Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?
From: Séimí mac Liam (gwyddon_at_arac.netNOSPAM)
Date: 10/22/04
- Next message: Geoff: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages"
- Previous message: Geoff: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages"
- In reply to: Evan Kirshenbaum: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Next in thread: Alan Edgey: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Reply: Alan Edgey: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:35:34 -0500
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in
news:mzyhgv7u.fsf@hpl.hp.com:
> "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> (not that a FAQ is legislation -- there's some other sort of
>> foundational document that lays out the scope of a newsgroup)
>
> I'm not sure that sci.lang ever had a charter. It was a renaming
of
> the old net.nlang group, and I'm not sure there was ever anything
more
> than the "Natural languages, communication, etc." description.
>
That would explain why a charter is so hard to find for the group.
According to my read of the faq(in the absence of a charter), the
discussion is appropriate for both SCS and sci.lang. And to clarify
the situation the first crosspost to SCS was on Sept 10th by some on
from the Czech republic by the name Arpad. Here's the post:
<quote>
From: arpadia@centrum.cz (Arpad)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english,soc.culture.scottish,sci.lang
Subject: Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?
Date: 10 Sep 2004 07:58:06 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 16
Message-ID: <b062caa9.0409100658.421643a5@posting.google.com>
References: <4bcc06c7.0409100139.3ab3aaf2@posting.google.com> <chru9q
$i8d$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.186.76.253
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1094828286 3372 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2004
14:58:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 14:58:06 +0000 (UTC)
Jarmo Puolakanaho <jape@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<chru9q
$i8d$1@ousrvr3.oulu.fi>...
> In alt.usage.english semiretired@my-deja.com <semiretired@my-
deja.com> wrote:
> > Branch of English or a Separate Language?
> > www.sottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm
>
> A dialect. As far as I know, everyone who speaks Scots understands
most
> forms of English. I'm not sure if it works the other way around,
though.
>
> Scots could be categorized as a separate language if Scotland was
an
> independent state and had an army. I don't know who originally
stated
> this idea of languages having armies, but it works here.
I think the dialect/language borderline is as elusive as that between
Russian and Ukrainian, or Bulgarian and Macedonian, right?
Arpad
</quote>
So if anyone has a gripe, take it up with the Czech.
-- Saint Séimí mac Liam Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve Prophet of The Great Tagger Canonized December '99
- Next message: Geoff: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages"
- Previous message: Geoff: "Re: Origin of Chinese spoken languages"
- In reply to: Evan Kirshenbaum: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Next in thread: Alan Edgey: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Reply: Alan Edgey: "Re: Branch of English or a Separate Language?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
