The world language





  • We autodetected your language as English. If you want to accept this, click Ok. If on the other hand you want English, click Cancel. If you want to see this English message in English, click this link.



    By the way, my language isn't actually English.



  •  There IS a difference between "English (UK)" and "English"... The latter is actually "English (US)", which has such differences as "Color" vs "Colour", or "Fuck" vs "Bugger"...



  • @Valarnin said:

     There IS a difference between "English (UK)" and "English"... The latter is actually "English (US)", which has such differences as "Color" vs "Colour", or "Fuck" vs "Bugger"...

     

    Much of "English" can be converted to "English (UK)" simply by adding unnecessary letters to words.  For example:

    color -> colour

    mustache -> moustache

    check -> cheque

    canceled -> cancelled

    jewelry -> jewellery

    ad -> advert

    airplane -> aeroplane

    one hundred three -> one hundred and three

    ass -> arse

    carburetor -> carburettor

    encyclopedia -> encyclopaedia

    program -> programme

    dialog -> dialogue

    furor -> furore

    diarrhea -> diarrhoea

    specialty -> speciality

    aluminum -> aluminium




  • @da Doctah said:

    Much of "English" can be converted to "English (UK)" simply by adding unnecessary letters to words.
    So, to convert from English to English(US) you just have to be exceedingly lazy? Gotcha.



  • Nope. Just have to win the war...

    Too soon?



  • The hilarious thing (to me, because I hate British people) is that the US is defining the language now. California-accented English is heard from billions of TV sets, where British English is heard from tens of millions, at best.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The hilarious thing (to me, because I hate British people) is that the US is defining the language now. California-accented English is heard from billions of TV sets, where British English is heard from tens of millions, at best.
    Dude! That is like so not true.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The hilarious thing (to me, because I hate British people) is that the US is defining the language now. California-accented English is heard from billions of TV sets, where British English is heard from tens of millions, at best.
    Which makes US English common, and UK English exclusive, hot and sexy.

    (I'm dutch, so my native language is fucked up anyhow)



  •  check != cheque



  • @Helix said:

     check != cheque

     

    I'm talking about those things where you filled in "pay to the order of" and spelled out the amount of money in words.



  • @Brother Laz said:


    By the way, my language isn't actually English.
     

    I guess they did so to avoid the horrible problem: do we say we think he speaks Dutch or French? It's a sensitive issue, and they gracefully sidestepped it by making themselves loo like idiots. Now you can laugh about it, instead of mobilizing former mineworkers to hit each other on the head with crow bars.



  • @PJH said:

    @da Doctah said:
    Much of "English" can be converted to "English (UK)" simply by adding unnecessary letters to words.
    So, to convert from English to English(US) you just have to be exceedingly lazy? Gotcha.

    You just have to turn off spellcheck/autocorrect. This will make you an Insta-Brit! <FONT size=1>(TM)</FONT>

    <FONT size=1></FONT> 

    <FONT size=1>* Insta-Brit Side effects may include: Giant front teeth</FONT>

    <FONT size=1>* Insta-Amerikan side effects may include: Loss of teeth, Religious fanatacism, A feeling of self entitlement.</FONT>



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The hilarious thing (to me, because I hate British people) is that the US is defining the language now. California-accented English is heard from billions of TV sets, where British English is heard from tens of millions, at best.

    That's fine, the feeling's mutual.

    I love how *your experience* of English is assumed to be global. Still, a Texan .NET programmer was hardly going to have a enlightened world view, I suppose.



  • @bertram said:

    Still, a Texan .NET programmer was hardly going to have a enlightened world view, I suppose.

    Oh those damned Texan .net programm-- oh wait, were you trying to imply that I'm Texan? Or a .net programmer? (Well, the latter part is kind of true-- .net is one of the dozen languages I use on a regular basis.)

    @bertram said:

    I love how your experience of English is assumed to be global.

    The "tens of millions" number is low, undoubtedly. But the general point remains. More people now hear California English than UK English.

    Ironically, especially for British language snobs, California English is actually closer to Shakespeare's English than current UK English is. (Also words that you make fun of us for, like "soccer", you actually invented and then dropped, and we kept.)

    BTW, if you care, one of the reasons I hate British people is that they seem like such rational, free-thinking, and liberal on so many issues-- while at the same time they have a royal family which somehow leads to spending government money on crap like homeopathy. WTF, British people. Our health "system" (if you can even call it that) sucks, yes, but at least it's not spending our money on homeopathy... when we throw our money away, we do it on things like cruise missiles, which actually work and are much cooler.



  • "while at the same time they have a royal family which somehow leads to spending government money on crap like homeopathy. "

    No it doesn't. Sure, Prince Big-Ears advocated doing so, but a) we don't actually provide homeopathic treatments on the NHS and b) you misunderstand how we use him. If he advocates doing something, it provides a sure and certain way in which someone who knows nothing about the subject can form a sensible opinion: simply choose the exact opposite and go with that.

    In actual fact, they pay us for the privilege of being the Royal family, so I'm reasonably happy to let them do so. At least they provide one useful service, which is giving us a face to put on their money. On top of that, it's a near-certainty that without them we'd now be lumbered with President Blair as a figure-head, which would be an infinitely worse state of affairs.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    ...when we throw our money away, we do it on things like cruise missiles, which actually work and are much cooler.

    QFT.



  • @intertravel said:

    a) we don't actually provide homeopathic treatments on the NHS

    Bullshit. I now know more about the British government than a certified British person, what do I win?

    EDIT: I think some of the confusion here might be that the NHS is no longer building "homeopathic hospitals", something the aforementioned Mitchell and Webb rightly mocked... so they're slightly less dedicated to funding homeopathy than they were a couple years ago. But they still fund it.

    @intertravel said:

    b) you misunderstand how we use him

    I don't give a shit how you use him, the fact that you have him at all (and don't spit on an effigy of him every day) is the problem. Look, long ago in the mists of time, some asshole convinced a bunch of other assholes that they should follow his orders by killing the ones who disagreed. Thousands of years later, his descendants are still riding high on the hog. Does that sound just? Does that sound fair? Does that sound like something you should be encouraging?

    Your monarchy might have legitimate governmental or diplomatic functions, but those functions need to be open to everybody. And you badly need to embrace our very American philosophy that "all men are created equal," which is True with a capital T.

    @intertravel said:

    In actual fact, they pay us for the privilege of being the Royal family, so I'm reasonably happy to let them do so.

    Only due to contracts that would be illegal in any civilized country. It's not like they're self-made millionaires.

    Answer this honestly: how much government money is going into this stupid wedding crap? At the very least, all UK government employees are getting a day off, so that's gotta be at least a few million pounds, right?

    @intertravel said:

    On top of that, it's a near-certainty that without them we'd now be lumbered with President Blair as a figure-head, which would be an infinitely worse state of affairs.

    At least you elected him. Or his party. Or... his party formed a coalition with a bunch of other parties... or however the fuck your system works, it's all fucked from top to bottom.



  • @blakeyrat said:

      

    You badly need to embrace our very American philosophy that "all men are created equal," which is True with a capital T

    This is bullshit, I know it, you know it, I won't even bother with examples and statistics on how wrong this statement is.

    @blakeyrat said:

     

    Answer this honestly: how much government money is going into this stupid wedding crap? At the very least, all UK government employees are getting a day off, so that's gotta be at least a few million pounds, right?

    Because the US gov does not expend money on crap, oh wait...



  •  ass != arse

    An ass has 4 legs attached.

    An arse has 2. Even an ass's arse.



  • This thread is useless without Morbs :(



  • @Xyro said:

    This thread is useless without Morbs :(

    He still logs in from time to time.  I Can text him. But if you really want him to appear you will most likely need to get on your hands and knees and beg, followed by chanting his name 3 times while staring in your bathroom mirror.



  • @galgorah said:

    But if you really want him to appear you will most likely need to get on your hands and knees and

    NothanksI'mreallynotintothatsortofthingmaybedhromedcandoitinstead
    @galgorah said:
    beg

    Oh ... ... that's not what I expected you to say.



  • @serguey123 said:

    This is bullshit, I know it, you know it, I won't even bother with examples and statistics on how wrong this statement is.

    It's a philosophical statement, so I don't see what statistics have to do with its "wrongness." I would appreciate an explanation, though, if you have one.

    @serguey123 said:

    Because the US gov does not expend money on crap, oh wait...

    Of course we do, but as I posted above (natch, you didn't read it), the crap we spend money on travels faster-than-sound then explodes.


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    @blakeyrat said:

    .net is one of the dozen languages I use on a regular basis

    .NET is a language now?



  • @joe.edwards said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    .net is one of the dozen languages I use on a regular basis

    .NET is a language now?

    Pedantic people are dickweeds?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    This is bullshit, I know it, you know it, I won't even bother with examples and statistics on how wrong this statement is.
    It's a philosophical statement, so I don't see what statistics have to do with its "wrongness." I would appreciate an explanation, though, if you have one.

    Ok, from a purely philosophical view, that is correct, except is not american concept.  Have you heard about the French Revolution?  The wrongness start when we put to practice that statement.

    @blakeyrat said:

     

    @serguey123 said:

    Because the US gov does not expend money on crap, oh wait...
    Of course we do, but as I posted above (natch, you didn't read it), the crap we spend money on travels faster-than-sound then explodes.

    Crap is crap, I don't discriminate and neither should  you, the fact is that US crap is more expensive and some of it is pretty useless.  Have you heard of [insert retarded project, more that we can enumerate]?



  • @Xyro said:

    @galgorah said:
    But if you really want him to appear you will most likely need to get on your hands and knees and
    NothanksI'mreallynotintothatsortofthingmaybedhromedcandoitinstead @galgorah said:
    beg
    Oh ... ... that's not what I expected you to say.

     [grade="elementary:5th"]Thats not what Morbs told me....[/grade]



  • @serguey123 said:

    Ok, from a purely philosophical view, that is correct, except is not american concept.  Have you heard about the French Revolution?

    Have you heard about the Mayflower Accord?

    It might not be an "American" (meaning: the government of the United States of America) idea, but it's definitely an American (the occupants of North America) idea.

    @serguey123 said:

    Crap is crap, I don't discriminate and neither should  you, the fact is that US crap is more expensive and some of it is pretty useless.  Have you heard of [insert retarded project, more that we can enumerate]?

    There's a lot of difference between a scam and crap. A scam is a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Crap is crap. The US Government spends a lot of money on crap, but only rarely on scams.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Have you heard about the Mayflower Accord?

    Not really, do you refer to this? http://www.soskids.arkansas.gov/civics_curriculum/5th_Grade/Lesson-5-1/5-1-Att1-Mayflower-Compact.pdf

    Well, again, not an american idea, although signed there in North America and btw did you see to whom it was addressed?

     @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Crap is crap, I don't discriminate and neither should  you, the fact is that US crap is more expensive and some of it is pretty useless.  Have you heard of [insert retarded project, more that we can enumerate]?
    There's a lot of difference between a scam and crap. A scam is a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Crap is crap. The US Government spends a lot of money on crap, but only rarely on scams.

    Ok, but you said crap, not scam nor hoax.

    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States



  • @blakeyrat said:

    There's a lot of difference between a scam and crap. A scam is a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Crap is crap. The US Government spends a lot of money on crap, but only rarely on scams.


    Er... does that not include certain unpopular wars based on what is now considered rather dubious information?



  • @serguey123 said:

    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

    How exactly is that scam? Because it gives more representational power to smaller states...? I kind of like it that way.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    Have you heard about the Mayflower Accord?

    Not really, do you refer to this? http://www.soskids.arkansas.gov/civics_curriculum/5th_Grade/Lesson-5-1/5-1-Att1-Mayflower-Compact.pdf

    Yeah, which is funny because I swear to God I was taught it as the "Mayflower Accord", until Googling it just now I had no idea it was really called the "Mayflower Compact." So I'm a tard.

    @serguey123 said:

    Well, again, not an american idea, although signed there in North America and btw did you see to whom it was addressed?

    Unless I'm reading it wrong, it's not addressed to anybody... well, maybe the undersigned? What are you getting at?

    @serguey123 said:

    Ok, but you said crap, not scam nor hoax.

    As if those two things are mutually-exclusive.

    @serguey123 said:

    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States

    If you want to gripe about goverment, do it properly.

    The real problem is the concept that citizens need representatives in the first place. Yes, this made sense in the 18th century, but now we have it well within our technical capability for every citizen to vote (or recuse themselves) every week or so on the issues facing the nation. Let's do it.



  • @Xyro said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
    How exactly is that scam? Because it gives more representational power to smaller states...? I kind of like it that way.

    You don't see a contradiction between a so called democracy that empower some citizens more than other? Ok.



  • @Blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Well, again, not an american idea, although signed there in North America and btw did you see to whom it was addressed?
    Unless I'm reading it wrong, it's not addressed to anybody... well, maybe the undersigned? What are you getting at?

    It seems I'm tard as well, ok I did not use the correct word, I was just pointing at the irony of the fact that the document you use as an example to bash monarchy, mentions King James twice in alabance.

    .@Blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States
    If you want to gripe about goverment, do it properly.

    The real problem is the concept that citizens need representatives in the first place. Yes, this made sense in the 18th century, but now we have it well within our technical capability for every citizen to vote (or recuse themselves) every week or so on the issues facing the nation. Let's do it.

    No, the real problem is that most citizen aren't aware of this shit, or were not aware until the Florida debacle when it became newsworthy.

    I'm not totally sure that the way California is approaching this is the correct one, btw.

    PS: btw I'm not north american so this does not affect me at all, only posting in the spirit of friendly debate if possible, blakeyrant if lucky



  • @serguey123 said:

    You don't see a contradiction between a so called democracy that empower some citizens more than other? Ok.

    Wha? Name any government, business, organization, or baseball club that doesn't empower some members more than others. Whether or not that is ideal, it is (or was, as blakey may be arguing) a logistical requirement.

    @serguey123 said:

    No, the real problem is that most citizen aren't aware of this shit, or were not aware until the Florida debacle when it became newsworthy.

    Miseducation has never been particularly interesting to me, no does it make a compelling argument for or against the concept behind the misunderstanding.



  • @Xyro said:

    [ Name any government, business, organization, or baseball club that doesn't empower some members more than others. Whether or not that is ideal, it is (or was, as blakey may be arguing) a logistical requirement.

    So let us call it pseudo democracy, not democracy, and rename the democratic party into the pseudo democratic party.  The fact that our forefather thought the earth was flat does not make it right.  Also we are not our forefathers, change is good sometimes you know?

    @Xyro said:

    @serguey123 said:
    No, the real problem is that most citizen aren't aware of this shit, or were not aware until the Florida debacle when it became newsworthy.
    Miseducation has never been particularly interesting to me, no does it make a compelling argument for or against the concept behind the misunderstanding.

    If you don't understand the issue how can you make an informed opinion on it?  Also why is miseducation not interesting to you?, it makes for some of the most comical wtf in history.



  • @serguey123 said:

    @Xyro said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)
    How exactly is that scam? Because it gives more representational power to smaller states...? I kind of like it that way.

    You don't see a contradiction between a so called democracy that empower some citizens more than other? Ok.

    The Federal Government isn't a government of citizens; it's a government of States. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the US political system... think of the Federal Government as more like the EU than like, say, Spain.

    At least, that was the original intent... the problem is that one of the tenants of our Constitution is that Federal laws override State laws. This was necessary as one of the functions of the Federal Government was to ensure free interstate trade, thus it needed the power to slap down a law from (say) Virginia making it illegal to trade with (say) Maine. It's gotten so bad that while the Federal Government is funding owl dropping studies, and building interstate highways in Hawaii, and giving out student loans, it's utterly failing to do one of the extremely few things it's actually supposed to be doing: defending the borders.

    So now we're in kind of a weird situation where some people want the Federal Government to be the end-all, be-all, and some people want the States to get their power back. (Quick example: why the holy shit is healthcare debate happening at the Federal level? How about we get a couple States piloting healthcare reform, and, if it works, other States could join them? It's stupid to go "all-in" on something so important.)

    @serguey123 said:

    It seems I'm tard as well, ok I did not use the correct word, I was just pointing at the irony of the fact that the document you use as an example to bash monarchy, mentions King James twice in alabance.

    It also calls him "the dread." So.

    @serguey123 said:

    So let us call it pseudo democracy, not democracy, and rename the democratic party into the pseudo democratic party. The fact that our forefather thought the earth was flat does not make it right. Also we are not our forefathers, change is good sometimes you know?

    Nobody ever thought the Earth was flat, that's complete bunk and I wish people would stop citing it as if it was fact.

    Secondly, we don't call it a "democracy" except in the loosest sense of the word. (i.e. we aren't pedantic dickweeds about it.) We call it a Federal Republic. That said, I believe it's safe to say each State is a Democracy, making the Federal Government the "Republic" part... seems like a pretty good description to me.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    The real problem is the concept that citizens need representatives in the first place. Yes, this made sense in the 18th century, but now we have it well within our technical capability for every citizen to vote (or recuse themselves) every week or so on the issues facing the nation. Let's do it.

    Representation isn't THAT bad a thing. However, I'd like to see it done more like jury duty - the government pulls your name out of its arse and you have to be a congresscritter for 3 months - you're locked up in DC with no outside contact for the duration. Yes, it's inconvenient, but it solves both the dynasty and party problems rather cleanly. Naturally, people will need to be compensated nicely to make this worth their time - current junior congressional salary is $174k/yr. So give them the appropriate fraction of that - it'll make most anybody happy.

    With a direct democracy, far too many people will just vote as they're told. With the captive representative model, they at least lack any excuse for not thinking about what they're doing.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Nobody ever thought the Earth was flat, that's complete bunk and I wish people would stop citing it as if it was fact.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society  It seems that there are some people that still believe this to be true,



  • @Xyro said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

    How exactly is that scam? Because it gives more representational power to smaller states...? I kind of like it that way.
    Actually... because the electoral college is hand-picked and is not bound to vote based on the opinions of those it represents.  90% of the population could vote one way, while the electoral college representative votes contrary.



  • @smbarbour said:

    @Xyro said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Let us see, example of scam hmm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

    How exactly is that scam? Because it gives more representational power to smaller states...? I kind of like it that way.
    Actually... because the electoral college is hand-picked and is not bound to vote based on the opinions of those it represents.  90% of the population could vote one way, while the electoral college representative votes contrary.

    Each State gets to decide how to spend their Electorial votes, as it should be. If you live in a State that votes contrary to its citizens wishes (not that any do), then I recommend you either leave, or fix it from within.



  • Hmm, I guess miseducation will be the focus of this new topic after all. Blakey, I'll just let you handle it for a while.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Each State gets to decide how to spend their Electorial votes, as it should be. If you live in a State that votes contrary to its citizens wishes (not that any do), then I recommend you either leave, or fix it from within.
    Not quite. Each state gets to decide which electors to send, and the political parties pick the electors the state chooses from (and in all but one state, the state grabs all the electors from the party backing who the plurality of the public voted for). It's not unknown for an elector to vote for a candidate other than their own party's; in fact that happened at a recent election.

    The whole reason we have an electoral college in the first place is back in the day our founding fathers realized that most American voters are idiots, and wanted them to vote not on who should be president but who they thought would be smart/aware enough to pick the president. And then political parties happened, and states made the decision that voters vote for parties, not electors... If you want to blame someone, blame political parties. Thanks to them, now we vote for which idiots we think will vote for which idiot we want, not for which people to make an intelligent decision.



  • @TwelveBaud said:

    The whole reason we have an electoral college in the first place is back in the day our founding fathers realized that most American voters are idiots,

    I highly doubt that's true.

    Considering the system as originally designed, it's more likely that the intent was for them to choose a President and Vice President that had the connections to effectively lead the States. (Added to the fact that President of the United States wasn't really that prestigious a position, compared to what it is today. Remember: States controlled virtually everything except national defense.)

    @TwelveBaud said:

    If you want to blame someone, blame political parties. Thanks to them, now we vote for which idiots we think will vote for which idiot we want, not for which people to make an intelligent decision.

    It is definitely true that the emergence of political parties has kind of screwed-up the system. Especially compared to other systems where political parties were in-place before the government was designed. (Not to say they're perfect, but at least they take political parties into account.)



  •  Because if all men were created equal we'd all be assholes like you. 



  • @jes said:

    Because if all men were created equal we'd all be assholes like you.

    "be created" ≠ "grow up to be".



  • @galgorah said:

    @Xyro said:

    This thread is useless without Morbs :(

    He still logs in from time to time.  I Can text him. But if you really want him to appear you will most likely need to get on your hands and knees and beg, followed by chanting his name 3 times while staring in your bathroom mirror.

    Why'd he stop visiting TDWTF anyway? Did we bore him too much?

    @blakeyrat said:

    @joe.edwards said:
    @blakeyrat said:
    .net is one of the dozen languages I use on a regular basis

    .NET is a language now?

    Pedantic people are dickweeds?

    @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Ok, from a purely philosophical view, that is correct, except is not american concept.  Have you heard about the French Revolution?

    Have you heard about the Mayflower Accord?

    It might not be an "American" (meaning: the government of the United States of America) idea, but it's definitely an American (the occupants of North America) idea.

    Pedantic much?

    @blakeyrat said:

    @serguey123 said:
    Crap is crap, I don't discriminate and neither should  you, the fact is that US crap is more expensive and some of it is pretty useless.  Have you heard of [insert retarded project, more that we can enumerate]?

    There's a lot of difference between a scam and crap. A scam is a product that doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Crap is crap. The US Government spends a lot of money on crap, but only rarely on scams.

    Like Noah's Ark creationist national parks?



  • @The_Assimilator said:

    Like Noah's Ark creationist national parks?

    Cite?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @The_Assimilator said:
    Like Noah's Ark creationist national parks?
    Cite?

    Hmm, the only Noah's Ark national park that I'm aware of is in Turkey.

    However I also found this http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/gvtfunding_pg.htm



  • @serguey123 said:

    @blakeyrat said:

    @The_Assimilator said:
    Like Noah's Ark creationist national parks?
    Cite?

    Hmm, the only Noah's Ark national park that I'm aware of is in Turkey.

    However I also found this http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/origines/gvtfunding_pg.htm

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40460324/ns/us_news-life/
    A full-scale replica of Noah's Ark will be the biggest feature of a creationism-themed amusement park expected to open in 2014 in northern Kentucky


    $150m.

Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.