Why Blugiant, why?

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blugiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
da beautee aff racism iss dat mzungu qoute mzungu meaninn aff racism fram mzungu source too blakk peeps ann mzungu doan see da racism widd dat </div></div>

The beauty (as you so poetically term it [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]), Blu, of your inability to recognize that this website uses ENGLISH (after the primary Jamaican Patois used deh) as it's language.

And, as such, the language here (aside from heavy use of Patois, which is obvious) is, essentially, ENGLISH.

Care to share the names of any blakk peeps (and/or their works) who are considered by any scholar of the ENGLISH language to be an equally unimpeachable source as those TWO that I provided?

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY that Wikipedia is an "unimpeachable source"! Your reading comprehension isn't too keen, Blu.

I referred to ONLY TWO "unimpeachable sources" for the English language: The Oxford English Dictionary and Eric Partridge's "Origins The Encyclopedia of Words - etc".

There IS NO SUCH THING as Blakk (or Black) Standard English, nor is there for any other race. There is Standard English - one language, with British and American variant langauge usage. One's race, religion, creed, etc. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English language.

I provided two unimpeachable sources for the discussion of 4 simple little English words.

I invited you to show any other similarly unimpeachable sources that will disagree with those I cited. (You can't because there aren't any.)

Simple English (which you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with) defines the words as I already posted.

There IS NO OTHER definition for "racism" or "racist". (nor for the other two words... "patently" and "untrue")

"Mzungu" has nothing to do with the issue of simple definitions of a few English words.

[evanovitch]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blugiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
da beautee aff racism iss dat mzungu qoute mzungu meaninn aff racism fram mzungu source too blakk peeps ann mzungu doan see da racism widd dat </div></div>

The beauty (as you so poetically term it [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]), Blu, of your inability to recognize that this website uses ENGLISH (after the primary Jamaican Patois used deh) as it's language.

And, as such, the language here (aside from heavy use of Patois, which is obvious) is, essentially, ENGLISH.

Care to share the names of any blakk peeps (and/or their works) who are considered by any scholar of the ENGLISH language to be an equally unimpeachable source as those TWO that I provided?

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY that Wikipedia is an "unimpeachable source"! Your reading comprehension isn't too keen, Blu.

I referred to ONLY TWO "unimpeachable sources" for the English language: The Oxford English Dictionary and Eric Partridge's "Origins The Encyclopedia of Words - etc".

There IS NO SUCH THING as Blakk (or Black) Standard English, nor is there for any other race. There is Standard English - one language, with British and American variant langauge usage. One's race, religion, creed, etc. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English language.

I provided two unimpeachable sources for the discussion of 4 simple little English words.

I invited you to show any other similarly unimpeachable sources that will disagree with those I cited. (You can't because there aren't any.)

Simple English (which you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with) defines the words as I already posted.

There IS NO OTHER definition for "racism" or "racist". (nor for the other two words... "patently" and "untrue")

"Mzungu" has nothing to do with the issue of simple definitions of a few English words.
</div></div>


oh please...english use soo many words from odda languages that it is ludicrous to have unimpeachable sources of English language....dem is 'umimpeachable' cause dem is British...go figga ....duhhhhh

[lonewolf]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the rest i will take wid a grain of salt an I is a Ras an u done know wi view bout salt </div></div>


Salt is good with tequila and also the bitter pill.

[lonewolf]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">fii sey anneebadee caan suffa fram such afflickkshan shoo dat yu beeleevee dat blakk ave da same amount aff powa as mzungu ann mii knoo even yu natt dat deluded. </div></div>


Blu, I'm just an average blue collar worker who fights fires to make a living. I just so happen to be white. I have no more power than the average blue collar black american. It's not color that brings you power and influence, It's capital(money).
Ask Bush or maybe Oprah?

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blugiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
da beautee aff racism iss dat mzungu qoute mzungu meaninn aff racism fram mzungu source too blakk peeps ann mzungu doan see da racism widd dat </div></div>

The beauty (as you so poetically term it [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]), Blu, of your inability to recognize that this website uses ENGLISH (after the primary Jamaican Patois used deh) as it's language.

And, as such, the language here (aside from heavy use of Patois, which is obvious) is, essentially, ENGLISH.

Care to share the names of any blakk peeps (and/or their works) who are considered by any scholar of the ENGLISH language to be an equally unimpeachable source as those TWO that I provided?

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY that Wikipedia is an "unimpeachable source"! Your reading comprehension isn't too keen, Blu.

I referred to ONLY TWO "unimpeachable sources" for the English language: The Oxford English Dictionary and Eric Partridge's "Origins The Encyclopedia of Words - etc".

There IS NO SUCH THING as Blakk (or Black) Standard English, nor is there for any other race. There is Standard English - one language, with British and American variant langauge usage. One's race, religion, creed, etc. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English language.

I provided two unimpeachable sources for the discussion of 4 simple little English words.

I invited you to show any other similarly unimpeachable sources that will disagree with those I cited. (You can't because there aren't any.)

Simple English (which you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with) defines the words as I already posted.

There IS NO OTHER definition for "racism" or "racist". (nor for the other two words... "patently" and "untrue")

"Mzungu" has nothing to do with the issue of simple definitions of a few English words.
</div></div>


oh please...english use soo many words from odda languages that it is ludicrous to have unimpeachable sources of English language....dem is 'umimpeachable' cause dem is British...go figga ....duhhhhh </div></div>

First off, evanovitch, whether you or anybody else likes it or not - English IS originally the langauge of the British.

Secondly, the entire point of such books on the English language and it's origins is... DOH!... the origins of (other langauges' influences upon) English words.

What's ludicrous to to suggest that there are no unimpeachable sources for a/any language (English or others).


Are you really suggesting that English is the sole langauge that borrows from others? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif[/img]

All of the Romance languages are interrelated. ALL language has provable interrelationships. I thought everyone on j'com (at least, everyone whom I can think of, right now) was intelligent enough to know/recognize that much about linguistics.





Evanovitch, name any believable (by scholars) linguistic source of your own choosing.

I guarantee you that whatever source you choose will state the same definitions as I posted, no more and no less.

Better yet - go find (and name) any believably unimpeachable English-language source written by a black scholar. (there <u>are</u> some)

Please, name your fave.

That one, too, will define "racist" and "racism" as I already posted, and linguistically prove that anybody (blacks, too :rolleyes) can be racist/s.

[mountaingal]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

there are no unimpeachable sources of definitions for words. language and meaning are constantly changing, and words that have one meaning in one era will adopt a different meaning in another era.

the fact that a 1982 volume, a quarter of a century old, is being held up as a definitive source of meaning for a word in a 2007 context is a little mind-boggling.

[evanovitch]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blugiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
da beautee aff racism iss dat mzungu qoute mzungu meaninn aff racism fram mzungu source too blakk peeps ann mzungu doan see da racism widd dat </div></div>

The beauty (as you so poetically term it [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]), Blu, of your inability to recognize that this website uses ENGLISH (after the primary Jamaican Patois used deh) as it's language.

And, as such, the language here (aside from heavy use of Patois, which is obvious) is, essentially, ENGLISH.

Care to share the names of any blakk peeps (and/or their works) who are considered by any scholar of the ENGLISH language to be an equally unimpeachable source as those TWO that I provided?

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY that Wikipedia is an "unimpeachable source"! Your reading comprehension isn't too keen, Blu.

I referred to ONLY TWO "unimpeachable sources" for the English language: The Oxford English Dictionary and Eric Partridge's "Origins The Encyclopedia of Words - etc".

There IS NO SUCH THING as Blakk (or Black) Standard English, nor is there for any other race. There is Standard English - one language, with British and American variant langauge usage. One's race, religion, creed, etc. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English language.

I provided two unimpeachable sources for the discussion of 4 simple little English words.

I invited you to show any other similarly unimpeachable sources that will disagree with those I cited. (You can't because there aren't any.)

Simple English (which you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with) defines the words as I already posted.

There IS NO OTHER definition for "racism" or "racist". (nor for the other two words... "patently" and "untrue")

"Mzungu" has nothing to do with the issue of simple definitions of a few English words.
</div></div>


oh please...english use soo many words from odda languages that it is ludicrous to have unimpeachable sources of English language....dem is 'umimpeachable' cause dem is British...go figga ....duhhhhh </div></div>

First off, evanovitch, whether you or anybody else likes it or not - English IS originally the langauge of the British.

Secondly, the entire point of such books on the English language and it's origins is... DOH!... the origins of (other langauges' influences upon) English words.

What's ludicrous to to suggest that there are no unimpeachable sources for a/any language (English or others).


Are you really suggesting that English is the sole langauge that borrows from others? [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/confused.gif[/img]

All of the Romance languages are interrelated. ALL language has provable interrelationships. I thought everyone on j'com (at least, everyone whom I can think of, right now) was intelligent enough to know/recognize that much about linguistics.





Evanovitch, name any believable (by scholars) linguistic source of your own choosing.

I guarantee you that whatever source you choose will state the same definitions as I posted, no more and no less.

Better yet - go find (and name) any believably unimpeachable English-language source written by a black scholar. (there <u>are</u> some)

Please, name your fave.

That one, too, will define "racist" and "racism" as I already posted, and linguistically prove that anybody (blacks, too :rolleyes) can be racist/s.

</div></div>

that alone is worth its weight in laughter....i will ongle say, it is the original language of the British, that the Monarchy, that institution that the British love to point out as proof of being British and longevity and all that implies, the language of said court was German, the surname was German,until the bombing of Britain by said Germans made it unpopular etc etc etc

boo, even the British not the original people of Britain

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
that alone is worth its weight in laughter....i will ongle say, it is the original language of the British, that the Monarchy, that institution that the British love to point out as proof of being British and longevity and all that implies, the language of said court was German, the surname was German,until the bombing of Britain by said Germans made it unpopular etc etc etc

boo, even the British not the original people of Britain </div></div>

Cutting all the B-S: The English langauge is what it is, regardless of whomever originally inhabited the British Isles before the Romans, the various Norsemen, the Saxons, and the Normans, etc. ever arrived.

Of course modern English has parts of all of these older languages in it.

The same is true of every other modern language, as well.


My point to you and your buddy blugiant is this - Standard English is Standard English, and the language is the same, no matter if a speaker of it is black, white, or anything else. The very definitions of "racism" and "racist" make it impossible for anything but the fact that anybody (even black people) can be racist.

There is no such language as Black Standard English. Not because those who speak the English language are anti-black racist, but because Standard English has NO such race boundaries. One either speaks English or one does not. (setting aside the relatively minor slang differences, and some spelling differences, between British and American English)


I invited you to come forth with any unimpeachable English language source written or compiled by a black person. I believe that there are some. You apparently cannot do so. Your [potential] ignorance of the existance of such sources (or, your lack of knowledge of thses sources, if you prefer it, to stem the accusation that I'm calling you personally "ignorant" - which I'm NOT) doesn't make the English language anti-black racist. That's no fault of the English language; that - if it exists - would be a personal fault.

<u>PLEASE NOTE</u>: I reiterate that I AM NOT calling you (or anybody else in particular) "ignorant"!
I AM, however, saying that I am perceiving a real lack of ignorance of knowledge of English sources that might be considered unimpeachable and that were also written or compiled by a black scholar.

[evanovitch]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: evanovitch</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
that alone is worth its weight in laughter....i will ongle say, it is the original language of the British, that the Monarchy, that institution that the British love to point out as proof of being British and longevity and all that implies, the language of said court was German, the surname was German,until the bombing of Britain by said Germans made it unpopular etc etc etc

boo, even the British not the original people of Britain </div></div>

Cutting all the B-S: The English langauge is what it is, regardless of whomever originally inhabited the British Isles before the Romans, the various Norsemen, the Saxons, and the Normans, etc. ever arrived.

Of course modern English has parts of all of these older languages in it.

The same is true of every other modern language, as well.


My point to you and your buddy blugiant is this - Standard English is Standard English, and the language is the same, no matter if a speaker of it is black, white, or anything else. The very definitions of "racism" and "racist" make it impossible for anything but the fact that anybody (even black people) can be racist.

There is no such language as Black Standard English. Not because those who speak the English language are anti-black racist, but because Standard English has NO such race boundaries. One either speaks English or one does not. (setting aside the relatively minor slang differences, and some spelling differences, between British and American English)


I invited you to come forth with any unimpeachable English language source written or compiled by a black person. I believe that there are some. You apparently cannot do so. Your [potential] ignorance of the existance of such sources (or, your lack of knowledge of thses sources, if you prefer it, to stem the accusation that I'm calling you personally "ignorant" - which I'm NOT) doesn't make the English language anti-black racist. That's no fault of the English language; that - if it exists - would be a personal fault.

<u>PLEASE NOTE</u>: I reiterate that I AM NOT calling you (or anybody else in particular) "ignorant"!
I AM, however, saying that I am perceiving a real lack of ignorance of knowledge of English sources that might be considered unimpeachable and that were also written or compiled by a black scholar.

</div></div>

come now , I wudden go as far as to categorise what u saying as B-S...dont be so hard on urself...

[blugiant]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: lonrwolf</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">fii sey anneebadee caan suffa fram such afflickkshan shoo dat yu beeleevee dat blakk ave da same amount aff powa as mzungu ann mii knoo even yu natt dat deluded. </div></div>


Blu, I'm just an average blue collar worker who fights fires to make a living. I just so happen to be white. I have no more power than the average blue collar black american. It's not color that brings you power and influence, It's capital(money).
Ask Bush or maybe Oprah? </div></div>

yu knoo inn nyc da fire department iss ova 94 parcent mzungu inn a moaslee minoritee citee. dat too mii show racism ann oww mzungu (even blue collar mzungu workers)directlee ar indirectlee benefit fram racism. yu eva wanda y mzungu ave more money

[blugiant]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blugiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
da beautee aff racism iss dat mzungu qoute mzungu meaninn aff racism fram mzungu source too blakk peeps ann mzungu doan see da racism widd dat </div></div>

The beauty (as you so poetically term it [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]), Blu, of your inability to recognize that this website uses ENGLISH (after the primary Jamaican Patois used deh) as it's language.

And, as such, the language here (aside from heavy use of Patois, which is obvious) is, essentially, ENGLISH.

Care to share the names of any blakk peeps (and/or their works) who are considered by any scholar of the ENGLISH language to be an equally unimpeachable source as those TWO that I provided?

NOTE: I DID NOT SAY that Wikipedia is an "unimpeachable source"! Your reading comprehension isn't too keen, Blu.

I referred to ONLY TWO "unimpeachable sources" for the English language: The Oxford English Dictionary and Eric Partridge's "Origins The Encyclopedia of Words - etc".

There IS NO SUCH THING as Blakk (or Black) Standard English, nor is there for any other race. There is Standard English - one language, with British and American variant langauge usage. One's race, religion, creed, etc. has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the English language.

I provided two unimpeachable sources for the discussion of 4 simple little English words.

I invited you to show any other similarly unimpeachable sources that will disagree with those I cited. (You can't because there aren't any.)

Simple English (which you seem to be having a great deal of trouble with) defines the words as I already posted.

There IS NO OTHER definition for "racism" or "racist". (nor for the other two words... "patently" and "untrue")

"Mzungu" has nothing to do with the issue of simple definitions of a few English words.
</div></div>

witcheeooman yu narmallee mekk sense ann cum betta dan diss. diss too eeasee fii mii fii dismiss dat mii natt goinn too doo itt. ear iss a likkle tiddbit fii yu. yu eva wanda y mzungu dissmiss blakk ting den chatt bout da standard mzungu meaninn ann doan see da racism inn dat. mzungu used kulcha ann ethnicitee fii cova mzungu supremacee tings

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: blugiant</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
witcheeooman yu narmallee mekk sense ann cum betta dan diss. diss too eeasee fii mii fii dismiss dat mii natt goinn too doo itt. ear iss a likkle tiddbit fii yu. yu eva wanda y mzungu dissmiss blakk ting den chatt bout da standard mzungu meaninn ann doan see da racism inn dat. mzungu used kulcha ann ethnicitee fii cova mzungu supremacee tings </div></div>

Here's the reality tidbit, blu: Word meanings (definitions) are standard, and do not deviate. Culture and/or ethnicity have nothing whatsoever to do with Standard English language usage. (or French, German, Japanese, Ebo, Hauza, or any other language)


And, blu, do me a favor, please... you make me very nervous when you say sweet words to me. (<span style='font-size: 8pt'>witcheeooman yu narmallee mekk sense ann cum betta dan diss.</span>) DON'T! [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/mad.gif[/img]
Thanks, but please stick to your normal rude racism that you generally flaunt to me; I believe I find that preferable.


Mek wi pleeze tuh kep wi normal adversarial relationship, eeh?

[mountaingal]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Word meanings (definitions) are standard, and do not deviate. </div></div>
actually, that's not true. even in English word meanings deviate.

[WitchyOoman]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mountaingal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Word meanings (definitions) are standard, and do not deviate. </div></div>
actually, that's not true. even in English word meanings deviate.
</div></div>

I will rephrase for completeness and clarity, MG. Thanks. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

Word meanings within one specific time period <span style='font-size: 8pt'>(century, for example)</span> and locale <span style='font-size: 8pt'>(ie: western europe, UK, USA, for example)</span> are standard and do not deviate, although they can and do mutate over the course of Time.

In the late 20th/early 21st centuries, the meanings of the English words "racism" and "racist" do not deviate. They mean what I posted above, which is what is found in ANY dictionary.


Seen, MG?


and unnu wonda why mi so laaaang-winded... [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[mountaingal]

Re: Why Blugiant, why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: mountaingal</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WitchyOoman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Word meanings (definitions) are standard, and do not deviate. </div></div>
actually, that's not true. even in English word meanings deviate.
</div></div>

I will rephrase for completeness and clarity, MG. Thanks. [img]/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif[/img]

Word meanings within one specific time period <span style='font-size: 8pt'>(century, for example)</span> and locale <span style='font-size: 8pt'>(ie: western europe, UK, USA, for example)</span> are standard and do not deviate, although they can and do mutate over the course of Time.

In the late 20th/early 21st centuries, the meanings of the English words "racism" and "racist" do not deviate. They mean what I posted above, which is what is found in ANY dictionary.
</div></div>
you are essentially agreeing with my earlier post that a word can have one meaning in one era and another meaning in a subsequent era. no problem.

however, you are subjectively (and somewhat arbitrarily) determining the length of time in which the meaning of "racist/racism" meaning is fixed. i disagree that "late 20th/early 21st centuries" is necessarily the fixed parameters for saying that there is only one applicable meaning for the term racist - especially since the 1982 definition you cite may have been developed from mid-20th century or earlier.