking the piss.

I think number four is by far the most likely. The reason I've come to that
conclusion has nothing to do with my age either. I probably read folk as
well now as I'm ever likely to and don't buy into the old wise man thingy.
One suspects that perhaps you're a wee bit impressed by the fact he writes
Gaelic. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes and no doubt speak all kinds of
languages.

Allan

From:	Michilín
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Sat, 04 Dec 2004 04:13:30 GMT

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:14:49 -0000, "allan connochie"
wrote:

>
>"Michilín" wrote in message news:41b083ed.1963032@news...
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:06:50 -0000, "allan connochie"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Michilín" wrote in message
>news:41afbf44.6774150@news...
>> >> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000, Alan Smaill
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Carmen L. Abruzzi" writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
>> >> >>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
>> >> >>>news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >..
>> >> >>>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
>> >> >>>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and
>everything!
>> >> >>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question. What
>IS
>> >> >>> wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No one knows what it means.
>> >> >
>> >> >Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
>> >> >Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...
>> >> >
>> >> >--
>> >> >Alan Smaill
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I believe "tosh" may be a deliberate homonym invented to rhyme with
>> >> the Turkish word "bosh", meaning rubbish or nonsense; an apt summary
>> >> of your remark above.
>> >>
>> >> . Mac an Tòisich means son of the chief; any resemblance to an English
>> >> word being coincidental.
>> >>
>> >> Should you peer beyond the provincially rarified atmosphere of
>> >> Edinburgh, you may note that the Irish Prime Minister is always known
>> >> as the Taoiseach (Chief); the variant spelling hinting at the
>> >> differences between the two languages.
>> >>
>> >> To his credit, Mr. Mac an Toisich writes in excellent Gaelic,
>> >> something that most Lowlanders are thankfully not qualified to
>> >> pronounce on, although that does not seem to have created any
>> >> reluctance to do so to date.
>> >
>> >I don't think Alan was talking about his Gaelic posts though. He made a
>> >joke concerning the word tosh and it must be admitted that 90% of
>Daniel's
>> >posts written in English are totally incomprehensible and once deciphered
>> >tend to be tosh anyway. He's either the worst writer of English I've
>ever
>> >come across for a literate person native to this country, or he's
>trolling.
>> >I suspect the latter.
>> >
>> >Allan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Michilín
>> >
>> >
>> I don't think Mr. Smaill was talking about his Gaelic posts either.
>> However, Mr. Smaill has seen fit to be roundly offensive to me without
>> provocation on my part in the past year, so I see no reason to waste
>> good manners on one who so clearly has not yet found a use for them.
>>
>> I don't know why Mr. Mac an Toisich either chooses to or is unable to
>> prevent himself from writing in a convoluted style, but I presume he
>> has his reasons. I think your assumption that he does so deliberately
>> may not be accurate, and as someone perhaps a little older than you
>> and with a little more experience of the world, I am more than willing
>> to give him elbow room to express himself.
>>
>> I must say I deplore the habit of assuming that everyone is "wrong" if
>> they don't fit into the smug mould of self-righteousness and
>> self-importance that characterises so many who post in this group. A
>> willingness to look beyond one's narrow viewpoint was ever considered
>> a characteristic of the "enlightened" Scot; most of whom have fled.
>
>How can we tell if he's wrong or not if we can't even figure out what he's
>writing? It's not only in this newsgroup either. I've seen totally
>incomprehensible posts in other forums. The only time I have figured out
>what he was saying he seemed to be writing in a derogatory manner over the
>nationality of my wife. I don't agree with everything Alan writes but I
>don't believe I've ever seen him express such narrow views. There are four
>possibilities as far as I can see
>
>1. One is that he has an intellect far above any other group member and we
>simply haven't tuned into his thinking yet. Pretty long odds on that one
>though.
>
>2. Another is that he's virtually illiterate, though you say his Gaelic
>posts are well written so that seems to count that out.
>
>3. There is a possibility that he has very little knowledge of English
>though the words he uses tends to discount that. People with little
>knowledge of a language tend to use simpler words.
>
>4. He's a troll taking the piss.
>
>I think number four is by far the most likely. The reason I've come to that
>conclusion has nothing to do with my age either. I probably read folk as
>well now as I'm ever likely to and don't buy into the old wise man thingy.
>One suspects that perhaps you're a wee bit impressed by the fact he writes
>Gaelic. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes and no doubt speak all kinds of
>languages.
>
>Allan

It's not that I'm impressed, it's that being a native Gaelic speaker
and a troll just don't seem to go together.

Michilín

From:	allan connochie
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:51:49 -0000

"Michilín" wrote in message news:41b13928.4122708@news...
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:14:49 -0000, "allan connochie"
> wrote:
>
> >I think number four is by far the most likely. The reason I've come to
that
> >conclusion has nothing to do with my age either. I probably read folk as
> >well now as I'm ever likely to and don't buy into the old wise man
thingy.
> >One suspects that perhaps you're a wee bit impressed by the fact he
writes
> >Gaelic. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes and no doubt speak all kinds
of
> >languages.
> >
> >Allan
>
> It's not that I'm impressed, it's that being a native Gaelic speaker
> and a troll just don't seem to go together.

Well the original word I was going to use was 'blinded' but I thought I'd
soften it to the word 'impressed' instead. By your sentence above I think
the first choice was more appropriate.

Michilín

From:	Michilín
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Sat, 04 Dec 2004 17:57:39 GMT

On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:51:49 -0000, "allan connochie"
wrote:

>
>"Michilín" wrote in message news:41b13928.4122708@news...
>> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:14:49 -0000, "allan connochie"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I think number four is by far the most likely. The reason I've come to
>that
>> >conclusion has nothing to do with my age either. I probably read folk as
>> >well now as I'm ever likely to and don't buy into the old wise man
>thingy.
>> >One suspects that perhaps you're a wee bit impressed by the fact he
>writes
>> >Gaelic. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes and no doubt speak all kinds
>of
>> >languages.
>> >
>> >Allan
>>
>> It's not that I'm impressed, it's that being a native Gaelic speaker
>> and a troll just don't seem to go together.
>
>Well the original word I was going to use was 'blinded' but I thought I'd
>soften it to the word 'impressed' instead. By your sentence above I think
>the first choice was more appropriate.
>
I guess I failed to get my point across. I had forgotten that
sensitivity in Lowland Scotland means wiping your child's birthday
cake with your sleeve after you've thrown up all over it.

Why don't you just ask the poster flat out if he is a raving loonie
intead of mumbling around the edges? Is there no longer that robust
tradition in Lowland Scotland of kicking people off their crutches
while screaming with laughter or putting out poisoned liver for the
blind man's dog to teach the old fool to stay indoors and not affrront
decent folk with his problem?

As for not heeding older people, I think that's very clever of you.
It'll be hats off and forelocks tugged when the nouveau gentry struts
through Yetholm.

Michilín

From:	allan connochie
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Sat, 4 Dec 2004 21:32:26 -0000

"Michilín" wrote in message news:41b1f0bb.7824651@news...
> On Sat, 4 Dec 2004 08:51:49 -0000, "allan connochie"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Michilín" wrote in message
news:41b13928.4122708@news...
> >> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 23:14:49 -0000, "allan connochie"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I think number four is by far the most likely. The reason I've come
to
> >that
> >> >conclusion has nothing to do with my age either. I probably read folk
as
> >> >well now as I'm ever likely to and don't buy into the old wise man
> >thingy.
> >> >One suspects that perhaps you're a wee bit impressed by the fact he
> >writes
> >> >Gaelic. Trolls come in all shapes and sizes and no doubt speak all
kinds
> >of
> >> >languages.
> >> >
> >> >Allan
> >>
> >> It's not that I'm impressed, it's that being a native Gaelic speaker
> >> and a troll just don't seem to go together.
> >
> >Well the original word I was going to use was 'blinded' but I thought I'd
> >soften it to the word 'impressed' instead. By your sentence above I
think
> >the first choice was more appropriate.
> >
> I guess I failed to get my point across. I had forgotten that
> sensitivity in Lowland Scotland means wiping your child's birthday
> cake with your sleeve after you've thrown up all over it.
>
> Why don't you just ask the poster flat out if he is a raving loonie
> intead of mumbling around the edges?

I have pointed out the inanity of his posts to him on several occassions.

> Is there no longer that robust
> tradition in Lowland Scotland of kicking people off their crutches
> while screaming with laughter or putting out poisoned liver for the
> blind man's dog to teach the old fool to stay indoors and not affrront
> decent folk with his problem?

Careful you're starting to sound like Daniel. Well maybe not. I was
exaggerating a wee bit.

>
> As for not heeding older people, I think that's very clever of you.
> It'll be hats off and forelocks tugged when the nouveau gentry struts
> through Yetholm.

Now I never said I took no heed of older people. Age doesn't automatically
bring wisdom though. As your last sentence shows!

Allan

From:	Alan Smaill
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was
Date:	Thu, 02 Dec 2004 17:26:03 +0000

jwlawler@yahoo.com (Sean O'Leathlobhair) writes:

> Bob Cunningham wrote in message
> news:...
>> Years ago in alt.usage.english, I posted regarding the
>> injustice to the people of England of having the name
>> "English" applied to a wide variety of dialects of their
>> language. I felt that the name "English" should be theirs
>> alone.
>
> I was born here in England and have lived most of my life here. I
> don't feel any such injustice nor do I recall anyone else here ever
> expressing any feeling of injustice. On the contrary, I think we
> rather like the idea that many other countries use our language in the
> same way that we like having Greenwich as the definition of 0 East /
> West.
>
> Is there any English person out there who feels this injustice?

I can't say I've noticed it;
I've certainly never heard anyone French complain about "français"
referring to more than just "le français de France" -- in fact
they are more likely to insist that this is only right and proper.

> I am sometimes irritated by the use of British English to refer to
> things that which would better be called English English. If a
> feature is shared by the English, Scottish and Welsh varieties then it
> can be reasonably called British. But if it is restricted to England
> then I would prefer English English.

That is the sensible way to use the terms, I agree.

> I sense a reluctance among many
> non-British English speakers to use this term.
>

....

> A similar issue applies to Spanish. I have not met any Spaniards who
> object to Latin Americans calling their language Spanish.
>
> Ditto Chinese or French.
>
> Seán O'Leathlóbhair

--
Alan Smaill

From:	Alan Smaill
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was
Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:16:54 +0000

micheil@shaw.ca (Michilín) writes:

> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 22:56:12 +0000, Alan Smaill
> wrote:
>
....

>>Surely the coincidence between the English "tosh" and the
>>Mackintosh/Mac an Tòisich designation of the poster is no accident ...
>>
>>--
>>Alan Smaill
>>
>
> I believe "tosh" may be a deliberate homonym invented to rhyme with
> the Turkish word "bosh", meaning rubbish or nonsense; an apt summary
> of your remark above.
>
> . Mac an Tòisich means son of the chief; any resemblance to an English
> word being coincidental.

Well, obviously;
I refer the auld dumb Mick to Mack's habit of claiming
fantasist Gaelic etymologies himself.

Perhaps I should provide footnotes for the auld and dumb among us?

>
> Michilín

--
Alan Smaill

From:	Alan Smaill
Subject:	Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000

Bob Cunningham writes:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> said:
>
> [...]
>
>> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
>> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
>> than "English".
>
> "English" can certainly be ambiguous, and "British" is too
> often used when we don't intend to encompass such a large
> and diverse population. I suggest that we henceforth say
> "Englandish" when we want to refer to the people or the
> language of England.

That's "English English" for the language variant isn't it?
As opposed to "British English", "American English" etc...

"English" is fine for the people, though ...

(or should I say *nglish)

--
Alan Smaill

From:	Bob Cunningham
Subject:	"English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:59:09 GMT

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
said:

> Bob Cunningham writes:

> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> > said:

> > [...]

> >> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
> >> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
> >> than "English".

> > "English" can certainly be ambiguous, and "British" is too
> > often used when we don't intend to encompass such a large
> > and diverse population. I suggest that we henceforth say
> > "Englandish" when we want to refer to the people or the
> > language of England.

> That's "English English" for the language variant isn't it?
> As opposed to "British English", "American English" etc...

> "English" is fine for the people, though ...

> (or should I say *nglish)

Years ago in alt.usage.english, I posted regarding the
injustice to the people of England of having the name
"English" applied to a wide variety of dialects of their
language. I felt that the name "English" should be theirs
alone.

For the many other languages that are now called English, I
proposed the term "Angloid". The family of languages under
that term would include, for example, American Angloid,
Canadian Angloid, and Australian Angloid.

Unfortunately, many people have formed their impression of
what the suffix "-oid" means from movies and television, so
that they think it must connote something grotesque and
misshapen. But all it means is, according to
_Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary_

Main Entry:1-oid
Function:noun suffix

: something resembling a (specified) object or having
a (specified) quality *globoid*

The many varieties of World English resemble the language of
the English people but are not the same as it, so the suffix
"-oid" applies very well.

I suppose "Engloid" would be another possibility.

From:	Daniel Mac an Toisich
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	30 Nov 2004 14:57:34 -0800

Bob Cunningham wrote in message news:...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
> said:

What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!

From:	Daniel Mac an Toisich
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	2 Dec 2004 12:13:24 -0800

gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
> Bob Cunningham wrote in message news:...
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
> > said:
>
>
> What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
> poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!

One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question.
What IS wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?

From:	Carmen L. Abruzzi
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was
Date:	Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:25:51 -0800

Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:
> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
>
>>Bob Cunningham wrote in message news:...
>>
>>>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
>>> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
>>poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!
>
>
> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question.
> What IS wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?

No one knows what it means.

From:	Bob Cunningham
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Fri, 03 Dec 2004 01:58:00 GMT

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 14:25:51 -0800, "Carmen L. Abruzzi"
said:

> Daniel Mac an Toisich wrote:

[...]

> > What IS wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?

> No one knows what it means.

Does anyone care?

From:	Raymond S. Wise
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Thu, 2 Dec 2004 15:02:34 -0600

"Daniel Mac an Toisich" wrote in message
news:65c13b5d.0412021213.6a09025@posting.google.com...
> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
> > Bob Cunningham wrote in message
news:...
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
> > > said:
> >
> >
> > What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and the
> > poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and everything!
>
> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question.
> What IS wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?

I, for one, don't understand what it means. It's hardly a fair question if
the terms used are obscure. And if the purpose is to propose a replacement
for a language name currently in use, then an argument should be made for
the new term, as Bob Cunningham did for his proposal.

--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA

E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com

From:	Mike Lyle
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Thu, 2 Dec 2004 21:19:46 -0000

Raymond S. Wise wrote:
> "Daniel Mac an Toisich" wrote in message
> news:65c13b5d.0412021213.6a09025@posting.google.com...
>> gnenian@hotmail.com (Daniel Mac an Toisich) wrote in message
> news:<65c13b5d.0411301457.5fe8b675@posting.google.com>...
>>> Bob Cunningham wrote in message
> news:...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
>>>> said:
>>>
>>>
>>> What wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman? Saxon can be Enghuman and
the
>>> poster can be subenghuman. Get all the leather gear and
everything!
>>
>> One still awaits an answer to ones perfectly fair question.
>> What IS wrong with Enghuman Subenghuman?
>
>
> I, for one, don't understand what it means. It's hardly a fair
> question if the terms used are obscure. And if the purpose is to
> propose a replacement for a language name currently in use, then an
> argument should be made for the new term, as Bob Cunningham did for
> his proposal.

Pretty obvious, really. "English" implies very strongly that the term
belongs par excellence to members of the lish community. And probably
male ones, at that. Since this is clearly discriminatory under United
Kingdom, United States, and European Union law, our water-resistant
colleague has devised a logical and politically inclusive alternative
more in line with today's sensitivities. These lishes have enjoyed
their unchallenged position of power too long.

Mike.

From:	Django Cat
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:19:18 +0000

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:59:09 GMT, Bob Cunningham
wrote:

>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
> said:
>
>> Bob Cunningham writes:
>
>> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
>> > said:
>
>> > [...]
>
>> >> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
>> >> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
>> >> than "English".
>
>> > "English" can certainly be ambiguous, and "British" is too
>> > often used when we don't intend to encompass such a large
>> > and diverse population. I suggest that we henceforth say
>> > "Englandish" when we want to refer to the people or the
>> > language of England.
>
>> That's "English English" for the language variant isn't it?
>> As opposed to "British English", "American English" etc...
>
>> "English" is fine for the people, though ...
>
>> (or should I say *nglish)
>
>Years ago in alt.usage.english, I posted regarding the
>injustice to the people of England of having the name
>"English" applied to a wide variety of dialects of their
>language. I felt that the name "English" should be theirs
>alone.
>
>For the many other languages that are now called English, I
>proposed the term "Angloid". The family of languages under
>that term would include, for example, American Angloid,
>Canadian Angloid, and Australian Angloid.
>
>Unfortunately, many people have formed their impression of
>what the suffix "-oid" means from movies and television, so
>that they think it must connote something grotesque and
>misshapen. But all it means is, according to
>_Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary_
>
> Main Entry:1-oid
> Function:noun suffix
>
> : something resembling a (specified) object or having
> a (specified) quality *globoid*
>
>The many varieties of World English resemble the language of
>the English people but are not the same as it, so the suffix
>"-oid" applies very well.
>
>I suppose "Engloid" would be another possibility.

It's an interesting concept, and though I don't have a suggestion for
a name, divorcing the language from the nationality has a lot going
for it.

DC

From:	allan connochie
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:10:55 -0000

"Django Cat" wrote in message
news:fsopq091fai2u53od1dd1eidhfq6d2sjld@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:59:09 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
> > said:
> >
> >> Bob Cunningham writes:
> >
> >> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> >> > said:
> >
> >> > [...]
> >
> >> >> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
> >> >> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
> >> >> than "English".
> >
> >> > "English" can certainly be ambiguous, and "British" is too
> >> > often used when we don't intend to encompass such a large
> >> > and diverse population. I suggest that we henceforth say
> >> > "Englandish" when we want to refer to the people or the
> >> > language of England.
> >
> >> That's "English English" for the language variant isn't it?
> >> As opposed to "British English", "American English" etc...
> >
> >> "English" is fine for the people, though ...
> >
> >> (or should I say *nglish)
> >
> >Years ago in alt.usage.english, I posted regarding the
> >injustice to the people of England of having the name
> >"English" applied to a wide variety of dialects of their
> >language. I felt that the name "English" should be theirs
> >alone.
> >
> >For the many other languages that are now called English, I
> >proposed the term "Angloid". The family of languages under
> >that term would include, for example, American Angloid,
> >Canadian Angloid, and Australian Angloid.
> >
> >Unfortunately, many people have formed their impression of
> >what the suffix "-oid" means from movies and television, so
> >that they think it must connote something grotesque and
> >misshapen. But all it means is, according to
> >_Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary_
> >
> > Main Entry:1-oid
> > Function:noun suffix
> >
> > : something resembling a (specified) object or having
> > a (specified) quality *globoid*
> >
> >The many varieties of World English resemble the language of
> >the English people but are not the same as it, so the suffix
> >"-oid" applies very well.
> >
> >I suppose "Engloid" would be another possibility.
>
> It's an interesting concept, and though I don't have a suggestion for
> a name, divorcing the language from the nationality has a lot going
> for it.

The form of Standard English used in Scotland is called "Scottish Standard
English" so something like "English Standard English" could be used to
describe the language of england rather than english in general.

cheers

Allan
>
> DC

From:	Bob Cunningham
Subject:	Re: "English English" vs "Angloid" [was: Re: Most Contributors [was Re: ScotsGate Scots Language Portal]]
Date:	Wed, 01 Dec 2004 00:22:55 GMT

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:10:55 -0000, "allan connochie"
said:

> "Django Cat" wrote in message
> news:fsopq091fai2u53od1dd1eidhfq6d2sjld@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:59:09 GMT, Bob Cunningham
> > wrote:

> > >On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:39:00 +0000, Alan Smaill
> > > said:

> > >> Bob Cunningham writes:

> > >> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:20:03 -0000, "Mike Lyle"
> > >> > said:

> > >> > [...]

> > >> >> A frivolous throwaway, that's all: some Scots might perhaps, I
> > >> >> pretended, have imagined that "English" here meant "English" rather
> > >> >> than "English".

> > >> > "English" can certainly be ambiguous, and "British" is too
> > >> > often used when we don't intend to encompass such a large
> > >> > and diverse population. I suggest that we henceforth say
> > >> > "Englandish" when we want to refer to the people or the
> > >> > language of England.

> > >> That's "English English" for the language variant isn't it?
> > >> As opposed to "British English", "American English" etc...

> > >> "English" is fine for the people, though ...

> > >> (or should I say *nglish)

> > >Years ago in alt.usage.english, I posted regarding the
> > >injustice to the people of England of having the name
> > >"English" applied to a wide variety of dialects of their
> > >language. I felt that the name "English" should be theirs
> > >alone.

> > >For the many other languages that are now called English, I
> > >proposed the term "Angloid". The family of languages under
> > >that term would include, for example, American Angloid,
> > >Canadian Angloid, and Australian Angloid.

> > >Unfortunately, many people have formed their impression of
> > >what the suffix "-oid" means from movies and television, so
> > >that they think it must connote something grotesque and
> > >misshapen. But all it means is, according to
> > >_Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary_

> > > Main Entry:1-oid
> > > Function:noun suffix

> > > : something resembling a (specified) object or having
> > > a (specified) quality *globoid*

> > >The many varieties of World English resemble the language of
> > >the English people but are not the same as it, so the suffix
> > >"-oid" applies very well.

> > >I suppose "Engloid" would be another possibility.

> > It's an interesting concept, and though I don't have a suggestion for
> > a name, divorcing the language from the nationality has a lot going
> > for it.

> The form of Standard English used in Scotland is called "Scottish Standard
> English" so something like "English Standard English" could be used to
> describe the language of england rather than english in general.

But my point is that English was originally the language of
the English people and they shouldn't have to be burdened
with finding a more complicated name for it. It should be
up to others who have borrowed the language to find unique
names for their varieties. "English" should be simply the
name of the language spoken in England.

"English English" is often used to specify the language of
England, and that is probably the simplest way as things now
stand.

By the way, I know it's an oversimplification to speak of
*the* language of England, given that there are a variety of
dialects called English in England itself. I'm sure there
are dialects in England that differ from the speech of
Southern England much more than Midwestern American English
does.

I also know that the topic of this thread is nothing but an
academic exercise, fun to play with but fairly certainly not
likely to change anything.