>>>>> "ben" == ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ben> On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:52 pm, Carel Fellinger wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 16, 2002 at 06:37:23PM -0800, ben wrote:
>> > On Saturday 16 February 2002 06:33 pm, you wrote:
>> > > On Saturday 16 February 2002 11:41 am, MH wrote:
>> > > [snip]
>> > >
>> > > > and here is really no interest in ridiculing anyone and
>> less someone > > > who would formulate constructively his
>> criticism and suggestions ...
>> >
>> > i really really don't want you to construe this as any kind
>> of > xenophobia, but this phrase above just doesn't work in
>> english. i have no > idea what you meant to convey by this.
>>
>> I admit, I'm no english man, but the sentence you fail to parse
>> seem clear as can be to my foreign eyes:) Or were you just
>> kidding?
>>
>> To me it says, that we on this list have no interest in
>> ridiculing anyone, and especially not someone that formulates
>> his criticism and suggestions in a constructive way.
Thanks Carel, it's nice to have a personal translator ;-)
ben> no, i wasn't kidding, and thanks for the translation. perhaps
ben> it's all the more apparent to you precisely because you are
ben> not a native english speaker.
ben> that said, grammar does count in english, primarily because
ben> it lacks any basis in logic, having been derived from a broad
ben> corruption of romance (latin based; spanish, french, italian)
ben> and germanic languages (german, dutch, and all that of the
ben> scandinavian countries--except for finnish, which, by its
ben> name, desribes, at least phonetically, notice of its own
ben> imminent demise).
Thanks for the lesson (my side line is teaching this stuff in German
or Spanish, so I always welcome some fresh air). I know my English is
bad and I can bear with it. I hope you speak German, Spanish, French,
Portuguese or a bit of Russian so we easily will find a common ground
for our discussion.
ben> nonetheless, while the rules of english lack logic, those
ben> rules do, however, have significance in usage, particularly
ben> where one seeks to make a salient point based on tenuous
ben> grounds.
ben> given your translation--which by its existence justifies its
ben> necessity--i am moved to respond to the original poster that
ben> people in glass houses are well advised to not throw stones.
That's not very logical "which by it's existence justifies", when you asked
for it (a paraphrase, not a "translation") before.
Ok the point was: It was intended as an intersection of a general
sentence "who formulates" and a personal observation (subjunctive
"if you would formulate"); you could call it a kind of "contaminatio"
rhetorically.
So it was intentional nonsense.
And obviously it didn't work out (for you at least), so I'll confine
myself to technical answers.
Regards,
MH
--
(Dr.) Michael Hummel
mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] || [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
fprint = F24D EAC6 E3D7 372C 9122 D510 EB24 01CA 0B56 B518
id: 1024D/0B56B518 key: http://www.seitung.net/key
pgpJFMGoBzoqa.pgp
Description: PGP signature
