# European Union



## Glaswegian (Sep 5, 2004)

Now that the tone has been set..........

Us Brits are always very wary of edicts that come from the EU, so this seems approriate...

"The European Union commissioners have announced that agreement has been reached to adopt English as the preferred language for European communications, rather than German, which was the other possibility. As part of negotiations, her Majesty Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement and has accepted a five-year phased plan for what will be known as EuroEnglish (Euro for short).

In the first year, "s" will be used instead of the soft "c". Sertainly, sivil servants will reseive this news with joy. Also, the hard "c" will be replased with "k". Not only will this klear up konfusion, but typewriters kan have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replased by "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20 per sent shorter.

In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always been a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of silent "e"s in the languag is disgraful, and they would go.

By the forth year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" by "z" and "w" by "v". During ze fifz year ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz year, ve vil hav a reli sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trobls or difikultis and evrivum vil find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drem vil finali kum tru."


----------



## Smitty (Sep 5, 2004)

U haf bn vry, vry bad!    

So vil ve haf to replase de Euro as kurency?

That makes me want to pull out "Young FronkenSTEEN" again!   

Zmitty


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 5, 2004)

It's a frightening thought.
They could well even insist on correct grammar, which might cause Glaswegian some problems.


----------



## Smitty (Sep 5, 2004)

Nice to see you again Ponsy!

Smitty


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 6, 2004)

i didnt think i had any problems with my grammar however my spelling can be a bit dodgy sometimes but not always only when i type very quickly which is not often of course instead i just try to tipe more slower and not so faster that i make mistakes lots of times so i dont beleave this to being a major problem thanks


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 6, 2004)

Glaswegian said:
			
		

> i didnt think i had any problems with my grammar



Which is why I think you will have problems.
(I'm not referring to "typos")


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 6, 2004)

I was hoping that I had used a pinch of sarcasm in my previous post, but, perhaps I did not.

I will increase my efforts in future.

Ponsy, thank you for your interest.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 6, 2004)

Yes, I noted your sarcasm with much admiration.
But where is your grammatical slip (or should that be "Der Fehler") ?


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 6, 2004)

With the large number of ever more ridiculous rules pouring forth from the EU, anything is possible.  Even a ban on sarcasm!     There was even an attempt at declaring the correct shape of a banana!   

No sign of the Euro yet, but you never know what the future holds.

Maybe we should return to bartering - I'm sure that would be more fun!


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 6, 2004)

I think that us would probably enjoy it (the bartering I mean).


----------



## Smitty (Sep 6, 2004)

> I think that us would probably enjoy it


Grammar problems eh?  Ouch... :wink: 

Smitty


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 6, 2004)

pennysaver said:
			
		

> > I think that us would probably enjoy it
> 
> 
> Grammar problems eh?  Ouch... :wink:
> ...



Merely highlighting Glaswegian's problem.

My post is grammatically correct. The "us" in my post stands for the United States - with the grammatical syntax of the post, what else could it be?


----------



## Smitty (Sep 6, 2004)

> My post is grammatically correct.


Maybe in the UK; generally we (in the US), precede with an article (and capitalization with regards to country abbreviations).  

I most likely just misinterpreted what you were trying to say, so my apologies.

Of course, don't say it ain't so that there just might be differences in the the way you'ns speak vs. us. 

Take care now y'all,   :wink: 

Smitty


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 6, 2004)

How would you interpret "Us Brits are ...." ?


----------



## bat17 (Sep 7, 2004)

That would have to translate to "We Brit's are ..."
as "US Brits" would be an oxymoron.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 7, 2004)

Did someone say that this new Lounge was a good idea?


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 7, 2004)

I certainly didn't.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 7, 2004)

Ponsy, the place would not be the same without you!!


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 7, 2004)

bat17 said:
			
		

> That would have to translate to "We Brit's are ..."
> as "US Brits" would be an oxymoron.



I regret that I cannot agree with your opinion.

The full text of "US Brits" would be "the United Sates of America Brits".
There is no oxymoron - it can surely only mean Brits living in the US, or Brits who are US toadies (like Blair), or something similar. 

I cannot think of an interpretation of "US Brits" that could be considered to be an oxymoron but I trust you will provide a suitable explanation to the contrary.


----------



## bat17 (Sep 7, 2004)

"Brits living in the US" just makes them Strangers in a Strange Land 

I suppose someone with dual nationality could class as a US Brit though

peter


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 7, 2004)

Which one (if any) of the following two sentences is grammatically incorrect?

The United States of America is one country.

The United States of America are one country.


----------



## Zack Barresse (Sep 7, 2004)

Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> Which one (if any) of the following two sentences is grammatically incorrect?
> 
> The United States of America is one country.
> 
> The United States of America are one country.




Ooh, ooh!  Pick me!  Pick me!



( Howzit been Ponsy!  Long time no *see*! )


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 8, 2004)

I'm tempted to answer.  However, I've been described as grammatically challenged, and, accordingly, I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may cause Ponsy further distress!


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 8, 2004)

Glaswegian said:
			
		

> I'm tempted to answer.  However, I've been described as grammatically challenged, and, accordingly, I refuse to answer on the grounds that I may cause Ponsy further distress!



Or possibly further embarrassment for yourself.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 8, 2004)

[quote
Or possibly further embarrassment for yourself.[/quote]

Should that be

"Or possible further embarrassment for yourself?".


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 8, 2004)

Glaswegian said:
			
		

> > Or possibly further embarrassment for yourself.
> >
> > Should that be
> >
> ...


----------



## Cbrine (Sep 8, 2004)

oh oh,

Sounds like Ponsy's purchased a dictionary.  We are all in trouble now.

Welcome back Ponsy.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 8, 2004)

Cbrine said:
			
		

> Welcome back Ponsy.



From where?

(I have no need for dictionaries.)


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 8, 2004)

What is a dictionary?


----------



## Zack Barresse (Sep 8, 2004)

Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> Cbrine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, not the lounge.  LOL


----------



## Todd Bardoni (Sep 9, 2004)

Ponsy Nob said:
			
		

> *Ponsonally*, I have no doubts but what do you think?



What does "ponsonally" mean?  This word does not exist in my vocabulary.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 9, 2004)

It’s a ponsonalised combination of abridged versions of other words intended to convey the general feeling of a longer phrase. Or more simply, a sort of epitomic coalescence.

It is derived from the verb "to ponsonalise" which is an epitomic coalescence of the phrase "to follow or make use of the personal opinions of Ponsonby".


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 10, 2004)

Most interesting - the things one can learn on this Board!

How would one use this verb?  In what way would I be able to use it, say, in a social setting?


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 10, 2004)

Glaswegian said:
			
		

> How would one use this verb?  In what way would I be able to use it, say, in a social setting?



Use it like any other verb.

In a social setting use it when you think the other people present are more boring than you. It might provide a topic of conversation suitable for boring people.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 10, 2004)

I very much doubt if anyone could be more boring than myself.   

So I could perhaps say

"I would just like to ponsonalise here..."

Would this have the desired effect?


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 10, 2004)

Sounds good to me. A definite improvement on both "See you, Jimmy ...." and "Dis ya mither sew?".


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 10, 2004)

jings crivens help ma' boab - that's quite a Glasgow accent there Ponsy!

BTW I think the correct syntax for your second example should be

"Dis yer mither sew".


----------



## Cbrine (Sep 10, 2004)

You could also use as verb in this context.

Go ponsilize yourself.


----------



## Greg Truby (Sep 10, 2004)

Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> ..."to follow or make use of the personal opinions of Ponsonby".


And would "Ponsonby" be a reference to thyself or another?  Since I know of no prominent figure with that name, I did a search on Google for "Ponsonby" and to my surprise, it returned "about 114,000" hits.  However most of which seem to refer to a suburb of Auckland, NZ and not a person. 



			
				Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> ...an epitomic coalescence...


And since I *do* have a dictionary, I took a moment to look up "epitomic", which I'd not seen before.  It does not appear in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate.  However, knowing that Ponsy would blast me, were I not a little more thorough, I also checked Dictionary.com.  No hit.  It does however appear in Merriam-Webter's site http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=epitomic&x=13&y=19 so, I did learn at least one valid new word today.


----------



## NateO (Sep 10, 2004)

Greg Truby said:
			
		

> And would "Ponsonby" be a reference to thyself or another?  Since I know of no prominent figure with that name, I did a search on Google for "Ponsonby" and to my surprise, it returned "about 114,000" hits.  However most of which seem to refer to a suburb of Auckland, NZ and not a person.


Greg, you ventured farther from home then you needed to:

http://www.mrexcel.com/board2/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=13636


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 10, 2004)

Cbrine said:
			
		

> You could also use as verb in this context.
> 
> Go ponsilize yourself.



No.

It should be ponsonalise.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 10, 2004)

Greg Truby said:
			
		

> And would "Ponsonby" be a reference to thyself or another?  Since I know of no prominent figure with that name, ....



It is a reference to Percy Ponsonby :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/guide/articles/p/percyponsonby_7775220.shtml

It is claimed in that link "And that was the end of Percy" (on about 3 September 1939).

This is inaccurate. As pointed out by NateO, PP has made posts to this board in the recent past.

With regard to your concern about whether "epitomic" was an acceptable word, it would not depend upon whether or not it appeared in a dictionary.
You appear to be overlooking the fact that English is a living language which is continually changing and to which new words are frequently added.
Readers of this thread may be interested to know that I have submitted the word "ponsonalise" to the compilers of the OED with a view to its inclusion in their next edition.

PS to Glaswegian
Thanks for correcting my poor Glaswegian accent, Jimmy.
You might enjoy this link (or perhaps you write it?) :-
http://www.firstfoot.com/PawBroon/pawbroon/december2002greatscots.htm


----------



## Greg Truby (Sep 13, 2004)

"Take the bait... don't take the bait... take the bait... don't..." what the heck...



			
				Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> ... it would not depend upon whether or not it appeared in a dictionary. You appear to be overlooking the fact that English is a living language which is continually changing and to which new words are frequently added...



So now we move into the debate on the function of language?  Given this thread's genesis on how to morph English into German this seems apropos.  So, are you in the camp that says "as long as [a reasonably accurate] meaning is transferred, language has served its purpose."?  Myself, I suppose I'm a moderate.  Yes, language is a living tool which evolves.  Thank the heavens we don't have some "academy" trying to "preserve the purity" of English from "foreign invasions" (or perhaps we should simply thank ourselves for not putting up with that particular nonsense).  English is a bit like America itself in that sense; a melting pot where we'll gladly take words from French, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese or Native American tongues and weave them into the fabric of our daily discourse.  But I do think we need some type of rule book; some standard to which we can turn.  Otherwise we end up teaching ebonics in our schools and trying to play a nice game of Scrabble becomes quite hopeless (but then "Ponsonalise" has too many letters to get used in Scrabble, so maybe we're all okay to embrace this particular new word until OED gets back to you).  

And I'd love to see how you reconcile the apparent dichotomy of saying that a word needn't appear in a dictionary to be considered a valid part of the language and then in the next sentence admitting to seeking the approval of the very institution eschewed in the previous sentence.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 13, 2004)

Greg Truby said:
			
		

> And I'd love to see how you reconcile the apparent dichotomy of saying that a word needn't appear in a dictionary to be considered a valid part of the language and then in the next sentence admitting to seeking the approval of the very institution eschewed in the previous sentence.



There's nothing to reconcile.

All new words become a part of the English language before receiving recognition by the OED.

The OED merely includes words that have already gained acceptance by users of English.

It never works the other way - that is, the compilers of the OED don't create new words.

Regarding "preserving the purity" of English, I see nothing wrong with attempting to preserve basic grammar and punctuation in written English.
This can only improve communication, which is the whole pupose of language.
It seems to me that there is insufficient emphasis being placed on this by schools in the UK and in the USA.

Ponsonalise could occur in Scrabble.
If there happened to be a "P" followed by two vacant squares and then the word "SON", the letters ONALISE could be added (for a 50 point bonus).


----------



## Greg Truby (Sep 13, 2004)

Well, I'll not be challenging you to a Scrabble match any time soon!  And in that case, can you ask OED to include an alternate spelling ending in "-ize"?  Just in case we happen to get the fortuitous "P__SON" and we have a "Z" in our tray, so's we can get more points.  :wink:


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 13, 2004)

Greg Truby said:
			
		

> Well, I'll not be challenging you to a Scrabble match any time soon!  And in that case, can you ask OED to include an alternate spelling ending in "-ize"?  Just in case we happen to get the fortuitous "P__SON" and we have a "Z" in our tray, so's we can get more points.  :wink:



Certainly not! 

Endings with "-ise" only please.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 14, 2004)

Here's an example of abusing the English language that is completely unnecessary and does nothing towards promoting clear communication :-

http://www.mrexcel.com/board2/viewtopic.php?t=105623

The writer, of course, is entitled to mangle written English in any way he/she sees fit. But on the other hand, I think I am entitled to express indignation about such drivel.

If the writer were to write in French in a similar manner, he/she would probably be guillotined - and rightly so.


----------



## Felix Atagong (Sep 14, 2004)

Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> Here's an example of abusing the English language that is completely unnecessary and does nothing towards promoting clear communication.


What happened to netiquette? 
http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html#spelling
Oh yeah, I understand it now, this is the new Lounge.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 14, 2004)

Felix Atagong said:
			
		

> Ponsy Nob. said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"What happened to netiquette?" 

I don't understand what your comment is intended to convey.

Presumably you feel that my post has fallen short of a defined standard of etiquette in some way.

Please explain further.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

Ponsy

In the interests of promoting and expanding language, here's some Glaswegian - let me know if you want the English translation.

PARLIAMO GLASGOW  

Geeza punna burra furra murra, 
Geez baura choclit furra wean, 
Seeza tenna fags, huv yezonni tottie bags, 
Tae pit ratotties in till agit hame 
Pirrit oanaslate, ahl pye ye zeftar 
Azzawa tae seera panti mime, 
Anif yuzkin say ramorra 
Orrabest an itznae borra 
Yezkin parliamo Glasgow orratime! 

This was written by Stanley Baxter for one of his pantomime performances.


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 14, 2004)

Thanks. Translation not required - I'm quite fluent in Glaswegian.

I could be wrong (steamin' eejit, me) but shouldn't "Orrabest" be more properly spelt "Orabes"?


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

No, the spelling is correct.  It would generally be pronounced "Orabes" , fully utilising the Glaswegian glottal stop.

I also noticed that there is a product recall on those with the Scots verion of Windows98 - Windaes98, ye ken - this link tells you more about it.

http://www.rampantscotland.com/parliamo/blparliamo_recall.htm


----------



## Legacy 21301 (Sep 14, 2004)

Glaswegian said:
			
		

> No, the spelling is correct.  It would generally be pronounced "Orabes" , fully utilising the Glaswegian glottal stop.
> 
> I also noticed that there is a product recall on those with the Scots verion of Windows98 - Windaes98, ye ken - this link tells you more about it.
> 
> http://www.rampantscotland.com/parliamo/blparliamo_recall.htm



Great! Izzit nae likely some wee nyaff spends 'oors pittin' doon stuff like yon?


----------



## Felix Atagong (Sep 14, 2004)

Ponsy Nob. said:
			
		

> I don't understand what your comment is intended to convey. Presumably you feel that my post has fallen short of a defined standard of etiquette in some way. Please explain further.


Just trying to be ironic. I failed. Isn't that ironic? 
Perhaps, your post was ironic too and I didn't get it. I failed twice.
Oh well, back under my stone then...


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

Ponsy,

Your Glaswegian is very good.

However, even native Glaswegians have problems with the language.  Consider this true extract conversation from our revered Law Courts.

The prosecutor is from one of the ‘posh’ suburbs of Glasgow, and not over familiar with the subtle nuances of his native city’s language.  The witness is clearly diagnosed as ‘Ned-positive’ (the facial piercings and Burberry Cap are a give-away).

P:  “So you went to the accused’s flat on the night in question? Why?”
W :”Tae get a tap”

P:  “Are you a plumber?”
W:  “Naw”

P:  “But you have just stated that you went to the flat to ‘get a tap’”
W:  “Aye”

The Prosecutor is rather bewildered by now, but spots a police officer making the universal sign for cash.  Light dawns…….

P:  “You went to borrow money from the accused?”
W:  “Naw”

The Prosecutor is now totally exasperated.

P:  “Well what kind of tap was it?”
W:  “A Rangers tap”


----------



## Cbrine (Sep 14, 2004)

Glaswegian,
  Please explain that one to us non Glaswegian folk.  Cause I am sure missing something.  I have neighbor's who just moved here from Scotland about 6 months ago.  I don't understand about 1/2 of what they say    They're great people anyway, and boy can they drink.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

No problem CBrine.

Firstly the Prosecutor thought the witness meant a tap (is that fawcett in American English?)

Then he thought 'tap' meant 'to borrow money', before being told that 'tap', in this instance, referred to a football jersey belonging to Glasgow Rangers.

Ah, the joys of the English language...


----------



## Greg Truby (Sep 14, 2004)

Heck, I pretty much got that one.  I'd guessed that "tap" was a vernacular of "cap" and would not have thought jersey, but other than that, I'd followed along fine.  But as for your post "PARLIAMO...orratime!", I reckon I'm getting maybe 50-60% of that one.  So while Ponsy might not need an assist, the rest of us probably could do with a bit of help.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

Greg

Here's the translation for all Sassenachs:

Give us a pound of butter for the mother, 
Give us a bar of chocolate for the infant, 
Provide a ten of fags, have you any potato bags, 
To put the potatoes in till I get home, 
I am off to see the pantomime, 
And if you can say tomorrow 
All the best and it’s no bother, 
You can parliamo Glasgow all the time! 

Enjoy!


----------



## Greg Truby (Sep 14, 2004)

Ah, "wean" for infant, I'd never have gotten. But "tottie" for tater, I shoulda figured that one out...

Skipped "Pirrit oanaslate, ahl pye ye zeftar" -- "put it on my tab, I'll pay you after"???


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

Greg

Yes, you are correct - apologies for the omission.

Sounds like you almost qualify as a Glaswegian!!


----------



## Greg Truby (Sep 14, 2004)

Thank ya kindly.  Just a Midwestern lad who enjoyed readin' Mark Twain growing up.  Seems like comprehending a Scot and comprehending a good ol' boy from hillbilly country ain't all that different.


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

True, true.

Although I believe someone once said that USA and Great Britain were separated only by the same language.

My better half's relations stay in Maine and they certainly enjoy the Glasgow humour and language.

Just doing my bit to spread the word!


----------



## Cbrine (Sep 14, 2004)

I grew up in Nova Scotia, and my dad is a Scot (Who speaks French with a newfie accent?????Don't ask me, I don't know)  He lost his Scottish accent a long time ago, so I still can't understand Scottish(Is that an official language, I think it should be.  )


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 14, 2004)

I don't think 'Scottish' as a language really exists.  There are numerous local dialects - I can find it difficult to understand people from the North East of Scotland - as there are in every language (I would think).  The other language we have is Gaelic, but only spoken but a small proportion of the population (mainly Highlands and Islands).

Shame that your Dad lost his accent, CBrine - sounds like he needs to spend some time back here!


----------



## Pugster (Sep 17, 2004)

Stanley Baxter also gave us the imortal 

Zarra marra inyer barra Clara?

Away'n bile yer heid and make daft soop!


----------



## Zack Barresse (Sep 18, 2004)

Pugster said:
			
		

> Stanley Baxter also gave us the imortal
> 
> Zarra marra inyer barra Clara?
> 
> Away'n bile yer heid and make daft soop!



Say what?


----------



## GaryB (Sep 19, 2004)

Zack,
I think that translates as :
Is that a marrow in your barrow, Clara? (not sure if you call them marrows on your side of the pond- it's a vegetable like a big zucchini)
(Go) away and boil your head and make daft soup.

I doubt either of these will be particularly useful phrases to remember should you ever visit Glasgow. The first is going to be difficult to slip into a normal conversation, the second could result in personal injury!

GaryB


----------



## Glaswegian (Sep 19, 2004)

Gary

Hope you were not speaking from personal experience!

The second phrase is usually shortened to just

'awaynbileyerheid'

mainly because you wouldn't have enough time to complete the rest of the sentence............


----------



## GaryB (Sep 19, 2004)

No, I've never visited Glasgow, which is remiss of me.
If I ever do though, I'll be sure to keep all suggestions of head-boiling to myself!


----------

