American English or British English?

[Heloin]

Nope.

It is true that in most parts of the world English speakers are forced to use software with spell checks that default to American English... and often seem very resistant to being changed (thankfully my copy of Word refuses to permanently not be Australian).

The population of the United States is greater than that of the rest of the anglosphere combined. American English is the dominant form of English among native speakers.

There is a whole lot more to the English speaking world then the Anglosphere.

[Katganistan]

Fun fact: linguists come to the US to see how we actually have preserved British English.

http://www.bbc.com/travel/gallery/20180 ... ish-accent
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/201802 ... sh-english


So stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

"fact"

And that's ignoring the sheer idiocy of the logic... languages are meant to change and their "static" character would mean they've fundamentally failed to "preserve" a key aspect of the language. Since, of course, this is a "fact" not a fact, we don't have to worry: any sense of stasis is the result of cherry picking.

most parts of the world people write and speak American English

Nope.

It is true that in most parts of the world English speakers are forced to use software with spell checks that default to American English... and often seem very resistant to being changed (thankfully my copy of Word refuses to permanently not be Australian).

Did you not read the links, or do you think that others won't read them given you've airquoted to make it look like the BBC did not, in fact, confirm what I've sourced?

[Katganistan]

Really, we should just all learn Klingon.

Qa'plah!!!!!

[Katganistan]

It doesn't matter though, because Old English is clearly the best.

Fuck William the Conqueror.

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

[Heloin]

Really, we should just all learn Klingon.

Qa'plah!!!!!

Let's roll out the bloodwine!

[Forsher]

"fact"

And that's ignoring the sheer idiocy of the logic... languages are meant to change and their "static" character would mean they've fundamentally failed to "preserve" a key aspect of the language. Since, of course, this is a "fact" not a fact, we don't have to worry: any sense of stasis is the result of cherry picking.



Nope.

It is true that in most parts of the world English speakers are forced to use software with spell checks that default to American English... and often seem very resistant to being changed (thankfully my copy of Word refuses to permanently not be Australian).

Did you not read the links, or do you think that others won't read them given you've airquoted to make it look like the BBC did not, in fact, confirm what I've sourced?

"fact"

It's, as is frequently required, a correction of your interpretation. For example, from the easy to quote article:

That’s not entirely right. The real picture is more complicated

or

So at least when it comes to their treatment of the 18th letter,

or

But linguist David Shores has noted that these claims are exaggerated, and that the island’s isolation, rather than any freezing of Elizabethan speech patterns, is responsible for its linguistic quirks.

or

Echoes of older dialects can be heard here and there in different places,

You're just wrong because you're massively overselling an article that is really rather insistent that you shouldn't be overselling this. Or, as I said before:

any sense of stasis is the result of cherry picking.

But, also, the claim is a nonsense to start with.

[The Blaatschapen]

It doesn't matter though, because Old English is clearly the best.

Fuck William the Conqueror.

Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Gesundheit.

[The Free Joy State]

Did you not read the links, or do you think that others won't read them given you've airquoted to make it look like the BBC did not, in fact, confirm what I've sourced?

"fact"

It's, as is frequently required, a correction of your interpretation. For example, from the easy to quote article:

That’s not entirely right. The real picture is more complicated

or

So at least when it comes to their treatment of the 18th letter,

or

But linguist David Shores has noted that these claims are exaggerated, and that the island’s isolation, rather than any freezing of Elizabethan speech patterns, is responsible for its linguistic quirks.

or

Echoes of older dialects can be heard here and there in different places,

You're just wrong because you're massively overselling an article that is really rather insistent that you shouldn't be overselling this. Or, as I said before:

any sense of stasis is the result of cherry picking.

But, also, the claim is a nonsense to start with.

There are elements of the US accent that is more akin to the earlier British dialect. From the one you quoted:

One feature of most American English is what linguists call ‘rhoticity’, or the pronunciation of ‘r’ in words like ‘card’ and ‘water’. It turns out that Brits in the 1600s, like modern-day Americans, largely pronounced all their Rs.
[...]
So at least when it comes to their treatment of the 18th letter, Americans generally sound more like the Brits of several centuries ago. So do Canadians west of Quebec – thanks to loyalists to the Crown fleeing north during the American Revolution.

Another divergence between British and North American English has been a move toward broad As in words like ‘path’. The pronunciations of the early colonists (and their English counterparts), in contrast, have stuck around in the US: think ‘paath’ rather than ‘pahth’.

Actually, the "paath"/"pahth" claim is more complex than the article states, because of the "trap/bath" split. Brits from the North and some other areas are more likely to pronounce "path" with a short "a" than as "ah".

The article doesn't claim that the American English language has remained unchanged, true. No language remains entirely static. Although it is interesting to note patterns and consistencies with pronunciations. The article even notes how "British accents have undergone more change in the last few centuries than American accents have".

[Forsher]

"fact"

It's, as is frequently required, a correction of your interpretation. For example, from the easy to quote article:



or



or



or



You're just wrong because you're massively overselling an article that is really rather insistent that you shouldn't be overselling this. Or, as I said before:



But, also, the claim is a nonsense to start with.

There are elements of the US accent that is more akin to the earlier British dialect. From the one you quoted:

One feature of most American English is what linguists call ‘rhoticity’, or the pronunciation of ‘r’ in words like ‘card’ and ‘water’. It turns out that Brits in the 1600s, like modern-day Americans, largely pronounced all their Rs.
[...]
So at least when it comes to their treatment of the 18th letter, Americans generally sound more like the Brits of several centuries ago. So do Canadians west of Quebec – thanks to loyalists to the Crown fleeing north during the American Revolution.

Another divergence between British and North American English has been a move toward broad As in words like ‘path’. The pronunciations of the early colonists (and their English counterparts), in contrast, have stuck around in the US: think ‘paath’ rather than ‘pahth’.

Actually, the "paath"/"pahth" claim is more complex than the article states, because of the "trap/bath" split. Brits from the North and some other areas are more likely to pronounce "path" with a short "a" than as "ah".

The article doesn't claim that the American English language has remained unchanged, true. No language remains entirely static. Although it is interesting to note patterns and consistencies with pronunciations. The article even notes how "British accents have undergone more change in the last few centuries than American accents have".

Your post confuses me.

You're providing more examples of things you could cherry pick to claim "[Americans] actually have preserved British English" and then providing further elaborations of how there's cherry picking within the cherry picking. Or, in other words, my complaint of Katganistan's interpretation of them,

But then you're opening with "There are elements of the US accent that is more akin to the earlier British dialect" which in context reads more like "Actually there are elements..." Similarly, you then end with "the article even notes".

So, in other words, we've got language which makes it seem like your criticising my interpretation but actual evidence which is reiterating one of my points. What are you doing? Supporting my post? Adding to my post? Rejecting my post? Walking it back?

[The Free Joy State]

There are elements of the US accent that is more akin to the earlier British dialect. From the one you quoted:

One feature of most American English is what linguists call ‘rhoticity’, or the pronunciation of ‘r’ in words like ‘card’ and ‘water’. It turns out that Brits in the 1600s, like modern-day Americans, largely pronounced all their Rs.
[...]
So at least when it comes to their treatment of the 18th letter, Americans generally sound more like the Brits of several centuries ago. So do Canadians west of Quebec – thanks to loyalists to the Crown fleeing north during the American Revolution.

Another divergence between British and North American English has been a move toward broad As in words like ‘path’. The pronunciations of the early colonists (and their English counterparts), in contrast, have stuck around in the US: think ‘paath’ rather than ‘pahth’.

Actually, the "paath"/"pahth" claim is more complex than the article states, because of the "trap/bath" split. Brits from the North and some other areas are more likely to pronounce "path" with a short "a" than as "ah".

The article doesn't claim that the American English language has remained unchanged, true. No language remains entirely static. Although it is interesting to note patterns and consistencies with pronunciations. The article even notes how "British accents have undergone more change in the last few centuries than American accents have".

Your post confuses me.

You're providing more examples of things you could cherry pick to claim "we actually have preserved British English" and then providing further elaborations of how there's cherry picking within the cherry picking. Or, in other words, my complaint of Katganistan's interpretation of them,

But then you're opening with "There are elements of the US accent that is more akin to the earlier British dialect" which in context reads more like "Actually there are elements..." Similarly, you then end with "the article even notes".

So, in other words, we've got language which makes it seem like your criticising my interpretation but actual evidence which is reiterating one of my points. What are you doing? Supporting my post? Adding to my post? Rejecting my post? Walking it back?

Actually, that would be "you have preserved", not "we have preserved". I am a Brit, and if there's one thing I think that can be agreed from the article, modern British English bears little to no relation to its Shakespearean counterpart.

It's why I never could get my head around Shakespeare when I was at school.

As for what I'm doing, responding to the article and weighing what it says, thus making conversation.

[The New California Republic]

Actually, that would be "you have preserved", not "we have preserved". I am a Brit, and if there's one thing I think that can be agreed from the article, modern British English bears little to no relation to its Shakespearean counterpart.

It's why I never could get my head around Shakespeare when I was at school.

Try being thrown into a Scottish school midway through your education (like I was), and having to digest Address to a Haggis by Robert Burns:

Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great Chieftain o’ the Puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy of a grace
As lang ‘s my arm.

The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o’ need,
While thro’ your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.

His knife see Rustic-labour dight,
An’ cut ye up wi’ ready slight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright,
Like onie ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reekin, rich!

Then, horn for horn, they stretch an’ strive:
Deil tak the hindmost, on they drive,
Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
Bethankit hums.

Is there that owre his French ragout,
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi’ perfect sconner,
Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
On sic a dinner?

Poor devil! see him owre his trash,
As feckless as a wither’d rash,
His spindle shank a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro’ bluidy flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!

But mark the Rustic, haggis-fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread,
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He’ll make it whissle;
An’ legs, an’ arms, an’ heads will sned,
Like taps o’ thrissle.

Ye Pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o’ fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ prayer,
Gie her a Haggis!

[The Free Joy State]

Actually, that would be "you have preserved", not "we have preserved". I am a Brit, and if there's one thing I think that can be agreed from the article, modern British English bears little to no relation to its Shakespearean counterpart.

It's why I never could get my head around Shakespeare when I was at school.

Try being thrown into a Scottish school midway through your education (like I was), and having to digest Address to a Haggis by Robert Burns:

Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great Chieftain o’ the Puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy of a grace
As lang ‘s my arm.

The groaning trencher there ye fill,
Your hurdies like a distant hill,
Your pin wad help to mend a mill
In time o’ need,
While thro’ your pores the dews distil
Like amber bead.

His knife see Rustic-labour dight,
An’ cut ye up wi’ ready slight,
Trenching your gushing entrails bright,
Like onie ditch;
And then, O what a glorious sight,
Warm-reekin, rich!

Then, horn for horn, they stretch an’ strive:
Deil tak the hindmost, on they drive,
Till a’ their weel-swall’d kytes belyve
Are bent like drums;
Then auld Guidman, maist like to rive,
Bethankit hums.

Is there that owre his French ragout,
Or olio that wad staw a sow,
Or fricassee wad mak her spew
Wi’ perfect sconner,
Looks down wi’ sneering, scornfu’ view
On sic a dinner?

Poor devil! see him owre his trash,
As feckless as a wither’d rash,
His spindle shank a guid whip-lash,
His nieve a nit;
Thro’ bluidy flood or field to dash,
O how unfit!

But mark the Rustic, haggis-fed,
The trembling earth resounds his tread,
Clap in his walie nieve a blade,
He’ll make it whissle;
An’ legs, an’ arms, an’ heads will sned,
Like taps o’ thrissle.

Ye Pow’rs wha mak mankind your care,
And dish them out their bill o’ fare,
Auld Scotland wants nae skinking ware
That jaups in luggies;
But, if ye wish her gratefu’ prayer,
Gie her a Haggis!

You have my sympathy.

The worst I ever had to do was sit through the four-hour version of Hamlet or try to explain why Twelfth Night is funny.

[Forsher]

Your post confuses me.

You're providing more examples of things you could cherry pick to claim "we actually have preserved British English" and then providing further elaborations of how there's cherry picking within the cherry picking. Or, in other words, my complaint of Katganistan's interpretation of them,

But then you're opening with "There are elements of the US accent that is more akin to the earlier British dialect" which in context reads more like "Actually there are elements..." Similarly, you then end with "the article even notes".

So, in other words, we've got language which makes it seem like your criticising my interpretation but actual evidence which is reiterating one of my points. What are you doing? Supporting my post? Adding to my post? Rejecting my post? Walking it back?

Actually, that would be "you have preserved", not "we have preserved". I am a Brit, and if there's one thing I think that can be agreed from the article, modern British English bears little to no relation to its Shakespearean counterpart.

It's why I never could get my head around Shakespeare when I was at school.

As for what I'm doing, responding to the article and weighing what it says, thus making conversation.

That was a quote from Katganistan. But you're right, for clarity's sake should remove the pronoun. (Amusing typo.)

Conversations proceed based on implicit "offers". If I can't see how your post connects either I'm going to ignore it or ask a question, which is unlikely to further conversation either way because it doesn't accept the implied offer of your contribution.

Shakespeare in schools...

We didn't do much Shakespeare. We did some scenes from Macbeth in Year Ten drama... or I did anyway (I was Macduff in a five (?) minute ish section from towards the end). I know a friend of mine did a/the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet but she wasn't in my class so we might have just done stuff from Macbeth. That year we also did a Midsummer Night's Dream in English but I've got no idea if we finished it. The year before, in English, we'd theoretically read The Merchant of Venice but I don't think we finished it. The year after we read Macbeth in English... I know I read it all, but I am unconvinced that we finished it as a class.

The script books we had in both year nine and eleven... and probably year ten... were split either into columns or across the two page spread. I can't remember exactly but one side definitely had the original text and the other either a modern "translation" or gloss. Sometimes we read aloud but I suspect with no attempts whatsoever at original pronunciation except for stuff along the lines of learn-ed etc. OP would be unlikely to work... I suspect most of my peers have as much trouble as I do distinguishing Alan/Ellen and pronouncing r's on a consistent basis.

It was no harder nor easier than anything else we did in English; the enterprise (as taught here) being largely a waste of time to start with. The major exercise is, of course, to just regurgitate whatever teacher said. Obviously the actual reading is a bit more difficult and puns and stuff are often missed, but that's why we had the translation/gloss.

Now, if you were to ask me if I understood Shakespeare then? No idea. But it does not stand out, at all, as a distinctly noticeable experience. If you stuck me in front of one of his play's today? I would not bank on grasping the point exactly without the glossed version.

[The Free Joy State]

Actually, that would be "you have preserved", not "we have preserved". I am a Brit, and if there's one thing I think that can be agreed from the article, modern British English bears little to no relation to its Shakespearean counterpart.

It's why I never could get my head around Shakespeare when I was at school.

As for what I'm doing, responding to the article and weighing what it says, thus making conversation.

That was a quote from Katganistan. But you're right, for clarity's sake should remove the pronoun.

Conversations proceed based on implicit "offers". If I can't see how your post connects either I'm going to ignore it or ask a question, which is unlikely to further conversation either way because it doesn't accept the implied offer of your contribution.

Shakespeare in schools...

We didn't do much Shakespeare. We did some scenes from Macbeth in Year Ten drama... or I did anyway (I was Macduff in a five (?) minute ish section from towards the end). I know a friend of mine did a/the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet but she wasn't in my class so we might have just done stuff from Macbeth. That year we also did a Midsummer Night's Dream in English but I've got no idea if we finished it. The year before, in English, we'd theoretically read The Merchant of Venice but I don't think we finished it. The year after we read Macbeth in English... I know I read it all, but I am unconvinced that we finished it as a class.

The script books we had in both year nine and eleven... and probably year ten... were split either into columns or across the two page spread. I can't remember exactly but one side definitely had the original text and the other either a modern "translation" or gloss. Sometimes we read aloud but I suspect with no attempts whatsoever at original pronunciation except for stuff along the lines of learn-ed etc. OP would be unlikely to work... I suspect most of my peers have as much trouble as I do distinguishing Alan/Ellen and pronouncing r's on a consistent basis.

It was no harder nor easier than anything else we did in English; the enterprise (as taught here) being largely a waste of time to start with. The major exercise is, of course, to just regurgitate whatever teacher said. Obviously the actual reading is a bit more difficult and puns and stuff are often missed, but that's why we had the translation/gloss.

When I as at school, we did a play a year from year 7 (age 11) -- and I did English Lit A-levels, so that was seven years and seven plays. I don't remember all of them; I do remember we studied Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Twelfth Night, Othello and Measure for Measure. Reading them, acting them out, analysing them.

We did have footnotes throughout the text, but only picking out the odd word.

I actually enjoyed English classes, but writing essays on the humour of crossed yellow garters was not my favourite task.

[Forsher]

That was a quote from Katganistan. But you're right, for clarity's sake should remove the pronoun.

Conversations proceed based on implicit "offers". If I can't see how your post connects either I'm going to ignore it or ask a question, which is unlikely to further conversation either way because it doesn't accept the implied offer of your contribution.

Shakespeare in schools...

We didn't do much Shakespeare. We did some scenes from Macbeth in Year Ten drama... or I did anyway (I was Macduff in a five (?) minute ish section from towards the end). I know a friend of mine did a/the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet but she wasn't in my class so we might have just done stuff from Macbeth. That year we also did a Midsummer Night's Dream in English but I've got no idea if we finished it. The year before, in English, we'd theoretically read The Merchant of Venice but I don't think we finished it. The year after we read Macbeth in English... I know I read it all, but I am unconvinced that we finished it as a class.

The script books we had in both year nine and eleven... and probably year ten... were split either into columns or across the two page spread. I can't remember exactly but one side definitely had the original text and the other either a modern "translation" or gloss. Sometimes we read aloud but I suspect with no attempts whatsoever at original pronunciation except for stuff along the lines of learn-ed etc. OP would be unlikely to work... I suspect most of my peers have as much trouble as I do distinguishing Alan/Ellen and pronouncing r's on a consistent basis.

It was no harder nor easier than anything else we did in English; the enterprise (as taught here) being largely a waste of time to start with. The major exercise is, of course, to just regurgitate whatever teacher said. Obviously the actual reading is a bit more difficult and puns and stuff are often missed, but that's why we had the translation/gloss.

When I as at school, we did a play a year from year 7 (age 11) -- and I did English Lit A-levels, so that was seven years and seven plays. I don't remember all of them; I do remember we studied Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Twelfth Night, Othello and Measure for Measure. Reading them, acting them out, analysing them.

We did have footnotes throughout the text, but only picking out the odd word.

I actually enjoyed English classes, but writing essays on the humour of crossed yellow garters was not my favourite task.

Technically we also did Macbeth in Year Seven (turning 12 year) but this was, as I remember, a series of skits. Definitely did the Witches bit and the sequence of kings. I didn't think of it before but it doesn't really belong with the other treatments from the college years now that I have remembered it (even if they were, in practice, quite ad hoc, they were meant to be systematic treatments).

It's possible, in my memory, that I have inflated how extensive the glosses/translations were. I don't think so but, then, I still can't tell you what happened to all my work from year ten (this was something of a problem because the bulk of it had vanished prior to that year's exams) so my memory knows it has issues.

[Ghost Land]

It doesn't matter though, because Old English is clearly the best.

Fuck William the Conqueror.

I unironically agree, as someone interested in other Germanic languages and the cool letters they have that we don't (umlauts, eszett, thorn, eth, etc.).

[Tokora]

Personally I think having the option to learn any or all dialects would be a good idea.

There are a lot of dialects of English. I mean a whole fucking lot.

I did say any or all. I was only thinking of about five before but still even learning one or two more doesn't sound like a terrible waste of time.

[Nantoraka]

American English is clearly better; those Us we aren't using could be going to a better cause.

[Heloin]

There are a lot of dialects of English. I mean a whole fucking lot.

I did say any or all. I was only thinking of about five before but still even learning one or two more doesn't sound like a terrible waste of time.

If you want to learn some of them be my guest. I was more saying that just about every country on Earth has it's own variant of English, that you then subdivide further inside each of them.

American English is clearly better; those Us we aren't using could be going to a better cause.

I don't think you get to talk about which of the two major speech and spelling patterns is "best" when you throw up that word salad at the end there.

[Bear Stearns]

Forget American or British English, try investment banking English.

I have a feeling someone might be doing some weekend work on this, so before we start this process, let's make sure not to put all of our eggs in one basket - if there are too many roosters in the henhouse and too many cooks in the kitchen, we will be letting the wolf into the chicken coop and this will be a hard nut to crack. At the end of the day - looking at the product from 15,000 feet - it's just a blackbox resting on a slippery slope. But from a bottom-up perspective - we're pretty smart guys and doing this from soup to nuts will leave us with bird in hand and create some serious value-added.

Provided we row downstream and don't spin our wheels - there's no need to be caught with our pants down.

Let's take a top-down approach - focus on core competencies, think outside the box, keep it apples to apples and bake in your assumptions, and spread, dig into, play with, juice, goose, vet, run, flesh out, go through with a fine tooth comb, sanity check, scrub and flush the noise out of those numbers. I need you, right now, to sharpen your pencils, get cranking, take the lead, turn these comments, not tread water, bang this out, push it through, get it across the finish line and drop it on my chair. And before you send this to me, make sure to take a step back, get your arms around it, not miss the forest for the trees, and check under the hood - it better hold water. I'm not religious about this, but net-net I would guess there will be some layered switches, hockey sticks, sensitivities, color-coded sheets and zero gridlines. I know you want a rubberstamp - but there is a definite possibility that the Director will want to get his hands dirty - I want us to stay on top of the ball, keep our coach's whistle on, stay behind the wheel and keep ownership of the work.

After the heavy lifting, we just need to get the deliverables out the door and keep everything else under the kitchen sink - we'll figure out its highest and best use later. Keep in mind I am in no way wed to this analysis, but this is a two-horse race, and we can't afford to have our heads in the tent. There is no need to recreate the wheel here, but this will be a great learning experience. Let's discuss when you get in.

Basically, you're preaching to the choir here. To get a little more granular here before we press the print button, let's touch base now. (I'll be out of pocket later, so swing by while I'm on the ground.)

First of all, this is a good chance for you to step up. Right now, the two companies are feeling less than romantic, but remember, all girls talk. I think they'll eventually give up more than a girl on prom night - our job is to get them across the finish line. I want us to manage the process and keep the ball in our court. I appreciate that this may be a bit of a lick in the armpit, but I want us to work smart, not hard, and I don't want to recreate the wheel - this doesn't need to be gold-plated. Let's divide and conquer. You do the blocking and tackling and I'll socialize it with the board. I want us to run this to ground before we lob the missile over to the other side. My fear is that our client will land on a grenade or try to catch a falling piano. We don't want to open up the kimono too soon, or we may bleed to death by a 1000 cuts. Just so we're crystal, let's get on the same page - I don't want us to trip a mine. I'll focus on the care and feeding of the board and you bottom this out. For ease-of-motion and because all the moving parts, I will appoint you scribe. Just blackberry me if you need more guidance. I need to be on a plane now.

Before you sign off, let's not lose sight of the big picture. What's driving all of this is that we could put all the buyers in a Civic and still have spare seats. But, at the end of the day, it is what it is. We may have to kiss a lot of frogs to get there, but I think the other side has been leaving some breadcrumbs on the trail. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just to be sure were not drinking our own kool-aid, let's stress-test this, just for our own back-pocket. I want 100% of your bandwidth. If someone calls, put them on the box and I'll talk to them. With this kind of thing, the devil's in the details. In the mean-time, you keep your head down and I'll keep my ears to the ground. I don't want us to get all hot and heavy yet. Let us bat this around internally and send it over to our scientists in the lab. We need to kick the tires, or else we may find ourselves sitting in neutral. I want to be efficient with the team's time and not spin our wheels - after all, we're all wearing several hats here. The companies are doing the lover's dance but we need to focus on putting this to bed. The industrial logic of this deal is sound, but the issue is the CFO is sitting in the CEO's lap, talking his book. We need some air cover here and if we don't get it, we're going to have to run an audible. For now, we should keep our cards close to our chest.

thx

[Myfanwyski]

:

Fair fa’ your honest, sonsie face,
Great Chieftain o’ the Puddin-race!
Aboon them a’ ye tak your place,
Painch, tripe, or thairm:
Weel are ye wordy of a grace
As lang ‘s my arm.

thanks for that- the opening line always brings a smile to my face and reminds me of mike and bernie winters(don't ask snorbitz)


and i got some education by looking up thairm.

[Jolthig]

Eh, both are good. Diversity in languages are inevitable as part of the linguistics of language evolution. Even Arabic has its diversity as does Spanish.