On 9 Nov 2005 at 16:22, Autymn D.C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Anglo-Saxon? No, it's English. What people speak today is a mutt of English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English. And I'd write "pure" as "sheer". A lone language has only one word for the same meaning. Other words with the same meaning are from other languages, by space or time. But none of writing this is making me feel better for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I hold is riht.
English has been such a "mutt" since at least 1066, when the Norman French mixed their language (already a "bastard" French mixed with Norse) with an Anglo-Saxon which already had some "corruption" of Latin from the Romans. Are you attempting to undo a millennium of linguistic intermixing?
And, while "riht" may have been the correct spelling of that word in the form of English spoken 500 years ago, this too has changed, and it is now considered wrong.
On 11 Nov 2005, at 05.02, Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
English has been such a "mutt" since at least 1066, when the Norman French mixed their language (already a "bastard" French mixed with Norse) with an Anglo-Saxon which already had some "corruption" of Latin from the Romans. Are you attempting to undo a millennium of linguistic intermixing?
Check my note at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. I'm arguing that it's good to know that the language is full of duplicate words and which and, where possible, to fling away (centrifuge) the Latin and Greek from the English and to think harder about how to put down (deposit) these words without downputting (decreasing) the lot (number) of English whims (ideas).
And, while "riht" may have been the correct spelling of that word in the form of English spoken 500 years ago, this too has changed, and it is now considered wrong.
I know how it's /considered/. Already now, people within the same language speak and write differently. Even if they agree that they should write however the greatest dole does, it will have several kinds of rhetoric and dialect. That they can't live together means that their agreement is on the wrong grounds and they don't know what they're doing. Knowing what one's doing and putting it distinctly is how to deem objectively.
On 11 Nov 2005, at 18.59, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Autymn D.C. wrote:
<snip screed about english being polluted> > What in specific haven't I proven? > > -Aut > 1^2 = -1^2 > (1^2)^.5 =^.5 (-1^2)^.5 > ±1 :: ±-1 > ±1 = ±1; ±-1 = ±-1
Since you've just tried to prove that +1 = -1, I think we can safely assume that your banning was in good order. If you want to write in some language that isn't english, go do it somewhere other than the English Wikipedia.
/You/ are a troll, and your email is meaningless, having nothing to do with the argument to this point. It's the opposite of what I was doing. I have to deal with illiterates and mindlesses every day over the internet, who criticize and badmouth others and me because they can't see how /they/ slipped up. They, like you, can't support any of their attacks, and they use a host of fallacies to defend themselves whilst doing nothing to expose whatever wrongness was in the claim. And often the victims get punished, but /they/ don't; they get to keep running around thinking that they got the best. And no one watching is the more competent to switch back the harm.
-Aut
Autymn D.C. wrote: <snip>
On 11 Nov 2005, at 18.59, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Autymn D.C. wrote:
<snip screed about english being polluted>
What in specific haven't I proven?
-Aut 1^2 = -1^2 (1^2)^.5 =^.5 (-1^2)^.5 ±1 :: ±-1 ±1 = ±1; ±-1 = ±-1
Since you've just tried to prove that +1 = -1, I think we can safely assume that your banning was in good order. If you want to write in some language that isn't english, go do it somewhere other than the English Wikipedia.
/You/ are a troll, and your email is meaningless, having nothing to do with the argument to this point. It's the opposite of what I was doing. I have to deal with illiterates and mindlesses every day over the internet, who criticize and badmouth others and me because they can't see how /they/ slipped up. They, like you, can't support any of their attacks, and they use a host of fallacies to defend themselves whilst doing nothing to expose whatever wrongness was in the claim. And often the victims get punished, but /they/ don't; they get to keep running around thinking that they got the best. And no one watching is the more competent to switch back the harm.
By your own admission: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
From: Autymn D.C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net
Check my note at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. I'm arguing that it's good to know that the language is full of duplicate words and which and, where possible, to fling away (centrifuge) the Latin and Greek from the English and to think harder about how to put down (deposit) these words without downputting (decreasing) the lot (number) of English whims (ideas).
And, while "riht" may have been the correct spelling of that word in the form of English spoken 500 years ago, this too has changed, and it is now considered wrong.
I know how it's /considered/. Already now, people within the same language speak and write differently. Even if they agree that they should write however the greatest dole does, it will have several kinds of rhetoric and dialect. That they can't live together means that their agreement is on the wrong grounds and they don't know what they're doing. Knowing what one's doing and putting it distinctly is how to deem objectively.
I think it would make more sense for you to start your own Wikipedia, and re-write it into your language, whatever that is.
Jay.