EEVblog Electronics Community Forum
General => General Technical Chat => Topic started by: Homer J Simpson on April 21, 2018, 09:06:03 am
-
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/africa/swaziland-eswatini-africa-monarchy-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/africa/swaziland-eswatini-africa-monarchy-intl/index.html)
Now all that's left is for Australia to rename itself so it is no longer confused with Austria.
-k
-
Downunderia ?
-
I suppose we could always go back to "New Holland".
-
Strayamate 8)
-
I suppose we could always go back to "New Holland".
Yes. But youd need windmills and wooden shoes.
-
Slovakia / Slovenia anyone?
-
I never saw any confusion between the two.
-
I suppose we could always go back to "New Holland".
Yes, before the bloody brits decided to just ignore that name.
+ for getting your history right btw! Not many people actually know this :-+
-
I suppose we could always go back to "New Holland".
Yes. But youd need windmills and wooden shoes.
And tulips and pot. Lots of pot!
-
:palm: maybe the Swazies got confused between Swaziland and Switzerland.....
-
Yes, finally! Now if only we can get Sweden to rename itself too... ;D
-
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/africa/swaziland-eswatini-africa-monarchy-intl/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/20/africa/swaziland-eswatini-africa-monarchy-intl/index.html)
Now all that's left is for Australia to rename itself so it is no longer confused with Austria.
-k
I can't really see the confusion between Swaziland and Confedoeratio Helvetica.
Nor, for that matter, Australia & Osterreich ( sorry, I don't know how to make the iPad do umlauts)
;D
-
Nor, for that matter, Australia & Osterreich ( sorry, I don't know how to make the iPad do umlauts)
;D
IIRC, hold the ALT key down and press O until the umlaut is displayed. Another way would be to set the keyboard to Unicode Hex Input, and hold ALT and enter in the 4 digit hex code. In the case of Ö, it's c3 96.
-
Here's someone that will straighten you out on the Austria/Australia issue...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRIUbFLjtX0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRIUbFLjtX0)
Brian
-
Nor, for that matter, Australia & Osterreich ( sorry, I don't know how to make the iPad do umlauts)
;D
IIRC, hold the ALT key down and press O until the umlaut is displayed. Another way would be to set the keyboard to Unicode Hex Input, and hold ALT and enter in the 4 digit hex code. In the case of Ö, it's c3 96.
Sorry to break it to you man, but that thing with the ALT key on isn't an iPad. 'Fraid ya got burned man. :)
I suspect that and iPad and a Mac work the same - in the case of the later, just hold the o key down and you'll get a pop-up at the cursor with all the accented variants to choose from. Like this:
(https://www.eevblog.com/forum/chat/swaziland-has-changed-the-name-to-avoid-confusion-with-switzerland/?action=dlattach;attach=415176;image)
-
Should have just gone for Wakanda!
-
Big Brother Island in the middle of the political correct sea
-
Why are you doing this?
Österreich is Austria, Bundesrepublik Deutschland is Germany, Köln is Cologne ... We don't change your names. We say how it is. This is so condescending.
Any idea why? I'm sure you can pronounce "Deutschland" somehow. It would even sound more like the actual name instead of "germany"
-
Why are you doing this?
Österreich is Austria, Bundesrepublik Deutschland is Germany, Köln is Cologne ... We don't change your names. We say how it is. This is so condescending.
Any idea why? I'm sure you can pronounce "Deutschland" somehow. It would even sound more like the actual name instead of "germany"
Why do you call English, englisch, why do you call someone who's British, brite? This is so condescending. I'm sure you can pronounce these words properly if only you try...
-
It sounds to me more like they are trying to distance themselves from British rule by adopting a traditional name. I can understand why. Swaziland was a name somewhat forced upon them and may remind them of British rule. I still like Wakanda better though.
-
Turkey anyone?
-
Why are you doing this?
Österreich is Austria, Bundesrepublik Deutschland is Germany, Köln is Cologne ... We don't change your names. We say how it is. This is so condescending.
Any idea why? I'm sure you can pronounce "Deutschland" somehow. It would even sound more like the actual name instead of "germany"
Why do you call English, englisch, why do you call someone who's British, brite? This is so condescending. I'm sure you can pronounce these words properly if only you try...
the word "Dutch" is also very confusing.
Blame the Brits for that though. OR maybe the rest of the world (incl Netherlands themselves) for not keeping the word "Diets(ch)"
Although than Diets(ch) and Deutsch would be to similar.......
You can never win :'( :'( :'(
-
Why are you doing this?
Österreich is Austria, Bundesrepublik Deutschland is Germany, Köln is Cologne ... We don't change your names. We say how it is. This is so condescending.
Any idea why? I'm sure you can pronounce "Deutschland" somehow. It would even sound more like the actual name instead of "germany"
I'm not sure who you are addressing here.
I was really making the point that mostly, the real names of Countries & places are quite different from the "Anglo" version, so there is no reason for confusion.
The origin of these silly names are lost in history.
It seems that, particularly, the English, people had trouble getting their tongues, (or perhaps their heads) around the real names, & ended up using nicknames which became entrenched in common usage.
After I wrote the above, I had a look at an "on line" translation of Deutschland to various languages.
I was astounded by how many countries called it something else!
Most of them seem to be some variations of "Germany", maybe because the Ancient Romans called the part of Europe roughly coincident with modern Deutschland "Germania".
Others follow the French name for your Country "Allemagne".
(I hate Safari! It tried to turn that into "ale mange" :palm:)
Still others, go their own way completely.
As the old English saying goes :-" Folk are strange cattle".
-
Why are you doing this?
Österreich is Austria, Bundesrepublik Deutschland is Germany, Köln is Cologne ... We don't change your names. We say how it is. This is so condescending.
Any idea why? I'm sure you can pronounce "Deutschland" somehow. It would even sound more like the actual name instead of "germany"
I'm not sure who you are addressing here.
The english-man, of course. I forgot about France. It seems nobody likes us. (Even before He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named)
If it comes from "Germania", what makes sense, then it never really changed outside of our own country. Like, you never acknowledged our name-change. :)
-
Most of them seem to be some variations of "Germany", maybe because the Ancient Romans called the part of Europe roughly coincident with modern Deutschland "Germania".
You don't have to go to ancient Rome, as recently as the 18th century will do. Educated men wrote Latin and that was the lingua franca of scholarship from early modern history up until the early 18th century (whereas French was the literal lingua franca of diplomacy). Newton's final version of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1726 was still in Latin. The men, and it was men, most likely to write to each other across borders were scholars and thus Latinate names got circulation among the scholarly and those close to them. So Greece was Græcia, not Ελλάδα, Finland got anglicized from Finnonia, not Suomi, but counties whose native name was cognate with the Latin version of it stayed the same.
"Germany" (as in the everyday English name for the country) is an odd one, as German and English are much closer languages than a lot of people realise. It's no accident that we call the short pithy words for bodily functions Anglo-Saxon; the modern English and Germans have no difficulty recognising each other's words for these things: pissen, scheißen and so on. Latin and French influences on English are relative latecomers. One can only surmise that the influence of the 'posh' scholars and society types pushed older, arguably more native, words aside.
-
The men, and it was men, ...
Seriously? ...
List of women astronomers: (I added if they wrote or read latin)
Maria Mitchell (1818–1889) Professor of astronomy at Vassar College. Could definitely read latin
Caroline Herschel (1750–1848) could read latin
...whatever, just go through this yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_women_scientists
-
The men, and it was men, ...
Seriously? ...
List of women astronomers: (I added if they wrote or read latin)
Maria Mitchell (1818–1889) Professor of astronomy at Vassar College. Could definitely read latin
Caroline Herschel (1750–1848) could read latin
...whatever, just go through this yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_women_scientists
Yes, seriously. I said "men" and qualified it to make it clear I meant men, not "people", precisely because I wanted to point up that; however unfair it may be, in the period I covered, early modern history up to the early 18th century, it was a man's world in international scholarship.
You are presumably trying to make some sort of 'sexism' point, or just being contrarian – and from what we've seen from you so far, that would not be unusual – I was just trying to reflect history. For every woman you could list I could list a hundred men, perhaps a thousand. If you don't like the fact that women's contributions to history are largely unrecorded go and write a book about it, don't moan at me. In particular don't moan at me precisely because I do point out, indirectly, the inequities.
-
Yes, finally! Now if only we can get Sweden to rename itself too... ;D
Why? The Finnlandians call Sweden Routsi! So no mix up there. :)
-
The men, and it was men, ...
Seriously? ...
List of women astronomers: (I added if they wrote or read latin)
Maria Mitchell (1818–1889) Professor of astronomy at Vassar College. Could definitely read latin
Caroline Herschel (1750–1848) could read latin
...whatever, just go through this yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:18th-century_women_scientists
Yes, seriously. I said "men" and qualified it to make it clear I meant men, not "people", precisely because I wanted to point up that; however unfair it may be, in the period I covered, early modern history up to the early 18th century, it was a man's world in international scholarship.
You are presumably trying to make some sort of 'sexism' point, or just being contrarian – and from what we've seen from you so far, that would not be unusual – I was just trying to reflect history. For every woman you could list I could list a hundred men, perhaps a thousand. If you don't like the fact that women's contributions to history are largely unrecorded go and write a book about it, don't moan at me. In particular don't moan at me precisely because I do point out, indirectly, the inequities.
(That "seriously" was there because I know you know better. At least that is my impression of you)
I know they were "sexist" back then and I'm not implying you are. Reflecting history without the exceptions, you are.
It's like changing history. That is not good. Make it clear what you mean instead of telling someone untrue statements. (They are untrue if you phrase them as you did. It implies there were no woman who read and wrote latin.)
All I ever do is point out inadequacies. People don't seem to like that they are making bad decisions or wrong statements. Don't go at me for correcting them. Someone needs to point out that either psychology, history or simple logic is saying they're wrong. How is anyone going to learn if everyone is wrong all the time? Always saying "Yes, you're right!" is not helping anyone.
I may not state the studies or papers that back my ramblings, but they're there. I'm just too lazy to go search for them again. Nobody is going to change anyway. For example, my post in the "why is nobody learning tables anymore"-thread. It's because tables are bad. It's not my opinion alone! It's what way more knowledgeable people in psychology or mathematics think. I was just pointing that out in a way that I hoped would be more comprehensible than a link to some study.
I'm not just "anti". You have to see this.
-
I suppose we could always go back to "New Holland".
Yes, before the bloody brits decided to just ignore that name.
+ for getting your history right btw! Not many people actually know this :-+
The British stole most of the Dutch colonial possessions, New Holland as well as New Amsterdam (New York) and a host of islands in the Indies. The Dutch were a serious adversary of the British dream of Empire for most of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Dutch even raided up the Thames in the 1700's, hitting the Royal Naval dockyards at Chatham on the Swale and burning lots of warships at Spithead (I think, it may have been the Nore). Nelson finally put paid to their challenge at Copenhagen near the end of the century, just in time for France to take their place as the prime competition. I've been a big fan of Naval history for a long time, but it doesn't get much attention despite some fascinating episodes and events with repercussions right up to the present day.
-
I suppose we could always go back to "New Holland".
Yes, before the bloody brits decided to just ignore that name.
+ for getting your history right btw! Not many people actually know this :-+
The British stole most of the Dutch colonial possessions, New Holland as well as New Amsterdam (New York) and a host of islands in the Indies. The Dutch were a serious adversary of the British dream of Empire for most of the 17th and 18th centuries. The Dutch even raided up the Thames in the 1700's, hitting the Royal Naval dockyards at Chatham on the Swale and burning lots of warships at Spithead (I think, it may have been the Nore). Nelson finally put paid to their challenge at Copenhagen near the end of the century, just in time for France to take their place as the prime competition. I've been a big fan of Naval history for a long time, but it doesn't get much attention despite some fascinating episodes and events with repercussions right up to the present day.
The Nederlandsers never actually got around to claiming Australia.
A bit short sighted, but maybe they were more interested in training with the "East Indies".
Most of the contacts with Oz were traders heading to Batavia, who had the misfortune to collide with Western Australia.
-
(That "seriously" was there because I know you know better. At least that is my impression of you)
I know they were "sexist" back then and I'm not implying you are. Reflecting history without the exceptions, you are.
It's like changing history. That is not good. Make it clear what you mean instead of telling someone untrue statements. (They are untrue if you phrase them as you did. It implies there were no woman who read and wrote latin.)
All I ever do is point out inadequacies.
People don't seem to like that they are making bad decisions or wrong statements. Don't go at me for correcting them. Someone needs to point out that either psychology, history or simple logic is saying they're wrong. How is anyone going to learn if everyone is wrong all the time? Always saying "Yes, you're right!" is not helping anyone.
"All I ever do is point out inadequacies" - yes, your own. Don't ever use language like that unless you want a fight. It's insulting, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's your ability in English that is at fault, not a desire to get verbally punched in the mouth. To be telling other people to "make it clear what you mean" while making a faux pax like that is, at the very least, arrogant. Have you ever considered that what is perhaps at fault here is your comprehension of English and that you are inferring that which is not implied?
I may not state the studies or papers that back my ramblings, but they're there. I'm just too lazy to go search for them again. Nobody is going to change anyway. For example, my post in the "why is nobody learning tables anymore"-thread. It's because tables are bad. It's not my opinion alone! It's what way more knowledgeable people in psychology or mathematics think. I was just pointing that out in a way that I hoped would be more comprehensible than a link to some study.
I'm not just "anti". You have to see this.
Nobody has to do anything because you say so, but again, perhaps you're not not reading as writing as clearly as you think you are. In case you don't get it, you've used the imperative tense, the one used for giving orders.
-
The British stole most of the Dutch colonial possessions, ...
Now, now, old chap, do get it right. The nasty Dutch invaded and colonised; we came along and liberated people from the Dutch hand of oppression and then civilized them. The trading wealth and massive empire was a mere accidental side effect. :)
-
The Dutch even raided up the Thames in the 1700's, hitting the Royal Naval dockyards at Chatham on the Swale and burning lots of warships at Spithead (I think, it may have been the Nore). Nelson finally put paid to their challenge at Copenhagen near the end of the century
More mixed up countries ... :-DD
-
The Dutch even raided up the Thames in the 1700's, hitting the Royal Naval dockyards at Chatham on the Swale and burning lots of warships at Spithead (I think, it may have been the Nore). Nelson finally put paid to their challenge at Copenhagen near the end of the century
More mixed up countries ... :-DD
It's confusing. At the time of the second battle of Copenhagen there was no such thing as "the Dutch" as the Netherlands had been subsumed into the directly ruled French Empire. Nelson (British) was fighting Denmark-Norway to force them not to capitulate to the desire of the French Empire for a Baltic blockage of the British fleet (both merchant and military).
Was it, in the grand scheme of things, the crucial battle in finally quashing Dutch maritime power? Possibly, even though it wasn't a battle with the Netherlands, who further didn't exist as a state at the time.
The current Syrian proxy war is simple and straightforward compared to the geopolitical history of the Napoleonic Wars.
-
Oops, sorry about that. I must have got foncused again.... it's the fumes! I'll get me coat.
It was the battle of Camperdown I was thinking of anyway, not Copenhagen. Captain Bligh (later of the Bounty) was there as a Lt., Nelson might have had the Agamemnon, but I can't remember now |O.
-
"All I ever do is point out inadequacies" - yes, your own. Don't ever use language like that unless you want a fight. It's insulting, and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that it's your ability in English that is at fault, not a desire to get verbally punched in the mouth. To be telling other people to "make it clear what you mean" while making a faux pax like that is, at the very least, arrogant. Have you ever considered that what is perhaps at fault here is your comprehension of English and that you are inferring that which is not implied?You have to see this.
Nobody has to do anything because you say so, but again, perhaps you're not not reading as writing as clearly as you think you are. In case you don't get it, you've used the imperative tense, the one used for giving orders.
You said: "The men, and it was men, most likely to write to each other across borders were scholars and thus Latinate names got circulation among the scholarly and those close to them." --- "I said "men" and qualified it to make it clear I meant men, not "people", precisely because I wanted to point up that; however unfair it may be, in the period I covered, early modern history up to the early 18th century, it was a man's world in international scholarship."(Color shows connection)
You know, I was reading that as if you were stating the undeniable fact that there were no woman in that time-frame who spoke or read Latin, doing science - and then you were consolidating it by excluding women again and again. :o
I totally misunderstood everything. I don't know why it was so hard to understand. :-// |O Maybe it has to do with the state I'm in lately: I'm sleeping like a random-number-generator and hate everyone/-thing because of the withdrawal symptoms. (Yeah, drugs dude! ... But just Antidepressant)
"...you've used the imperative tense, the one used for giving orders."
Yes, I know that much. ;D It's a figure of speech -> more like a desperate wish. Does this one not exist in the UK?
Thanks for telling me about the imperative tense, though.
I'm sorry. We OK now? :)
-
"...you've used the imperative tense, the one used for giving orders."
Yes, I know that much. ;D It's a figure of speech -> more like a desperate wish. Does this one not exist in the UK?
Thanks for telling me about the imperative tense, though.
In English one uses a different tense and the imperative word is used as an adverb to make it clear that it is rhetoric, not an order, so one might say: "You must be able to see that." (declarative) or "Surely you must be able to see that?" (rhetorical or interrogative, but almost always rhetorical).
I'm sorry. We OK now? :)
Of course.
This forum is, perforce, a short, sharp lesson in English comprehension for the non-English speakers. As long as linguistic misunderstandings get sorted out quickly and politely it is of no consequence. I knew what you meant by "you must (be able to) see this" and indeed, in everyday speech the "(be able to)" part might get elided*, but it was a useful hook to hang my argument that perhaps you were outside your language "comfort zone" on.
English can be a struggle, it throws around conditional clauses like no other language, and frequently we English speakers do that without noticing and without understanding that, for native speakers of some other languages, that can be very hard to follow and understand**. At least we can all be grateful that we are not speaking highly formal Hochdeutsch and waiting all year for the verb to come along. :)
*Elision - The deliberate omission of sounds, words or even whole phrases from a language such as "I've" instead of "I have".
**Deliberately constructed with exactly that kind of conditional clause. A clean version would be: "Frequently we native English speakers use complex conditional clauses without realizing that we are doing so, and without understanding how hard that kind of English is for some non-English speakers to follow."
-
My brain always serves an extra high priority ISR for handling the exceptions, when bumped of these ... good, gooder, goodest. ::)
-
The British stole most of the Dutch colonial possessions, ...
Now, now, old chap, do get it right. The nasty Dutch invaded and colonised; we came along and liberated people from the Dutch hand of oppression and then civilized them. The trading wealth and massive empire was a mere accidental side effect. :)
"Liberated" lol, that's also a extremely biased way of looking at it :o ^-^ ;) ;D
Guess that history books in the UK tell a slightly different story maybe. lol
Basically forcing people to different cultures and believes*
The Dutch just were there for trading*, that's why they never set foot on New Holland and New Zealand as well.
If the Netherlands didn't had so much struggle during the 80th year war at the same time, there would be probably a much bigger change that more areas would be Dutch nowadays.
So yeah, in a sense the British stole it from the Dutch. Although, the Dutch 'stole' it from the natives living there.
*Both equally horrible at that time btw.
-
"...you've used the imperative tense, the one used for giving orders."
Yes, I know that much. ;D It's a figure of speech -> more like a desperate wish. Does this one not exist in the UK?
Thanks for telling me about the imperative tense, though.
In English one uses a different tense and the imperative word is used as an adverb to make it clear that it is rhetoric, not an order, so one might say: "You must be able to see that." (declarative) or "Surely you must be able to see that?" (rhetorical or interrogative, but almost always rhetorical).
I'm sorry. We OK now? :)
Of course.
This forum is, perforce, a short, sharp lesson in English comprehension for the non-English speakers. As long as linguistic misunderstandings get sorted out quickly and politely it is of no consequence. I knew what you meant by "you must (be able to) see this" and indeed, in everyday speech the "(be able to)" part might get elided*, but it was a useful hook to hang my argument that perhaps you were outside your language "comfort zone" on.
English can be a struggle, it throws around conditional clauses like no other language, and frequently we English speakers do that without noticing and without understanding that, for native speakers of some other languages, that can be very hard to follow and understand**. At least we can all be grateful that we are not speaking highly formal Hochdeutsch and waiting all year for the verb to come along. :)
*Elision - The deliberate omission of sounds, words or even whole phrases from a language such as "I've" instead of "I have".
**Deliberately constructed with exactly that kind of conditional clause. A clean version would be: "Frequently we native English speakers use complex conditional clauses without realizing that we are doing so, and without understanding how hard that kind of English is for some non-English speakers to follow."
Then again, there is English & English!
In Australian English, there is nothing wrong with "you have to see this".
It is recognised as rhetorical, albeit a little "pushy", implying as it does, "Blind Freddie could see that!"
-
The British stole most of the Dutch colonial possessions, ...
Now, now, old chap, do get it right. The nasty Dutch invaded and colonised; we came along and liberated people from the Dutch hand of oppression and then civilized them. The trading wealth and massive empire was a mere accidental side effect. :)
"Liberated" lol, that's also a extremely biased way of looking at it :o ^-^ ;) ;D
Guess that history books in the UK tell a slightly different story maybe. lol
Basically forcing people to different cultures and believes*
The Dutch just were there for trading*, that's why they never set foot on New Holland and New Zealand as well.
If the Netherlands didn't had so much struggle during the 80th year war at the same time, there would be probably a much bigger change that more areas would be Dutch nowadays.
So yeah, in a sense the British stole it from the Dutch. Although, the Dutch 'stole' it from the natives living there.
*Both equally horrible at that time btw.
You do realise that was meant as a joke, at the expense of my native country? I though you antipodeans understood self-deprecating humour; the tone, along with the smiley, was a big hint.
-
Then again, there is English & English!
In Australian English, there is nothing wrong with "you have to see this".
It is recognised as rhetorical, albeit a little "pushy", implying as it does, "Blind Freddie could see that!"
You've just made me realise there's another intent/interpretation of the phrase "you have to see this". Hearing it cold, with no context, it could also mean "Aw, mate. You have to see this. There's a bloke over there (doing something amazing/funny/terrifying/stupid)." - that works in Strine and Cockney.
-
Change New York back to New Amsterdam???
Hmmmmmm
Somehow Frank Sinatra's famous song would not sound quite right:
....I want to be a part of it, New Amsterdam, New Amsterdam
Your vagabond shoes, they are longing to stray
And steps around the heart of it, New Amsterdam, New Amsterdam...
;D ;D ;D
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUrUfJW1JGk)
-
What about Dominica and Dominican Republic? Both are called "Dominicans". I have had trouble in the past with this.
Edit: now that I read the second page I kind of regret posting here... now my inbox will be full of posts from a derailed thread :(