Crucifiction of the English Language

[YukonJack]

Reply to #30.

Notice, though that in the palindrome "GNU DUNG" the pronounciation is the same.

 

[YukonJack]

JLM, since you are an avid poster on it, you must be aware of a thread called "The 100 most often mispronounced words and phrases" or some such.

Therefore your new post with its despicable title could have only come about with malicious intentions and utter insensitivity.

There was a time when I thought that you were worth having a debate with.

BTW, the definition of the word "CRUCIFICTION" is:

"The act of crucifying; the putting to death of Christ on the cross. A picture or representation of this; severe persecution or pain".

One needs to have a totally infected sick mind to equate the misuse of the English Language to this.

 

[JLM]

JLM, since you are an avid poster on it, you must be aware of a thread called "The 100 most often mispronounced words and phrases" or some such.

Therefore your new post with its despicable title could have only come about with malicious intentions and utter insensitivity.

tHERE

Yep, it was a little different in that it was dealing with mispronunciation whereas mine took in all gaffes. "despicable"- your opinion and you are entitled to it- "malicious" -ABSOLUTELY NOT, that requires intent by the perpetrator. Have a nice Easter Y.J. and rub on some skin thickening lotion.

 

[L Gilbert]

JLM, since you are an avid poster on it, you must be aware of a thread called "The 100 most often mispronounced words and phrases" or some such.

Therefore your new post with its despicable title could have only come about with malicious intentions and utter insensitivity.

There was a time when I thought that you were worth having a debate with.

BTW, the definition of the word "CRUCIFICTION" is:

"The act of crucifying; the putting to death of Christ on the cross. A picture or representation of this; severe persecution or pain".

Also, "the act of executing by a method widespread in the ancient world; the victim's hands and feet are bound or nailed to a cross " - Princeton U. No names, mythical beings, etc. specified, except for the source of the definition.

One needs to have a totally infected sick mind to equate the misuse of the English Language to this.

I guess people who say they "crucified" a friend at cribbage, tennis, chess would also be "totally infected sick", too. How about massacred, decimated, etc.? lol

 

[Machjo]

JLM, using the word "CRUCIFICTION" in a context other than the method of execution of Jesus, especially on Good Friday, is offensive to anyone who believes in Christianity and the significance of the Easter Season.

I can't know your mind. Perhaps you meant no offense. But you could have used - instead of "CRUCIFICTION" words like 'abuse', 'misuse' and a whole host of other words just as effective and descriptive in order to get your point across.

I apologize for the use of the adjective "sick". Admittedly, it was a tad too strong. Perhaps it was the best indicator that my knowledge of English anything but lexicographic.

Just a point about the application of the word 'crucifixion'. No, it's not uniquely Christian. In fact, crucifixion was a standard practice in certain parts of the Roman empire. Jesus would not have stood out at all on that point. He was crucified like many others before and after him. I remember reading a few essays a few years ago about the Roman government of the time, focussing especially on laws and punishments. The word crucifiction and its derivatives (crucify, etc.) appeared so often in the essays, even though no mention of the Christian Faith was even made, that it had disassociated the word from the Christian Faith in my mind.

Since I was raised Christian, for most of my childhood, crucifiction was in fact associated with the Christian faith in my mind. But we also need to look at it from another perspective. For a non-Christian who'd never gone to church but who might have read on the topic of Roman punishments in the general sence, could possibly have been exposed to the word in its secular sence than in its religious sence.

Just as a non-Muslim might not always be aware of what might offend a Muslim, or a non-Jew of what might offend a Jew, so a non-Christian might not always be aware of the strictly Christian application of the word. Or more precisely, that some Chirstians are unaware of the historical secular and judiciary aspect of crucifiction, resulting in their perceiving it in a strictly Christian sense.

While I fully agree that Christians should inform others of what might offend them so that they do not repeat the act, it's inappropriate to spew hateful remarks as you did, which in itself is unbecoming of a Christian anyway.

 

[L Gilbert]

Spelling isn't the only way the language is abused (is that term ok or will it offend someone, too?). There is also, mispronunciation, bad grammar, etc.

 

[YukonJack]

Reply #49.

Thanks kerrie!

That is exactly what it was. And let me tell you, I would have been just as indignant if the butt and target of this sick joke had been Mulims or pagans.

Disrespect is disrespect, and only amuses the small of mind.

 

[Machjo]

Here's what I found for crucifixion at dictionary.com:

–noun 1. the act of crucifying. 2. the state of being crucified. 3. ( initial capital letter

) the death of Jesus upon the Cross. 4. a picture or other representation of this. 5. severe and unjust punishment or suffering; persecution.

 

[Machjo]

Crucifixion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution in which the condemned person is tied or nailed to a large wooden cross (of various shapes) and left to hang until dead. The term comes from the Latin crucifixio, fixed to a cross, from prefix cruci-, cross, + verb ficere, fix or do[1].
Crucifixion was in use particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD, when in the year 337 Emperor Constantine I abolished it in his empire, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.[2][3] It has sometimes been used even in modern times.

So clearly crucifixion has nothing to do with the Christian Faith per se within a secular context, as would be the case in a secular internet forum.

 

[JLM]

The main intent of this thread has obviously been lost- to get a few chuckles out of ways the English language has been MISSPOKEN (or any other of 100 words and metaphors) Let's get back on track and away from the bullsh*t.

 

[YukonJack]

Reply to #70, by JLM, the original poster of this mess:

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

You finally found the word you could have used without offending anyone.

 

[Machjo]

The crew's eviction of cries can give us whirled peas.

 

[Cliffy]

YouTube - Monty Python - Life of Brian

 

[JLM]

Reply to #70, by JLM, the original poster of this mess:

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

You finally found the word you could have used without offending anyone.

Why are you speaking for others? All you know for sure is it doesn't offend you. There's nothing sacred about any word in the English language- UNLESS, it's capitalized.

 

[YukonJack]

Nothing defines a nation better than the language the people speak.

So, denigrate a language, denigrate a nation/people.

FAR, far, far worse than denigrating blacks or gays.

 

[YukonJack]

"Why are you speaking for others? All you know for sure is it doesn't offend you. There's nothing sacred about any word in the English language- UNLESS, it's capitalized."

Now, the above idiocy left me and propably all sober people totally flummoxed.

 

[JLM]

"Nothing defines a nation better than the language the people speak.

So, denigrate a language, denigrate a nation/people.

FAR, far, far worse than denigrating blacks or gays."

What about Switzerland? They speak four languages? I can think of quite a few better things that define a nation- generosity, hospitality, freedom of choices. Actually it is "language" that causes quite a bit of grief- things might be better if people didn't open their mouths.

 

[Machjo]

English isn't an easy language, by no means.

I could see compartmentalizing the language. To take the verb to be asan example, why not separate the root and just add verbal endings. For example:

English Alternative possibility
I am mi estas
you are vi estas
he is li estas
we are ni estas
you are vi estas
they are ili estas

This way, all we'd need to do to convert into the past tense would be to change the verbal ending:

English Alternative
I was mi estis
you were vi estis
he was li estis
we were ni estis
you were vi estis
they were ili estis

Etc.

Same with opposites:

English Alternative
beautiful bela
ugly malbela
big granda
small malgranda

And gender:

English Alternative
man viro
woman virino
boy knabo
girl knabino
ox (vir)bovo
cow bovino
rooster (vir)koko
hen kokino

We could do the same with nouns, adjectives and adverbs:

English alternative
man viro
virile vira
in a man-like manner vire

dog hundo
canine hunda
in a dg-like manner hunde

Sun suno
solar suna

moon luno
lunar luna

star stelo
stellar stela

And instead of having everyone learn 30,000 plus words just to function in English (seldom do we realise how many words we use in our daily lives and take our language advantage for granted on the world stage), we could just have them learn roots. Once they know the roots, they can figure out the words for themselves. Example:

mal- direct opposite
san/a healthy
-ul- person
-ej- place
-o noun

malsanulo unhealthy person
ejo place
malsanulejo place for ill persons, hospital

For international communication, English is grossly too difficult to learn. and unjust to boot.

 

[YukonJack]

Machjo, you could not be any more wrong. English is an EASY language to learn; take me as an example.

I came to Canada as a snot-nosed 17-year old. I spoke two words of English. After being in Canada for six years, working in mines, lumbercamps and other menial jobs I was able learn enough English to go back to high school as an adult student and complete Grade 13.

After that I learned another language: COBOL. I spent 37 years as a computer programmer for a major company.

Admittedly, sometimes my posts do not sound as sophisticated as those of SirJosephPorter or JLM or Cliffy or Tyr, but it is hardly ever that I leave my audience wondering.

I have no idea what your post #78 is supposed to represent, but as far as I can tell it has no relation to the English language.

 

[Machjo]

Machjo, you could not be any more wrong. English is an EASY language to learn; take me as an example.

I came to Canada as a snot-nosed 17-year old. I spoke two words of English. After being in Canada for six years, working in mines, lumbercamps and other menial jobs I was able learn enough English to go back to high school as an adult student and complete Grade 13.

After that I learned another language: COBOL. I spent 37 years as a computer programmer for a major company.

Admittedly, sometimes my posts do not sound as sophisticated as those of SirJosephPorter or JLM or Cliffy or Tyr, but it is hardly ever that I leave my audience wondering.

I have no idea what your post #78 is supposed to represent, but as far as I can tell it has no relation to the English language.

And you lived in an English-speaking environment. Big difference.

This statistic from Quebec would seem to suggest that unlesss you're in the environment, it's not so easy after all:

Population by knowledge of official language, by province and territory (2006 Census)

And I'd trust statistics over myown experience. I know a few languages myself, but it would be outright arrogant of me to ignore statistics and pretend that just because it's a little easier for me than for others, that it should be easy for all. Statistics will give a much more accurate overview of how easy it is for the overall population.

As for my post above, I was just showing how easy a language can in fact be. If you're not interested, feel free to ignore it. I know I'm sexy, but you can resist and turn your eyes away, can't you?