Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
More of us are exposed to different native modes of speaking, so we might have a slight advantage. Scots and Gaelic are separate languages from English, so a few of us are primed to think beyond modern English even if we haven't learned any foreign languages.
Also the variants of Scots. Fit storrie'll I sing? in Doric isn't far off that Anglic sentence.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
More of us are exposed to different native modes of speaking, so we might have a slight advantage. Scots and Gaelic are separate languages from English, so a few of us are primed to think beyond modern English even if we haven't learned any foreign languages.
Plus there is all the Burns/Scots poetry that we learn at school. That definitely gave me the hint here.
And Hogg, Scott, Stevenson, Alexander (Johnny Gibb for the true Doric).
O/T Google translate doesn't cover Old English, how disappointing.
Can anyone help with "hwæt stǣres sċeal iċ singan"?
What more stubborn song (could) I sing?
What's the context?
Suggestion that the "hwæt" (what) at the start of Beowulf stands for a longer phrase and would presumably have been understood as such by contemporary audiences.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
When I visited the far North West of Scotland in the early 90s, I was interested to see bilingual signs. I remember by the late 90s being slightly surprised that these had got as far south east as Inverness; I was slightly surprised when I went to Scotland last Autumn that they'd got at least as far south as Perth. I don't wish to step on any Caledonian toes with my good-but-not-perfect grasp of the various nations which went to make up Scotland, but it did make me wonder exactly who these signs were catering for.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
It's almost as if they are not trying to sell their drugs in the pleasant parks. Surely that can't be right?
Well happily yes - though I'm not sure the middle class areas are any less of a market for that. But they can't be working all the time. If I was walking my dog, I'd head for the nicest park in order to have the nicest time. I appreciate there are dozens of points I'm missing here - but the pleasant and dodgy areas are not too far from each other, yet the spillover between them is surprisingly little.
The hours and job security of your average drug supplier are horrendous, they make those of the average Tesco/Asda delivery man look good. Even when you are not trying to sell drugs you are a target for other predators who think you might be so you keep your weapon/dog close or use it to protect your stash/flat when you are out.
Which is not a lot of fun for those who have these parasites living amongst them.
There was an article in the Economist, years back. For your average street drug dealer, working at MacDonalds was far more lucrative. And when you took into account the percentage of burger flippers who get to be franchise owners themselves....
Sky News today is more woke than the BBC, which is quite saying something.
GB news has taken most of its rightwing viewers
What I like about GB News is that they talk to everyone, no matter their views. So you get a lot of left-wingers on there as well, like union leaders for instance.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
That is true. But since you are a devout believer in the sanctity of the nation state does not the nation have responsibilities?
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
That is true. But since you are a devout believer in the sanctity of the nation state does not the nation have responsibilities?
No, British taxpayers are facing cost of living challenges enough without forking out to ease the consciences of upper middle class left liberals
Sky News today is more woke than the BBC, which is quite saying something.
Hmm... Our never ending holiday took us to Windsor today. There are halls there filled with gold, jewellery and artwork from around the world. They are very careful to tell us when this was presented to the late Queen on some state visit or other but the vast majority of this incredible display of plunder are silent, rather suggesting to me that it was not acquired in anything like such a civilised way. It is the collections from various cultures around the world that raised even my eyebrows a tad. There are bloody few places we did not rip off at one time or another. And a hell of a lot of it seems to have ended up in the Royal collections.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Much more extensive than you think, really. Used to be everywhere except the eastern Borders/Lothian/Caithness and the Northern Isles.
And I can think of at least two colleagues of mine who are native Gaels and want to see their language preserved after centuries of deliberate suppression. They are taxpayers too. And voters.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
God, by the way you're talking you'll be wanting one of those newfangled English-named/>.
If it was named in the blessed Gaelic - than it *might* just be acceptable. Even if it leaked and sank halfway through its maiden voyage.
Faerfeaigh's. That's what we want. Billion quid each. Bargain. And all Westminster's fault for the cost overrun.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
It's almost as if they are not trying to sell their drugs in the pleasant parks. Surely that can't be right?
Well happily yes - though I'm not sure the middle class areas are any less of a market for that. But they can't be working all the time. If I was walking my dog, I'd head for the nicest park in order to have the nicest time. I appreciate there are dozens of points I'm missing here - but the pleasant and dodgy areas are not too far from each other, yet the spillover between them is surprisingly little.
The hours and job security of your average drug supplier are horrendous, they make those of the average Tesco/Asda delivery man look good. Even when you are not trying to sell drugs you are a target for other predators who think you might be so you keep your weapon/dog close or use it to protect your stash/flat when you are out.
Which is not a lot of fun for those who have these parasites living amongst them.
There was an article in the Economist, years back. For your average street drug dealer, working at MacDonalds was far more lucrative. And when you took into account the percentage of burger flippers who get to be franchise owners themselves....
Freakonomics is mocked somewhat these days but they had an excellent chapter which had the heading of something like, "If drugs are so profitable why do most drug dealers live with their mum?" It was really funny in a numerical kind of way.
Met chief Sir Mark Rowley calls for overhaul of criminal justice system ... The Met Commissioner said it now takes five times as much work to take a case to court as it did three decades because of growing bureaucracy.
Another part of broken Britain that Rishi could look at.
From that article -
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
When I visited the far North West of Scotland in the early 90s, I was interested to see bilingual signs. I remember by the late 90s being slightly surprised that these had got as far south east as Inverness; I was slightly surprised when I went to Scotland last Autumn that they'd got at least as far south as Perth. I don't wish to step on any Caledonian toes with my good-but-not-perfect grasp of the various nations which went to make up Scotland, but it did make me wonder exactly who these signs were catering for.
If you want to fit in with current Scottish Government thinking, you need to know this phrase “ tha mi a’ toirt taic do trans”.
Met chief Sir Mark Rowley calls for overhaul of criminal justice system ... The Met Commissioner said it now takes five times as much work to take a case to court as it did three decades because of growing bureaucracy.
Another part of broken Britain that Rishi could look at.
From that article -
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
That's a horrible quote, out of context - basically "It's unfair we have standards to uphold" - but I suspect not much improve in context.
Met chief Sir Mark Rowley calls for overhaul of criminal justice system ... The Met Commissioner said it now takes five times as much work to take a case to court as it did three decades because of growing bureaucracy.
Another part of broken Britain that Rishi could look at.
From that article -
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
Can't disagree with that but the disclosure obligations placed on the Crown (in an attempt to prevent police fitting ups and cover ups) has undoubtedly resulted in the cost of preparing for and conducting a trial multiplying several times over. Has this gone too far? I think it is at least worth a look at.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
I remember a friend of mine staying in Germany and overhearing one German ask the other, 'Please pass the Vorkh*estershir-e sauce'. He really enjoyed explaining that it was pronounced Wurstershir!
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
That is true. But since you are a devout believer in the sanctity of the nation state does not the nation have responsibilities?
No, British taxpayers are facing cost of living challenges enough without forking out to ease the consciences of upper middle class left liberals
So, the nation has no responsibilities for its actions. No reparations to be demanded from Russia for the Ukraine atrocities then?
Met chief Sir Mark Rowley calls for overhaul of criminal justice system ... The Met Commissioner said it now takes five times as much work to take a case to court as it did three decades because of growing bureaucracy.
Another part of broken Britain that Rishi could look at.
From that article -
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
That's a horrible quote, out of context - basically "It's unfair we have standards to uphold" - but I suspect not much improve in context.
If you've never watched the 1970s GF Newman drama "Law and Order"... sadly not much has changed...
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Idioms is an interesting one. I'm not clear that English is idiomatically idiomatic. Other languages I've dabbled with or learned have always tripped me up with idioms. It sorta of feels like a normal part of any language to me, but I don't know.
I've always assumed that English is the bee's knees when it comes to idiom - the top banana, the big cheese - and that it knocked the spots off all the others.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
That is true. But since you are a devout believer in the sanctity of the nation state does not the nation have responsibilities?
And an inheritance. Though I'm guessing as a (modern) Tory - of only gains and not liabilities.
Sky News today is more woke than the BBC, which is quite saying something.
Hmm... Our never ending holiday took us to Windsor today. There are halls there filled with gold, jewellery and artwork from around the world. They are very careful to tell us when this was presented to the late Queen on some state visit or other but the vast majority of this incredible display of plunder are silent, rather suggesting to me that it was not acquired in anything like such a civilised way. It is the collections from various cultures around the world that raised even my eyebrows a tad. There are bloody few places we did not rip off at one time or another. And a hell of a lot of it seems to have ended up in the Royal collections.
Have you been to Hampton Court?
It’s wonderful. Architecturally, historically, culturally, artistically. The gardens, the paintings, the kitchens, the maze, the vine, the chapel of Anne Boleyn
It’s an entire day out, it’s world class, it’s better than Windsor, I reckon
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Much more extensive than you think, really. Used to be everywhere except the eastern Borders/Lothian/Caithness and the Northern Isles.
And I can think of at least two colleagues of mine who are native Gaels and want to see their language preserved after centuries of deliberate suppression. They are taxpayers too. And voters.
Gaelic was never spoken in Edinburgh, north east Scotland or the borders, except by the odd refugee from the north. My wife was brought up in Oban in the early 60s and was taught Gaelic at school then. They had 2 streams of classes, one for the native speakers but even then, more than 50 years ago, the only native speakers came off the islands and stayed on the mainland for schooling during the week. No one on the mainland spoke Gaelic at home.
Today, and for a long time past, Gaelic survives in song, dance, poetry and traditional cultural events, some of which have been adopted further afield. There have been many times, however, when the audience for BBC Gael has been measured at zero but the money keeps coming.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Idioms is an interesting one. I'm not clear that English is idiomatically idiomatic. Other languages I've dabbled with or learned have always tripped me up with idioms. It sorta of feels like a normal part of any language to me, but I don't know.
I've always assumed that English is the bee's knees when it comes to idiom - the top banana, the big cheese - and that it knocked the spots off all the others.
I don't particularly have a dog in the fight, but even mention of Dalmatians is a bit risky at the moment!
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
Can you wring your hands and self-flagellate at the same time?
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
An Italian colleague of mine really struggled to differentiate English vowel sounds, and he didn't really grasp how "h" could be a sound. For example, the words "hungry" and "angry" sounded virtually identical to him.
Met chief Sir Mark Rowley calls for overhaul of criminal justice system ... The Met Commissioner said it now takes five times as much work to take a case to court as it did three decades because of growing bureaucracy.
Another part of broken Britain that Rishi could look at.
From that article -
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
Stealing food from mini-supermarkets wasn't a routine problem 30 years ago. Something needs to be done about it urgently.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
Sky News today is more woke than the BBC, which is quite saying something.
Hmm... Our never ending holiday took us to Windsor today. There are halls there filled with gold, jewellery and artwork from around the world. They are very careful to tell us when this was presented to the late Queen on some state visit or other but the vast majority of this incredible display of plunder are silent, rather suggesting to me that it was not acquired in anything like such a civilised way. It is the collections from various cultures around the world that raised even my eyebrows a tad. There are bloody few places we did not rip off at one time or another. And a hell of a lot of it seems to have ended up in the Royal collections.
Have you been to Hampton Court?
It’s wonderful. Architecturally, historically, culturally, artistically. The gardens, the paintings, the kitchens, the maze, the vine, the chapel of Anne Boleyn
It’s an entire day out, it’s world class, it’s better than Windsor, I reckon
I think I did a very long time ago but it is pretty vague. Normally I am not greatly troubled about what some great great grandads of the currently wealthy got up to but today rather brought it home to me that the proceeds of that larceny are still all around us. I'll be getting woke if I am not careful.
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
That is true. But since you are a devout believer in the sanctity of the nation state does not the nation have responsibilities?
No, British taxpayers are facing cost of living challenges enough without forking out to ease the consciences of upper middle class left liberals
So, the nation has no responsibilities for its actions. No reparations to be demanded from Russia for the Ukraine atrocities then?
Unless Russia is forced back to Moscow no, at most we are now probably heading to some realpolitik settlement in a few years that keeps most of Ukraine free but Crimea with some Russian control.
Non western world powers like Russia, China and India and Turkey and Nigeria and Saudi don't care less about apologising and handwringing over what previous generations of their nation may have done in the past. They may exploit past western colonialism and US foreign policy for nationalist domestic consumption but if the West goes around apologising for its history and making reparations for everything in the eyes of Putin and Xi it doesn't make the West more sympathetic, it makes it look weak
Met chief Sir Mark Rowley calls for overhaul of criminal justice system ... The Met Commissioner said it now takes five times as much work to take a case to court as it did three decades because of growing bureaucracy.
Another part of broken Britain that Rishi could look at.
From that article -
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
Can't disagree with that but the disclosure obligations placed on the Crown (in an attempt to prevent police fitting ups and cover ups) has undoubtedly resulted in the cost of preparing for and conducting a trial multiplying several times over. Has this gone too far? I think it is at least worth a look at.
Sir Mark has a hell of a job cleaning up the Met. He needs to concentrate on that not on sorting out the criminal justice system. He needs to ensure that he hires the best people, trains them well, ensures they comply with the law not - as far too often - make it up, not behave like criminals themselves and carry out their investigations to a high professional standard.
When he's done that then we can hear his views on the rest of the criminal justice system. There is plenty wrong with it. But allowing incompetent, venal police officers to go back to the old ways is not what's needed and Sir Mark moaning about this feels like someone taking his eye off the many balls he has to keep in the air.
The only interviews he should be giving should be about the practical steps he is taking to deal with the very many issues in the force he leads outlined in report after report after report after report ........
Update on mid-Beds: Labour are intensifying their effort - now 4 canvass sessions a day and 7 leaflet rounds that went out today, plus phone canvassing from all over the country. The canvass sessions are in numerous places that I've never heard of, but that's mid-Beds for you (or rather my ignorance of mid-Beds). By contrast, I haven't heard anything about Tamworth yet. I suspect the judgment is that they are winning the tactical vote battle and need to pile in to get a Selby-level victory, rather than divide their efforts.
I still haven't any direct knowledge, though - planning to do some phone canvassing nearer the election.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
An Italian colleague of mine really struggled to differentiate English vowel sounds, and he didn't really grasp how "h" could be a sound. For example, the words "hungry" and "angry" sounded virtually identical to him.
By the same token if you want to speak Italian well concentrate on getting the vowel sounds right. They are pure and do not come to a natural end. "Aaah" not "aaay".
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
Phrasal verbs and modal verbs are excellent examples of tricky English grammar. Try fully teaching the verb ,"to get" to a TEFL class. Then there's countable and uncountable, the difference between a/an and one...
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
But conjugation is much, much easier in English
io dico tu dici lei/lui dice noi diciamo voi dite loro dicono
I say you say he/she says we say you say they say
it's altalene and rotatorie
Yes conjugation and gender agreement are the things that are more complicated in Italian. But they mostly follow rules. So once you're over a small learning curve you're good to go. Weirdly, Italian learners of English often seem to have more problems with the third person singular s. And English has loads of irregular verbs. Learning irregular verbs takes more time than learning the rules of conjugation.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
As a general point, we don’t see the difficulties of the language we’ve learned since infancy; the rules are largely transparent to us.
A nice example is the Korean alphabet - being rationally designed to be phonetically based, reading and writing are almost trivially easy for a native speaker to learn. Easy for foreigners too - if they’ve first leaned the language…
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Gaelic is not Scottish.
Wow.
Just look at all those places names around you, as far south as Kirkcudbright and beyond.
My auntie kept a Rhodesian Ridgebacks. These were (to me) massive dogs, and felt aggressive even when running around. But they lived on a farm, and had a couple of acres to run around. There were also always at least two on the farm. They were as soppy as anything, and the only time they caused me any hard was when one knocked me over whilst I was on one leg pulling on my workboots. They were lovely.
A South London friend kept greyhaunds on a high floor of a tower block. The greyhounds - usually seen as soppy dogs - were mad. Because they only got exercised once a day.
It is the dogs; but it is also the owner.
RRs are wonderful dogs.
Surprised at what you say about the greyhounds. They need remarkably little exercise, and are typically gentle creatures.
Perhaps I didn't say that correctly. They were gentle, but they wanted to be out and about. They were living in a tower block in South London, and did not get regular, good exercise.
My auntie's Rhodesian Ridgeback's are the only ones I have known, and I agree. They were wonderful.
Myself and a friend got attacked by a Doberman once in a pub, and it put me off large dogs for life. My friend had to have stitches in his nose. It was the landlord's dog...
Sorry to hear about your experience with the Doberman. There is nothing wrong with the breed but your experience does help to highlight the shortcomings of simplistic attitudes towards dog control. A lead is not a lot of help with an out of control Doberman. The animal is simply too strong. There is an argument for saying a dog of that type should not generally be in a public space - and a pub is nothing if not public - at all unless the owner can clearly demonstrate his/her control of the animal through normal means. That clearly did not apply in your example.
I assume some formal action and compensation followed?
It was a Peak District pub. You turned left into either the bar or lounge (I forget which). My friend entered ahead of me, turning right. The landlord had just taken his doberman for a walk, and had sat down to talk to a customer. The dog was lying in the doorway.
My friend turns right, and (we think) hit the Doberman's nose with his knee. The next thing I know, my friend is falling backwards with his hands over his nose, blood everywhere. I push past. and ask the barmaid for some napkins (I knew nothing about the dog, and thought my friend had walked into the door). We get taken to a local A&E. They found part of the dog's tooth in my friend's cartilage. I got slashed by it when I went past, and at the hospital they treated my arm.
It turned out the dog had previously attacked a barmaid's young daughter. The landlord move soon afterwards; the dog ended up at a scrapyard.
It was horrifying for a young (and underage...) lad. The landlord turned up to the hospital with a couple of pints (God knows how he got them there without spilling). He said the dog had suffered; it had lost a tooth. The one they found part of in my friend's nose...
Hence I'm uneasy around big dogs. Sue me.
OK, it was a long time ago but even then you could have sued the landlord to buggery. He was bang out of order, and obviously a brainless dog owner.
Omn the hound front, this is an interesting piece - with real experts involved.
Yeah, but no matter how badly behaved, a chihuahua is never going to be as dangerous as a mastiff.
Obviously, but that touches on a point overlooked in this debate by those not familiar with dog ownership in this country.
Things have changed a lot since the 1961 Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced (in a bit of a panic as I recall, in response to a similar kind of public hysteria to that which we are now witnessing.)
Small dogs have become much more popular. They are not always suitable for walking in public areas. They are highly vulnerable. Apart from being occasionally trodden on, they are also apt to be mistaken for prey by bigger breeds.
We have also seen a big influx in 'rescues', particularly from overseas. A dog that has had to learn to cut it on the Streets of Bucharest is not likely to be socialised in a way that will allow it to get on with the Pomeranians of Primrose Hill, for example. 'The best of intentions' and all that. You see the problem?
I actually thing the emphasis the law places on 'control' is sound, as it allows for flexibility, requires the owner to take responsibility for assessing the level of control necessary in the circumstances, and does not place unnecessary restrictions on good owners of perfectly well-behaved pooches. It also obviates the need for categorical banning of certain breeds. Clearly you have to exercise considerably more control of your Doberman than you would a Chihuahua, as J Jessop's illustrative post earlier indicated, though in my experience small dogs can often be the source of a lot of trouble even if they don't often tear anyone limb from limb. And if an owner of such a tiny creature lets it lose in the local park and a passing Greyhound mistakes it for a rabbit, I know where my sympathies would lie.
Maybe we need to replace the 1961 Act with something more sensitive to the changes in dog ownership since then, but please...not by Ms Braverman! Even if it is the Home Office's remit (which I doubt) I think I'd prefer to entrust her successor with the task, whoever that may be,
What a load of pointless twaddle
The great advantage of an immediate ban is that it will terrify the scrotes that own these hideous dogs, and they will be too scared to walk them in case they get seen and nicked and the dog killed = the dogs disappearing from public life NOW
That means children can play freely again, mums can walk in parks, other dog owners can relax, and kids won’t have their faces ripped off, starting tomorrow
Sigh... Why do you resort to such hyperbole?
I agree that dogs bred for fighting should be banned right away. I cannot for the life of me think why this government, which usually seems only to ready to jump on any popular bandwagon, hasn't done so already.
I also think the rules and controls around dog ownership should be reviewed and strengthened.
But let's not pretend any of this is the difference between kids being able to play freely or not.
But it really IS
I’ve been following the Daily Mirror campaign and one of their big lines is that the government elite don’t care because they don’t live on council estates where these dogs are very common, and where they subtly terrorise mums and kids
I am sure they are right. This is a class issue, posh people don’t have to walk past these dogs every day, terrified that they or their dog or their baby will be bitten or worse
It really is. I had never come across this issue before my daughter joined a girls' football team - as a result of which I have been spending a lot more time on, and with people who live on, council estates. These dogs are worryingly common and a major source of anxiety for people who live close to them. Weirdly though you never see these dogs outside the estates. Their owners never appear to walk them in the pleasant parks in the more middle class parts of town.
It's almost as if they are not trying to sell their drugs in the pleasant parks. Surely that can't be right?
Well happily yes - though I'm not sure the middle class areas are any less of a market for that. But they can't be working all the time. If I was walking my dog, I'd head for the nicest park in order to have the nicest time. I appreciate there are dozens of points I'm missing here - but the pleasant and dodgy areas are not too far from each other, yet the spillover between them is surprisingly little.
The hours and job security of your average drug supplier are horrendous, they make those of the average Tesco/Asda delivery man look good. Even when you are not trying to sell drugs you are a target for other predators who think you might be so you keep your weapon/dog close or use it to protect your stash/flat when you are out.
Which is not a lot of fun for those who have these parasites living amongst them.
I’m happy for you that you went for a career change.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Much more extensive than you think, really. Used to be everywhere except the eastern Borders/Lothian/Caithness and the Northern Isles.
And I can think of at least two colleagues of mine who are native Gaels and want to see their language preserved after centuries of deliberate suppression. They are taxpayers too. And voters.
Gaelic was never spoken in Edinburgh, north east Scotland or the borders, except by the odd refugee from the north. My wife was brought up in Oban in the early 60s and was taught Gaelic at school then. They had 2 streams of classes, one for the native speakers but even then, more than 50 years ago, the only native speakers came off the islands and stayed on the mainland for schooling during the week. No one on the mainland spoke Gaelic at home.
Today, and for a long time past, Gaelic survives in song, dance, poetry and traditional cultural events, some of which have been adopted further afield. There have been many times, however, when the audience for BBC Gael has been measured at zero but the money keeps coming.
Wasn't Gaelic the the official language, including Lothian, in the 11th Century? Gaelic placenames are present pretty much everywhere having gradually replaced the Picts/Norse/English that was spoken before.
Not sure if ordinary people used it but what we now think of Scotland was a Gaelic kingdom for a short period. Then French came in at court after the conquest, and Scots started pushing it out in rural areas in the east.
I don't mind it except on emergency vehicles - it should just be "Ambulance" for legibility.
Asian markets have something of a head start, as the city car concept is much more popular. Something like the recently announced Nissan Sakura might be scoffed at as inadequate here, but $14k vehicle with a range of a hundred miles or so matches a large existing market in Japan.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
Phrasal verbs and modal verbs are excellent examples of tricky English grammar. Try fully teaching the verb ,"to get" to a TEFL class. Then there's countable and uncountable, the difference between a/an and one...
Is this special to English though? There are often words in languages that do a lot of work. "Faire" in French springs to mind.
Not unique to English German also has its equivalent of phrasal verbs, and modal auxiliaries. But no equivalent that I know of of the expression I first heard on The Wire "he's gotta get got"
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages
Which "th" sound? There are two different ones: "thin" v. "the".
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Gaelic is not Scottish.
Wow.
Just look at all those places names around you, as far south as Kirkcudbright and beyond.
No true Scotsman speaks Gaelic...
No proudScotbut with a UJ emoji in their bio speaks Gaelic.
For all the Unionist bleating about division and grievance, up until relatively recently (2014ish?) the Scottish branch offices of the Unionist parties were quite positive about the preservation and promotion of the Gaelic language. It seems to make them quite aggrieved nowadays.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
Phrasal verbs and modal verbs are excellent examples of tricky English grammar. Try fully teaching the verb ,"to get" to a TEFL class. Then there's countable and uncountable, the difference between a/an and one...
Is this special to English though? There are often words in languages that do a lot of work. "Faire" in French springs to mind.
Not unique to English German also has its equivalent of phrasal verbs, and modal auxiliaries. But no equivalent that I know of of the expression I first heard on The Wire "he's gotta get got"
An incredibly common mistake that non-native English speakers make is conjugating the verb after “didn’t”, as in “I didn’t went”.
Ian Miles Cheong and Matt Goodwin are awful sources for commentary on literally anything.
Also, I could literally do and say the same thing about London? I could also point to Nazis doing the Nazi salute on bridges in Florida to make a completely different point about how the whole world views America? Are Ian Miles Cheong and Matt Goodwin saying authorities in America should also do something about that?
Also, also - I posted about the Canadian study that gave $7500 to a load of homeless people, no strings attached, and found that most of them got their life back together, saving the state just over $1000 per person annually on what it typically cost the state to keep rehousing them / moving them on, etc. etc. Do you support that policy solution? Do you think Ian Miles Cheong or Matt Goodwin do?
The information is the same, regardless of who reports it. People are wandering around like zombies in American cities, and the authorities don't seem to care about it.
In his novel, "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, Jimmy Breslin says that organized crime is like Hollywood, a few biggies get most of the money and power, and thousands look for not-very-profitable bit parts. That's probably still true of organized crime, as far as I can tell. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gang_That_Couldn't_Shoot_Straight_(novel)
(The politcal parts of the novel probably tell you something about the New York City, when John Lindsay was mayor.)
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Oh, fair enough, I was just amused that the only three answers were from you, Farooq and DavidL. Made me half wonder if it's on the curriculum up there.
I love the sound of OE, but wouldn't have a clue.
On the subject of languages: my daughter and I are currently having a bash at Italian on duolingo. The more I learn of foreign languages, the easier English seems. Granted our spelling is all over the place, but we don't have six different verb endings, different words for the, etc. Is there any respect apart from spelling in which English grammar is more complicated than foreign languages?
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages - the spelling, for which you an largely blame Norman scribes. Fuck them and the boat they rode in on - the subtle meaning variations between "synonyms". Words that mean the same thing can sometimes have a different "register" and so using one in the wrong context can sound weird to a native speaker
The multitude of synonyms, which is a great strength of English, must also make it harder to understand, if not speak.
Also idioms, so many idioms.
Loads of ways English is "more complicated" than Italian. For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language). In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do". Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
But conjugation is much, much easier in English
io dico tu dici lei/lui dice noi diciamo voi dite loro dicono
I say you say he/she says we say you say they say
it's altalene and rotatorie
Yes conjugation and gender agreement are the things that are more complicated in Italian. But they mostly follow rules. So once you're over a small learning curve you're good to go. Weirdly, Italian learners of English often seem to have more problems with the third person singular s. And English has loads of irregular verbs. Learning irregular verbs takes more time than learning the rules of conjugation.
Partial agree. The point about the conjugation is less about generating them (when you speak or write) and more about understanding them (when you read or listen). It's far from obvious that "dicono" is "dire" and so there's the question of whether as a learner your memory hold them as separate things to memorise or whether you eventually just see them as the same word like a native does. Until and unless you do the latter, your comprehension is slowed down.
Yes I see what you mean. Although once you know that dire uses 'c' you're fine. It's not much different in principle from having to know that 'caught' comes from 'catch'.
On the English language: I found John McWhorter's "Our Magnificent Bastard Language" fascinating -- but, as I am no linguist, can't judge how accepted his ideas on the language are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages
Which "th" sound? There are two different ones: "thin" v. "the".
Both. I have problems with all the different t and d sounds in Hindi
Some of the difficulties people have with English include - the "th" sound, which is a bit rare although approximations of it are found in for example Greek and Scandic languages
Which "th" sound? There are two different ones: "thin" v. "the".
Both. I have problems with all the different t and d sounds in Hindi
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Gaelic is not Scottish.
Wow.
Just look at all those places names around you, as far south as Kirkcudbright and beyond.
No true Scotsman speaks Gaelic...
No proudScotbut with a UJ emoji in their bio speaks Gaelic.
For all the Unionist bleating about division and grievance, up until relatively recently (2014ish?) the Scottish branch offices of the Unionist parties were quite positive about the preservation and promotion of the Gaelic language. It seems to make them quite aggrieved nowadays.
Presumably there are few objections to the public sector communicating in Gaelic where significant numbers use it as a first language, and many objections to the public sector communicating in Gaelic where almost nobody does, or indeed ever has. Arguably there is a stronger case for Welsh language signs in Liverpool than Gaelic in Edinburgh. AIUI, the 'indigenous' language of Glasgow and the SW is Brythonic (i.e. Welsh, sort of) rather than Gaelic.
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
When I visited the far North West of Scotland in the early 90s, I was interested to see bilingual signs. I remember by the late 90s being slightly surprised that these had got as far south east as Inverness; I was slightly surprised when I went to Scotland last Autumn that they'd got at least as far south as Perth. I don't wish to step on any Caledonian toes with my good-but-not-perfect grasp of the various nations which went to make up Scotland, but it did make me wonder exactly who these signs were catering for.
Separatist politicians who want to emphasis division and difference
Is it only Scottish people speak Old English then?!
Lowlander Scots, please. Germanic/Anglic.
Yep, its definitely not that Gaelic nonsense that we print all over our police cars and ambulances.
Why is it nonsense? It's literally Scottish culture.
Its literally not. Gaelic was spoken in the north and west of Scotland at the time of the clans and for a while afterwards slightly more broadly after the clearances when people were cleared out for sheep. In the vast bulk of Scotland it was never spoken at all but we spend absurd amounts of money on Gaelic TV, Gaelic schools and renaming things that never had Gaelic names in the first place. Its utterly mad. Some of the Gaelic schools are now in Edinburgh for heaven's sake.
Gaelic is not Scottish.
Wow.
Just look at all those places names around you, as far south as Kirkcudbright and beyond.
No true Scotsman speaks Gaelic...
No proudScotbut with a UJ emoji in their bio speaks Gaelic.
For all the Unionist bleating about division and grievance, up until relatively recently (2014ish?) the Scottish branch offices of the Unionist parties were quite positive about the preservation and promotion of the Gaelic language. It seems to make them quite aggrieved nowadays.
Presumably there are few objections to the public sector communicating in Gaelic where significant numbers use it as a first language, and many objections to the public sector communicating in Gaelic where almost nobody does, or indeed ever has. Arguably there is a stronger case for Welsh language signs in Liverpool than Gaelic in Edinburgh. AIUI, the 'indigenous' language of Glasgow and the SW is Brythonic (i.e. Welsh, sort of) rather than Gaelic.
Depends how far you go back. Gaelic only started to spread came across Scotland in the 8th century, so it's not "indigenous" anywhere except perhaps parts of Argyll, but even that is up for debate.
For your typical LA focused care home, 65% of costs are wages. 15% are utilities
LA fees have typically increased to cover increases in NMW.
So either this is just an increase in government spending (to increase wages) or it makes a hugely important sector horrifically unattractive to be a private operator (revenues and bulk of costs outside your control)
Why on earth should British young people care less about something they get no benefit from whatever.
What next? Shall we demand compensation from the Danish royal family for the Vikings atrocities and slaves taken in Britain or for the Barbary Corsairs and Romans?
Has it occurred to you that some people, maybe just a few, might be concerned with something that benefits others rather than themselves?
Wokeist self flagellating hand wringers like you maybe, however nobody now, including the royals, are responsible for what their ancestors did centuries ago
That is true. But since you are a devout believer in the sanctity of the nation state does not the nation have responsibilities?
No, British taxpayers are facing cost of living challenges enough without forking out to ease the consciences of upper middle class left liberals
So, the nation has no responsibilities for its actions. No reparations to be demanded from Russia for the Ukraine atrocities then?
Statute of limitations?
The moral unfairness is visiting the sins of some of our forefathers on the current population who are not responsible
Why Biden Is Losing Support Among Voters Of Color | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Among the most politically tuned-in, last week saw the kind of hand-wringing and accusations of bias surrounding the polls that you’d usually expect from the final two months of a campaign, not the final year and two months of a campaign.
The focus was largely on general election polls: Whether a Wall Street Journal poll showing former President Donald Trump and President Biden tied is to be trusted. What to make of a CNN poll showing Nikki Haley as the only Republican candidate with a lead over Biden that falls outside the margin of error and how to understand data from the New York Times suggesting that Biden is losing support among voters of color.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen speaks with Carlos Odio of Equis Research and Terrance Woodbury of HIT Strategies to parse through which recent data is actually worth paying attention to and which is sound and fury. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiP8uRZ8shw
Why Biden Is Losing Support Among Voters Of Color | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast
Among the most politically tuned-in, last week saw the kind of hand-wringing and accusations of bias surrounding the polls that you’d usually expect from the final two months of a campaign, not the final year and two months of a campaign.
The focus was largely on general election polls: Whether a Wall Street Journal poll showing former President Donald Trump and President Biden tied is to be trusted. What to make of a CNN poll showing Nikki Haley as the only Republican candidate with a lead over Biden that falls outside the margin of error and how to understand data from the New York Times suggesting that Biden is losing support among voters of color.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen speaks with Carlos Odio of Equis Research and Terrance Woodbury of HIT Strategies to parse through which recent data is actually worth paying attention to and which is sound and fury. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiP8uRZ8shw
Why Biden Is Losing Support Among Voters Of Color | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast...
Classic one sided analysis.
There's been a huge cycling of political identification over the last decade (see also the Politico piece about medical workers I posted a couple of days back). Democrats have lost support in some traditional areas of strength - but have conversely picked up significant support elsewhere.
The aggregate effect is what Robert talks about in the header.
"Why Biden has lost..." is the same kind of framing I noted a little upthread.
Why Biden Is Losing Support Among Voters Of Color | FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast...
Classic one sided analysis.
There's been a huge cycling of political identification over the last decade (see also the Politico piece about medical workers I posted a couple of days back). Democrats have lost support in some traditional areas of strength - but have conversely picked up significant support elsewhere.
The aggregate effect is what Robert talks about in the header.
"Why Biden has lost..." is the same kind of framing I noted a little upthread.
Comments
Also idioms, so many idioms.
And I can think of at least two colleagues of mine who are native Gaels and want to see their language preserved after centuries of deliberate suppression. They are taxpayers too. And voters.
If it was named in the blessed Gaelic - than it *might* just be acceptable. Even if it leaked and sank halfway through its maiden voyage.
Faerfeaigh's. That's what we want. Billion quid each. Bargain. And all Westminster's fault for the cost overrun.
"“When I see what is expected of officers it is way beyond what was expected of me as a Detective Sergeant 30 years ago.”
There are many things wrong with the criminal justice system but allowing the police to do the sorts of things they did 30 years or so ago is not one of the answers. There are good reasons why some of these changes were introduced - and police misbehaviour was one of them, as Sir Mark bloody well knows.
Sam Coates Sky
@SamCoatesSky
This Labour policy - if it becomes reality - could be amongst the most significant thing they do.
Higher minimum wage and pensions in some sectors, mandatory training and other benefits agreed across the board.
With social care the first target
From https://news.sky.com/story/angela-rayners-seven-point-plan-for-workers-rights-sets-labour-up-for-key-battle-with-tories-if-theyve-got-the-stomach-for-it-12959305
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1701299808529506713
* aspirated fricative, as in Scots loch
It’s wonderful. Architecturally, historically, culturally, artistically. The gardens, the paintings, the kitchens, the maze, the vine, the chapel of Anne Boleyn
It’s an entire day out, it’s world class, it’s better than Windsor, I reckon
Today, and for a long time past, Gaelic survives in song, dance, poetry and traditional cultural events, some of which have been adopted further afield. There have been many times, however, when the audience for BBC Gael has been measured at zero but the money keeps coming.
For example: asking a question (a pretty basic element of language).
In Italian - it's the same as a statement, but with rising intonation. In English you usually have to invert the subject and verb. Often you have to use the empty auxiliary verb "do".
Then English has all those different question tags. "You're learning Italian, aren't you?"
English pronunciation is much more complicated, than Italian because it has so many different vowel sounds and diphthongs. "shit or sheet?" as the Italians say.
Italian doesn't really have phrasal verbs in the way English does. "indicare" is easier to grasp than "point out" especially when you have to know when you can put the subject between the 2 parts, and when you can put it after them.
And there aren't many modal auxiliary verbs. English is very fond of continuous forms of verbs. Think of all the different ways of talking about the future in English (going to, present continuous, present simple, will) and the sometimes subtle differences between them.
I think objectively, all other things being equal, it should be (much) easier for an English speaker to learn Italian than for an Italian to learn English. In practice it is often the other way round because of motivation, exposure to the language , opportunities to practise, and the general fact that so much stuff is in English.
Non western world powers like Russia, China and India and Turkey and Nigeria and Saudi don't care less about apologising and handwringing over what previous generations of their nation may have done in the past. They may exploit past western colonialism and US foreign policy for nationalist domestic consumption but if the West goes around apologising for its history and making reparations for everything in the eyes of Putin and Xi it doesn't make the West more sympathetic, it makes it look weak
When he's done that then we can hear his views on the rest of the criminal justice system. There is plenty wrong with it. But allowing incompetent, venal police officers to go back to the old ways is not what's needed and Sir Mark moaning about this feels like someone taking his eye off the many balls he has to keep in the air.
The only interviews he should be giving should be about the practical steps he is taking to deal with the very many issues in the force he leads outlined in report after report after report after report ........
I still haven't any direct knowledge, though - planning to do some phone canvassing nearer the election.
https://vote.nz/2023-general-election/about/2023-general-election/
And English has loads of irregular verbs. Learning irregular verbs takes more time than learning the rules of conjugation.
A nice example is the Korean alphabet - being rationally designed to be phonetically based, reading and writing are almost trivially easy for a native speaker to learn.
Easy for foreigners too - if they’ve first leaned the language…
Wow.
Just look at all those places names around you, as far south as Kirkcudbright and beyond.
Not sure if ordinary people used it but what we now think of Scotland was a Gaelic kingdom for a short period. Then French came in at court after the conquest, and Scots started pushing it out in rural areas in the east.
I don't mind it except on emergency vehicles - it should just be "Ambulance" for legibility.
https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2023/09/419_358925.html
Asian markets have something of a head start, as the city car concept is much more popular. Something like the recently announced Nissan Sakura might be scoffed at as inadequate here, but $14k vehicle with a range of a hundred miles or so matches a large existing market in Japan.
But no equivalent that I know of of the expression I first heard on The Wire "he's gotta get got"
For all the Unionist bleating about division and grievance, up until relatively recently (2014ish?) the Scottish branch offices of the Unionist parties were quite positive about the preservation and promotion of the Gaelic language. It seems to make them quite aggrieved nowadays.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gang_That_Couldn't_Shoot_Straight_(novel)
(The politcal parts of the novel probably tell you something about the New York City, when John Lindsay was mayor.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McWhorter
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/world-politics/new-zealand-election/winning-party
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/politics/market/1.204897037
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/female-surgeons-sexually-assaulted-uk-hospitals-2023-times-health-commission-mwlphr2jc
AIUI, the 'indigenous' language of Glasgow and the SW is Brythonic (i.e. Welsh, sort of) rather than Gaelic.
This is very shocking if confirmed.
LA fees have typically increased to cover increases in NMW.
So either this is just an increase in government spending (to increase wages) or it makes a hugely important sector horrifically unattractive to be a private operator (revenues and bulk of costs outside your control)
The moral unfairness is visiting the sins of some of our forefathers on the current population who are not responsible
Among the most politically tuned-in, last week saw the kind of hand-wringing and accusations of bias surrounding the polls that you’d usually expect from the final two months of a campaign, not the final year and two months of a campaign.
The focus was largely on general election polls: Whether a Wall Street Journal poll showing former President Donald Trump and President Biden tied is to be trusted. What to make of a CNN poll showing Nikki Haley as the only Republican candidate with a lead over Biden that falls outside the margin of error and how to understand data from the New York Times suggesting that Biden is losing support among voters of color.
In this installment of the FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast, Galen speaks with Carlos Odio of Equis Research and Terrance Woodbury of HIT Strategies to parse through which recent data is actually worth paying attention to and which is sound and fury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiP8uRZ8shw
There's been a huge cycling of political identification over the last decade (see also the Politico piece about medical workers I posted a couple of days back). Democrats have lost support in some traditional areas of strength - but have conversely picked up significant support elsewhere.
The aggregate effect is what Robert talks about in the header.
"Why Biden has lost..." is the same kind of framing I noted a little upthread.