It's used as a name for a number of languages originally springing from these fair shores, so it's a proper noun, just like your nationality or town or origin are considered proper nouns too.
The only time I can remember being confused about whether something was a proper noun or not was in Mass Effect, where contrary to usual sci-fi practice, they decided not to capitalise the names of the alien species, presumably in line with how we don't capitalise "humans".
Maybe it is a remnant from german, where all nouns (?) have capital first letter.
And going back sometime, say to Jonathan Swift, lots of regular nouns were written with capital first letter in english.
Also, how does it make sense to capitalize "instances of the set" languages, but not the set itself?
Between autocorrect, swipe, voice recognition and handwriting recognition deciphering what an errant word was intended to be can be impossible. I find swipe to be rather useful in nagging me about typos - suggesting something completely different until you get it right.
I think the only time I have a problem with changing language is when a word or phrase changes to mean something new, but there's no ready replacement for the old meaning. Then we've lost a whole concept. Two examples I run into a lot are "ignorant" and "atheist." When I use those words, I mean them in the 'old-fashioned' way. I'd be fine with using something else, but sometimes that word has the nuance I want. Or, at least, it used to. For instance, I can use "uninformed" instead of "ignorant", but that's just 'close enough', it's not exactly the same. I feel like I'm losing a shade of meaning. Sarah Silverman has taken to calling herself "Godless" rather than atheist. I guess I could use that too, but again, I feel like there's a slight difference that I can't put my finger on.
I've seen "ignorant" used to mean "out of touch". Although it was a cockney former/career manual labourer who used it, so I didn't pay much attention
I always felt that the term has a very clear primary use in regards to some kind of theoretical knowledge, while to use it for practical or experience-related would be secondary.
Then again, it's because the analogue in greek is a term (edit) which sounds like it is linked to "idea", and according to google it is linked to a root about being taught.
Don't know what the etymology of "ignorant" is, and I am too lazy to google
Okay, I had to concentrate while listening to him because he talks too fast and doesn't stop to breathe.
Back in the 1980s there was a fantastic documentary series called The Story of English. It explained why modern pronunciation and current spellings don't match, and in the third episode there was a segment in which Doctor Who actress Mary Tamm (Romana I) was recording some of the Canterbury Tales. She had a coach present to teach her how to pronounce the words, and it was quite different. The correct way makes for a more lilting, pleasing sound (to my ears, anyway). It's a more musical kind of English, different, yet if you concentrate you can get most of the meaning.
Well, some do. I will at the beginning of a sentence. Otherwise, I don't.
On the matter of the word "ignorant." It's seen as a negative word, one easily given to being used in insulting terms. In its polite use, it means that the person being spoken to does not know something. Other connotations of the word translate as "You're being rude" or "You're stupid."
Well, I treat God's name like I do that of Zeus or Poseidon, with an initial capital, because that's how he's typically referred to. I'd do the same for Allah, the Almighty, Yahweh etc.
I wouldn't if I was typing out "goddamnit" or the like, though.
That's not a word you see very often anymore. People say it, but they don't tend to spell it that way.
There's a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine parody in which the author took advantage of some of these expressions. The most common Cardassian rank is "Gul" so the author decided to spell it "Gol" and change some of the Cardassian names. Therefore, the DS9 character Gul Dukat became "Gol Darnit" ("goldarnit" being an old-fashioned version of "goddamnit").
Well, I treat God's name like I do that of Zeus or Poseidon, with an initial capital, because that's how he's typically referred to. I'd do the same for Allah, the Almighty, Yahweh etc.
I wouldn't if I was typing out "goddamnit" or the like, though.
So, you're quibbling over centuries of using capital-G God as the proper name for the Judaeo-Christian deity, but not over my use of "the Almighty" to refer to the same entity?
So, you're quibbling over centuries of using capital-G God as the proper name for the Judaeo-Christian deity, but not over my use of "the Almighty" to refer to the same entity?
Using capital first letter for anything (not just epithets or nouns) which refers to the christian god is already there in the original text of the gospels, so it's not difficult to assume how it came about The use of capital in (for example) "Him" is very characteristic. Also in "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (since just writing "alpha and omega" wouldn't suffice). I think it is very obviously a show of reverence.
Not the same with "the English language" etc.
That is a TIL. I was convinced that 3 of the gospels were originally Aramaic, but it seems there is some debate but most agree with you:
Mainstream and modern scholars have generally had a strong agreement that the New Testament was written in Greek and that an Aramaic source text was used for portions of the New Testament, especially the gospels. They acknowledge that many individual sayings of Jesus as found in the Greek Gospels may be translations from an Aramaic source referred to as "Q", but hold that the Gospels' text in its current form was composed in Greek, and so were the other New Testament writings.
Ignorant is often used to mean "stupid", rather than "uninformed (generally, or about a specific thing)." I definitely don't want people to think I mean "stupid" when I say ignorant (if I want to call someone stupid, there are lots of words for that) so I usually just settle on "uninformed." I'm not 100% satisfied with that, but I'm unable to put my finger on exactly what the difference. It may turn out to be your classic 'distinction without a difference.'
---
These days, Atheism is commonly understood as an affirmative claim that there is no God, rather than simply lacking a belief that there is a God. Like I say, the difference is nuanced, and I don't actually mind people using the word that way, the problem is that I don't have a good word to mean what I mean anymore. I've tried calling myself a "soft agnostic" and an "agnatheist", but obviously I always have to explain what those mean. And the word atheist is frequently used to paint people as illogical and obstinate, perhaps hypocrites, in an attempt to put us on the back foot and make us out to be the ones who are being unreasonable and stubborn. Some people immediately jump to atheists being "militant" or "having a chip on their shoulder", and some few people go a step further and try to make atheism seems like a whole belief system.
Smug agnostics contribute to this, as though fanciful claims need to be empirically disproven before they can be dismissed. As someone who believes the burden of evidence lies with the claimant, agnosticism just sounds like a way of squirming out of a conversation they don't feel like having to me (which would be fine with me, if they didn't act like they occupied the higher intellectual ground). I saw a website somewhere that proposed a distinction between "soft agnosticism" and "hard agnosticism", where the soft version says that the burden of evidence is with the claimant and not with the skeptic.
As defined "a belief there is no God", I'm not sure "atheist" is really that useful a word. Off the top of my head, everyone I know who's an atheist would be better described as a skeptical agnostic, a soft agnostic, who believes the "circumstantial evidence" doesn't seem to support the claim, that there's no empirical evidence, but we're unlikely to ever get any. I don't know if I know anyone who firmly believes there is no God. If I do, they're not very vocal about it, but why would they be? The word atheist, to mean "an affirmative belief there is no God" is almost always used as a pejorative to describe someone else. As mentioned above, "Godless" used to be used that way, to denounce someone as a heathen. "Atheist" is the new "Godless."
Relatedly, I think a lot of people don't understand "secular", either, although that word comes up a lot less frequently. (In my more cynical moods, I suspect some people choose to smother conversation by deliberately conflating terms, calling a secular person or idea "atheist" to confuse people when they're unable to convince people.)
A digression on (in)famous 'atheists' Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens:
Spoiler:
Dawkins, even though he's often portrayed as one of the premier "militant atheists", is actually an agnostic who believes it's not incumbent upon the skeptic to disprove the fanciful claim. He's an opinionated and educated agnostic who gets published and gives talks and who's happy to engage theists in debate. So people get aggravated and throw stones. Happens to a lot of people. It's been a while since I read his book, but I think he tried out the term "agnostic-atheist" to describe his brand of disbelief, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. That's why I tried out "agnatheist" for a while, but I got tired of that one, too.
I liked Hitchens for his militant secularism, not militant atheism. I don't even know if he was an atheist at all, by the modern, common definition. He might have been more like Dawkins, a skeptical agnostic, but I think that debate wasn't really worth having to him (although he did sometimes - there's an interesting documentary about Hitchens and his good friend who was a pastor who went on a debate tour together). I've never read his book, but I've seen many of his recorded speaking engagements and heard him interviewed on the radio and podcasts. My understanding was that he believed that the Earthly, material consequences of virulent religious belief were dangerous, occasionally lethal, and that was the important stuff. I can't remember it verbatim, but he once said something like, "I would be happy to live and let live, but there are religious zealots who simply cannot do the same." I think he believed in a hard separation of church and state, and that "freedom of religion" had to include freedom from religion, or it was hollow and meaningless. Secular, in other words. He also just loved the fight, almost like a boxer, which is why he's regarded as pugnacious. I think he was happy to be considered pugnacious. He freely admitted that he enjoyed going on Fox News, just for the gladiatorial contest, to vanquish his adversaries in front of the baying crowd.
That the burden of evidence lies with the claimant and not with the skeptic is a founding principle of our legal system today (thank God ). When Donald Trump's lackeys tried to overturn our recent election with fanciful stories, they were thrown out of no fewer than 66 courts of law for not even having enough evidence to warrant a hearing.
I'm not certain it's true, but I've read before that historically "atheist" was used to describe someone who acted in an "ungodly" way (i.e. contrary to Christian teachings) rather than someone who rejected the idea of god(s).
I'm not certain it's true, but I've read before that historically "atheist" was used to describe someone who acted in an "ungodly" way (i.e. contrary to Christian teachings) rather than someone who rejected the idea of god(s).
I had a Chinese friend who wanted to go by Irene. I tried to call her by her actual Chinese name but I'm not sure by her giggles if she liked it or I was just that bad.
I guess she likes it, I think many Chinese have a second name when they are aboard in order to makes it easy for peoples to pronounce their name, it's for the convenient of others not due to the reason "I don't want them to pissing me off by pronouncing my name wrongly, hence I made this special ez name of me for them to pronounce".
So when you try your best to pronounce their actual name, it's actually a very positive gesture and can be seen as sweet, so perhaps that's one of many reasons that she ending up had a crush on you. People can easily misread a kind gesture as some romantic clues, and that can be super problematic.
I guess she likes it, I think many Chinese have a second name when they are aboard in order to makes it easy for peoples to pronounce their name, it's for the convenient of others not due to the reason "I don't want them to pissing me off by pronouncing my name wrongly, hence I made this special ez name of me for them to pronounce".
So when you try your best to pronounce their actual name, it's actually a very positive gesture and can be seen as sweet, so perhaps that's one of many reasons that she ending up had a crush on you. People can easily misread a kind gesture as some romantic clues, and that can be super problematic.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
). When Donald Trump's lackeys tried to overturn our recent election with fanciful stories, they were thrown out of no fewer than 66 courts of law for not even having enough evidence to warrant a hearing.
