[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua Workshop 2011
- From: Javier Guerra Giraldez <javier@...>
- Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 03:46:09 -0500
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Miles Bader <email@example.com> wrote:
> Perhaps so, but their numbers are almost certainly _vastly_ exceeded by
> the number of people (not just in the U.S., but all over the world) who
> use the term as given above
i wouldn't be so sure; but i'm known as a too optimistic guy.
nevertheless, in Europe i've often heard "in the USA", or even "people
in USA" instead of "in America" or "Americans".
> -- and of course language is defined by
> usage, not political correctness within certain narrow segments of
that's exactly where i disagree: to me, language is more defined by
etymology than usage; exactly for the same reason that history is more
important than fashion.
i don't know if there's any scholar authority for us-english; but most
other languages do have a 'language academy' that helps define a
'correct' language, even while cataloging and documenting other
> If you want to argue to the original poster that what he said is
> _offensive_, feel free to do so (though he'll probably just ignore you),
> but his usage was not incorrect.
no thanks, for a number of reasons:
1) i don't think the use of 'americans' for 'usians' (or gringos? :-)
as offensive, just ignorant and/or short-sighted. it's the defense of
discrimination that offends me.
2) i don't want to argue, since i know i won't convince anybody, nor
is that my responsibility to do so. this is just an exposition of
different points of view, something i usually don't bother to point...
maybe i was just too bored :-)
3) this is way out of topic. the original point was about choosing a
meeting place, and the unfortunate fact that international relations
(or rather, lack of ) sometimes interfere with the good will of
everybody involved. the nit-picking about language and names is as
non-constructive as it gets, and so i apologize for fueling it.