The perpetual calendar
in [Physics]
|
Prev: simple question power, resistance, current, etc
Next: OBSERVATIONS: Einstein's gravitational redshift measured with unprecedented precision
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 08:33 On Feb 24, 2:48 am, James Hogg <Jas.H...(a)gOUTmail.com> wrote: > Andrew Usher wrote: > > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> On Feb 23, 7:09 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> Mike Barnes wrote: > >>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com>: > >>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective > >>>>> (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. > >>>> That's a matter of perception rather than fact. Most people's perception > >>>> is different from yours, I suspect. > >>> Mine is based on logic. One declines like a noun, not a pronoun, and > >>> is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), > >>> not a pronoun. > >> It's already been noted that this thread is widely crossposted. > > >> Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics > >> to the linguists. > > > I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! > > "your people"? As in, "Have your people get in touch with my people!" Them math or physics guys must live pretty high on the hog.
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 08:36 On Feb 24, 3:09 am, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenb...(a)hpl.hp.com> wrote: > "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...(a)verizon.net> writes: > > > On Feb 23, 7:07 pm, Ant nio Marques <antonio...(a)sapo.pt> wrote: > >> Besides, until recently, no other church lived for a universal > >> ('catholic') vocation. Sure, many of them did have one, but not as > >> a central structuring element. Notice the RC was never 'the Italian > >> Church' even when popes were italian for centuries long. > > > Doesn't _every_ extant Christian church use the Nicene Creed? (With or > > without the _filioque_.) > > Assuming that you're not begging the question, no. Mormons don't. I > don't believe Jehovah's Witnesses do. I see claims that Seventh-Day > Adventists accept the original (325) Nicene Creed but not the revised > (381) version. I'm not sure about Christian Scientists. And I would > be surprised if there weren't a number of churches (minor, but more > mainstream than those mentioned) that don't disagree with it but don't > actually use it. Er, under what definition of "Christian" are Mormons Christians? Same for the other two aberrant American movements you mentioned. As for the Adventists (also an aberrant American movement, but less so), what are the "original" vs. "revised" versions?
From: Cheryl on 24 Feb 2010 08:38 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 24, 8:14 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: >> jmfbahciv wrote: >>> Michael Press wrote: >>>> In article <7ufdetFoc...(a)mid.individual.net>, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> >>>> wrote: >>>> [...] >>>>> But we still lack a February holiday, unless we have a big enough >>>>> snowstorm. >>>> February is the cruelest month. >>> February is the longest month. I thought US had President's Day in >>> February now. >>> /BAH >> But I'm in Canada, so we don't celebrate President's Day at all, >> whenever it comes. I'd make do with a 'mid-February Holiday' in honour >> of nothing in particular if I could be guaranteed a break in that dreary >> month. > > We used to have Lincoln's Birthday on Feb 12 and Washington's Birthday > on Feb 22. A while ago, they were rolled into one movable feast. > >> I suppose we could adopt Valentine's Day as a public holiday. > > A holiday in honor of a single industry? What's significant about Mr > (formerly St) Valentine? Nothing at all - except maybe all the people who buy pink junk in his honour would support the idea of a public holiday in February since St. Valentine - or the candy industry or the manufacturers of pink boxes - already has a well-publicized day in the middle of February. -- Cheryl
From: James Hogg on 24 Feb 2010 08:44 Peter T. Daniels wrote: > On Feb 24, 2:48 am, James Hogg <Jas.H...(a)gOUTmail.com> wrote: >> Andrew Usher wrote: >>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>> On Feb 23, 7:09 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> Mike Barnes wrote: >>>>>> Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...(a)yahoo.com>: >>>>>>> 'One' is not, grammatically, a pronoun. It is a nominalised adjective >>>>>>> (the number one) that is used in place of a pronoun. >>>>>> That's a matter of perception rather than fact. Most people's perception >>>>>> is different from yours, I suspect. >>>>> Mine is based on logic. One declines like a noun, not a pronoun, and >>>>> is clearly identical to the number one, which is a noun (adjective), >>>>> not a pronoun. >>>> It's already been noted that this thread is widely crossposted. >>>> Perhaps the mathematicians and physicists should leave the linguistics >>>> to the linguists. >>> I have as much ability to analyse language as any of your people! >> "your people"? > > As in, "Have your people get in touch with my people!" Them math or > physics guys must live pretty high on the hog. Ah, I thought it was some ethnic slur. -- James
From: Peter T. Daniels on 24 Feb 2010 08:46
On Feb 24, 6:40 am, Cheryl <cperk...(a)mun.ca> wrote: > Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > On Feb 23, 8:12 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > >> Adam Funk wrote: > >>> On 2010-02-23, Ant nio Marques wrote: > >>>> "Roman Catholic" ISN'T AN OFFICIAL SELF-DESIGNATION. ANYWHERE. > >>> Are you going to write to all the churches in the UK with "St ____'s > >>> Roman Catholic Church" or "St ____'s R. C. Church" on their signs, > >>> newsletters, websites, etc., to tell them that they are wrong? (I > >>> think this is common in much of the USA too.) > >> I won't try to claim such signs don't exist, but I don't remember ever > >> seeing one. The only way I can tell a church is RC is by the > >> architecture and usually by the name (saint I've never heard of or > >> long-winded way of saying Mary). > > > Do you only visit villages so small that they have only one church, or > > so homogeneous that they only have a sprinkling of Protestant churches? > > I think that's probably the key - the size and/or homogeneity of the > location. I associate signs saying "St. So-and-So's Roman Catholic > Church" with Toronto, which is a big enough and heterogeneous enough > that it's a pretty good bet a good proportion of the population doesn't > know which church is which. On the other hand, even in quite small > towns, I've seen signs like "TownName United Church" or "St. So-and-So's > Anglican Church", so that can't be the entire explanation. Do these "small towns" even _have_ a popish parish? "United" means exactly that -- it's not a denomination, but a bunch of congregations that got together in order to survive at all despite the organization of their individual hierarchies. Baptists and Presbyterians are probably the easiest to assimilate to each other (no clerical hierarchy), then Methodists (whose "bishops" don't claim the apostolic succession of the Episcopalians and Catholics). So in a really big and socially stratified small village, you might find a Protestant church, an Episcopal one (that's the US term for the Anglican Communion, which more and more seems as though it soon won't be one), and a Catholic one. > One of my families' old stories is about the time that my father's very > devout uncle came to visit him in his new home, a small town with > something like 4 or 5 churches serving various denominations. My father > knew that although none of them were Methodist (the denomination to > which his uncle, and, nominally at least, my father belonged) but that > one of them was pretty close theologically. It took him about three > tries to hit the right one - eliminating some, such as the Salvation > Army and the Roman Catholic one by cues from the architecture. > > Fortunately, his uncle had a great sense of humour and no illusions > about my father's religious practices. When we went on vacation during the school year I had to bring evidence of "church attendance" in order not to get penalized for missing Sunday School. The one I most remember was the Church of the Presidents, an Episcopal church very close to both the White House and our hotel (which was still the one presidents would occasionally turn up at, although that practice has recently become quite a burden on whichever church would be involved). Thus a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian congregation wasn't particularly particular in the 1950s/60s. |