Discussion in 'Linguistics' started by Orleander, Nov 19, 2007.
Didn't thelma and louise come out in the early 90's ????
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Yeah, you're right. Ya got me then. But I'm right about Debbie Reynolds and Tammy.
The first of my dad's two middle names is Adolph. He was born before WWII. His first name is Gustaf. My paternal grandparents immigrated from Sweden and King Gustaf Adolph the (some Roman Numeral) was on a state visit to the US at the time. Dad uses the initial A though.
Two middle names was common in swedish names, at least back then. Mom was also of swedish descent and she had two. I think it had to do with the custom of patronymic surnames being retained into the early 1900's.
my older son has my middle name and his girlfriend has the same
and their new born baby now has our middle name hehehe kinda cute shes so adorable
she cuddles up to me and stops crying strait away and her mum says its not fair cause shes the mum and everyone else can stop her crying but her
but first baby and she will work it out
Babies, with their undeveloped cognitive abilities, have very strong reactions to external sensations. It could be a pheromone or "unconscious odor." The olfactory lobe is the oldest part of the vertebrate forebrain, from which all the rest of it originally developed. In mammals it is still capable of detecting molecules in the air and sending a powerful signal to our instincts, triggering an emotional reaction of which we're not even consciously aware. This happens to us as adults far more often than we realize. It can be responsible for phenomena we have folk-names for such as "cold chills," "sixth sense" and maybe even "woman's intuition."
As a blood relative you may well have compounds in your body chemistry that your granddaughter is programmed to recognize, and the familiarity makes her feel secure.
But it could also be some other subtle stimulus that one of her other senses detects. Your daughter-in-law might want to study the precise way you pick her up and move with her that she senses kinesthetically in her semicircular canals, and the way you hold her and move your body against hers that she senses tactilely in her nerve endings. This could also be something she's programmed to recognize as "family" ways of touching.
Or... it might be that you are just really good at making babies feel loved and secure--in the only ways they're capable of sensing at this age--and as an "elder" in the family you have something valuable to teach the young-uns about parenting. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I don't have a middle name, but when I'm asked for one on something like a job application, I usually write down Farooq, because that should have naturally been by middle name given my first name.
Well, my first name is Omar (named after the second Caliph of Islam who was given the title "Al-Farooq"). Where I live, many people add Farooq to the name Omar, which unfortunately never happened to me. Basically, I just added it myself. It's a middle name, so nobody really cares too much anyway.
Is that THE notorious Caliph Omar of Baghdad? The guy who, in Western sources, is generally held responsible for commanding the armies that obliterated Egyptian civilization and extinguished its Cushitic language? Including, in many accounts, the final torching of the library at Alexandria? Understandably, not a popular fellow among linguists. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Perhaps you have a more upbeat biography for him. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Obliterated Egyptian civilization? More like helped it. Egypt had been stagnant for some time before the Rashidun, in case you didn't know. Besides, who do you think is responsible for the creation of Kufa, Basra, al-Jazira, Fustat, and Musal?
Well, that depends on whether or not you're ashamed of his warrior status. Personally, that's what makes me admire him so much. Or...do you hate all other magnificent conquerers like Genghis and Alexander?
The people who did all those things are not "Egyptians," the people of the Pharaohs. They are Arabs, the people who occupied Egypt, marginalized its native Cushitic people, and overlaid their civilization with the Islamic branch of Mesopotamian civilization. The armies of Caliph Omar destroyed one of the world's six precious and unique civilizations, just as the armies of Europe destroyed that of the Olmec/Maya/Aztec and that of the Inca, overlaying them with the Christian Greco-Roman branch of Mesopotamian civilization and marginalizing their people. Thanks to the armies of Islam and Christianity, half of the world's irreplaceable civilizations are lost to us forever. These are the greatest atrocities that have ever been perpetrated by human beings. (I give a modicum of credit to the Arabs for not destroying all traces of Egyptian civilization: the Christians actually melted down the art of the New World peoples. But to say Omar's armies were slightly less evil than those who conquered the New World is, I hope, a perfect example of damning with faint praise.)
The Arabs who now live in Egypt are no more "Egyptians" than the Anglo-Normans who now live on Britannia are "Britons," the Celtic people whom they conquered, marginalized, and replaced. The Brythonic language of the Britons is lost. Fortunately the Egyptians had invented writing so their language is preserved, since much of their writing was carved in stone that resisted the pyromania of Omar's hoodlums.
To steer this discussion back onto firmer linguistic ground, a "warrior" is a person who dedicates his life to defending people who cannot defend themselves--his own people or others in need. A warrior is not driven by vanity and does not conquer other peoples in order to inflate his image. Alexander, like Abraham Lincoln, was perhaps originally motivated by a desire to protect the nation he served by strengthening it, but they both ended up debased by hubris, solidifying and/or expanding their empires by dishonorable means in order to earn a place in the history books. Genghis Khan was a megalomaniac and a textbook example of a sociopath who was obsessed with glory. He killed at least ten percent of the civilian populations he came in contact with for no other reason than his own vanity. This puts him in a class with Hitler: unpardonably despicable vermin, blots on the history of our species.
In America we are developing a tradition of letting the names of outrageous villains fall into obscurity, denying them what they strove for: a place in our memory. After a contemporary rock star took the surname of a California cult murderer, a practice was begun of referring to more recent mass murderers only as the Oklahoma City Bomber and the Beltway Snipers. It's a long shot, but perhaps the knowledge that one's name will not be remembered will reduce the motivation for high-profile crimes.
In that trend, perhaps the Nazi leader should only be known as the Master of the Holocaust. As for the Mongol butchers, I get great joy from the fact that the patient Chinese people simply lulled them into decadence and absorbed them without violence. He is forgotten in the best possible way: What little he achieved has been erased, at least within that country.
Peace and harmony are the cornerstones of civilization. Anyone who kills and destroys is, by definition, not civilized, unless in self-defense against a direct threat from someone else who became uncivilized first.
Forgive me for allowing this thread to digress into politics via history, but Caliph Omar caused one of the world's greatest languages to become extinct.
You seem to generalize Islamic and Christian based conquests, and wrongfully compress them into one category. Spanish colonialism into the Americas, and their treatment/annihilation of the then present Aztecs/Maya/Incas is substantially different from the Caliphate’s growth from inner Arabia to Egypt (the West) and Persia (the North). As you erroneously imply, Omar’s conquests never directly lead to the destruction of the Egyptian civilization or extinction of any languages present there. The Egyptian civilization (prior to Omar) was always subject to change, and its deterioration was only a natural evolution (recall, Egypt had been in a stagnant and declining state for many years before Abu Bakr/Omar). A new lifestyle and language was introduced to the Egyptians, who readily accepted it because it was a stronger force to be part of. Languages aren’t erased by killing every speaker of it, until it’s lost completely. Introducing a more popular language that is part of a more powerful empire will naturally attract people towards it anyway. How do you think the Native American languages of today are being forever forgotten?
What civilizations did the Muslim (Arab) armies remove from history (preferably by Omar)? Staying on the topic of Omar, he actually aided the construction of many (aforementioned) cities. Atop of this, Omar did not loot/burn to the ground the cities he captured. Rather, he lived amongst them, building libraries and vital infrastructure that are still admired today. Considering this digression of topic occurred on the basis of Omar, I will focus more steadily on him. Unless I have accidentally skipped a few pages when reading my old history books, I cannot recall a time where a civilization was erased at the hands of Omar. The Omar I’ve read was the founder of cities, and an integral catalyst in the progression of civilization from the tribal men of Africa to the desert nomads of Arabia.
This is where you are mistaken. Contrary to your beliefs, a warrior is not someone who dedicates his life to defending the helpless, as you put it. A warrior, as defined by any dictionary (and as defined in regular dialogue) is a person well engaged/experienced in warfare; someone who has shown great vigor in battle. Keeping in mind these specific qualities of a warrior (based off dictionary descriptions), it is safe to say that Omar was deservingly a warrior. Conquering other people to inflate his own image was not of Omar’s principles, which is evident through his lifestyle and wartime policies. Did Omar steal all of Persia’s wealth and live lavishly like a King? Did he round of the civilians of the conquered regions and use them for pincushions? I’m afraid (for you) that the answer to both questions is “no”.
Of course all of these historical figures were obsessed with glory to varying degrees, and all likely committed some sort of atrocity (as perceived today) throughout their lifetime. Who could disagree to that? Certainly not me. However, we must give credit where it is due: these were some of the most influential, skilled, and powerful men in history, whose actions have helped shape civilization as we know it today. Despite their wrongdoings (however abundant), credence and some sort of appreciation/admiration must be given. It would be a crime to hold their unworldly achievements in contempt due to your abnormal hatred of them.
Then it becomes a battle of what crowd you are attempting to appease. If you refuse to offer media attention in vast portions to events like the Oklahoma City Bombing, then you’re likely to face loud controversy. Another example is the mall massacre that just recently happened: if you don’t feed that event the publicity it warrants, then there will be complaints in mass numbers, exclaiming that it deserves attention to raise awareness. They will argue that ignoring the event will make people turn a blind eye toward issues like necessary mall security, which in turn will lead to more events of the like.
The Chinese, in my opinion, turned out to be very lucky. Genghis Khan obliterated their Northern regions with unexpected ease, and stole all their treasure and material of value. If it wasn’t for the Mongol Empire’s lack of culturally-binding capabilities, China could (and most likely would) have faced much longer repercussions. The Mongols were weakened to withdrawal not by the Chinese, but by the Middle Eastern and Indian armies predominately (see Mamluks, generals such as Zafar Khan, battle of Ain Jalut). China seized advantage of Mongol misfortune that happened thousands of miles away.
Civilization, in order to advance, needs conflict, as history will show. It is small wonder why progression in all fields of knowledge occur during or immediately after some sort of conflict or conquest. Ultimately, you cannot view historical events (especially those which occurred 1400+ years ago) with the modern eye. What is deemed impermissible and uncivilized today may very well have been the exact opposite a millennium ago, which is why it is unfair to judge such actions by today’s laws and moral codes. The aftermath of Omar’s actions are well-documented and publicly recognized to be much more beneficial than harmful; they are acknowledged to have been prime advancers of Middle Eastern and African civilization, not destroyers of.
Mine is Michael. Gift of God or somesuch. Merely an addendum, or a hope. Yet, my parents weren't religious. So...
My husband's is Forrest, my son's is David, and my daughter's is Maurene.
Every parent should give their children an unusual middle name, so that they have something to blackmail them with in later life. So don't call them Fred Bloggs, call them Fred Aloicius Bloggs. Baby photos naked on a rug are also handy, as are photos showing off missing teeth.
I think they should give them those kinds of middle names to make them unique. So many girls have Ann or Marie as a middle name.BORING!!
Mine is Halley. The comet was in the sky the night I was born so my parents thought it'd make a cool middle name.
My parents actually did something really cool with our middle names. They let us choose our own. I was six when I chose mine. My brother was twelve when he chose his.
They wanted us to have names both given and chosen.
I think that's a pretty good approach as to whether supply one or not.
Mine is Michael......man thats so original!
Separate names with a comma.