Rob's House Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) You mean the way "normality" did? !@#$ing idjimit (oops...sorry, didn't mean to label you with a bogus word there. !@#$ing idiot.) What the !@#$ are you talking about? Are you making reference to the fact that all language evolves, or are you referencing a specific word that was misused that led to "normality"? Please explain because although you know a lot of facts you come off as a bit of a mediocre genius when it comes to reason and application. And when you get yourself in a corner you conveniently disappear from the discourse. Edited June 19, 2011 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 What the !@#$ are you talking about? Are you making reference to the fact that all language evolves, or are you referencing a specific word that was misused that led to "normality"? Please explain because although you know a lot of facts you come off as a bit of a mediocre genius when it comes to reason and application. And when you get yourself in a corner you conveniently disappear from the discourse. ALL variants of "normal" entered colloquial English in the mid-19th century, thus making "normality" as bogus as "normalcy". If you think otherwise, you're just a partisan liberal hack who hates Warren G. Harding. Retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 See what happens during the lockout? It's like one of those Geico guys climbing out from under the rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) ALL variants of "normal" entered colloquial English in the mid-19th century, thus making "normality" as bogus as "normalcy". Yeah, well I didn't !@#$ing know that. If you think otherwise, you're just a partisan liberal hack who hates Warren G. Harding. Retard. credit where its due And for the record, I still refuse to acknowledge "normalcy" as a legitimate word. Edited June 19, 2011 by Rob's House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPowlus Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share Posted June 19, 2011 What the !@#$ are you talking about? Are you making reference to the fact that all language evolves, or are you referencing a specific word that was misused that led to "normality"? Please explain because although you know a lot of facts you come off as a bit of a mediocre genius when it comes to reason and application. And when you get yourself in a corner you conveniently disappear from the discourse. It's father's day. I'm 68. I have a life outside of these digital walls friendo. As for a word "Working" it's way into the dictionary...That's pretty much how all words made it there SCAMP. The "English" language has evolved drastically in the last 250 years and us Americans have nudged that process along with our various dialects. Also something being a word for 280 years is pretty solid and it also wasn't added nor created out of ignorance. (STUDIED ENGLISH IN COLLEGE-Not 7th Grade English but origins and such dating back to the 11th Century). It found it's way on our tongue because of the Germans in the 17th century. So...yea ALL variants of "normal" entered colloquial English in the mid-19th century, thus making "normality" as bogus as "normalcy". If you think otherwise, you're just a partisan liberal hack who hates Warren G. Harding. Retard. When you're right you're right. Bravo scamp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Yeah, well I didn't !@#$ing know that. Which is why I usually "conveniently" leave the discussion...when it turns out that I'm talking to someone who hasn't bothered to inform themselves. And for the record, I still refuse to acknowledge "normalcy" as a legitimate word. For the record, I still refuse to acknowledge you as a legitimate poster. It's father's day. I'm 68. I have a life outside of these digital walls friendo. As for a word "Working" it's way into the dictionary...That's pretty much how all words made it there SCAMP. The "English" language has evolved drastically in the last 250 years and us Americans have nudged that process along with our various dialects. Also something being a word for 280 years is pretty solid and it also wasn't added nor created out of ignorance. (STUDIED ENGLISH IN COLLEGE-Not 7th Grade English but origins and such dating back to the 11th Century). It found it's way on our tongue because of the Germans in the 17th century. No it didn't, schmuck. Norma is a Latin root, not a Germanic one. Shut the !@#$ up already - either stop trolling, or learn to be a better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Since this topic is devolving towards German, schmuck isn't really the appropriate moniker. Putz, is more apt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Since this topic is devolving towards German, schmuck isn't really the appropriate moniker. Putz, is more apt. Let's just skip German and go straight for Latin...Fatuus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Since this topic is devolving towards German, schmuck isn't really the appropriate moniker. Putz, is more apt. Is Scheisskopf good for everyone, then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPowlus Posted June 19, 2011 Author Share Posted June 19, 2011 Which is why I usually "conveniently" leave the discussion...when it turns out that I'm talking to someone who hasn't bothered to inform themselves. For the record, I still refuse to acknowledge you as a legitimate poster. No it didn't, schmuck. Norma is a Latin root, not a Germanic one. Shut the !@#$ up already - either stop trolling, or learn to be a better one. Tom if you're going to run all over Google to prove me wrong why don't you pick up a copy of the 1967 version of Linguistics by Taylor & Francis for the English Language. GERMANS during the 18th Century popularized NORMALCY as a term, over the next 100 years it had been adapted into OUR AMERICAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. I still have the copy for college on my shelf if you'd like to borrow it. Run along scamp PUTZ is YIDDISH by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) This debate is hilarious, Like anyone on this board is an expert on normal. Here's a pretty girl to talk about normal. OK after watching the video I think Tom might have some knowledge of the subject seeing how he is bent in a right angle stoop. BTW none of you guys is sexy. Edited June 20, 2011 by ....lybob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPowlus Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 This debate is hilarious, Like anyone on this board is an expert on normal. Here's a pretty girl to talk about normal. youtube.com/watch?v=kk_qldSDgUw OK after watching the video I think Tom might have some knowledge of the subject seeing how he is bent in a right angle stoop. BTW none of you guys is sexy. Dames. The reason the world goes 'round. Let's just skip German and go straight for Latin...Fatuus If you're going to use latin, please use it correctly. By just saying "Fatuus" it's the same as saying idiot without leading with "You're an". In Latin it doesn't translate to what you think it means. Got to love the 1950's, Latin, German & French were all MANDATORY courses in Junior High School as well as High School. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Tom if you're going to run all over Google to prove me wrong why don't you pick up a copy of the 1967 version of Linguistics by Taylor & Francis for the English Language. GERMANS during the 18th Century popularized NORMALCY as a term, over the next 100 years it had been adapted into OUR AMERICAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE. I still have the copy for college on my shelf if you'd like to borrow it. Run along scamp PUTZ is YIDDISH by the way Having studied - among other languages - Latin and German, I don't need a book to tell me the difference between Romantic and Germanic roots. By the way...Yiddish is GERMANIC, scheisskopf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPowlus Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 Having studied - among other languages - Latin and German, I don't need a book to tell me the difference between Romantic and Germanic roots. By the way...Yiddish is GERMANIC, scheisskopf. Actually you do, YIDDISH is more RUSSIAN than GERMANIC putz. Russian Jews brought it with them to Prussia in the 16th century. Read a book before you get involved. I'm done with debating anything with you, you're ignorant and that's that. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 If you're going to use latin, please use it correctly. By just saying "Fatuus" it's the same as saying idiot without leading with "You're an". In Latin it doesn't translate to what you think it means. Got to love the 1950's, Latin, German & French were all MANDATORY courses in Junior High School as well as High School. They didn't have Google translation in the 1950s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Actually you do, YIDDISH is more RUSSIAN than GERMANIC putz. Russian Jews brought it with them to Prussia in the 16th century. No, linguisticly, Yiddish is Germanic, not Slavic. I understand not knowing that. I don't understand how anyonc can claim to know anything about languages and not know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPowlus Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share Posted June 20, 2011 No, linguisticly, Yiddish is Germanic, not Slavic. I understand not knowing that. I don't understand how anyonc can claim to know anything about languages and not know that. IT'S A JEWISH DIALECT! IT WAS BROUGHT WITH THE JEWS FROM ASIA MINOR. IT FIRST SURFACED IN IT'S MODERN FORM IN RUSSIA DURING THE 11th CENTURY YOU IGNORANT CHILD. IT "FOUND" IT'S WAY TO PRUSSIA(GERMANY) LATER! WHICH MEANS IT WAS IN RUSSIA FIRST! YOU STUPID, STUPID IDIOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Gentile Men you are both right or maybe both wrong depending on which noted linguistic experts you wish to follow. For centuries it was widely assumed that Yiddish was just broken German, more of a linguistic mishmash than a true language. Even the language's own speakers called it "Zhargon," meaning jargon. In the early 20th century, linguists found evidence that Yiddish and modern German were of equal stature -- parallel offshoots of the same Germanic mother tongue. The other components of Yiddish were explained as superficial borrowings grafted onto an essentially Germanic language. More recently, Mr. Koestler's controversial thesis has been revived and expanded in a 1993 book, "The Ashkenazic Jews : A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity" (Slavica Publishers), by Dr. Paul Wexler, a Tel Aviv University linguist. Dr. Wexler uses a reconstruction of Yiddish to argue that it began as a Slavic language whose vocabulary was largely replaced with German words. Going even further, he contends that the Ashkenazic Jews are predominantly converted Slavic and Turkic people who merged with a tiny population of Palestinian Jews from the Diaspora. but you are both absolutely right in the assessments of each others mental capacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 IT'S A JEWISH DIALECT! IT WAS BROUGHT WITH THE JEWS FROM ASIA MINOR. IT FIRST SURFACED IN IT'S MODERN FORM IN RUSSIA DURING THE 11th CENTURY YOU IGNORANT CHILD. IT "FOUND" IT'S WAY TO PRUSSIA(GERMANY) LATER! WHICH MEANS IT WAS IN RUSSIA FIRST! YOU STUPID, STUPID IDIOT Antolle ulua sulrim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 IT'S A JEWISH DIALECT! IT WAS BROUGHT WITH THE JEWS FROM ASIA MINOR. IT FIRST SURFACED IN IT'S MODERN FORM IN RUSSIA DURING THE 11th CENTURY YOU IGNORANT CHILD. IT "FOUND" IT'S WAY TO PRUSSIA(GERMANY) LATER! WHICH MEANS IT WAS IN RUSSIA FIRST! YOU STUPID, STUPID IDIOT No, it's Germanic, not Slavic. It didn't surface in Russia, and even if it had, it would still be Germanic and not Slavic. This is because "geography" and "linguistics" are not the same thing. Linguistically...Germanic. It's also a language, not a dialect. And it wasn't brought from Asia Minor. And in as much as it made its way to Prussia, it did so from the Rhein Ashkezani communities. But other than that...you're still a schmuck. Putz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts