Language/Language Learning

[Sautharkrokur]

I speak Icelandic (native) and E nglish. I also know a lot of Norwegian, and to a lesser extend Danish and Swedish

[Daistallia 2104]

Those are rules which,as far as I am aware, both the prescriptivist and descriptivist approaches can agree on. "More easy" certainly isn't Standard English, and I'm not aware of any dialects in which it would be considered standard. Simply saying it's not wrong doesn't make it actually so. You'll have to show me a case where it would be considered standard to make your case. (And no, Morpugoz's usage is not such a case.)

By that logic, "you are" would not be grammatically correct because the contraction "you're" exists. You're basically saying that the definition of a word is grammatically incorrect, the definition of "easier" being "more easy".

Simply saying it's wrong doesn't make it actually so, either. And no, the fact that there's a word that means "more easy" is not a valid reason for suddenly calling that arrangement of words incorrect.

I'm taking this with the same approach that I would a complex computer language, as functionally, they're the same; English is a programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain. Just as

Code: Select all

i++;


and

Code: Select all

i = i + 1;


are both valid expressions in C (and related languages), as they mean the same thing, "easier" and "more easy" are both valid expressions in English and its dialects, because they mean the same thing.

In other words, it doesn't have to be "standard" to be correct.

It seems you misunderstand what actually determines "correctness" in lingusitics - standard usage. This is why your claim that by my "logic" (note that I'm not so much making a claim based on simple logic but rather one based on how linguistics makes determinations of "correctness") "you're" would be incorrect is backwards. "You're" is indeed in standard usage in most (if not all) dialects, and is thus correct. "More easy" is, as I have already stated, not in standard usage in any dialect. Thus "you're" is "correct" (standard) while "more easy" is not.

Note that your application of "the same approach that I would a complex computer language" is a mistake, as this is not the approach taken by linguistics. To do so would be equivilant to taking a biologists approach to chemistry, applying definitions inappropriately, and concluding that there is no life.

Your claim that "functionally (natural languages are) the same (as engineered computer languages)" is also a mistake. Natural languages are far more complex and fuzzy than the rather simple and hard edged engineered computer languages. This is compounded by your mistake of equating English with a "programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain". This is simply not supported by any serious research in neurolinguistics (at least so far as I know).

[Daistallia 2104]

I speak Icelandic (native) and E nglish. I also know a lot of Norwegian, and to a lesser extend Danish and Swedish

Not surprising in the least, seeing as the North Germanic languages arguably constitute a dialect continuum. These are some of the best examples of the distinction between a language and a dialect I brought up earlier in this thread ("a language is a dialect with an army and navy").

[Kirrig]

By that logic, "you are" would not be grammatically correct because the contraction "you're" exists. You're basically saying that the definition of a word is grammatically incorrect, the definition of "easier" being "more easy".

Simply saying it's wrong doesn't make it actually so, either. And no, the fact that there's a word that means "more easy" is not a valid reason for suddenly calling that arrangement of words incorrect.

I'm taking this with the same approach that I would a complex computer language, as functionally, they're the same; English is a programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain. Just as

Code: Select all

i++;


and

Code: Select all

i = i + 1;


are both valid expressions in C (and related languages), as they mean the same thing, "easier" and "more easy" are both valid expressions in English and its dialects, because they mean the same thing.

In other words, it doesn't have to be "standard" to be correct.

It seems you misunderstand what actually determines "correctness" in lingusitics - standard usage. This is why your claim that by my "logic" (note that I'm not so much making a claim based on simple logic but rather one based on how linguistics makes determinations of "correctness") "you're" would be incorrect is backwards. "You're" is indeed in standard usage in most (if not all) dialects, and is thus correct. "More easy" is, as I have already stated, not in standard usage in any dialect. Thus "you're" is "correct" (standard) while "more easy" is not.

Note that your application of "the same approach that I would a complex computer language" is a mistake, as this is not the approach taken by linguistics. To do so would be equivilant to taking a biologists approach to chemistry, applying definitions inappropriately, and concluding that there is no life.

Your claim that "functionally (natural languages are) the same (as engineered computer languages)" is also a mistake. Natural languages are far more complex and fuzzy than the rather simple and hard edged engineered computer languages. This is compounded by your mistake of equating English with a "programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain". This is simply not supported by any serious research in neurolinguistics (at least so far as I know).

Can you answer my question, please?

That said, how many people use a word no longer makes it correct. In a hundred years, how many people said more easy will matter.

[Cill Charthaigh]

2 years of the same language is required to graduate. I'm taking German but I wish they offered Irish instead of the deader-than-Elvis language known as Latin. You know, more of my own being recognized as just as valid instead of being the drunk green island of potatoes that's part of Great Britain. People still believe that.

[Daistallia 2104]

2 years of the same language is required to graduate. I'm taking German but I wish they offered Irish instead of the deader-than-Elvis language known as Latin. You know, more of my own being recognized as just as valid instead of being the drunk green island of potatoes that's part of Great Britain. People still believe that.

Unless I'm mistaken, you must be in the "Six Counties" or at a private school, then. (I understood all publicly supported schools in the Republic had to offer Gaeilge.) That's too bad, as language suppression is an awful education policy.

[YellowApple]

By that logic, "you are" would not be grammatically correct because the contraction "you're" exists. You're basically saying that the definition of a word is grammatically incorrect, the definition of "easier" being "more easy".

Simply saying it's wrong doesn't make it actually so, either. And no, the fact that there's a word that means "more easy" is not a valid reason for suddenly calling that arrangement of words incorrect.

I'm taking this with the same approach that I would a complex computer language, as functionally, they're the same; English is a programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain. Just as

Code: Select all

i++;


and

Code: Select all

i = i + 1;


are both valid expressions in C (and related languages), as they mean the same thing, "easier" and "more easy" are both valid expressions in English and its dialects, because they mean the same thing.

In other words, it doesn't have to be "standard" to be correct.

It seems you misunderstand what actually determines "correctness" in lingusitics - standard usage. This is why your claim that by my "logic" (note that I'm not so much making a claim based on simple logic but rather one based on how linguistics makes determinations of "correctness") "you're" would be incorrect is backwards. "You're" is indeed in standard usage in most (if not all) dialects, and is thus correct. "More easy" is, as I have already stated, not in standard usage in any dialect. Thus "you're" is "correct" (standard) while "more easy" is not.

Note that your application of "the same approach that I would a complex computer language" is a mistake, as this is not the approach taken by linguistics. To do so would be equivilant to taking a biologists approach to chemistry, applying definitions inappropriately, and concluding that there is no life.

Your claim that "functionally (natural languages are) the same (as engineered computer languages)" is also a mistake. Natural languages are far more complex and fuzzy than the rather simple and hard edged engineered computer languages. This is compounded by your mistake of equating English with a "programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain". This is simply not supported by any serious research in neurolinguistics (at least so far as I know).

So since "neither", "nor", "thy", "thee", "thine", "hath", "shalt", and "ye", among many others, are no longer "standard usage", they're automatically incorrect as well? Are you now saying that the vast majority of all English translations of the Holy Bible are now grammatically incorrect because they use words and phrases that the majority of English speakers happen to not use? Should we not teach Shakespeare in English classes anymore because he suddenly has terrible grammar?

As much as I understand your point, it is one that is, to be quite frank, foolish. I'm not sure that an argument of "most people don't say it like that, so everyone who does is wrong" is a particularly strong one. I will agree with you that "easier" is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than "more easy", but aesthetics alone do not dictate what is correct and incorrect. We cannot arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon what looks "good" or "bad"; if that were the case, it would be trivial to declare that "easier" is no longer a valid word because it "sounds weird". Nor can we arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon their frequency of usage. Most English speakers only know a couple thousand words at most, and by the concepts put forth in your argument, we can thus decide arbitrarily that all other words and phrases are no longer valid because very few people actually know them.

The word "more" is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs and adjectives. There is no logical reason why a particular adverb - such as "more" - cannot modify a particular verb or adjective - such as "easy" - beyond ultimately irrelevant aesthetics.

Also, on the topic of the programming language analogy: the brain is a computer. There is little sense in denying it; the only significant differences between the organ in your cranium and the computer which you are using to post on these forums are the materials used in their creation, the fact that one of them is processing your conscious mind, and that one - the brain - is significantly more advanced, albeit much slower to compute some operations. It has a CPU, RAM, non-volatile storage, and ports to interface with the rest of your body. Your entire body is a machine, your brain included. You may deny it if you so choose, should you be uncomfortable with the idea that humanity can be rationalized into electrical and mechanical systems, but that doesn't make the idea any less true, and arguing against it is an uphill battle. We are machines, my friend. Very well-built machines, but machines nonetheless.

Thus, it can be quite trivially and reasonably argued that the languages we speak - English, French, Spanish, Swahili, what have you - are programming languages for our brains. They act identically; we use our languages to both send and receive instructions and data. By learning a language, your brain is developing a way to compile the syntax and expressions of that language into its native instruction set, whatever that may be. Again, you may deny this rationalization if it makes you uncomfortable, but it does not make it any less true.

'Tis amazing what kind of debates can ensue over a snide comment about an individual's understanding of a language as complicated as English. Oh, there's another word that is "incorrect": 'tis.

[Kirrig]

It seems you misunderstand what actually determines "correctness" in lingusitics - standard usage. This is why your claim that by my "logic" (note that I'm not so much making a claim based on simple logic but rather one based on how linguistics makes determinations of "correctness") "you're" would be incorrect is backwards. "You're" is indeed in standard usage in most (if not all) dialects, and is thus correct. "More easy" is, as I have already stated, not in standard usage in any dialect. Thus "you're" is "correct" (standard) while "more easy" is not.

Note that your application of "the same approach that I would a complex computer language" is a mistake, as this is not the approach taken by linguistics. To do so would be equivilant to taking a biologists approach to chemistry, applying definitions inappropriately, and concluding that there is no life.

Your claim that "functionally (natural languages are) the same (as engineered computer languages)" is also a mistake. Natural languages are far more complex and fuzzy than the rather simple and hard edged engineered computer languages. This is compounded by your mistake of equating English with a "programming language for the complicated and obfuscated computing platform known as the brain". This is simply not supported by any serious research in neurolinguistics (at least so far as I know).

So since "neither", "nor", "thy", "thee", "thine", "hath", "shalt", and "ye", among many others, are no longer "standard usage", they're automatically incorrect as well? Are you now saying that the vast majority of all English translations of the Holy Bible are now grammatically incorrect because they use words and phrases that the majority of English speakers happen to not use? Should we not teach Shakespeare in English classes anymore because he suddenly has terrible grammar?

As much as I understand your point, it is one that is, to be quite frank, foolish. I'm not sure that an argument of "most people don't say it like that, so everyone who does is wrong" is a particularly strong one. I will agree with you that "easier" is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than "more easy", but aesthetics alone do not dictate what is correct and incorrect. We cannot arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon what looks "good" or "bad"; if that were the case, it would be trivial to declare that "easier" is no longer a valid word because it "sounds weird". Nor can we arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon their frequency of usage. Most English speakers only know a couple thousand words at most, and by the concepts put forth in your argument, we can thus decide arbitrarily that all other words and phrases are no longer valid because very few people actually know them.

The word "more" is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs and adjectives. There is no logical reason why a particular adverb - such as "more" - cannot modify a particular verb or adjective - such as "easy" - beyond ultimately irrelevant aesthetics.

Also, on the topic of the programming language analogy: the brain is a computer. There is little sense in denying it; the only significant differences between the organ in your cranium and the computer which you are using to post on these forums are the materials used in their creation, the fact that one of them is processing your conscious mind, and that one - the brain - is significantly more advanced, albeit much slower to compute some operations. It has a CPU, RAM, non-volatile storage, and ports to interface with the rest of your body. Your entire body is a machine, your brain included. You may deny it if you so choose, should you be uncomfortable with the idea that humanity can be rationalized into electrical and mechanical systems, but that doesn't make the idea any less true, and arguing against it is an uphill battle. We are machines, my friend. Very well-built machines, but machines nonetheless.

Thus, it can be quite trivially and reasonably argued that the languages we speak - English, French, Spanish, Swahili, what have you - are programming languages for our brains. They act identically; we use our languages to both send and receive instructions and data. By learning a language, your brain is developing a way to compile the syntax and expressions of that language into its native instruction set, whatever that may be. Again, you may deny this rationalization if it makes you uncomfortable, but it does not make it any less true.

'Tis amazing what kind of debates can ensue over a snide comment about an individual's understanding of a language as complicated as English. Oh, there's another word that is "incorrect": 'tis.

Words are right or wrong.

And 'tis is a contraction.

[Daistallia 2104]

So since "neither", "nor", "thy", "thee", "thine", "hath", "shalt", and "ye", among many others, are no longer "standard usage", they're automatically incorrect as well? Are you now saying that the vast majority of all English translations of the Holy Bible are now grammatically incorrect because they use words and phrases that the majority of English speakers happen to not use? Should we not teach Shakespeare in English classes anymore because he suddenly has terrible grammar?

As much as I understand your point, it is one that is, to be quite frank, foolish. I'm not sure that an argument of "most people don't say it like that, so everyone who does is wrong" is a particularly strong one. I will agree with you that "easier" is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than "more easy", but aesthetics alone do not dictate what is correct and incorrect. We cannot arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon what looks "good" or "bad"; if that were the case, it would be trivial to declare that "easier" is no longer a valid word because it "sounds weird". Nor can we arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon their frequency of usage. Most English speakers only know a couple thousand words at most, and by the concepts put forth in your argument, we can thus decide arbitrarily that all other words and phrases are no longer valid because very few people actually know them.

The word "more" is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs and adjectives. There is no logical reason why a particular adverb - such as "more" - cannot modify a particular verb or adjective - such as "easy" - beyond ultimately irrelevant aesthetics.

Also, on the topic of the programming language analogy: the brain is a computer. There is little sense in denying it; the only significant differences between the organ in your cranium and the computer which you are using to post on these forums are the materials used in their creation, the fact that one of them is processing your conscious mind, and that one - the brain - is significantly more advanced, albeit much slower to compute some operations. It has a CPU, RAM, non-volatile storage, and ports to interface with the rest of your body. Your entire body is a machine, your brain included. You may deny it if you so choose, should you be uncomfortable with the idea that humanity can be rationalized into electrical and mechanical systems, but that doesn't make the idea any less true, and arguing against it is an uphill battle. We are machines, my friend. Very well-built machines, but machines nonetheless.

Thus, it can be quite trivially and reasonably argued that the languages we speak - English, French, Spanish, Swahili, what have you - are programming languages for our brains. They act identically; we use our languages to both send and receive instructions and data. By learning a language, your brain is developing a way to compile the syntax and expressions of that language into its native instruction set, whatever that may be. Again, you may deny this rationalization if it makes you uncomfortable, but it does not make it any less true.

'Tis amazing what kind of debates can ensue over a snide comment about an individual's understanding of a language as complicated as English. Oh, there's another word that is "incorrect": 'tis.

Having explained it twice now, it seems you intend to remain steadfast in your obstinate refusal to even try and understand what lingusitics actually has to say about what is and is not correct usage or what neurolinguistics has to tell us about how langauges and the brain actually operate. Honestly you are coming across just like those new age folks who will argue with a physicist that psychic powers really do exist beyond reason. At this point, I see no reason not to apply to you the same adage about arguing with fools that I applied to Kirrig earlier.

[Kirrig]

So since "neither", "nor", "thy", "thee", "thine", "hath", "shalt", and "ye", among many others, are no longer "standard usage", they're automatically incorrect as well? Are you now saying that the vast majority of all English translations of the Holy Bible are now grammatically incorrect because they use words and phrases that the majority of English speakers happen to not use? Should we not teach Shakespeare in English classes anymore because he suddenly has terrible grammar?

As much as I understand your point, it is one that is, to be quite frank, foolish. I'm not sure that an argument of "most people don't say it like that, so everyone who does is wrong" is a particularly strong one. I will agree with you that "easier" is certainly more aesthetically pleasing than "more easy", but aesthetics alone do not dictate what is correct and incorrect. We cannot arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon what looks "good" or "bad"; if that were the case, it would be trivial to declare that "easier" is no longer a valid word because it "sounds weird". Nor can we arbitrarily determine grammatical rules based upon their frequency of usage. Most English speakers only know a couple thousand words at most, and by the concepts put forth in your argument, we can thus decide arbitrarily that all other words and phrases are no longer valid because very few people actually know them.

The word "more" is an adverb. Adverbs modify verbs and adjectives. There is no logical reason why a particular adverb - such as "more" - cannot modify a particular verb or adjective - such as "easy" - beyond ultimately irrelevant aesthetics.

Also, on the topic of the programming language analogy: the brain is a computer. There is little sense in denying it; the only significant differences between the organ in your cranium and the computer which you are using to post on these forums are the materials used in their creation, the fact that one of them is processing your conscious mind, and that one - the brain - is significantly more advanced, albeit much slower to compute some operations. It has a CPU, RAM, non-volatile storage, and ports to interface with the rest of your body. Your entire body is a machine, your brain included. You may deny it if you so choose, should you be uncomfortable with the idea that humanity can be rationalized into electrical and mechanical systems, but that doesn't make the idea any less true, and arguing against it is an uphill battle. We are machines, my friend. Very well-built machines, but machines nonetheless.

Thus, it can be quite trivially and reasonably argued that the languages we speak - English, French, Spanish, Swahili, what have you - are programming languages for our brains. They act identically; we use our languages to both send and receive instructions and data. By learning a language, your brain is developing a way to compile the syntax and expressions of that language into its native instruction set, whatever that may be. Again, you may deny this rationalization if it makes you uncomfortable, but it does not make it any less true.

'Tis amazing what kind of debates can ensue over a snide comment about an individual's understanding of a language as complicated as English. Oh, there's another word that is "incorrect": 'tis.

Having explained it twice now, it seems you intend to remain steadfast in your obstinate refusal to even try and understand what lingusitics actually has to say about what is and is not correct usage or what neurolinguistics has to tell us about how langauges and the brain actually operate. Honestly you are coming across just like those new age folks who will argue with a physicist that psychic powers really do exist beyond reason. At this point, I see no reason not to apply to you the same adage about arguing with fools that I applied to Kirrig earlier.

Who promptly turned it on you. And I am still waiting for an answer.

Although, it appears that because more is an adverb 'more easy' could be considered fringe usage.

[Daistallia 2104]

Kirrig, since you seem to be unable to take hints, allow me make it explicitly clear - you are being ignored.

[Kirrig]

Kirrig, since you seem to be unable to take hints, allow me make it explicitly clear - you are being ignored.

I see.

How mature.

And if you take offense to the middle comment read this topic, although, in this case, ambiguity is desired and could never be achieved face-to-face.

It will be your loss one day, if I have something genuinely interesting to say.

[The Blaatschapen]

Quite, I wrote 'stuff this up.'

Can you tell me what is amusing about this passage:
Let me see if I can write with words that come from the tongues of the first speaker's of English. I will fail.

But if you wanted to write that in the tongues of the first speaker's of English it should be:

Lǣtan me sēon gif mæg ic wrītan mid words þæt cumen from þā tunges of þā fyrst maðeleres of Ænglisc. Ic willa ābrēoðan.
Also I hate to point it out to you, but speaker comes from Anglo-Norman, a dialect of Norman French spoken in England. And Anglo-Norman, of course mixed with (what at the time was simply "English") Old-English/ Anglo-Saxon, to develop Middle English. And therefore one cannot say that fail is the only word that comes from the "first" English language, Anglo-Saxon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, I know English and Old English (Anglo-Saxon). I am taking middle-English classes right now, and Latin classes.

Hmm, Old English comes suprisingly easy to me, though I hardly get any exposure to it.

I speak Icelandic (native) and E nglish. I also know a lot of Norwegian, and to a lesser extend Danish and Swedish

Not surprising in the least, seeing as the North Germanic languages arguably constitute a dialect continuum. These are some of the best examples of the distinction between a language and a dialect I brought up earlier in this thread ("a language is a dialect with an army and navy").

I long for the days that Dutch and German were in one dialect continuum(19th century).

2 years of the same language is required to graduate. I'm taking German but I wish they offered Irish instead of the deader-than-Elvis language known as Latin. You know, more of my own being recognized as just as valid instead of being the drunk green island of potatoes that's part of Great Britain. People still believe that.

Unless I'm mistaken, you must be in the "Six Counties" or at a private school, then. (I understood all publicly supported schools in the Republic had to offer Gaeilge.) That's too bad, as language suppression is an awful education policy.

It is indeed. Too bad that until recently even western nations were still doing it (eg. Belgium). Perhaps some are even now.

[Kirrig]

But if you wanted to write that in the tongues of the first speaker's of English it should be:

Lǣtan me sēon gif mæg ic wrītan mid words þæt cumen from þā tunges of þā fyrst maðeleres of Ænglisc. Ic willa ābrēoðan.
Also I hate to point it out to you, but speaker comes from Anglo-Norman, a dialect of Norman French spoken in England. And Anglo-Norman, of course mixed with (what at the time was simply "English") Old-English/ Anglo-Saxon, to develop Middle English. And therefore one cannot say that fail is the only word that comes from the "first" English language, Anglo-Saxon.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyways, I know English and Old English (Anglo-Saxon). I am taking middle-English classes right now, and Latin classes.

Hmm, Old English comes suprisingly easy to me, though I hardly get any exposure to it.

Not surprising in the least, seeing as the North Germanic languages arguably constitute a dialect continuum. These are some of the best examples of the distinction between a language and a dialect I brought up earlier in this thread ("a language is a dialect with an army and navy").

I long for the days that Dutch and German were in one dialect continuum(19th century).

Unless I'm mistaken, you must be in the "Six Counties" or at a private school, then. (I understood all publicly supported schools in the Republic had to offer Gaeilge.) That's too bad, as language suppression is an awful education policy.

It is indeed. Too bad that until recently even western nations were still doing it (eg. Belgium). Perhaps some are even now.

You are fluent in a language that came from it and another that is possibly more similar.

Why would you like German and Dutch to be on a continuum?

[Daistallia 2104]

I long for the days that Dutch and German were in one dialect continuum(19th century).

It is indeed. Too bad that until recently even western nations were still doing it (eg. Belgium). Perhaps some are even now.

The "English only" types are trying to in the US. Fortunately, the worst examples here are being reversed. Unfortunately too many of our indigenous languages are already extinct.

[The Blaatschapen]

Hmm, Old English comes suprisingly easy to me, though I hardly get any exposure to it.



I long for the days that Dutch and German were in one dialect continuum(19th century).



It is indeed. Too bad that until recently even western nations were still doing it (eg. Belgium). Perhaps some are even now.

You are fluent in a language that came from it and another that is possibly more similar.

Why would you like German and Dutch to be on a continuum?

So that I can point out that Limburg should be a part of Germany

[Kirrig]

You are fluent in a language that came from it and another that is possibly more similar.

Why would you like German and Dutch to be on a continuum?

So that I can point out that Limburg should be a part of Germany

Why is that important?

[The Blaatschapen]

So that I can point out that Limburg should be a part of Germany

Why is that important?

So I can make fun of some friends?

[Kirrig]

Why is that important?

So I can make fun of some friends?

How amusing. A province split between countries both invaded by Germany ashould belong to Germany.

[The Blaatschapen]

So I can make fun of some friends?

How amusing. A province split between countries both invaded by Germany ashould belong to Germany.

Ah, but it is mostly meant for the Dutch part. At least the part east of the Meuse. In some cities the language sounds closer to German than to dutch

[Daistallia 2104]

Why is that important?

So I can make fun of some friends?

Also, you can fob off the infamouse cheese that's the butt of many a joke on the poor Germans.

[YellowApple]

Having explained it twice now, it seems you intend to remain steadfast in your obstinate refusal to even try and understand what lingusitics actually has to say about what is and is not correct usage or what neurolinguistics has to tell us about how langauges and the brain actually operate. Honestly you are coming across just like those new age folks who will argue with a physicist that psychic powers really do exist beyond reason. At this point, I see no reason not to apply to you the same adage about arguing with fools that I applied to Kirrig earlier.

Ah, so quick to assume your adversary to be in the wrong. Perhaps "the pot calling the kettle black" is a suitable idiom for this turn of events.

Your explanations are not ones of rationality or logic at all, but rather those of a refusal to utilize logic in your analysis of this scenario, as confirmed by your transition to ad hominem statements in implying that I myself am a fool long before examining your own logic.

Not that I anticipated this banter to last long anyway; either one of us would become bored, or one of us would find himself in a position where one cannot make additional arguments in favor of his position, and it seems that I myself am not that individual in either scenario. After all, there's a difference between myself and the "new age folks" you chose to compare me to: unlike them, I speak the cold, hard truth. And unlike you, I accept it, rather than hide behind the excuses of others.

Have fun ignoring me, friend; 'tis your choice to make, and your opportunity to lose.

Carry on.

[Kirrig]

How amusing. A province split between countries both invaded by Germany ashould belong to Germany.

Ah, but it is mostly meant for the Dutch part. At least the part east of the Meuse. In some cities the language sounds closer to German than to dutch

I see. It seems that at least part of Limburg is already German, but Wikipedia is only so trustworthy.

[The Blaatschapen]

So I can make fun of some friends?

Also, you can fob off the infamouse cheese that's the butt of many a joke on the poor Germans.

Yeah, it was fun seeing Biker Mice from Mars back in my childhood. I never knew it was a cheese. I just assumed the show trying to depict Limburgers (people from Limburg) as a bit smelly.

[Kirrig]

Also, you can fob off the infamouse cheese that's the butt of many a joke on the poor Germans.

Yeah, it was fun seeing Biker Mice from Mars back in my childhood. I never knew it was a cheese. I just assumed the show trying to depict Limburgers (people from Limburg) as a bit smelly.

Reasonable conclusion, people never seem to like their neighbours. City vs United anyone?