So, just what are we talking about?

[Vandiablo]

by "rule":

Philadelphia: say PHY-ladelphia.
Chicago: say ChicAYgo.
Greenwich: say Green Witch
Connecticut: do you say all the letters?
Poughkeepsie: uh, hmmm...
Worcester: yum
Norfolk: don't try this one til you've heard it
Baltimore: if you don't say "Balmer", you don't live there

You say 'potato' and I say 'em taters'...

[Occhidiangela]

You are right, the first reply was better, and to a certain extent, much truer.

No further comment, and as to the rest, I am fully aware that the varietals of pronunciation in English are rooted in the varioius and sundry languages that modern English has plundered as it has built its vocabulary. It appears that the irony of the inability of Spanish to be honored insofar as its more consistent rule structure was missed. Tone of voice can be distracting, and for sure, that post needed one more edit before the "post" was hit.

English is a Germanic language, but the Germanisms seem to be slowly becoming archaic, or less common in usage . . . for example

"Don't you have any coffee" was once commonoy rendered as "Have you no coffee?" A few generations ago, that rendering of what would be asked in German "Hast du kein cafe?" did not sound as stilted as it does now. At least "Got milk" is close to "Hast du Milch" . . .

Back to the coffee grinder . . .

[Occhidiangela]

"Phy lay delf Aye Ay

Chai kay go (Funny, some folks call it Chi town, as is "Chai" town . . . or is that shy town????

Green witch, and what is the problem with that, we wonders, Precious? Sandwich uses the w . . . so did the Earl, and the Islands he applied his lunchly name to. Them folks from Green Witch strike me as being all at sea (OK, I wonder if the Church was all agog some years back at the thought of having some colored witch at the Prime Meridian . . . ;) ) burn them at the stake! Or, was that, let's have them over for a steak dinner? Idiom can be so confusing . . .

Connecticut: Ah yes, the Connect the Dots state, Up there, the folks choose to swallow their "T" to where mittens sounds like "mih uns". The T is caught in the back of the throat instead of hitting the teeth . . . unless it gets lucky and starts a word, like Texas, T-Bird, #$%&, or Tecate. (No, that's not Tee kait, it is a Mexican brand of beer, Teh-kah-tay)

As for Poughkipsie . . . yeah, who the heck imported all of those extra letters from France????

The mush mouthers of the Tidewater area pronounce "Nor Folk" "Naw FukK" Many jokes about the name of that town . . . "We can't drink nor f___" being one of the most easily remembered.

Having lived too close to Baltimore for far too long, I can only say "yep" the locals can be mildly mush mouthy. I wonder how Lord Baltimore pronounced his own name? I bet Bill Bryson would know . . .

[--Pete]

Hi,

Worcester: yum

West Chester (Shire), written Worcester and pronounced Wooster. The most rational word in the English language, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that any combination of letters in English can be silent and the rest pronounced at will. Any language that has the concept of spelling is a prime candidate for reform -- or abandonment :)

But I love that anchovy sauce -- modern day garum ;)

--Pete

PS Another favorite, Taliaferro

[Occhidiangela]

1. Methinks the Tollivers were anti-Papist. In 1760 something, that would not be too much of a reach.
2. An iron pulley? But that would be Taglia Ferra, I think. The g is of course silent when spoken.
3. Somewhere, I recall that lexicography as a standard in the English language is an 18th or 19th century phenomenon, which would likely give the counties in the debtor's colony of Georgia, and it's "aristocracy" a tendency for pre-lexicon names.

Not sure if you like Bill Bryson, but his "The Mother Tongue" and "Made in America" are both funny looks at the uncommon language.

Garum: neat treatment of it isn Mark Kurlansky's book "Salt." He writes very well, and loves unusual recipes. Not sure if you have read his "Cod" a very nice and not too long discussion of that fish, which he says "changed the world." :)

-Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

See, again, the examples I chose for the similar but different pronunciations that also do not "look as they sound." There is a story behind all of them, of course.

-Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

Ran across it in high school (Georgia, of course -- and how I wished that I lived in a state that had a reasonable number of counties to memorize :) )

"Ferro", as you point out, is "iron". The only word close to "talia" is "taglia" which means "cut" amongst other things. So "Taglia ferro" could be "one who cuts iron". A blacksmith? A sword smith? Or a warrior so strong he cleaves other's swords, helms, shields, and armor?

I've never investigated it in depth, but I did run across the story of the family. Since it pretty much starts with the move to England, it gave no clue as to the source of the name. I've found speculation passing for information, but nothing that I would consider definitive. Just one of them there mysteries, I guess, and thus suitable for this thread ;)

Thanks for the reference, I added Mark Kurlansky's "Salt" and "Cod" to my books to look for list.

--Pete

[Bun-Bun]

Quick Google on "spokane pronunciation":

But I thought all pronunciation was spokane? :P

Just try living in Austin, where you can drive on Manchacha Road (pronunced "MAN-shack") to Manor, Texas (pronunced "MAY-nor").

Monty Python had the right of it. Might as well spell it "Raymond Luxury Yacht" and pronounce it "Throat Warbler Mangrove".

[Taem]

It is anti-Christian insofar as the overfixation on violence against Jesus provides a dramatic and persuasive escape hatch from the more complicated and demanding witness of the Gospels: that a man whose intimacy with God reverberated through changed relationships that threatened the religious and political powers of his day, and that our own intimacy with God may demand no less. Tom Beaudoin, assistant professor of theology at Boston College, writer for the National Catholic Reporter

It would seem Tom Beaudoin is an idiot! He would have us believe the movie The Passion of the Christ was SUPPOSE to be about the relationship between a man and his deity, and that it avoided that topic (his own words were used an "escape hatch,"). The movie was just what Mel Gibson wanted! It was his interpretation of Jesus Christ’s last 24 hours; nothing more, nothing less. Maybe Tom should of stated that IF he had made the movie himself, he would of included this "important relationship" aspect into the movie, but Mel choose not too. I see nothing wrong with that.

[Jester]

"Depictions of Jesus that claim to represent the historical Jesus of Nazareth, but that minimize his Jewishness by an exaggerated separation from his ethnic-religious context cannot be called Christian."

Yes. Of course. And all those Christians throughout the ages, who adopted Christ to their beliefs to develop syncretic christianities? Sorry, but you're all just pagans. You "cannot be called Christian".

Every Christian group, from Europeans to Africans to South American Natives, makes a Jesus in their own image. It's the way religious iconography works. Every portrayal of Jesus in art inevitably "minimize(s) his Jewishness". Take a look at every painting of Jesus. Or Mary. Or the apostles. Or any religious figure.

It's the story that has religious significance, the form of the thing. It doesn't really matter (unless you're an irredeemable literalist) that he was Jewish.

Jester

[kandrathe]

I believe this response fits for both Meat and Jester's comments;

It's the story that has religious significance, the form of the thing.

I agree. For me, I think to distill Beaudoin's analysis of "The Passion" down to its salient points is that A] it is the teachings and the example of Christ's life that should be most examined, rather than the focus on his violent death, and B] to reflect on God's human experience through the life of the man Jesus. I think he goes too far to accuse this "entertainment" of being non-Christian. I read the "minimize(s) his Jewishness" aspect more as a rebuke to minimizing his humanity, and thereby also his Jewishness. The danger in focusing on the realism including the use of Aramaic and Latin is that this "story" might be confused with history. Much like Cecil B. DeMille did for his biblical "Extravaganzas", Gibson's focus on the violent final 24 hours of Christ's life places the focus on the sensational and providing movie goers another helping of Hollywood's pablum of violence (without the sex this time).

The movie was just what Mel Gibson wanted!

MEAT, I also agree. But, I being ever the cynic, suspect that "want" might have also included the desire to make a profit by telling a good story in a very compelling way.

I am one who everytime I see a war movie or any historical movie on TV, half way through, I'm 12 history books deep in trying to figure out what is true and what is hollywood. I would apply the same standard to "The Passion".

It's the way religious iconography works.

Or, maybe any human artistic expression. It is the interpretation of the artist, and not neccesarily an accurate portrayal of history. So, then, maybe these artistic expressions should be judged on their own merits, rather than their adherence to a particular dogma or historical accuracy.

edit: B) <> B]

[Occhidiangela]

It's the story that has religious significance, the form of the thing. It doesn't really matter (unless you're an irredeemable literalist) that he was Jewish

His Jewishness is contextually critical to the story, and to about 2000 years of history. A few reasons why, besides the god in question being the God of Abraham, aka Allah to the blatantly heretical semites from Arabia.

1. Fundamentalism. His position as rabbi, Jewish Clergyman, gave a certain legitimacy to his attempt to reform the Hebraic faith of his time, and to such teachings as he put forth. See how other, later, Christian reformers were thus explicitly following his example. WIthout his reference to the "legitimate" Law of Moses, he has no street cred with day to day residents of Judea.

2. Without being Jewish, the entire issue of jurisdiction within the Roman Empire, and hence the path to crucifixion, is missing. No crucifixion, no martyr. Without a martyr, the faith based on his life's work never exists.

3. The Jews were and are a well defined cultural and social group, a race if you will (in the 19th century sense) of remarkable people. Again, without the split in the social mores of Jews, a people who have influenced numerous other cultures through their intellectual and scientific contributions, for better andfor worse, we could not be having this discussion.

Yes, it mattered greatly that Jesus was a Jew. The Western ethos is referred to a Judeo Christian for a very good reason.

[Occhidiangela]

So, then, maybe these artistic expressions should be judged on their own merits, rather than their adherence to a particular dogma or historical accuracy.

Two points, though.

History is as much story as fact. There is a story is most history you read, see or hear.

Oliver Stone does not make documentaries any better than Mel Gibson does, yet there are idiots who think his Nixon and JFK films are historically accurate. :angry: He too makes a pretty penny with his artistic license.

[kandrathe]

Two points, though.

History is as much story as fact.&nbsp; There is a story is most history you read, see or hear.

Oliver Stone does not make documentaries any better than Mel Gibson does, yet there are idiots who think his Nixon and JFK films are historically accurate.&nbsp; :angry:&nbsp; He too makes a pretty penny with his artistic license.

Agreed. Which is why I end up with so many books around me each with a slightly different opinion. I rue the death of print. I fear we are becoming a culture that relies on the movie, rather than the book. Even as faithful as Peter Jackson tried to be with LOTR, the story he told is very different from Tolkien's.

Part of my concern is in people misperceiving Hollywood with Holy wood, or even Unholy wood. The Film industry has one goal -- box office. They don't care about the art form, or the accuracy -- only the take. If they can convince people to go to the box office by whatever means, they will. In many ways I think that the Film industry is a perfect example of how cruel pure Capitalism can be.

My prediction is that "Hollywood" having seen the success that "The Passion" had in motivating many Christians to shell out their $10 -- plus the many interested in seeing what all the hoopla was about, will now produce 3-5 more religiously based "controversial" films within 2 years.

[Occhidiangela]

Part of my concern is in people misperceiving Hollywood with Holy wood, or even Unholy wood.

Holy Wood. The Cross. The Ark of the Covenant, if it was indeed made of wood . . . and therefore, A Witch! Burn Her!!!! Throw her into the pond!!

--sorry, I digress-- :D

Un Holy Wood: What you see if you are a voyeur peeking in the window of the Chaos Sanctuary when Diablo invites Andariel

Church Lady Voice
Andariel! Who runs around naked and spits poison!
/Church Lady Voice

for an evening of mild bondage, drinking distilled blood, skinny dipping in the River of Flame, and generally messing about carnally. :blink: Or was it 'Semi Carnally . . . Sarah Connally?' Or Sarah Conner messing about with the Terminator . . . better stop, this is getting loopy.

The Film industry has one goal -- box office. They don't care about the art form, or the accuracy -- only the take.&nbsp; If they can convince people to go to the box office by whatever means, they will. In many ways I think that the Film industry is a perfect example of how cruel pure Capitalism can be.

The "industry" perhaps, but I still think directors and screen writers are trying to tell a compelling story. It's what their artform, their business, thair vocation, is all about: telling stories. They are the celluloid eras skjalds and minstrels, after a fashion.

My prediction is that "Hollywood" having seen the success that "The Passion" had in motivating many Christians to shell out their $10 -- plus the many interested in seeing what all the hoopla was about, will now produce 3-5 more religiously based "controversial" films within 2 years.

This is not new. Jesus Christ Superstar was controversial. The Last Temptation of Christ, Wilem DaFoe as Jesus, was controversial, and any film story made of Rushdie's "Satanic Verses" will likewise be controversial.

Gibson's timing was the critical factor to success, as well as his decision to give in to those insisting on subtitles. It did not hurt that his lead was, in my daughters words, "incredibly handsome." More empathy for pretty people, I guess. B)

[kandrathe]

Mystery fires force village's evacuation

I think they should sacrifice the black goat. :)

[Occhidiangela]

Goat is tasty. You will, however, be better off if a Serb or a Greek prepares the goat than if a Sicilian does, the Greeks in particular are masters of preparing goat. Yum!

The 39 inhabitants of the town halfway between Palermo and Messina were evacuated after the regional government declared a state of emergency in Canneto, which occupies a single street nestled between a railway line and the sea

That's not Italy, all web site titles aside, it's Sicily. Sicily was conquered by the Saracens/Muslims back in the 827 IIRC, before the Corleone family was around to kick arse and take names, so we can blame the whole thing on Al Qaeda: really. Some heretic Imam is surely harnessing the spiritual "Islamista Irridenta" forces at work wherever Muslims have been expelled from a land, in this case by the Norman Conqueror, of Sicily, Robert Guiscard. (I wonder if he is ancestor to ex-French PM Valery Guiscard d'Estang.) Some all powerful genii.

Unlike the north, with its network of vigorously independent urban centers, southern Italy experienced a significant consolidation after its conquest by the Normans. Bands of these invaders arrived in Italy in the early years of the 11th century. Starting c.1045, Robert Guiscard and his successors expelled the Saracens and Byzantines and established a powerful foothold in Apulia Calabria, Campania, and Sicily. Although the Norman territories remained an anchor of the papacy, papal over lordship became a mere formality in the 12th century, and when Roger II united the southern part of the peninsula with Sicily, he assumed the title of King of Sicily in 1130.

Robert Gets to Mount Etna

Ya see, it may not be demons, it might be djinns! Or Genii's! I wonder if the Catholic exorcist in question has multiple qualifications as regards the removal of demons across theological boundaries.

:lol:

[Taem]

I wasn't sure where to put this post on this thread, so I replied to my own post in it.

Basically there were/is a group of scientific researchers doing studding the genetic effects of muscular dystrophy when they came across a gene in humans that was "turned off". Through further study, they found this gene was present in apes and when turned on in humans, gave them the huge jawbones and smaller craniums. Through DNA testing, they determined that humans did descend from apes and that a strange mutation happened to apes around 2.4 million years ago (they can determine how old a gene is, or in this case how long it was turned off, through DNA mapping). So as I understand it, they have proven we descended from apes, however we also did not evolve, as they would have us believe. We mutated from them (an extremely rare event I understand).

Here is the only link I could find for the story, but the one I read in my local paper was much more detailed, esp. regarding the ape to human thing:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4593822

Funny thing is, my uncle insists that aliens exist and gave me this book on them to read. I've been casually glossing over it with a grain of salt, but there was mention that aliens altered our DNA from apes so that we came into being. I found that interesting in light of the new DNA evidence presented above, since this book was ten years old. I still am not sure I'm willing to even consider it as a possibility.

Anyways, as it relates to religion, my mother (who is a devote Christian) and I got into a lengthy discussion boarding on argumentative about our descending from apes. I told her mutations of this magnitude were almost improbable and that if there is a god, he obviously created us from apes so it does not contradict anything in the bible. She at first was very insistent that it did contradict the bible, but later recanted and accepted the possibility that we did descend from apes, albeit reluctantly.

My question is for those of you devoutly religious to Christianity, how does this new DNA information make you feel about your faith? Do you think it contradicts the bible, supports it, or in no way affects it one way or the other?

NOTE: Have to go shopping immediately; no time to check the syntax or spelling errors in this post.

[Griselda]

So as I understand it, they have proven we descended from apes, however we also did not evolve, as they would have us believe. We mutated from them (an extremely rare event I understand).

Nope. Evolution is based upon mutation. If you read The Origin of Species (which I have not done in a while, so my memory is foggy), you will find that it contains several examples of just this sort of thing- features present in humans that are not really useful, although they are present and useful in other species.

While this study adds to the evidence that supports the hypothesis that humans are related to other species, any one factor on its own could hardly be considered "proof". I don't doubt that there is a "jaw size" gene that mutated in early humans. But, I wouldn't jump to all of the conlcusions that seem to be drawn from this finding. It's important to look at every hypothesis (aliens, jaw size, whatever) with skepticism, or just about everything will start to be believable. At that point, what do you do when one guy's "aliens from Betelgeuse" theory contradicts another's "aliens from Sirius" theory?

-Griselda

[kandrathe]

Some might say we ascended from apes. :D But, based on our actions, maybe descended is more accurate. I know you are using it in the context of us being descendants from a pre-human ancestor.

The answer to your questions would be different depending on what Christians you spoke with. Some are biblical literalists and refuse to even consider any fossil or genetic evidence, others accept it wholeheartedly and think it is a revelation of the greater mystery of a type of guided creation. I think the majority would consider it an interesting introspection, but irrelevant to being a Christian. They don't know how creation happened and so beyond the ancient myth of Genesis, they cannot speculate on how it might have happened. But, they are pretty certain about their relationship with God, and they would say that it is all that really matters. The history of theology is filled with these types of "crucial" questions, like "Did Christ own anything?" or "How did God impregnate Mary, and what did Joseph think about it." In the past they were the basis of quite heated arguments, and even inquisitions, and burning heretics at the stake.

There is quite alot of evidence of ancient proto humans and pre homo sapiens like primates, so from what I've read, a gradual evolution from a bonobo like creature toward a more upright, intelligent, and hairless human is the most likely evolutionary path. Whether or not God had a hand in it, I don't know.

I haven't seen anything scientific that would lead me to believe that aliens exist, let alone altered anything on our planet.