I suppose this is the best thread to discuss the SAVE America Act. Don l’orange is pushing hard to sign it into law before the midterms.
The version of the SAVE Act that passed the House and has been submitted to the Senate affects registration. The most onerous provisions that Trump rattles off in his social postings -- restrictions on mail-distributed ballots, photo id for in-person voting, etc -- are not in this bill. Thune has already said he doesn't have the votes to dump the filibuster for this bill; some people believe he doesn't have enough votes to pass it even w/o the filibuster. As for Trump's demands, I don't think either Thune or Johnson have the votes to pass something that requires state/local Republicans to implement a new voting system on the fly, in a very short period, sans funding.
I agree that it is unwise for other countries to rely on the US for their military protection. Hard to argue otherwise given how thoroughly we have shit the bed on this over the last quarter century.
I can only hope, though, that when other countries take back that role, they don't also tip into the militarism that has thrown us so badly out of balance. I think that in an ideal world, no one country would be able to defend itself entirely on its own, but would have to rely on a community of nations. (Not that I'm good at relying on others most of the time - I'm far too independent. Rather, I think that knowing that you can't afford to bully everyone around you is healthy, and a hedge against hubris.)
Letting people in the military vote by mail obviously helps Republicans.
I'm wondering if, by sending them into combat with not even an explanation, let alone a statement of what constitutes victory, Trump may have managed to at least seriously reduce that Republican skew. Maybe to as far as politically balanced, but a lot less enthused.
GOP: perhaps on its way to becoming just another example of "everything Trump touches dies."
I suppose this is the best thread to discuss the SAVE America Act. Don l'orange is pushing hard to sign it into law before the midterms. I wonder, though, if it will really help the GOP as much as he seems to think were it to pass in time.
Midterms are dominated by the most reliable voters, which means they're already registered and probably have ID. At least I would think so.
Of the people the act would disenfranchise, the question becomes what the breakdown in party would be - particularly as concerns mail-in voting. It's more popular with Democrats, but I think the split has moved closer to being even in recent years. (The act has exceptions for military, disabled people, and a few others.)
The biggest skews are toward older people and white people. The act has exceptions for military, disabled people, and a few others. Letting people in the military vote by mail obviously helps Republicans. To the extent that there's overlap between older people and disabled people, there's also some benefit for Republicans.
I shouldn't try to write coherently when sleep deprived.
I meant that Article 9 remained in place because many (most?) Japanese felt secure leaving it alone. The assumption on which that feeling of security rested is dead and gone.
I think it has stayed in place because of the US defense umbrella, but to suggestion that it was the Japanese put this forward because they felt safe in the embrace of the US is ahistorical.
My sense is that Japan's constitutional restrictions on military activity are very much based on a confident belief that, if Japan were attacked, the US would (as promised) come to its defense. But today we have a US administration which could care less about what the US might have promised, what treaty obligations we might have made.
Japan would have to be crazy, suicidal even, not to rethink their policies on their military. What kind of Constitutional change might be best, I can't say. But refusing to change isn't really a viable option.
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
Some countries launched campaigns, made laws to rid themselves of loan words. Some did so with a certain creativity like Iceland where computer has become tölva, a portmanteau from tala and völva (=> "number prophetess"). France was pedantic and not much short of making it a misdemeanor not to use the prescribed neologisms. Germany did in WW1 with official dictionaries to give people guidance with which words to replace real or perceived French imports.
Although it went far over the top, quite a bit actually stuck and superfluous French words got replaced by fully suitable German equivalents. Some older purists had come up with simply ridiculous substitutes for words no one normal would have considered foreign*, like Nase (nose). I doubt the old Germans needed the Romans to get a word for this part of anatomy or would have gone for Gesichtserker (face oriel) as more natural. Dörrleiche (jerky corpse) for mummy did not catch on either.
A newer trend is to invent English terms for items that are not used by actual English speaking people. E.g Handy for cellphone or Beamer for video projector. They seem so fitting that most Germans do not even know that those are fake loans.
*admittedly some of their proposals got into common language but usually as alternatives not replacements.
It occurs to me to wonder. How many of the ultra-macho xenophobes in this administration have a clue that "macho" is of Spanish origin?
Can we get a Hegseth/Miller cage match? Preferably with weapons like brass knuckles, which are non-lethal enough to have both get seriously damaged before one strokes out.
Not all of our immigrants are people. A lot of words came here and settled, too.
People tend to speak at about 39 bits of information per second, regardless of the language they're speaking. Ben Shapiro and Steven Bonnell(Destiny) give the impression of speaking twice the normal English rate.
I've read a few articles about Spanish being either overlooked or resistant to AI. Some of the arguments were Spanish had more dialectical variants, Spain had stronger data laws. The articles vary from lauding it to complaining that AI models are English-centric. The point of your roommate may also play into it, a fully duplex language has reduced information density, which means that it is more difficult to derive logical principals out of it that a language that requires alternating turns
Spanish tends to use about a third more words than English to express the same thing.
My graduate school roommate was getting a PhD in linguistics. He talked about Spanish being a "full duplex language", meaning that the information density was low enough it was possible (at least in casual conversation) to talk and listen at the same time. English was dense enough it was a "half duplex language" where you could listen, or talk, but not both simultaneously. His dissertation topic was going to be on cultural ramifications of that difference.
Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
In basic modern algebra, many of the structures are named using words for common items: group, ring, field, etc. In German, the same sort of convention is used but not all of the common terms are the same as the ones used in English. I had to do a final project translating a chapter from a German college math text. I put a cover note on it for the instructor pointing out that I knew der Körper translated to body in general use, but the structure it was used for was called a field in English.
I don't speak or read Spanish so I only read the English translation.
My takeaway is that the Spanish PM is a thoughtful and articulate person who laid out a sane and humane response to the insanity we are unleashing on Iran and the world.
I can only say that I am envious of the Spanish for having a leader who can hold and articulate such a clear moral perspective.
It comes down to What are you trying to do? If your intention is to translate the message, then go with "three words." If your intention is to translate the words, "stick with "four words" like the translation we have here.
Or, as I learned it, are you doing a literal translation or a free translation? Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
** It was a pretty trivial test. Time to look up (open dictionary!) every word that wasn't a cognate for the literal translation. And still plenty of time to do the free translation. Good thing, though, that they didn't require a translation going the other way!
"He might have said “en pocas palabras” but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier."
So you must sacrifice the pithiness. Isn't that part of the message?
I considered the use of something that simply avoided the specific number for the English translation. But my previous thought was limited to translating "cuatro" to "three."
On “The ides of Texas”
I suppose this is the best thread to discuss the SAVE America Act. Don l’orange is pushing hard to sign it into law before the midterms.
The version of the SAVE Act that passed the House and has been submitted to the Senate affects registration. The most onerous provisions that Trump rattles off in his social postings -- restrictions on mail-distributed ballots, photo id for in-person voting, etc -- are not in this bill. Thune has already said he doesn't have the votes to dump the filibuster for this bill; some people believe he doesn't have enough votes to pass it even w/o the filibuster. As for Trump's demands, I don't think either Thune or Johnson have the votes to pass something that requires state/local Republicans to implement a new voting system on the fly, in a very short period, sans funding.
On “The penny drops”
I agree that it is unwise for other countries to rely on the US for their military protection. Hard to argue otherwise given how thoroughly we have shit the bed on this over the last quarter century.
I can only hope, though, that when other countries take back that role, they don't also tip into the militarism that has thrown us so badly out of balance. I think that in an ideal world, no one country would be able to defend itself entirely on its own, but would have to rely on a community of nations. (Not that I'm good at relying on others most of the time - I'm far too independent. Rather, I think that knowing that you can't afford to bully everyone around you is healthy, and a hedge against hubris.)
Probably makes me a bad American.
On “The ides of Texas”
WJ - GOP: perhaps on its way to becoming just another example of “everything Trump touches dies.”
...but it's been working swimmingly so far for Putin - guess that's because Vlad is the dom and Donald is the sub in that relationship.
"
I'm wondering if, by sending them into combat with not even an explanation, let alone a statement of what constitutes victory, Trump may have managed to at least seriously reduce that Republican skew. Maybe to as far as politically balanced, but a lot less enthused.
GOP: perhaps on its way to becoming just another example of "everything Trump touches dies."
"
Interesting points, hsh.
"
I suppose this is the best thread to discuss the SAVE America Act. Don l'orange is pushing hard to sign it into law before the midterms. I wonder, though, if it will really help the GOP as much as he seems to think were it to pass in time.
Midterms are dominated by the most reliable voters, which means they're already registered and probably have ID. At least I would think so.
Of the people the act would disenfranchise, the question becomes what the breakdown in party would be - particularly as concerns mail-in voting. It's more popular with Democrats, but I think the split has moved closer to being even in recent years. (The act has exceptions for military, disabled people, and a few others.)
Some stats here:
https://statesunited.org/resources/americans-vote-by-mail-2024/
The biggest skews are toward older people and white people. The act has exceptions for military, disabled people, and a few others. Letting people in the military vote by mail obviously helps Republicans. To the extent that there's overlap between older people and disabled people, there's also some benefit for Republicans.
On “The penny drops”
I shouldn't try to write coherently when sleep deprived.
I meant that Article 9 remained in place because many (most?) Japanese felt secure leaving it alone. The assumption on which that feeling of security rested is dead and gone.
"
The problem with that is that the constitution in general and Article 9 in particular were very much creations of MacArthur and GHQ.
https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/ronten/02ronten.html
I think it has stayed in place because of the US defense umbrella, but to suggestion that it was the Japanese put this forward because they felt safe in the embrace of the US is ahistorical.
"
My sense is that Japan's constitutional restrictions on military activity are very much based on a confident belief that, if Japan were attacked, the US would (as promised) come to its defense. But today we have a US administration which could care less about what the US might have promised, what treaty obligations we might have made.
Japan would have to be crazy, suicidal even, not to rethink their policies on their military. What kind of Constitutional change might be best, I can't say. But refusing to change isn't really a viable option.
On “A little language practice”
In British English, a "beamer" is usually a car made by Bayerische Motoren-Werke. It can also be a high full toss at cricket, or, but I've not heard this usage for some time, a big smile.
"
Some countries launched campaigns, made laws to rid themselves of loan words. Some did so with a certain creativity like Iceland where computer has become tölva, a portmanteau from tala and völva (=> "number prophetess"). France was pedantic and not much short of making it a misdemeanor not to use the prescribed neologisms. Germany did in WW1 with official dictionaries to give people guidance with which words to replace real or perceived French imports.
Although it went far over the top, quite a bit actually stuck and superfluous French words got replaced by fully suitable German equivalents. Some older purists had come up with simply ridiculous substitutes for words no one normal would have considered foreign*, like Nase (nose). I doubt the old Germans needed the Romans to get a word for this part of anatomy or would have gone for Gesichtserker (face oriel) as more natural. Dörrleiche (jerky corpse) for mummy did not catch on either.
A newer trend is to invent English terms for items that are not used by actual English speaking people. E.g Handy for cellphone or Beamer for video projector. They seem so fitting that most Germans do not even know that those are fake loans.
*admittedly some of their proposals got into common language but usually as alternatives not replacements.
"
How Words Entered the English Language
"
Since this is a thread about language.....
It occurs to me to wonder. How many of the ultra-macho xenophobes in this administration have a clue that "macho" is of Spanish origin?
Can we get a Hegseth/Miller cage match? Preferably with weapons like brass knuckles, which are non-lethal enough to have both get seriously damaged before one strokes out.
Not all of our immigrants are people. A lot of words came here and settled, too.
"
People tend to speak at about 39 bits of information per second, regardless of the language they're speaking. Ben Shapiro and Steven Bonnell(Destiny) give the impression of speaking twice the normal English rate.
"
I've read a few articles about Spanish being either overlooked or resistant to AI. Some of the arguments were Spanish had more dialectical variants, Spain had stronger data laws. The articles vary from lauding it to complaining that AI models are English-centric. The point of your roommate may also play into it, a fully duplex language has reduced information density, which means that it is more difficult to derive logical principals out of it that a language that requires alternating turns
cf: https://www.youtube.com/live/CyyL0yDhr7I?si=1RiobEdzk1GiuOHp&t=2083
"
Spanish tends to use about a third more words than English to express the same thing.
My graduate school roommate was getting a PhD in linguistics. He talked about Spanish being a "full duplex language", meaning that the information density was low enough it was possible (at least in casual conversation) to talk and listen at the same time. English was dense enough it was a "half duplex language" where you could listen, or talk, but not both simultaneously. His dissertation topic was going to be on cultural ramifications of that difference.
"
Okay. You (whoever that includes) win. Make the English "three."
"
English vs Spanish: Language Comparison
English vs German: Comparison
"
Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
In basic modern algebra, many of the structures are named using words for common items: group, ring, field, etc. In German, the same sort of convention is used but not all of the common terms are the same as the ones used in English. I had to do a final project translating a chapter from a German college math text. I put a cover note on it for the instructor pointing out that I knew der Körper translated to body in general use, but the structure it was used for was called a field in English.
"
I don't speak or read Spanish so I only read the English translation.
My takeaway is that the Spanish PM is a thoughtful and articulate person who laid out a sane and humane response to the insanity we are unleashing on Iran and the world.
I can only say that I am envious of the Spanish for having a leader who can hold and articulate such a clear moral perspective.
"
It comes down to What are you trying to do? If your intention is to translate the message, then go with "three words." If your intention is to translate the words, "stick with "four words" like the translation we have here.
Or, as I learned it, are you doing a literal translation or a free translation? Back when I was in grad school, and looking to test out of German for the language requirement, I did a literal translation first**, and used that to do a free translation. Because what was wanted was to demonstrate understanding of the article being translated.
** It was a pretty trivial test. Time to look up (open dictionary!) every word that wasn't a cognate for the literal translation. And still plenty of time to do the free translation. Good thing, though, that they didn't require a translation going the other way!
"
Would anyone here argue for that?
Yes, I would.
I would have changed “four words” to “three words” in the translation.
"
"He might have said “en pocas palabras” but decided, rightly, that giving the actual number of words is pithier."
So you must sacrifice the pithiness. Isn't that part of the message?
I considered the use of something that simply avoided the specific number for the English translation. But my previous thought was limited to translating "cuatro" to "three."
Would anyone here argue for that?
"
“In two words, impossible.” — Samuel Goldwyn
"
I'm not sure what I would do with the translation, but I'd consider saying it as something like 'one simple phrase' or 'one short phrase'
Counting words reminds me of the West Wing debate between Jed Bartlett and Florida gov Ritchie
https://youtu.be/sS4UAZ5UfGY?si=-aIzURqqN19_mgbP
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.