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