Tuesday, 10 May 2011
Don't touch my junk under construction
The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy.
Ah, the airport, where modern folk heroes are made. The airport, where that inspired flight attendant did what everyone who’s ever been in the spam-in-a-can crush of a flying aluminum tube — where we collectively pretend that a clutch of peanuts is a meal and a seat cushion is a “flotation device” — has always dreamed of doing: pull the lever, blow the door, explode the chute, grab a beer, slide to the tarmac, and walk through the gates to the sanity that lies beyond. Not since Rick and Louis disappeared into the Casablanca fog headed for the Free French garrison in Brazzaville has a stroll on the tarmac thrilled so many.
Who cares that the crazed steward got arrested, pleaded guilty to sundry charges, and probably was a rude, unpleasant S.O.B to begin with? Bonnie and Clyde were psychopaths, yet what child of the ’60s did not fall in love with Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty?
ADVERTISEMENT
Not quite the 18th-century elegance of “Don’t Tread on Me,” but the age of Twitter has a different cadence from the age of the musket. What the modern battle cry lacks in archaic charm, it makes up for in full-body syllabic punch. Don’t touch my junk is the anthem of the modern man, the Tea Party patriot, the late-life libertarian, the midterm-election voter. Don’t touch my junk, Obamacare — get out of my doctor’s examining room; I’m wearing a paper-thin gown slit down the back. Don’t touch my junk, Google — Street View is cool, but get off my street. Don’t touch my junk, you airport-security goon — my package belongs to no one but me, and do you really think I’m a Nigerian nut job preparing for my 72-virgin orgy by blowing my johnson to kingdom come? In Up in the Air, that ironic take on the cramped freneticism of airport life, George Clooney explains why he always follows Asians in the security line: “They pack light, travel efficiently, and they got a thing for slip-on shoes, God love ’em.” “That’s racist!” “I’m like my mother. I stereotype. It’s faster.” That riff is a crowd-pleaser because everyone knows that the entire apparatus of the security line is a national homage to political correctness. Nowhere do more people meekly acquiesce to more useless inconvenience and needless indignity for less purpose. Wizened seniors strain to untie their shoes; beltless salesmen struggle comically to hold up their pants; three-year-olds scream while being searched insanely for explosives, when everyone — everyone — knows that none of these people is a threat. We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to assure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety — 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals, and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling — when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable, and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches. The junk man’s revolt marks the point at which a docile public declares that it will tolerate only so much idiocy. Metal detector? Back-of-the-hand pat? Okay. We will swallow hard and pretend airline attackers are randomly distributed in the population. But now you insist on a full-body scan, a fairly accurate representation of my naked image to be viewed by a total stranger? Or alternatively, the full-body pat-down, which, as the junk man correctly noted, would be sexual assault if performed by anyone else? This time you have gone too far, Big Bro’. The sleeping giant awakes. Take my shoes, remove my belt, waste my time, and try my patience. But don’t touch my junk. — Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 the Washington Post Writers Group. Click for original November 18, 2010 Profile Muslims or Pat Down the Masses?By Selwyn Duke
With all the bad press the TSA has received recently, we can't be sure if the acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, Touches Sensitive Areas or Truly Scandalous Attention. But, for sure, its pat downs and sci-fi radiation screeners give many of us another good reason to avoid the increasingly unfriendly skies. Yet while the TSA right now has supplanted the IRS as the bureaucracy we most love to hate, its policies are merely part of a longstanding cultural trend: The failure to recognize that the good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
It's the same reason why certain cities, most notably London, are now surveilling their residents with thousands of video cameras. If you're not willing to administer punishment sufficient to deter all the criminally inclined save a few intractable miscreants, some of whom you can catch, the only other solution is to have an all-seeing Big Brother that can catch all. It's much like treating a cancer: If you cannot target just the affected tissue, the only other solution is to treat the whole body.
Because the former is preferable not just in medicine but also law enforcement, behavioral-sciences specialists long ago developed the method called "profiling." Unfortunately, social-engineering specialists soon after discredited the universal application of profiling with a method called propaganda. Consequently, when we want to administer targeted treatment in the effort to thwart terrorism, we're told that it's "racial profiling" and beyond consideration. This is utter nonsense.
As I have said before, "racial profiling" is much like "assault weapon": It's an emotionally charged term designed to manipulate the public. In reality, there are only two types of profiling: good profiling and bad profiling. What's the difference? Good profiling is a method by which law enforcement can accurately determine the probability that an individual has committed a crime or has criminal intent; bad profiling makes that determination less accurate. Good profiling considers all relevant factors -- age, sex, dress, behavior and, yes, race, religion and ethnicity -- without regard for political or social concerns. Bad profiling subordinates common sense, criminological science and security to political correctness.
Good profiling is also fair. That is to say, it discriminates on the correct basis: If a group -- any group -- commits an inordinate amount of a given crime, it receives greater scrutiny. Period. Bad profiling is invidiously discriminatory. It says, "Hey, if you're male, you'll be viewed with a jaundiced eye. If you're young, then you, too, will be viewed more suspiciously. Don't like it? Take it up with those in your group who commit crimes!" There is no talk of stamping out "sex profiling" or "age profiling." But when we propose applying the same criteria to higher-crime-incidence groups sheltered by the thought police's umbrella of protection, we hear shouts of "racial profiling!" There then are news stories, Dept. of Injustice investigations and people lose their jobs.
Good profiling is also nothing unusual; it's just the application of common sense within the sphere of law enforcement and something we all do continually. If you cross the street upon seeing a bunch of rough-hewn young men walking your way, you've just engaged in profiling. You've also done so if you cut a wide swath around a leashed dog; after all, he may be a very nice pooch, but, since canines are known to sometimes bite, your action is prudent. And it doesn't mean you're hateful or bent on discriminating against rough young men and dogs but simply that you're in a situation in which the cost of obtaining more information would be too great. Consequently, as Professor Walter Williamswrote, "We can think of profiling in general as a practice where people use an observable or known physical attribute as a proxy or estimator of some other unobservable or unknown attribute." He then goes on to write:
Let's look at a few profiling examples to see which ones you'd like outlawed. ...Some racial and ethnic groups have higher incidence and mortality from various diseases than the national average. The rates of death from cardiovascular diseases are about 30 percent higher among black adults than among white adults. Cervical cancer rates are five times higher among Vietnamese women in the U.S. than among white women. Pima Indians of Arizona have the highest known diabetes rates in the world. Prostate cancer is nearly twice as common among black men as white men.
Knowing patient race or ethnicity, what might be considered as racial profiling, can assist medical providers in the delivery of more effective medical services.
Now, should doctors be prosecuted for taking these statistics into consideration when delivering medical care? If not, why would we prosecute law enforcement for considering racial and ethnic factors (along with sex, age and other characteristics) when tackling the moral disease known as criminality?
This brings us back to our current security concerns. The profile here is very specific, as it's a rare person who will sacrifice his life to destroy an airplane. Protestants aren't doing that. Catholics aren't doing it. Nor are Buddhists, Taoists, Zoroastrians or Hare Krishna. In our age, this is a method of people who 100 percent of the time are Muslim jihadists and 99 percent of the time are non-white. And only the idiotic -- or the suicidal -- ignores such correlation.
Now, we all know what kind of suicidal idiocy engenders such blindness: a politically correct brand that panders to the sensitivities of vocal, politically favored minority groups such as Muslims. But what about the sensitivities of millions of Americans who have to tolerate intrusive body scanning and pat-downs and watch their children subjected to same? And the kicker is that when Janet Incompetano (as Mark Steyn calls her) was asked if Muslim women sporting hijabs would have to go through the same full-body pat downs, she equivocated and said, "adjustments will be made where they need to be made" and "With respect to that particular issue, I think there will be more to come." Are you kidding me? Is this Total Recall meets One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Muslim women are the demographic second-most likely to commit Islamic terrorism. If they aren't subjected to scrutiny, what is the point (besides "security theater")?
Moreover, why should Muslim's imperative of modesty be respected but not others people's? Not only do devout Catholics place a premium on the quality as well, but millions of other individuals find it very offensive to be exposed in front of strangers and groped. Yet we're told that the very group criminological science dictates should receive more scrutiny may receive less due to political correctness. And if this actually happens, it will be yet another example of de facto Sharia law in deference to an alien culture and dhimmitude for us infidels.
Of course, I realize that Incompetano's equivocation doesn't necessarily mean a Muslim dispensation is in the offing (although I put nothing past leftists), as she might simply have been overcome by the typical liberal reluctance to express unfashionable truths. But is this an excuse? If she expects Americans to tolerate the indignity of intrusive security screening and basically tells them it's tough luck if they don't like it, she has a duty to be just as firm with the over-coddled Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and its minions. And to not be so was a slap in the face to you, me and anyone who has ever fought for our freedoms. How dare she.
To cement this point, I'll say that this is not first and foremost about whether a given security measure is or isn't prudent. It's also unrealistic to think that we can have satisfactory security without some inconvenience. The point is that whatever methods are settled upon -- screening devices, bomb-sniffing dogs, pat downs, etc. -- political correctness must not factor into the decision. But it does, and this robs the government of all credibility. And I, for one, do not take its efforts seriously.
The truth is that we don't just have security theater but, sadly, war-on-terrorism theater. We launch foreign military campaigns while leaving our back door to Mexico -- through which terrorists and WMDs can pass -- unsecured. We even announce the charade, by calling the conflict "the war on terror." As Ann Coulter once pointed out, using this euphemism is much like having called the WWII conflict with Imperial Japan "the war on sneak attacks." Terrorism is a method, not an enemy -- Islamists are the enemy. And if we're too effete to even name names, it's no surprise that we won't identify groups.
What I've expressed here is just common sense, but it will remain uncommon unless we experience a cultural transformation. Until the politically correct must keep their death-cult ideology to themselves for fear of scorn, social ostracism and career destruction - the very tactics they've used to silence others - nothing will change. We will continue to exhibit a lack of seriousness about what is a life-or-death issue, a failing that will lead to an inevitable outcome: a mushroom cloud over an American city. When that happens, it will have been enabled by those who gave us our cultural mushroom cloud, ushering in a cold winter of lies and preventing people from seeing the light. And come that time, I hope we remember to thank them appropriately.
|
SHAREWhat ever happened to our 4th amendment rights against illegal search and seizure?
Here’s what happened to those rights, for example:
Airport staff exposed woman’s breasts, laughed
Sen. McCaskill: They’re just “Love Pats“
Revolt and Lawsuits against TSA and “Big Sis”
Monday, 9 May 2011
exmacmillan
Length and width
length
noun
a measurement of how long something is in size
width
noun
the distance from one side of something to the other
depth
noun
the distance from the front to the back of something, for example a cupboard or drawer
breadth
noun
the distance from one side of an object to the other
span
noun
the width of something
spread
noun
the width of something
girth
noun
the distance round something thick and round, for example a tree
length
noun
the distance from one end of something to the other
gauge
noun
a way of saying how thick something is, especially something made of metal, wire, or plastic
thickness
noun
the measurement of how thick something is
home contact us previous unit next unit
Exercise
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
In modern times, the expansion of (1) is mainly through word-formation. The major means of word?formation are (2) , (3)and (4) . It is estimated that affixation supplies modern English with (5)percent of its new vocabulary, (6)gives 28 to 30 per cent and 26 percent of new words come from (7). Shortening, such as clipping, (8)etc. also plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, resulting in amount up to eight to (9) percent.
Answer
1. vocabulary 2. affixation 3. compounding 4. conversion 5. 30-40
6. compounding 7. conversion 8. acronymy 9. ten
close
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
Affixation, also called (1), is the formation of new words by adding affixes to (2). While (3) is to create new words by adding prefixes to bases, suffixation makes new words by adding (4) to stems. Generally speaking, prefixes do not change part of (5) of the stems but their (6) whereas (7) do.
Answer
1. derivation 2. stems 3. prefixation 4. suffixes
5. speech 6. meaning 7. suffixes
close
What is the best way to classify prefixes? Why?
Answer
The best way to classify prefixes is in accordance with meaning because prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but its meaning. close
Form negatives of each of the following words by using one of these prefixes dis-, il-, im-, in-, ir-, non-, un-.
Answer
close
Match Column A with Column B and give two examples for each.
A
B
Examples
Trans
before
mono
over, above
super
one
auto-
many
sub-
self
mal-
little, small
multi-
bad, badly
mini-
below
pre-
across
ex-
former
Answer
trans- = across: transcontinental, transword
mono- = one: monorail, nonoculture
super- = over, above: superstructure, supernatural
auto- = self: autobiography, automobile
sub- = bad, badly: malpractice, malnutrition
mini- = little, small: minicrisis, miniwar
pre- = before: prehistorical, preelection
ex- = former: ex-teacher, ex-filmer
close
Close
1. Have a knowledge of the major means of word-formation;
2. Understand the contribution of each means in proportion to other means;
3. Learn how to classify prefixes;
4. Learn how to form new words with prefix.
Objectives
Main points
Introduction
Affixation
Prefixation
Exercise
TOP
Unit 5
● Word Formation II
●● Introduction
The expansion of vocabulary in modern English depends chiefly on word-formation. There is a variety of means being at work now. The most productive are affixation, , compounding, and conversion, . According to Pyles and Algeo (1982), words produced through affixation constitute 30% to 40% of the total number of new words; compounding yields 28% to 30% of all the new words; conversion gives us 26% of the new vocabulary. The rest of the new words come from shortening, including clipping, and acronymy, , amounting to 8% to 10%, together with 1% to 5% of words born out of blending, and other means.
Talking about word-forming patterns means dealing with rules. But a rule of word-formation usually differs from a syntactic rule. Not all the words that are produced by applying the rule are acceptable. For example, the existence of the actual English words unclean, unwise, unfair does not ensure the acceptance of * unexcelled. Therefore, rules only provide a constant set of models from which new words are created from day to day. Rules themselves are not fixed but undergo changes to a certain extent. For instance, affixes and compounding processes may become productive on one time, e.g. de-, non-, -teria, -wise (defog, non-hero, cafeteria, weatherwise) or lose their productivity, e.g. the Old English -th which is found in warmth, length, depth, width, breadth derived from adjectives warm, long, deep, wide, broad is no longer used to form new words, * coolth (Quirk, et al 1985). By word-formation processes, we concentrate on productive or on marginally productive rules. While applying the rules, we should remember that there are always exceptions.
●● Affixation
4.1 Affixation.
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding word-forming or derivaional affixes to stems. This process is also known as derivation, , for new words created in this way are derived from old forms. The words formed in this way are called derivatives. According to the positions which affixes occupy in words, affixation falls into two subclasses: prefixation, and suffixation, .
●●● Prefixation
4.1.1 Prefixation
Prefixation is the formation of new words by adding prefixes to stems. Prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but only modify its meaning. However, present-day English finds an increasing number of class-changing prefixes, e.g. asleep a. (a- + v), encourage v. (en- + n), unearth v. (un- + n), de-oil v. (de- + n), postwar a. (post- + n), intercollege a. (inter- + n) and others. These make up only an insignificant number in the huge contemporary vocabulary.
The majority of prefixes are characterized by their non-class-changing nature. Their chief function is to change meanings of the stems. Accordingly, we shall classify prefixes on a semantic basis into eight groups.
1.Negative prefixes: a-, dis- in-(il-,ir-,im-), non-, un-, e.g. amoral (nonmoral), apolitical (not political); disloyal (not loyal), disobey (not obey); injustice (without justice), illegal (not legal), irresistible (not to be resisted), immature (not mature); non-smoker (not a smoker), non-classical (not classical); unfair (not fair), unwilling (not willing). Of this group, un- is by far the most productive and can usually replace in- or dis- with adjectives for actual use as in unreplaceable, unmovable for irreplaceable and immovable.
2.Reversative prefixes: de-, dis-, un-, e.g. decentralize (give greater powers for self-government), de-compose (separate into parts); disunite (become separate), disallow (refuse to allow); unhorse (cause to fall from a horse), unwrap (open). The prefixes of this group can all be found in the previous class. The reason for their separation lies in the meaning.
3. Pejorative prefixes: mal-, mis-, pseudo-, e.g. maltreat (treat badly), malpractice (wrongdoing); misconduct (bad behaviour), mistrust (not to trust); pseudo-friend (false friend), pseudo-science (false science).
4. Prefixes of degree or size: arch-, extra-, hyper-, macro-, micro-, mini-, out-, over-, sub-, super-, sur-, ultra-, under-, e.g. archbishop (a priest in charge of bishops in a large area); extra-strong (very strong), hyperactive (extremely active); macrocosm (the universe); microcomputer (very small computer); mini-election (small-scale election); outlive (live longer than); overweight (weighing more than normal); subheading (secondary heading); superfreeze (freeze to a very low temperature); surtax (tax too much); ultra-conservative (extremely conservative); underdeveloped (less developed).
5. Prefixes of orientation and attitude: anti-, contra-, counter-, pro-, e.g. anti-nuclear, anti-government; contraflow (the arrangement for the traffic to go on both directions on one side of the road); pro-student (on the side of the student), pro-democracy (supporting democracy).
6. Locative prefixes: extra-, fore-, inter-, intra-, tele-, trans-, e.g. extraordinary (more than ordinary), extramarital (outside marriage); forehead, forearm; inter-city (between cities), interpersonal (concerning relations between people); intra-party (within the party); telecommunication (communication by telephone, radio, television, etc.); trans-world (across
the, world), transcontinental (across the continent).
7. Prefixes of time and order: ex-, fore-, post-, pre-, re-, e.g. ex-professor (former professor), ex-student (former student); foretell (tell before happening), foreknowledge (knowledge before happening); post-election (after election); pre-prepared (prepared beforehand); reconsider (consider again).
8. Number prefixes: bi-, multi-(poly_), semi-(hemi-), tri-, uni-(mono-), e.g. bicycle, bilingual (concerning two languages); multi-purpose (more than one purpose), polysyllable (more than one syllable); semi-naked (half naked), hemisphere (a half of the earth on either side of equator); tricycle (a vehicle with three wheels); uniform (not different), monorail (one rail).
9. Miscellaneous prefixes: auto-, neo-, pan-, vice-, e.g. autobiography (biography written by oneself), neo-Nazi (new Nazi); pan-European (the whole of Europe); vice-chairman (deputy chairman).
Some highly productive prefixes:
de-: meaning "negation, reversal, removal"
decentralize, depenalize, defocus, depoliticize, defrost, defog, deschool (abolish traditional schools), devalue (lessen the value of), defeather, depost, deplane, detrain (get off)
non-: added to nouns, adjectives and adverbs, meaning "not, not important, of little value, not traditional"
non-scientific, non-musician, non-additive, non-book, non-friend, non-hero, non-novel, non-topic, con-conversation
anti-: traditionally meaning "against, preventing"
anti-crime, anti-fat, anti-noise
newly meaning "against traditional characteristics"
anti-art, anti-music, anti-novelist, anti-theatre
E.g. In my happier nightmare," he adds, "I see myself attending an anti-play with an anti-audience after a dinner prepared by an anti-cook."
mini-: meaning "very small"
mini-cinema, min-crisis, mini-war, mini-election, mini-boom, mini-lecture, mini-bikini, mini-by-pass
home contact us previous unit next unit
Exercise
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
In modern times, the expansion of (1) is mainly through word-formation. The major means of word?formation are (2) , (3)and (4) . It is estimated that affixation supplies modern English with (5)percent of its new vocabulary, (6)gives 28 to 30 per cent and 26 percent of new words come from (7). Shortening, such as clipping, (8)etc. also plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, resulting in amount up to eight to (9) percent.
Answer
1. vocabulary 2. affixation 3. compounding 4. conversion 5. 30-40
6. compounding 7. conversion 8. acronymy 9. ten
close
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
Affixation, also called (1), is the formation of new words by adding affixes to (2). While (3) is to create new words by adding prefixes to bases, suffixation makes new words by adding (4) to stems. Generally speaking, prefixes do not change part of (5) of the stems but their (6) whereas (7) do.
Answer
1. derivation 2. stems 3. prefixation 4. suffixes
5. speech 6. meaning 7. suffixes
close
What is the best way to classify prefixes? Why?
Answer
The best way to classify prefixes is in accordance with meaning because prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but its meaning. close
Form negatives of each of the following words by using one of these prefixes dis-, il-, im-, in-, ir-, non-, un-.
Answer
close
Match Column A with Column B and give two examples for each.
A
B
Examples
Trans
before
mono
over, above
super
one
auto-
many
sub-
self
mal-
little, small
multi-
bad, badly
mini-
below
pre-
across
ex-
former
Answer
trans- = across: transcontinental, transword
mono- = one: monorail, nonoculture
super- = over, above: superstructure, supernatural
auto- = self: autobiography, automobile
sub- = bad, badly: malpractice, malnutrition
mini- = little, small: minicrisis, miniwar
pre- = before: prehistorical, preelection
ex- = former: ex-teacher, ex-filmer
close
Close
1. Have a knowledge of the major means of word-formation;
2. Understand the contribution of each means in proportion to other means;
3. Learn how to classify prefixes;
4. Learn how to form new words with prefix.
Objectives
Main points
Introduction
Affixation
Prefixation
Exercise
TOP
Unit 5
● Word Formation II
●● Introduction
The expansion of vocabulary in modern English depends chiefly on word-formation. There is a variety of means being at work now. The most productive are affixation, , compounding, and conversion, . According to Pyles and Algeo (1982), words produced through affixation constitute 30% to 40% of the total number of new words; compounding yields 28% to 30% of all the new words; conversion gives us 26% of the new vocabulary. The rest of the new words come from shortening, including clipping, and acronymy, , amounting to 8% to 10%, together with 1% to 5% of words born out of blending, and other means.
Talking about word-forming patterns means dealing with rules. But a rule of word-formation usually differs from a syntactic rule. Not all the words that are produced by applying the rule are acceptable. For example, the existence of the actual English words unclean, unwise, unfair does not ensure the acceptance of * unexcelled. Therefore, rules only provide a constant set of models from which new words are created from day to day. Rules themselves are not fixed but undergo changes to a certain extent. For instance, affixes and compounding processes may become productive on one time, e.g. de-, non-, -teria, -wise (defog, non-hero, cafeteria, weatherwise) or lose their productivity, e.g. the Old English -th which is found in warmth, length, depth, width, breadth derived from adjectives warm, long, deep, wide, broad is no longer used to form new words, * coolth (Quirk, et al 1985). By word-formation processes, we concentrate on productive or on marginally productive rules. While applying the rules, we should remember that there are always exceptions.
●● Affixation
4.1 Affixation.
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding word-forming or derivaional affixes to stems. This process is also known as derivation, , for new words created in this way are derived from old forms. The words formed in this way are called derivatives. According to the positions which affixes occupy in words, affixation falls into two subclasses: prefixation, and suffixation, .
●●● Prefixation
4.1.1 Prefixation
Prefixation is the formation of new words by adding prefixes to stems. Prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but only modify its meaning. However, present-day English finds an increasing number of class-changing prefixes, e.g. asleep a. (a- + v), encourage v. (en- + n), unearth v. (un- + n), de-oil v. (de- + n), postwar a. (post- + n), intercollege a. (inter- + n) and others. These make up only an insignificant number in the huge contemporary vocabulary.
The majority of prefixes are characterized by their non-class-changing nature. Their chief function is to change meanings of the stems. Accordingly, we shall classify prefixes on a semantic basis into eight groups.
1.Negative prefixes: a-, dis- in-(il-,ir-,im-), non-, un-, e.g. amoral (nonmoral), apolitical (not political); disloyal (not loyal), disobey (not obey); injustice (without justice), illegal (not legal), irresistible (not to be resisted), immature (not mature); non-smoker (not a smoker), non-classical (not classical); unfair (not fair), unwilling (not willing). Of this group, un- is by far the most productive and can usually replace in- or dis- with adjectives for actual use as in unreplaceable, unmovable for irreplaceable and immovable.
2.Reversative prefixes: de-, dis-, un-, e.g. decentralize (give greater powers for self-government), de-compose (separate into parts); disunite (become separate), disallow (refuse to allow); unhorse (cause to fall from a horse), unwrap (open). The prefixes of this group can all be found in the previous class. The reason for their separation lies in the meaning.
3. Pejorative prefixes: mal-, mis-, pseudo-, e.g. maltreat (treat badly), malpractice (wrongdoing); misconduct (bad behaviour), mistrust (not to trust); pseudo-friend (false friend), pseudo-science (false science).
4. Prefixes of degree or size: arch-, extra-, hyper-, macro-, micro-, mini-, out-, over-, sub-, super-, sur-, ultra-, under-, e.g. archbishop (a priest in charge of bishops in a large area); extra-strong (very strong), hyperactive (extremely active); macrocosm (the universe); microcomputer (very small computer); mini-election (small-scale election); outlive (live longer than); overweight (weighing more than normal); subheading (secondary heading); superfreeze (freeze to a very low temperature); surtax (tax too much); ultra-conservative (extremely conservative); underdeveloped (less developed).
5. Prefixes of orientation and attitude: anti-, contra-, counter-, pro-, e.g. anti-nuclear, anti-government; contraflow (the arrangement for the traffic to go on both directions on one side of the road); pro-student (on the side of the student), pro-democracy (supporting democracy).
6. Locative prefixes: extra-, fore-, inter-, intra-, tele-, trans-, e.g. extraordinary (more than ordinary), extramarital (outside marriage); forehead, forearm; inter-city (between cities), interpersonal (concerning relations between people); intra-party (within the party); telecommunication (communication by telephone, radio, television, etc.); trans-world (across
the, world), transcontinental (across the continent).
7. Prefixes of time and order: ex-, fore-, post-, pre-, re-, e.g. ex-professor (former professor), ex-student (former student); foretell (tell before happening), foreknowledge (knowledge before happening); post-election (after election); pre-prepared (prepared beforehand); reconsider (consider again).
8. Number prefixes: bi-, multi-(poly_), semi-(hemi-), tri-, uni-(mono-), e.g. bicycle, bilingual (concerning two languages); multi-purpose (more than one purpose), polysyllable (more than one syllable); semi-naked (half naked), hemisphere (a half of the earth on either side of equator); tricycle (a vehicle with three wheels); uniform (not different), monorail (one rail).
9. Miscellaneous prefixes: auto-, neo-, pan-, vice-, e.g. autobiography (biography written by oneself), neo-Nazi (new Nazi); pan-European (the whole of Europe); vice-chairman (deputy chairman).
Some highly productive prefixes:
de-: meaning "negation, reversal, removal"
decentralize, depenalize, defocus, depoliticize, defrost, defog, deschool (abolish traditional schools), devalue (lessen the value of), defeather, depost, deplane, detrain (get off)
non-: added to nouns, adjectives and adverbs, meaning "not, not important, of little value, not traditional"
non-scientific, non-musician, non-additive, non-book, non-friend, non-hero, non-novel, non-topic, con-conversation
anti-: traditionally meaning "against, preventing"
anti-crime, anti-fat, anti-noise
newly meaning "against traditional characteristics"
anti-art, anti-music, anti-novelist, anti-theatre
E.g. In my happier nightmare," he adds, "I see myself attending an anti-play with an anti-audience after a dinner prepared by an anti-cook."
mini-: meaning "very small"
mini-cinema, min-crisis, mini-war, mini-election, mini-boom, mini-lecture, mini-bikini, mini-by-pass
Exercise
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
In modern times, the expansion of (1) is mainly through word-formation. The major means of word?formation are (2) , (3)and (4) . It is estimated that affixation supplies modern English with (5)percent of its new vocabulary, (6)gives 28 to 30 per cent and 26 percent of new words come from (7). Shortening, such as clipping, (8)etc. also plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, resulting in amount up to eight to (9) percent.
Answer
1. vocabulary 2. affixation 3. compounding 4. conversion 5. 30-40
6. compounding 7. conversion 8. acronymy 9. ten
close
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
Affixation, also called (1), is the formation of new words by adding affixes to (2). While (3) is to create new words by adding prefixes to bases, suffixation makes new words by adding (4) to stems. Generally speaking, prefixes do not change part of (5) of the stems but their (6) whereas (7) do.
Answer
1. derivation 2. stems 3. prefixation 4. suffixes
5. speech 6. meaning 7. suffixes
close
girth Look up girth at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "belt around a horse's body," from O.N. gjorð "girdle, belt, hoop," from P.Gmc. *gertu- (cf Goth. gairda "girdle"), from the same source as gird. Sense of "measurement around an object" first recorded 1640s.
surcingle Look up surcingle at Dictionary.com
"a girth for a horse," late 14c., from O.Fr. surcengle, from sur- "over" + cengle "a girdle," from L. cingulum "girth" (see cinch).
cinch Look up cinch at Dictionary.com
1859, Amer.Eng., "saddle-girth," from Sp. cincha "girdle," from L. cingulum "a girdle, a swordbelt," from cingere "to surround, encircle," from PIE base *kenk- "to gird, encircle." Replaced earlier surcingle. Sense of "an easy thing" is 1898, via notion of "a sure hold" (1888). The verb is first recorded 1866. Related: Cinched; cinching.
Length and width
length
noun
a measurement of how long something is in size
width
noun
the distance from one side of something to the other
depth
noun
the distance from the front to the back of something, for example a cupboard or drawer
breadth
noun
the distance from one side of an object to the other
span
noun
the width of something
spread
noun
the width of something
girth
noun
the distance round something thick and round, for example a tree
length
noun
the distance from one end of something to the other
gauge
noun
a way of saying how thick something is, especially something made of metal, wire, or plastic
thickness
noun
the measurement of how thick something is
home contact us previous unit next unit
Exercise
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
In modern times, the expansion of (1) is mainly through word-formation. The major means of word?formation are (2) , (3)and (4) . It is estimated that affixation supplies modern English with (5)percent of its new vocabulary, (6)gives 28 to 30 per cent and 26 percent of new words come from (7). Shortening, such as clipping, (8)etc. also plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, resulting in amount up to eight to (9) percent.
Answer
1. vocabulary 2. affixation 3. compounding 4. conversion 5. 30-40
6. compounding 7. conversion 8. acronymy 9. ten
close
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
Affixation, also called (1), is the formation of new words by adding affixes to (2). While (3) is to create new words by adding prefixes to bases, suffixation makes new words by adding (4) to stems. Generally speaking, prefixes do not change part of (5) of the stems but their (6) whereas (7) do.
Answer
1. derivation 2. stems 3. prefixation 4. suffixes
5. speech 6. meaning 7. suffixes
close
What is the best way to classify prefixes? Why?
Answer
The best way to classify prefixes is in accordance with meaning because prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but its meaning. close
Form negatives of each of the following words by using one of these prefixes dis-, il-, im-, in-, ir-, non-, un-.
Answer
close
Match Column A with Column B and give two examples for each.
A
B
Examples
Trans
before
mono
over, above
super
one
auto-
many
sub-
self
mal-
little, small
multi-
bad, badly
mini-
below
pre-
across
ex-
former
Answer
trans- = across: transcontinental, transword
mono- = one: monorail, nonoculture
super- = over, above: superstructure, supernatural
auto- = self: autobiography, automobile
sub- = bad, badly: malpractice, malnutrition
mini- = little, small: minicrisis, miniwar
pre- = before: prehistorical, preelection
ex- = former: ex-teacher, ex-filmer
close
Close
1. Have a knowledge of the major means of word-formation;
2. Understand the contribution of each means in proportion to other means;
3. Learn how to classify prefixes;
4. Learn how to form new words with prefix.
Objectives
Main points
Introduction
Affixation
Prefixation
Exercise
TOP
Unit 5
● Word Formation II
●● Introduction
The expansion of vocabulary in modern English depends chiefly on word-formation. There is a variety of means being at work now. The most productive are affixation, , compounding, and conversion, . According to Pyles and Algeo (1982), words produced through affixation constitute 30% to 40% of the total number of new words; compounding yields 28% to 30% of all the new words; conversion gives us 26% of the new vocabulary. The rest of the new words come from shortening, including clipping, and acronymy, , amounting to 8% to 10%, together with 1% to 5% of words born out of blending, and other means.
Talking about word-forming patterns means dealing with rules. But a rule of word-formation usually differs from a syntactic rule. Not all the words that are produced by applying the rule are acceptable. For example, the existence of the actual English words unclean, unwise, unfair does not ensure the acceptance of * unexcelled. Therefore, rules only provide a constant set of models from which new words are created from day to day. Rules themselves are not fixed but undergo changes to a certain extent. For instance, affixes and compounding processes may become productive on one time, e.g. de-, non-, -teria, -wise (defog, non-hero, cafeteria, weatherwise) or lose their productivity, e.g. the Old English -th which is found in warmth, length, depth, width, breadth derived from adjectives warm, long, deep, wide, broad is no longer used to form new words, * coolth (Quirk, et al 1985). By word-formation processes, we concentrate on productive or on marginally productive rules. While applying the rules, we should remember that there are always exceptions.
●● Affixation
4.1 Affixation.
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding word-forming or derivaional affixes to stems. This process is also known as derivation, , for new words created in this way are derived from old forms. The words formed in this way are called derivatives. According to the positions which affixes occupy in words, affixation falls into two subclasses: prefixation, and suffixation, .
●●● Prefixation
4.1.1 Prefixation
Prefixation is the formation of new words by adding prefixes to stems. Prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but only modify its meaning. However, present-day English finds an increasing number of class-changing prefixes, e.g. asleep a. (a- + v), encourage v. (en- + n), unearth v. (un- + n), de-oil v. (de- + n), postwar a. (post- + n), intercollege a. (inter- + n) and others. These make up only an insignificant number in the huge contemporary vocabulary.
The majority of prefixes are characterized by their non-class-changing nature. Their chief function is to change meanings of the stems. Accordingly, we shall classify prefixes on a semantic basis into eight groups.
1.Negative prefixes: a-, dis- in-(il-,ir-,im-), non-, un-, e.g. amoral (nonmoral), apolitical (not political); disloyal (not loyal), disobey (not obey); injustice (without justice), illegal (not legal), irresistible (not to be resisted), immature (not mature); non-smoker (not a smoker), non-classical (not classical); unfair (not fair), unwilling (not willing). Of this group, un- is by far the most productive and can usually replace in- or dis- with adjectives for actual use as in unreplaceable, unmovable for irreplaceable and immovable.
2.Reversative prefixes: de-, dis-, un-, e.g. decentralize (give greater powers for self-government), de-compose (separate into parts); disunite (become separate), disallow (refuse to allow); unhorse (cause to fall from a horse), unwrap (open). The prefixes of this group can all be found in the previous class. The reason for their separation lies in the meaning.
3. Pejorative prefixes: mal-, mis-, pseudo-, e.g. maltreat (treat badly), malpractice (wrongdoing); misconduct (bad behaviour), mistrust (not to trust); pseudo-friend (false friend), pseudo-science (false science).
4. Prefixes of degree or size: arch-, extra-, hyper-, macro-, micro-, mini-, out-, over-, sub-, super-, sur-, ultra-, under-, e.g. archbishop (a priest in charge of bishops in a large area); extra-strong (very strong), hyperactive (extremely active); macrocosm (the universe); microcomputer (very small computer); mini-election (small-scale election); outlive (live longer than); overweight (weighing more than normal); subheading (secondary heading); superfreeze (freeze to a very low temperature); surtax (tax too much); ultra-conservative (extremely conservative); underdeveloped (less developed).
5. Prefixes of orientation and attitude: anti-, contra-, counter-, pro-, e.g. anti-nuclear, anti-government; contraflow (the arrangement for the traffic to go on both directions on one side of the road); pro-student (on the side of the student), pro-democracy (supporting democracy).
6. Locative prefixes: extra-, fore-, inter-, intra-, tele-, trans-, e.g. extraordinary (more than ordinary), extramarital (outside marriage); forehead, forearm; inter-city (between cities), interpersonal (concerning relations between people); intra-party (within the party); telecommunication (communication by telephone, radio, television, etc.); trans-world (across
the, world), transcontinental (across the continent).
7. Prefixes of time and order: ex-, fore-, post-, pre-, re-, e.g. ex-professor (former professor), ex-student (former student); foretell (tell before happening), foreknowledge (knowledge before happening); post-election (after election); pre-prepared (prepared beforehand); reconsider (consider again).
8. Number prefixes: bi-, multi-(poly_), semi-(hemi-), tri-, uni-(mono-), e.g. bicycle, bilingual (concerning two languages); multi-purpose (more than one purpose), polysyllable (more than one syllable); semi-naked (half naked), hemisphere (a half of the earth on either side of equator); tricycle (a vehicle with three wheels); uniform (not different), monorail (one rail).
9. Miscellaneous prefixes: auto-, neo-, pan-, vice-, e.g. autobiography (biography written by oneself), neo-Nazi (new Nazi); pan-European (the whole of Europe); vice-chairman (deputy chairman).
Some highly productive prefixes:
de-: meaning "negation, reversal, removal"
decentralize, depenalize, defocus, depoliticize, defrost, defog, deschool (abolish traditional schools), devalue (lessen the value of), defeather, depost, deplane, detrain (get off)
non-: added to nouns, adjectives and adverbs, meaning "not, not important, of little value, not traditional"
non-scientific, non-musician, non-additive, non-book, non-friend, non-hero, non-novel, non-topic, con-conversation
anti-: traditionally meaning "against, preventing"
anti-crime, anti-fat, anti-noise
newly meaning "against traditional characteristics"
anti-art, anti-music, anti-novelist, anti-theatre
E.g. In my happier nightmare," he adds, "I see myself attending an anti-play with an anti-audience after a dinner prepared by an anti-cook."
mini-: meaning "very small"
mini-cinema, min-crisis, mini-war, mini-election, mini-boom, mini-lecture, mini-bikini, mini-by-pass
home contact us previous unit next unit
Exercise
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
In modern times, the expansion of (1) is mainly through word-formation. The major means of word?formation are (2) , (3)and (4) . It is estimated that affixation supplies modern English with (5)percent of its new vocabulary, (6)gives 28 to 30 per cent and 26 percent of new words come from (7). Shortening, such as clipping, (8)etc. also plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, resulting in amount up to eight to (9) percent.
Answer
1. vocabulary 2. affixation 3. compounding 4. conversion 5. 30-40
6. compounding 7. conversion 8. acronymy 9. ten
close
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
Affixation, also called (1), is the formation of new words by adding affixes to (2). While (3) is to create new words by adding prefixes to bases, suffixation makes new words by adding (4) to stems. Generally speaking, prefixes do not change part of (5) of the stems but their (6) whereas (7) do.
Answer
1. derivation 2. stems 3. prefixation 4. suffixes
5. speech 6. meaning 7. suffixes
close
What is the best way to classify prefixes? Why?
Answer
The best way to classify prefixes is in accordance with meaning because prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but its meaning. close
Form negatives of each of the following words by using one of these prefixes dis-, il-, im-, in-, ir-, non-, un-.
Answer
close
Match Column A with Column B and give two examples for each.
A
B
Examples
Trans
before
mono
over, above
super
one
auto-
many
sub-
self
mal-
little, small
multi-
bad, badly
mini-
below
pre-
across
ex-
former
Answer
trans- = across: transcontinental, transword
mono- = one: monorail, nonoculture
super- = over, above: superstructure, supernatural
auto- = self: autobiography, automobile
sub- = bad, badly: malpractice, malnutrition
mini- = little, small: minicrisis, miniwar
pre- = before: prehistorical, preelection
ex- = former: ex-teacher, ex-filmer
close
Close
1. Have a knowledge of the major means of word-formation;
2. Understand the contribution of each means in proportion to other means;
3. Learn how to classify prefixes;
4. Learn how to form new words with prefix.
Objectives
Main points
Introduction
Affixation
Prefixation
Exercise
TOP
Unit 5
● Word Formation II
●● Introduction
The expansion of vocabulary in modern English depends chiefly on word-formation. There is a variety of means being at work now. The most productive are affixation, , compounding, and conversion, . According to Pyles and Algeo (1982), words produced through affixation constitute 30% to 40% of the total number of new words; compounding yields 28% to 30% of all the new words; conversion gives us 26% of the new vocabulary. The rest of the new words come from shortening, including clipping, and acronymy, , amounting to 8% to 10%, together with 1% to 5% of words born out of blending, and other means.
Talking about word-forming patterns means dealing with rules. But a rule of word-formation usually differs from a syntactic rule. Not all the words that are produced by applying the rule are acceptable. For example, the existence of the actual English words unclean, unwise, unfair does not ensure the acceptance of * unexcelled. Therefore, rules only provide a constant set of models from which new words are created from day to day. Rules themselves are not fixed but undergo changes to a certain extent. For instance, affixes and compounding processes may become productive on one time, e.g. de-, non-, -teria, -wise (defog, non-hero, cafeteria, weatherwise) or lose their productivity, e.g. the Old English -th which is found in warmth, length, depth, width, breadth derived from adjectives warm, long, deep, wide, broad is no longer used to form new words, * coolth (Quirk, et al 1985). By word-formation processes, we concentrate on productive or on marginally productive rules. While applying the rules, we should remember that there are always exceptions.
●● Affixation
4.1 Affixation.
Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding word-forming or derivaional affixes to stems. This process is also known as derivation, , for new words created in this way are derived from old forms. The words formed in this way are called derivatives. According to the positions which affixes occupy in words, affixation falls into two subclasses: prefixation, and suffixation, .
●●● Prefixation
4.1.1 Prefixation
Prefixation is the formation of new words by adding prefixes to stems. Prefixes do not generally change the word-class of the stem but only modify its meaning. However, present-day English finds an increasing number of class-changing prefixes, e.g. asleep a. (a- + v), encourage v. (en- + n), unearth v. (un- + n), de-oil v. (de- + n), postwar a. (post- + n), intercollege a. (inter- + n) and others. These make up only an insignificant number in the huge contemporary vocabulary.
The majority of prefixes are characterized by their non-class-changing nature. Their chief function is to change meanings of the stems. Accordingly, we shall classify prefixes on a semantic basis into eight groups.
1.Negative prefixes: a-, dis- in-(il-,ir-,im-), non-, un-, e.g. amoral (nonmoral), apolitical (not political); disloyal (not loyal), disobey (not obey); injustice (without justice), illegal (not legal), irresistible (not to be resisted), immature (not mature); non-smoker (not a smoker), non-classical (not classical); unfair (not fair), unwilling (not willing). Of this group, un- is by far the most productive and can usually replace in- or dis- with adjectives for actual use as in unreplaceable, unmovable for irreplaceable and immovable.
2.Reversative prefixes: de-, dis-, un-, e.g. decentralize (give greater powers for self-government), de-compose (separate into parts); disunite (become separate), disallow (refuse to allow); unhorse (cause to fall from a horse), unwrap (open). The prefixes of this group can all be found in the previous class. The reason for their separation lies in the meaning.
3. Pejorative prefixes: mal-, mis-, pseudo-, e.g. maltreat (treat badly), malpractice (wrongdoing); misconduct (bad behaviour), mistrust (not to trust); pseudo-friend (false friend), pseudo-science (false science).
4. Prefixes of degree or size: arch-, extra-, hyper-, macro-, micro-, mini-, out-, over-, sub-, super-, sur-, ultra-, under-, e.g. archbishop (a priest in charge of bishops in a large area); extra-strong (very strong), hyperactive (extremely active); macrocosm (the universe); microcomputer (very small computer); mini-election (small-scale election); outlive (live longer than); overweight (weighing more than normal); subheading (secondary heading); superfreeze (freeze to a very low temperature); surtax (tax too much); ultra-conservative (extremely conservative); underdeveloped (less developed).
5. Prefixes of orientation and attitude: anti-, contra-, counter-, pro-, e.g. anti-nuclear, anti-government; contraflow (the arrangement for the traffic to go on both directions on one side of the road); pro-student (on the side of the student), pro-democracy (supporting democracy).
6. Locative prefixes: extra-, fore-, inter-, intra-, tele-, trans-, e.g. extraordinary (more than ordinary), extramarital (outside marriage); forehead, forearm; inter-city (between cities), interpersonal (concerning relations between people); intra-party (within the party); telecommunication (communication by telephone, radio, television, etc.); trans-world (across
the, world), transcontinental (across the continent).
7. Prefixes of time and order: ex-, fore-, post-, pre-, re-, e.g. ex-professor (former professor), ex-student (former student); foretell (tell before happening), foreknowledge (knowledge before happening); post-election (after election); pre-prepared (prepared beforehand); reconsider (consider again).
8. Number prefixes: bi-, multi-(poly_), semi-(hemi-), tri-, uni-(mono-), e.g. bicycle, bilingual (concerning two languages); multi-purpose (more than one purpose), polysyllable (more than one syllable); semi-naked (half naked), hemisphere (a half of the earth on either side of equator); tricycle (a vehicle with three wheels); uniform (not different), monorail (one rail).
9. Miscellaneous prefixes: auto-, neo-, pan-, vice-, e.g. autobiography (biography written by oneself), neo-Nazi (new Nazi); pan-European (the whole of Europe); vice-chairman (deputy chairman).
Some highly productive prefixes:
de-: meaning "negation, reversal, removal"
decentralize, depenalize, defocus, depoliticize, defrost, defog, deschool (abolish traditional schools), devalue (lessen the value of), defeather, depost, deplane, detrain (get off)
non-: added to nouns, adjectives and adverbs, meaning "not, not important, of little value, not traditional"
non-scientific, non-musician, non-additive, non-book, non-friend, non-hero, non-novel, non-topic, con-conversation
anti-: traditionally meaning "against, preventing"
anti-crime, anti-fat, anti-noise
newly meaning "against traditional characteristics"
anti-art, anti-music, anti-novelist, anti-theatre
E.g. In my happier nightmare," he adds, "I see myself attending an anti-play with an anti-audience after a dinner prepared by an anti-cook."
mini-: meaning "very small"
mini-cinema, min-crisis, mini-war, mini-election, mini-boom, mini-lecture, mini-bikini, mini-by-pass
Exercise
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
In modern times, the expansion of (1) is mainly through word-formation. The major means of word?formation are (2) , (3)and (4) . It is estimated that affixation supplies modern English with (5)percent of its new vocabulary, (6)gives 28 to 30 per cent and 26 percent of new words come from (7). Shortening, such as clipping, (8)etc. also plays an important role in the development of vocabulary, resulting in amount up to eight to (9) percent.
Answer
1. vocabulary 2. affixation 3. compounding 4. conversion 5. 30-40
6. compounding 7. conversion 8. acronymy 9. ten
close
Fill in the blanks with an appropriate word according to the text.
Affixation, also called (1), is the formation of new words by adding affixes to (2). While (3) is to create new words by adding prefixes to bases, suffixation makes new words by adding (4) to stems. Generally speaking, prefixes do not change part of (5) of the stems but their (6) whereas (7) do.
Answer
1. derivation 2. stems 3. prefixation 4. suffixes
5. speech 6. meaning 7. suffixes
close
girth Look up girth at Dictionary.com
c.1300, "belt around a horse's body," from O.N. gjorð "girdle, belt, hoop," from P.Gmc. *gertu- (cf Goth. gairda "girdle"), from the same source as gird. Sense of "measurement around an object" first recorded 1640s.
surcingle Look up surcingle at Dictionary.com
"a girth for a horse," late 14c., from O.Fr. surcengle, from sur- "over" + cengle "a girdle," from L. cingulum "girth" (see cinch).
cinch Look up cinch at Dictionary.com
1859, Amer.Eng., "saddle-girth," from Sp. cincha "girdle," from L. cingulum "a girdle, a swordbelt," from cingere "to surround, encircle," from PIE base *kenk- "to gird, encircle." Replaced earlier surcingle. Sense of "an easy thing" is 1898, via notion of "a sure hold" (1888). The verb is first recorded 1866. Related: Cinched; cinching.
Greens and nuclear power after the tsunami: Politically incorrect.
Note: I often repeat :
our job in EEOOII is not to correct your views : We examine you NOT on what you say, rather , on HOW you say it : rich vocabulary, a good use of the reources of the English language. My own tastes may run to the politically incorrect, but I post stuff on the topics we deal with mainly forn their use of English.
The following is written by G.Monbiot, a great "guru" for English "greens" who publishes in the "Guardian".His opponents refer to him as "Moonbat": the moon is associated with lunacy and impracticality, madness also with bats, batty, battiness, other expressions for the same.
click here for original article
My fisking in colour
Like most greens, I favour a major expansion of renewables. I can also sympathise with the complaints of their opponents. It's not just the onshore( when opposed to offshore = in the sea, onshore does NOT mean on shore, on the coast, but rather, on land. This meaning of onshore should be written as one word, but often isn't )windfarms that bother people, but also the new grid connections (pylons and power lines(Pic:Pylons carrying power lines. In a network these are called the (+ or-national/power/electricity) grid. ). As the proportion of renewable electricity on the grid rises, more pumped storage will be needed to keep the lights on. That means reservoirs on( we normally say in the mountains, Goerge Monbiot here says on the mountains, the preposition for surfaces emphasizes how much AREA valuable wild picturesque national heritage dams and reservoirs cover) : they aren't popular, either.
our job in EEOOII is not to correct your views : We examine you NOT on what you say, rather , on HOW you say it : rich vocabulary, a good use of the reources of the English language. My own tastes may run to the politically incorrect, but I post stuff on the topics we deal with mainly forn their use of English.
The following is written by G.Monbiot, a great "guru" for English "greens" who publishes in the "Guardian".His opponents refer to him as "Moonbat": the moon is associated with lunacy and impracticality, madness also with bats, batty, battiness, other expressions for the same.
click here for original article
My fisking in colour
You will not be surprised to hear that the events in Japan have changed my view of nuclear power. You will be surprised to hear how they have changed it. As a result of the disaster at Fukushima, I am no longer nuclear-neutral. I now support the technology.
A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.
Some greens have wildly exaggerated the dangers of radioactive pollution. For a clearer view, look at the graphic published by xkcd.com. It shows that the average total dose from the Three Mile Island disaster for someone living within 10 miles of the plant was one 625th of the maximum yearly amount permitted for US radiation workers. This, in turn, is half of the lowest one-year dose clearly linked to an increased cancer risk, which, in its turn, is one 80th of an invariably fatal exposure. I'm not proposing complacency here. I am proposing perspective.
If other forms of energy production caused no damage, these impacts would weigh more heavily. But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are (the chances are= It is probable, the maximum probabilty is) that it doesn't work.
 |
| Pylons carrying power lines. . |
The impacts and costs of renewables rise with the proportion of power they supply, as the need for storage and redundancy increases. It may well be the case (I have yet to see a comparative study) that up to a certain grid penetration – 50% or 70%, perhaps? – renewables have smaller carbon impacts than nuclear, while beyond that point, nuclear has smaller impacts than renewables.
Like others, I have called for renewable power to be used both to replace the electricity produced by fossil fuel and to expand the total supply, displacing the oil used for transport and the gas used for heating fuel. Are we also to demand that it replaces current nuclear capacity? The more work we expect renewables to do, the greater the impact on the landscape will be, and the tougher the task of public persuasion.
But expanding the grid to connect people and industry to rich, distant sources of ambient energy is also rejected by most of the greens who complained about the blog post I wrote last week in which I argued that nuclear remains safer than coal. What they want, they tell me, is something quite different: we should power down (here, to power down = reduce consumption of power) and produce our energy locally. Some have even called for the abandonment of the grid. Their bucolic vision sounds lovely, until you read the small print.
At high latitudes like ours, most small-scale ambient power production is a dead loss( a dead loss a complete loss, a waste of time, useless and unprofitable. dead means completely in a number of expressions, from the idea of irrevocability ). Generating solar power in the UK involves a spectacular waste of scarce resources. It's hopelessly inefficient and poorly matched to the pattern of demand. Wind power in populated areas is largely worthless. This is partly because we have built our settlements in sheltered places; partly because turbulence caused by the buildings interferes with the airflow and chews up (to chew up = masticar completamente = steadily destroy or erode by attrition, friction , chemical or military attack, etc) the mechanism. Micro-hydropower might work for a farmhouse in Wales, but it's not much use in Birmingham.
And how do we drive our textile mills, brick kilns, blast furnaces and electric railways ( useful vocab: a mill is the old word for factory , from when they needed water power, a kiln is an industrial oven , for pottery, bricks, etc, a blast furnace is an alto horno, for iron, )– not to mention advanced industrial processes? Rooftop solar panels? The moment you consider the demands of the whole economy is the moment at which you fall out of love with local energy production. A national (or, better still, international) grid is the essential prerequisite for a largely renewable energy supply.
Some greens go even further: why waste renewable resources by turning them into electricity? Why not use them to provide energy directly? To answer this question, look at what happened in Britain before the industrial revolution.
The damming and weiring of British rivers for watermills was small-scale, renewable, picturesque and devastating. By blocking the rivers and silting up the spawning beds, they helped bring to an end the gigantic runs of migratory fish that were once among our great natural spectacles and which fed much of Britain – wiping out sturgeon, lampreys and shad, as well as most sea trout and salmon.
Traction was intimately linked with starvation. The more land that was set aside for feeding draft animals (draft animals = bestias de carga,but draft = traction, from the basic original meaning of draw, which is tirar,sacar.Hence draw = desenvainar, desenfundar armas, a drawer = un cajon, etc. Draw is NOT =dibujar.It ONLY means dibujar from the old expression draw a likeness of, sacar un semejanza de.) for industry and transport, the less was available for feeding humans. It was the 17th-century equivalent of today's biofuels crisis. The same applied to heating fuel. As EA Wrigley points out in his book Energy and the English Industrial Revolution, the 11m tonnes of coal mined in England in 1800 produced as much energy as 11m acres of woodland (one third of the land surface) would have generated.
Before coal became widely available, wood was used not just for heating homes but also for industrial processes: if half the land surface of Britain had been covered with woodland, Wrigley shows, we could have made 1.25m tonnes of bar iron a year (a fraction of current consumption) and nothing else. Even with a much lower population than today's, manufactured goods in the land-based economy were the preserve(here preserve = coto privado) of the elite. Deep green energy production – decentralised, based on the products of the land – is far more damaging to humanity than nuclear meltdown.
But the energy source to which most economies will revert if they shut down their nuclear plants is not wood, water, wind or sun, but fossil fuel. On every measure (climate change, mining impact, local pollution, industrial injury and death, even radioactive discharges) coal is 100 times worse than nuclear power. Thanks to the expansion of shale gas production, the impacts of natural gas are catching up fast.
Yes, I still loathe the liars who run the nuclear industry. Yes, I would prefer to see the entire sector shut down, if there were harmless alternatives. But there are no ideal solutions. Every energy technology carries a cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power.
Friday, 14 January 2011
What's in a name? . interesting vocabulary The american "civility"game. under construction
Wake Forest was playing a basketball game a number of years back, on the road at Duke. I was working that game and got a chuckle from the Duke students who were, in unison, chanting the full words for the term "BS" about calls they disagreed with. One official informed Duke Head Coach Mike Krzyzewski that his team was in danger of earning a technical foul if the fans didn't stop using that word. So the coach grabbed a mike and asked the stadium not to say that word again. Sure enough a minute or so later there was an arguable call that went against Duke and the students immediately chanted, in unison, "We beg to differ!". Very clever.
Shutting down speech with threats can work, but only if the punishment behind the threat is real. Since the left cannot shut down free speech directly, it chooses to seek secondary avenues. Some of those include using government agencies, which the left seeks to do with the FCC, for example, in an attempt to find ways to limit conservative talk radio. One attempt in the mix on the left is to force local radio stations to program their airtime to "reflect the community." Which is to say, for example, forcing KFI in Los Angeles to cease being a predominantly conservative talk station and force it to offer more liberal viewpoints. A backdoor attempt at reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Now I don't imagine the left will get very far with this attempt, for it's problematic on many levels.
So what does the left do if it cannot force, through legislation or judicial fiat or government might, a quieting of the voices that dissent from its orthodoxy? Well it does what it does best. It demonizes. The left is extremely good at that. So good that they are able to demonize while using language that sounds not only non-offensive, but downright, well.... civil.
Surely the left will continue, as always, to use core speech weapons, the "-ist" and the "-phobic" to bludgeon those who disagree. There will be no shortage of tagging conservatives as "racist, sexist, homophobic." The left has no issue with wielding those incendiary words since the left deems those words to be civil. They are not civil, but since the left believes it is the sole arbiter of our language, it can make up the rules as it goes along.
This brings us to the new tactic. Using soft speech weapons. They have been waiting for any reason to trot out the new weapon, to use it in all its power and glory to the cause. So anxious that they chose a horrific event, the murders of 6 people and the injuries to numerous others in an assassination attempt, to force the weapon into the game. It doesn't matter that the left chose to be as grossly un-civil as any political party could be in the slanders they immediately launched into, that's not an issue. No, no, no the issue is the civility of the language at large in political discourse.
Civil speech is desirable because it allows us Americans to have true honest political discourse. The left will make the rules defining civil discourse, everyone else will have to agree to those rules or face labeling and attacks for refusing to go along (again not an un-civil action by the left since the means justify the end). The rules will be simple. You cannot use any "attack words" against a politician. That's it. Sounds reasonable and smart. Of course you do know, of course, what constitutes "attack words"? If not, allow me to help you out with a short list of approvable language.
Attack words
- "Socialist" -- Socialist is an attack word. It is used only for the reason of falsely smearing an opponent.
- "Marxist" - Marxist is an attack word. Worse than 'socialist' and used only for the reason of falsely smearing an opponent.
- "Unpatriotic" -- Unpatriotic is an attack word. It is used only to falsely smear an opponent.
- "Patriotic" -- Patriotic is an attack word used to marginalize opponents by attempting to falsely claim you have the nation's best interests at heart.
- "Terrorist" -- Terrorist is an attack word used to marginalize individuals or groups, even those guilty of terroristic acts.
- "God, Jesus, Bible, et al" -- Attack words used to force moral certainties onto people for nefarious reasons.
- "America" -- America is an attack word because it implies America is not guilty of horrific crimes against humanity.
- "Target, Battle, Fight, Crosshairs, et al" -- All war language is classified as attack language. Except for the word "attack" which is descriptive only for citing attack words.
Non-attack words
- "Racist" -- Racist is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect racial and ethnic minorities from harm. Even if it is almost exclusively used falsely.
- "Homophobic" -- Homophobic is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect sexual minorities from harm.
- "Islamophobic" -- Islamophbobic is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect one particular religious minority from harm.
- "Sexist" -- Sexist is not an attack word. It is used to protect a gender majority from harm.
- "Intolerant" -- Intolerant is not an attack word. It is used to promote tolerance of all views, except those intolerant ones that tolerance can not tolerate.
- "Xenophobic" -- Xenophobic is not an attack word. It is used to show proof that any view of America as the world's greatest nation is intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobic and most notably at the moment, Islamophobic.
- "Wingnut, Nutball" -- Not attack words if used properly to describe the mental state of opponents, clarified by facts presented in the media.
- "Teabaggers" -- Teabagger is not an attack word. It is used to describe intolerant winguts and nutballs.
- "White Trash, Hillbilly, Redneck" -- Not attack words if used properly to describe the facts of an opponents looks or positions.
And. "Civility". Civility is not an attack word. Of course not, it is, after all, civil. If some censorship arises from civility that's a good thing. The left will ask that we first self-censor so we can begin seeking civility. The left will do its part in civil discourse by agreeing not to use the attack words listed above. That's a fair and honorable agreement. The right, by the way, is free to use the non-attack words as it wishes, so long as they follow the rule of correct usage. That simple rule says you must follow logic and truth. Logic and truth demand that all non-attack words never be used improperly as an unfair and untrue weapon against any minority, because minorities are never guilty of anything described in non-attack words. Using non-attack words to describe minorities, even when applicable, is itself an attack. True in all cases except that of gender where the minority is the problem.
So in an attempt to be civil in our new civil discourse I appeal to the tolerant people of the left. I will speak for all of us on the other side when I state clearly that when it comes to a push for civility and the rules we are to follow. "We beg to differ."
John Fricke is a national radio and TV host and conservative opinion commentator. His website is www.johnfricke.pedia.com.
January 13, 2011
Sometimes a word is just a word
Richard N. Weltz
If we want to solve the main problems of our society, we must set our sights high and take aim at the areas most needy of improvement. Let's lock and load and shoot for a total victory over the forces that are killing our prestige and murdering the respect of other nations. Nobody expects the battle to be easy, but it's worth fighting.
In education, for example, we've got to wage a campaign to target the poorest-performing educators and eliminate them from our schools. Then we have to let go with both barrels to kill off automatic tenure, bloated benefits, and unaffordable pensions. If we don't take an ax to these expenditures, we will never be able to chop them down to a manageable size.
When it comes to corrupt politicians, society must roll out its big guns and blast away at pay-to-play and other unacceptable albeit widespread practices. Bribery and cronyism must be totally annihilated, and we ought to take a stab at eliminating nepotism as well.
With regard to economic progress, it's imperative to avoid job-killing regulation, mandates that strangle growth, and exploding deficits that blow up our national debt. At the same time, we must ensure that those rules that are needed have enough punch to knock out any time-bombs that are likely to destroy stability.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Shutting down speech with threats can work, but only if the punishment behind the threat is real. Since the left cannot shut down free speech directly, it chooses to seek secondary avenues. Some of those include using government agencies, which the left seeks to do with the FCC, for example, in an attempt to find ways to limit conservative talk radio. One attempt in the mix on the left is to force local radio stations to program their airtime to "reflect the community." Which is to say, for example, forcing KFI in Los Angeles to cease being a predominantly conservative talk station and force it to offer more liberal viewpoints. A backdoor attempt at reviving the Fairness Doctrine. Now I don't imagine the left will get very far with this attempt, for it's problematic on many levels.
So what does the left do if it cannot force, through legislation or judicial fiat or government might, a quieting of the voices that dissent from its orthodoxy? Well it does what it does best. It demonizes. The left is extremely good at that. So good that they are able to demonize while using language that sounds not only non-offensive, but downright, well.... civil.
Surely the left will continue, as always, to use core speech weapons, the "-ist" and the "-phobic" to bludgeon those who disagree. There will be no shortage of tagging conservatives as "racist, sexist, homophobic." The left has no issue with wielding those incendiary words since the left deems those words to be civil. They are not civil, but since the left believes it is the sole arbiter of our language, it can make up the rules as it goes along.
This brings us to the new tactic. Using soft speech weapons. They have been waiting for any reason to trot out the new weapon, to use it in all its power and glory to the cause. So anxious that they chose a horrific event, the murders of 6 people and the injuries to numerous others in an assassination attempt, to force the weapon into the game. It doesn't matter that the left chose to be as grossly un-civil as any political party could be in the slanders they immediately launched into, that's not an issue. No, no, no the issue is the civility of the language at large in political discourse.
Civil speech is desirable because it allows us Americans to have true honest political discourse. The left will make the rules defining civil discourse, everyone else will have to agree to those rules or face labeling and attacks for refusing to go along (again not an un-civil action by the left since the means justify the end). The rules will be simple. You cannot use any "attack words" against a politician. That's it. Sounds reasonable and smart. Of course you do know, of course, what constitutes "attack words"? If not, allow me to help you out with a short list of approvable language.
Attack words
- "Socialist" -- Socialist is an attack word. It is used only for the reason of falsely smearing an opponent.
- "Marxist" - Marxist is an attack word. Worse than 'socialist' and used only for the reason of falsely smearing an opponent.
- "Unpatriotic" -- Unpatriotic is an attack word. It is used only to falsely smear an opponent.
- "Patriotic" -- Patriotic is an attack word used to marginalize opponents by attempting to falsely claim you have the nation's best interests at heart.
- "Terrorist" -- Terrorist is an attack word used to marginalize individuals or groups, even those guilty of terroristic acts.
- "God, Jesus, Bible, et al" -- Attack words used to force moral certainties onto people for nefarious reasons.
- "America" -- America is an attack word because it implies America is not guilty of horrific crimes against humanity.
- "Target, Battle, Fight, Crosshairs, et al" -- All war language is classified as attack language. Except for the word "attack" which is descriptive only for citing attack words.
Non-attack words
- "Racist" -- Racist is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect racial and ethnic minorities from harm. Even if it is almost exclusively used falsely.
- "Homophobic" -- Homophobic is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect sexual minorities from harm.
- "Islamophobic" -- Islamophbobic is not an attack word. It is a descriptive word used to protect one particular religious minority from harm.
- "Sexist" -- Sexist is not an attack word. It is used to protect a gender majority from harm.
- "Intolerant" -- Intolerant is not an attack word. It is used to promote tolerance of all views, except those intolerant ones that tolerance can not tolerate.
- "Xenophobic" -- Xenophobic is not an attack word. It is used to show proof that any view of America as the world's greatest nation is intolerant, racist, sexist, homophobic and most notably at the moment, Islamophobic.
- "Wingnut, Nutball" -- Not attack words if used properly to describe the mental state of opponents, clarified by facts presented in the media.
- "Teabaggers" -- Teabagger is not an attack word. It is used to describe intolerant winguts and nutballs.
- "White Trash, Hillbilly, Redneck" -- Not attack words if used properly to describe the facts of an opponents looks or positions.
And. "Civility". Civility is not an attack word. Of course not, it is, after all, civil. If some censorship arises from civility that's a good thing. The left will ask that we first self-censor so we can begin seeking civility. The left will do its part in civil discourse by agreeing not to use the attack words listed above. That's a fair and honorable agreement. The right, by the way, is free to use the non-attack words as it wishes, so long as they follow the rule of correct usage. That simple rule says you must follow logic and truth. Logic and truth demand that all non-attack words never be used improperly as an unfair and untrue weapon against any minority, because minorities are never guilty of anything described in non-attack words. Using non-attack words to describe minorities, even when applicable, is itself an attack. True in all cases except that of gender where the minority is the problem.
So in an attempt to be civil in our new civil discourse I appeal to the tolerant people of the left. I will speak for all of us on the other side when I state clearly that when it comes to a push for civility and the rules we are to follow. "We beg to differ."
John Fricke is a national radio and TV host and conservative opinion commentator. His website is www.johnfricke.pedia.com.
January 13, 2011
Sometimes a word is just a word
Richard N. Weltz
If we want to solve the main problems of our society, we must set our sights high and take aim at the areas most needy of improvement. Let's lock and load and shoot for a total victory over the forces that are killing our prestige and murdering the respect of other nations. Nobody expects the battle to be easy, but it's worth fighting.
In education, for example, we've got to wage a campaign to target the poorest-performing educators and eliminate them from our schools. Then we have to let go with both barrels to kill off automatic tenure, bloated benefits, and unaffordable pensions. If we don't take an ax to these expenditures, we will never be able to chop them down to a manageable size.
When it comes to corrupt politicians, society must roll out its big guns and blast away at pay-to-play and other unacceptable albeit widespread practices. Bribery and cronyism must be totally annihilated, and we ought to take a stab at eliminating nepotism as well.
With regard to economic progress, it's imperative to avoid job-killing regulation, mandates that strangle growth, and exploding deficits that blow up our national debt. At the same time, we must ensure that those rules that are needed have enough punch to knock out any time-bombs that are likely to destroy stability.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Monday, 20 December 2010
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
XMAS STUFF:Copy of a post at Transalpine Redemptorists at home: Taking Christ out of Xmas
Click here for origainal post WITH SOUND:Transalpine Redemptorists at home: Taking Christ out of Xmas: "At this time of year, it is possible to hear that by writing Xmas to abbreviate the word Christmas, we are joining the secular world and, ef..."
Their emphasis in RED so my fisking is in GREEN-Mike
In our own language we find the Greek Xp
first rendered in English as Xr.
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle written about 1100 we read
Christmas
abbreviated to
Xres mæsse.
another
Their emphasis in RED so my fisking is in GREEN-Mike
Taking Christ out of Xmas
At this time of year,
it is possible to hear (especially from weirder protestantistas, even some secularists, who deliberately write and use this(the most common written!) form of spelling to affirm their non- or anti- Christianity!) that by writing
Xmas to abbreviate the word Christmas,
we are joining the secular world
and,
effectively,
taking Christ out of Christmas
as if we had put an X through His Holy Name.
(note to put an x through=to cross out=tachar)
But not so!
Such is not a traditional insight.
This is a false new notion
that threatens to take Christ out of Xmas
and fill us with fear of using the hallowed abbreviation.
This is then a good time to remember
that the use of the letter X
comes from the original Greek of the Gospel
and is one of the very ancient abbreviations in our language
that precisely means
Christ.
it is possible to hear (especially from weirder protestantistas, even some secularists, who deliberately write and use this(the most common written!) form of spelling to affirm their non- or anti- Christianity!) that by writing
Xmas to abbreviate the word Christmas,
we are joining the secular world
and,
effectively,
taking Christ out of Christmas
as if we had put an X through His Holy Name.
(note to put an x through=to cross out=tachar)
But not so!
Such is not a traditional insight.
This is a false new notion
that threatens to take Christ out of Xmas
and fill us with fear of using the hallowed abbreviation.
This is then a good time to remember
that the use of the letter X
comes from the original Greek of the Gospel
and is one of the very ancient abbreviations in our language
that precisely means
Christ.
When we look at the picture of Our Mother of Perpetual Succour
we see that the letters above the Infant Jesus
are
IC XC
the abbreviation for
Jesus (IC) Christ (XC).
we see that the letters above the Infant Jesus
are
IC XC
the abbreviation for
Jesus (IC) Christ (XC).
In the Greek of the Gospels,
the word Christ
Christos is written as Χριστός,
and the letter X
is just the first letter of his name.
Thus the icon writes the first and last letter of Χριστός
as
XC.
Not all did this.
Some abbreviated Christ to the first two Greek letters Xp.
the word Christ
Christos is written as Χριστός,
and the letter X
is just the first letter of his name.
Thus the icon writes the first and last letter of Χριστός
as
XC.
Not all did this.
Some abbreviated Christ to the first two Greek letters Xp.
The X in Xmas
is the Greek letter equivalent to the English letters Ch;
monks and priests have used it for centuries
when writing the Holy Name of Christ.
In English Xt is a common ecclesiastical abbreviation fo Christ.
Seminarians with fast speaking professors
often come to writing
Xt for Christ or even Xh for Church.
The most ancient way to abbreviate Christ's name
was Xp
which in English is the same as
Xr
(since the Greek for 'r' is written as 'p').That abbreviation -the XP- shown above to the right of Christ
comes from the catacombs.
The XP is also is often seen on sacred vestments;
it is the abbreviation and monogram for Christ.
is the Greek letter equivalent to the English letters Ch;
monks and priests have used it for centuries
when writing the Holy Name of Christ.
In English Xt is a common ecclesiastical abbreviation fo Christ.
Seminarians with fast speaking professors
often come to writing
Xt for Christ or even Xh for Church.
The most ancient way to abbreviate Christ's name was Xp
which in English is the same as
Xr
(since the Greek for 'r' is written as 'p').That abbreviation -the XP- shown above to the right of Christ
comes from the catacombs.
The XP is also is often seen on sacred vestments;
it is the abbreviation and monogram for Christ.
The Anglo Saxon Cronicle.
In our own language we find the Greek Xp
first rendered in English as Xr.
In the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle written about 1100 we read
Christmas
abbreviated to
Xres mæsse.
About the same time that we have this abbreviation for Christmas,
we also have an example in the donation Inventory
written by Bishop Leofric
of England(1046 - 1073)
who records the gift of a Saxon Gospel thus:
Englisc Xres-boc
(=English Christ-book)( The modern English word Gospel is probably older in origin, it was originally "God's spell" -we no longer use, except in song, the expression "Gospel-makers" for the four Evangelists, Mathew, Mark, Luke , and John.)
He also used the Xr abbreviation in Xres-boc for Christ-book.(presumably a vulgate latin volume of the gospels, not English)
(Illustrations of Anglo Saxon Poetry, John Conybeare, London, 1826, p. 199)
Xmas is an ancient abbreviation for Christmas.
Its use does not "take Christ out of Christmas".
Its use continues the ancient style of
uniting the Greek X of the Gospel to our English language,
as our forebears(=ancestors =antecessores/antepasados) have done
for nearly a thousand years provably,If not more like 1400 in fact !
Let us keep Christ both in Xmas
and indeed in Christmas too.
we also have an example in the donation Inventory
written by Bishop Leofric
of England(1046 - 1073)
who records the gift of a Saxon Gospel thus:
Englisc Xres-boc
(=English Christ-book)( The modern English word Gospel is probably older in origin, it was originally "God's spell" -we no longer use, except in song, the expression "Gospel-makers" for the four Evangelists, Mathew, Mark, Luke , and John.)
He also used the Xr abbreviation in Xres-boc for Christ-book.(presumably a vulgate latin volume of the gospels, not English)
(Illustrations of Anglo Saxon Poetry, John Conybeare, London, 1826, p. 199)
Xmas is an ancient abbreviation for Christmas.
Its use does not "take Christ out of Christmas".
Its use continues the ancient style of
uniting the Greek X of the Gospel to our English language,
as our forebears(=ancestors =antecessores/antepasados) have done
for nearly a thousand years provably,If not more like 1400 in fact !
Let us keep Christ both in Xmas
and indeed in Christmas too.
_______________________________________________
More on Xmas, mostly from Mike.
A lot of oddities about Anglosphere Christmases derive from their PROHIBITION
This happened in the midseventeenth century.
There was a civil war. About half a million dead, the same number as in Spain three centuries later, but greater in proportion( the then population was only about 5million).
Cavaliers versus Roundheads
Cavaliers versus Roundheads
On the one side were the ROYALISTS (MONARCHISTS) aka Cavaliers,(also= uncircumcized, or intact,) mostly after their dashing romantic hairstyles, and clothes. 
They lost the war.
(We still use the word "cavalier" as an adjective for somebody perhaps dashing, debonair, perhaps a bit inconsiderate regarding social norms and the importance of bourgois ideas.Teenagers typically have a cavalier attitude to their parents' rules. It comes from the French word cognate with"caballero" but the meaning in English is different from either. Except in games or in contrast etc "Roundhead" has a much more limited modern use. Many places in England reeanct Civil War battles at festivals, there is even a nationwide society, the "sealed knot",(press for link, or here for video)with tens of thousands of members, dedicated to dressing up as Roundheads and Cavaliers and reenacting battles.)
They lost the war.
(We still use the word "cavalier" as an adjective for somebody perhaps dashing, debonair, perhaps a bit inconsiderate regarding social norms and the importance of bourgois ideas.Teenagers typically have a cavalier attitude to their parents' rules. It comes from the French word cognate with"caballero" but the meaning in English is different from either. Except in games or in contrast etc "Roundhead" has a much more limited modern use. Many places in England reeanct Civil War battles at festivals, there is even a nationwide society, the "sealed knot",(press for link, or here for video)with tens of thousands of members, dedicated to dressing up as Roundheads and Cavaliers and reenacting battles.)
On the other side were the Parliamentarians.( All of them, constitutionalists, anarchists, commmunists, etc) except the puritans, lost too.) ParliamentariaN-Puritan aka Roundheads.( also= circumcized). from their simple,(if still longish) haircuts a bit like the beatles , and
.
.
their very distinctive helmets. They were noted for their more sober dress and simpler ways.
The real winners were a Generalisimo, Oliver Cromwell
a Puritan , and his "New Model Army "(especially once he had purged it) and their Puritan Ideologues. Some of the nastiest Puritans, who were quite nasty anyway, came over from the Puritan colonies in New England to help impose Puritanism.
The real winners were a Generalisimo, Oliver Cromwell
a Puritan , and his "New Model Army "(especially once he had purged it) and their Puritan Ideologues. Some of the nastiest Puritans, who were quite nasty anyway, came over from the Puritan colonies in New England to help impose Puritanism.
They prohibited Christmas. And Christmas food.And even not working at Christmas. So had the Puritan colonies in America. (The Americans call their Puritan colonist forebears "freedomloving founding fathers".The freedom they were looking for was not just freedom of worship*-for themselves- but freedom to control everything and everyone.)
*Freedom of worship: worship
For these historical reasons,while in USA the word Puritan has very positive and warm connotations, and the puritans are idolized at "thanksgiving", which they celebrate MORE than Christmas!
in the UK the word maintains distinctively negative connotations.
I had an image of the parliamentary report on this at the EOI on computer, but can't find it, so Ive copied the above image from: (click on to read more )http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/12/london-defies-banning-christmas.html)
*Freedom of worship: worship
For these historical reasons,while in USA the word Puritan has very positive and warm connotations, and the puritans are idolized at "thanksgiving", which they celebrate MORE than Christmas!
in the UK the word maintains distinctively negative connotations.
I had an image of the parliamentary report on this at the EOI on computer, but can't find it, so Ive copied the above image from: (click on to read more )http://marymagdalen.blogspot.com/2010/12/london-defies-banning-christmas.html)
They executed the king ( after a show trial) and called the country a "commonwealth", the then translation of republic in English.
Cromwell was the Lord Protector.(of the commonwealth).
In fact it was the first modern Dictatorship and Cromwell was the Dictator.
Not just regicides, liberticides.
Awful, but:
Cromwell was the Lord Protector.(of the commonwealth).
In fact it was the first modern Dictatorship and Cromwell was the Dictator.
Not just regicides, liberticides.
Awful, but:
another
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)