On 06/02/2019 21:33, EmsTatay wrote:
> On 06/02/2019 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/02/2019 19:37, ken young wrote:
>>> In article , address@not.available
>>> (R.Wieser)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>   Well, maybe its to you, but not generally
>>>
>>> It is a common phrase with that meaning in the United Kingdom, though
>>> you may have a point. Using idiomatic expressions in an international
>>> news group is asking to be misunderstood.
>>>
>> Oh yeah it's all my fault OK?
>>
>> I have to realise that Germans have no sense of hummour don't run the
>> world (yet), and are extremely fragile little snowflakes and whilst
>> they think they can understand English they really can't.
>>
>> Oh dear
>> How sad
>> Never mind.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4uivPpzCGo&list=RDz4uivPpzCGo
>>
>>
>>
> TNP!
>
> you had me on your side of applying Ohm's law (even though that could be
> a "German" or close minded :-) - Then again Ohm was GERMAN!
>

That's why he had a Law. Germans Love Laws. Especially ones that are for
Other Inferior People.

(One immediately thinks of Lennart Poettering)...


> Please have a look at https://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq-history
> for the full article:
>
> "The historical aspect of English really encompasses more than the three
> stages of development just under consideration. English has what might
> be called a prehistory as well. As we have seen, our language did not
> simply spring into existence; it was brought from the Continent by
> Germanic tribes who had no form of writing and hence left no records.
> Philologists know that they must have spoken a dialect of a language
> that can be called West Germanic and that other dialects of this unknown
> language must have included the ancestors of such languages as German,
> Dutch, Low German, and Frisian. They know this because of certain
> systematic similarities which these languages share with each other but
> do not share with, say, Danish. However, they have had somehow to
> reconstruct what that language was like in its lexicon, phonology,
> grammar, and semantics as best they can through sophisticated techniques
> of comparison developed chiefly during the last century."
>
> i.e. English based on German & Dutch (Low German and Frisian)...
>

Its also based on Gaelic (Celtic) plus French, plus a fair bit of
Swedish and Norwegian...plus smatterings of many many other Indo
European languages.

> "..., and thus English is just one relatively young member of an ancient
> family of languages whose descendants cover a fair portion of the globe."
>

Indeed. BUT it has many many anscestors.

More than any other European language.

If you examine te archaelogical records it becomes clear that sea travel
was develeoped very early on and is far far easier in a bronze age
culture than overland. :  Countries with a lot of coast line are always
far more international than ones that are mostly surrounded by other
countries with land borders.


> Knickers hanging loose old boy!
> "Don't mention the war!"
> ;-)
>
Perhaps one should a little more often.

One can't be in denial about it forever.

>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

Your sig is busted,

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05