Answer 1, 2, 3 or 4?

Please use this forum for general Non-Football related chat

Postby Bam » Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:59 pm

andy_g wrote:how did you manage to edit your post without it being flagged up as edited, bam?

I have no idea to tell you the truth mate.
Image



Forum Discourse
User avatar
Bam
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Out bush

Postby Bam » Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:01 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
Bam wrote:Yeah, now I get it.

(3)

"hot topic" wouldnt really be classed as formal, what you say Bob (the teacher ?)

Spot on.  As Andy's explained, "hot topic" is colloquial English rather than formal English. :nod

I love the irony that this lad would come on a footy message board to ask a question about formal English, though.  He might do better to ask about the established linguistic conventions of text speak! :D

:D

Thnx 4 xplaing it lads
Image



Forum Discourse
User avatar
Bam
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Out bush

Postby Bad Bob » Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:14 pm

Sabre wrote:what about Canada and Quebec?

Moving away from the English lesson and to the content of the first post...

Sabre, language is a huge and quite divisive issue in Canada and Quebec.  It's is perhaps the central pillar of Quebecois nationalism and it has been used as an ideological weapon on both sides for a long time.  In Quebec they have rather strict language laws designed to protect the dominance of French on signs, billboards etc. and they have 'language police' that go around and monitor these things.  Not surprisingly, in the various English-speaking pockets of the province (and there are quite a few) this legislation has not gone over well.

On a national stage, all federal politicians have to be able to at least communicate in basic form in French or risk (further) alienating one of the most important voting blocks in the country.  This is a source of resentment for a number of people in the rest of the country (esp. out West), who feel that Quebec's interests don't have anything to do with the majority of Canadians and who resist the idea that everything in our country should be bilingual.  There is even a sizeable minority of English-speaking Canadians who actually hope that Quebec does eventually declare its sovereignty because they feel the rest of the country could stop pandering to their interests.  It's all died down quite a bit from the tense times of the 1990s but it's a constant, bubbling undercurrent of resentment and counter-resentment in Canada, fueled primarily by language differences.
Image
User avatar
Bad Bob
LFC Guru Member
 
Posts: 11269
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Bam » Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:34 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
Sabre wrote:what about Canada and Quebec?

Moving away from the English lesson and to the content of the first post...

Sabre, language is a huge and quite divisive issue in Canada and Quebec.  It's is perhaps the central pillar of Quebecois nationalism and it has been used as an ideological weapon on both sides for a long time.  In Quebec they have rather strict language laws designed to protect the dominance of French on signs, billboards etc. and they have 'language police' that go around and monitor these things.  Not surprisingly, in the various English-speaking pockets of the province (and there are quite a few) this legislation has not gone over well.

On a national stage, all federal politicians have to be able to at least communicate in basic form in French or risk (further) alienating one of the most important voting blocks in the country.  This is a source of resentment for a number of people in the rest of the country (esp. out West), who feel that Quebec's interests don't have anything to do with the majority of Canadians and who resist the idea that everything in our country should be bilingual.  There is even a sizeable minority of English-speaking Canadians who actually hope that Quebec does eventually declare its sovereignty because they feel the rest of the country could stop pandering to their interests.  It's all died down quite a bit from the tense times of the 1990s but it's a constant, bubbling undercurrent of resentment and counter-resentment in Canada, fueled primarily by language differences.

Interesting.

We dont have that problem with Cornish speakers, although I dont think Cornish is spoken as much nowadays.

But I can certainly imagine the ridiculous tensions between French and English speakers of one country. If we'd of won that war back in the day (Independent yanky war?) would it be right to say French wouldnt be such a dominant language in Quebec ?
Image



Forum Discourse
User avatar
Bam
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Out bush

Postby Bad Bob » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:09 pm

Bam wrote:But I can certainly imagine the ridiculous tensions between French and English speakers of one country. If we'd of won that war back in the day (Independent yanky war?) would it be right to say French wouldnt be such a dominant language in Quebec ?

Actually, you're right--historians draw important connections between the War of Independence and French Canadian nationalism.  It starts in 1755, when you (the English) defeated the French in what the French Canadians call the War of the Conquest (the Yanks call it the French and Indian War and Europeans call it the Seven Years' War).  With that victory, the French threat to England's 13 Colonies was removed.  But, the theory goes, the colonists now saw that they had less need for British military protection and they started to spend more time grumbling over taxation and the lack of effective political representation.  So, defeating the French in Quebec in 1755 may have laid the foundations for American Independence two decades later.

Now, with the independence movement growing in the 13 colonies by the 1770s, British officials worried that Quebec (now under their control) might join them.  In order to buy the loyalty of the French Canadians, the British enacted a series of measures that preserved the French language and Roman Catholic religion at a time when French Canadian society was on the verge of disappearing, due to the fact that no more immigrants from France were arriving.  Through that legislation, that culture was able to preserve itself.  The British later attempted to establish a de facto policy of assimilation in the 1840s but their measures backfired and French Canadian political power grew as a result.  By the time of Canada's initial independence from Britain in 1867 the French Canadians were so firmly entrenched in Canadian politics that officials had little choice but to grant Quebec (dominated by French Canadians) significant autonomy over its own affairs, ensuring that it would always be a province like no other--a homeland for preserving and promoting Quebecois culture.

There endeth the history lesson! :D
Image
User avatar
Bad Bob
LFC Guru Member
 
Posts: 11269
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Bam » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:22 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
Bam wrote:But I can certainly imagine the ridiculous tensions between French and English speakers of one country. If we'd of won that war back in the day (Independent yanky war?) would it be right to say French wouldnt be such a dominant language in Quebec ?

Actually, you're right--historians draw important connections between the War of Independence and French Canadian nationalism.  It starts in 1755, when you (the English) defeated the French in what the French Canadians call the War of the Conquest (the Yanks call it the French and Indian War and Europeans call it the Seven Years' War).  With that victory, the French threat to England's 13 Colonies was removed.  But, the theory goes, the colonists now saw that they had less need for British military protection and they started to spend more time grumbling over taxation and the lack of effective political representation.  So, defeating the French in Quebec in 1755 may have laid the foundations for American Independence two decades later.

Now, with the independence movement growing in the 13 colonies by the 1770s, British officials worried that Quebec (now under their control) might join them.  In order to buy the loyalty of the French Canadians, the British enacted a series of measures that preserved the French language and Roman Catholic religion at a time when French Canadian society was on the verge of disappearing, due to the fact that no more immigrants from France were arriving.  Through that legislation, that culture was able to preserve itself.  The British later attempted to establish a de facto policy of assimilation in the 1840s but their measures backfired and French Canadian political power grew as a result.  By the time of Canada's initial independence from Britain in 1867 the French Canadians were so firmly entrenched in Canadian politics that officials had little choice but to grant Quebec (dominated by French Canadians) significant autonomy over its own affairs, ensuring that it would always be a province like no other--a homeland for preserving and promoting Quebecois culture.

There endeth the history lesson! :D

Good read that Bob.
Image



Forum Discourse
User avatar
Bam
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Out bush

Postby RedBen » Fri Oct 17, 2008 3:59 pm

I'm back from University and 1, 2 and 3 were all wrong :p  only 4 was correct. I see that this topic has developed into something else but anyway  :D
RedBen
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Schoten, Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Sabre » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:07 pm

RedBen wrote:I'm back from University and 1, 2 and 3 were all wrong :p  only 4 was correct. I see that this topic has developed into something else but anyway  :D

Back to the first post topic...

:D

How did your teacher explain it? Andy's and Bab Bob's answer besides coinciding, made quite sense.

P.S. Cheers for the insight Bob
Last edited by Sabre on Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
SOS member #1499

Drummerphil, never forgotten.
User avatar
Sabre
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13178
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

Postby Bad Bob » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:18 pm

RedBen wrote:I'm back from University and 1, 2 and 3 were all wrong :p  only 4 was correct. I see that this topic has developed into something else but anyway  :D

"Historically speaking" is not proper formal English? It's a bit of  cliched nonsense, I grant you, (how does one speak "historically"?) but I would have thought it would be more formal than "hot topic".  ???  You'd better fight this, lad...tell your prof that people on a Liverpool messageboard can't abide "hot topic" as formal English! :D
Image
User avatar
Bad Bob
LFC Guru Member
 
Posts: 11269
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Canada

Postby RedBen » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:52 pm

Bad Bob wrote:
RedBen wrote:I'm back from University and 1, 2 and 3 were all wrong :p  only 4 was correct. I see that this topic has developed into something else but anyway

"Historically speaking" is not proper formal English? It's a bit of  cliched nonsense, I grant you, (how does one speak "historically"?) but I would have thought it would be more formal than "hot topic".  ???  You'd better fight this, lad...tell your prof that people on a Liverpool messageboard can't abide "hot topic" as formal English! :D

1. (...) there is an ongoing debate about identity in this small country which will not see its outcome. => Not good because it is unclear to what 'its' refers. (I thought it was clear, she didn't :angry:)

2. (...) but fact of the matter is that, to this day still (...) => Not good but I can't remember why

3. (...) identity will always be a hot topic. => Hot topic isn't formal.

4. Historically speaking (...) => Correct

Oh, and I'll tell my prof about how the people on a Liverpool messageboard don't agree with her.  :D
RedBen
LFC Super Member
 
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2008 9:41 am
Location: Schoten, Antwerp, Belgium

Postby Sabre » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:54 pm

What strange. You could get nitpicky and say you can't talk historically (or footballistically :D we use the same resouce in Spanish, to stress that you're talking about that context when you use the following terms), but then, you could also say that a topic has not the cability to be hot.

It's the reactions of people to topics which may be hot, not a topic per se.

P.S. Just read your last post Ben and now I'm confused! :D I thought the teacher asked which was wrong, and since answer was 4, I thought that was the incorrect one. But it seems you meant a, b, c were wrong, and d) right. So the answer to the question was, a, b, c?
Last edited by Sabre on Fri Oct 17, 2008 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
SOS member #1499

Drummerphil, never forgotten.
User avatar
Sabre
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 13178
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:10 am
Location: San Sebastian (Spain)

Postby Number 9 » Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:56 pm

Way over my head all this!
WTF? :D
Image
User avatar
Number 9
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: South Belfast

Postby Bad Bob » Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:14 pm

RedBen wrote:
Bad Bob wrote:
RedBen wrote:I'm back from University and 1, 2 and 3 were all wrong :p  only 4 was correct. I see that this topic has developed into something else but anyway

"Historically speaking" is not proper formal English? It's a bit of  cliched nonsense, I grant you, (how does one speak "historically"?) but I would have thought it would be more formal than "hot topic".  ???  You'd better fight this, lad...tell your prof that people on a Liverpool messageboard can't abide "hot topic" as formal English! :D

1. (...) there is an ongoing debate about identity in this small country which will not see its outcome. => Not good because it is unclear to what 'its' refers. (I thought it was clear, she didn't :angry:)

2. (...) but fact of the matter is that, to this day still (...) => Not good but I can't remember why

3. (...) identity will always be a hot topic. => Hot topic isn't formal.

4. Historically speaking (...) => Correct

Oh, and I'll tell my prof about how the people on a Liverpool messageboard don't agree with her.  :D

Okay, a little Starscream has just informed me via PM ( :D ), that the original question asked which of the 4 were NOT formal English.  I was thinking she was asking which of the 4 was the most informal (deffo #3).  So, with this new information I can see why "all of the above" applies.
Image
User avatar
Bad Bob
LFC Guru Member
 
Posts: 11269
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Canada

Postby Number 9 » Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:28 pm

Talking of Starscream! :D
Are ya's gonna let him back on?
I know he's as mad as a bag of weasels but I think he knows now not to post PMs now!

PS I STILL dont understand this thread! :O
Image
User avatar
Number 9
>> LFC Elite Member <<
 
Posts: 7601
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: South Belfast

Postby JoeTerp » Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:33 pm

To me it is clear that its refers to the debate about the identity.  I think the "will not see its outcome" part still souds not quite right. Its because the sentence starts off talking about how there is still this debate going on, and then the sentence states that it will not see its outcome. I think it would be more correct to say that "there is an ongoing debate about identity in this small country that is not likely to reach a conclusion in the forseeable future."


For number 3 I would guess that the "that" the comma after that, or both are not neccessary.  Typically, commas preceed "which" and do not preceed "that" but I don't think that is a rule without exceptions, and I am not sure what the exceptions are.
Image
User avatar
JoeTerp
 
Posts: 5191
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:38 am
Location: Boston, MA

PreviousNext

Return to General Chat Forum

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 65 guests

  • Advertisement
ShopTill-e