Who's English is the best here?

[yiostheoy]

Sargon Of Akkad around 2300 BCE did some writing but we have very little of it:

"My mother was a high priestess,
my father I knew not.
The brothers of my father loved the hills.
My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates.
My high priestess mother conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid.
She cast me into the river which rose over me.
The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water.
Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me.
Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener.
While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me her love, and for four and ... years I exercised kingship."

The punctuation is/are modern edits.

 

[Pogo]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Why does Yankeedom (I take offense to that word because Yankees Suck!) extend over to North Dakota? If we are talking accents, I see no similarities between the Boston and the Fargo accents.

Because that map he posted is not a linguistic one. It's a politics-meets-cultural-values map. It's from here.

It's a not-uninteresting study in its own right (I've got one of the books on it), but it's not about regional dialects.

 

[xotoxi]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Why does Yankeedom (I take offense to that word because Yankees Suck!) extend over to North Dakota? If we are talking accents, I see no similarities between the Boston and the Fargo accents.

Because that map he posted is not a linguistic one. It's a politics-meets-cultural-values map. It's from here.

It's a not-uninteresting study in its own right (I've got one of the books on it), but it's not about regional dialects.

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Why does Yankeedom (I take offense to that word because Yankees Suck!) extend over to North Dakota? If we are talking accents, I see no similarities between the Boston and the Fargo accents.

Because that map he posted is not a linguistic one. It's a politics-meets-cultural-values map. It's from here.

It's a not-uninteresting study in its own right (I've got one of the books on it), but it's not about regional dialects.

Interesting. It's sort of odd that some of the regions are only a few counties wide. I wonder how that happens.

 

[Pogo]

Very few people realize there is actually quite a difference between British English and American English.

...

In Boston they don't pronounce the "R".

My grandfather, who was from Coastal Maine and had a fairly thick accent, was travelling in England once...and a British person asked him what part of England he was from.*

And while I was in college, I had many debates with my mid-western friends about how the words CAUGHT and COT are pronounced. In New England, we pronounce them exactly the same.


* Or they probably said "from what part of England are you?"

My grandfather (the one not from Mississippi) was a Maineac too. . His wife (who was not), got a permanent giggle out of how they pronounced the name "Bath".

 

[MisterBeale]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Oh you can hear it anywhere New Englanders travel. But it's specific to that region and marks the speaker as such.

Not sure why you say "as you can see" --- what I see is your map makes no mention of it at all. Understandably so, since it's not a dialect map anyway.

NO, I'm telling you, the folks that were using it, were high school kids that lived in Kansas City. Maybe they picked it up from TV broadcasts out of NY on major networks, but there it is.

You know, I'm still reading this thread, and for most part, I agree with you on the whole Y'all issue.

Largely, I think both you and yiostheoy are both correct. In 90 percent of the instances, I think you are correct, but in informal instances, I think there may be cases where the ignorant and uneducated may use it in the context where yiostheoy has presented his case. Logically, I agree with you, it makes no sense. That said, I'm not willing to say that in certain cultural communities, it is not used in this manner. I've studied anthropology enough to know that 1+1 can equal 4 if a community agrees it does, even if the rest of the world doesn't believe it.

You DO agree that there are some folks that believe that world is flat, and others that believe that the world was only created 6000 years ago, right? So what does it matter if this word or that word is plural or this word means possessive or that word mean this or that?

What really matters is the iconography and meaning of what regional people give meaning to individual sounds and meaning to the words they use. You and I cannot possibly meet every sub-grouping and subsection of people in the nation. You may brag that you are the most international person of mystery, but, whatever, you are being arrogant. You both are.

This is why you are both probably right, and you both are probably wrong.

Your biggest issue? You can never be wrong. Even when someone like me is telling you they have met regional folks that lived outside of N. England that have used a term, even when they tell you that they do not live in N. England and have used said term all the time. . . .

YOU STILL insist you are right.


Let it go.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Please list all candidates. Foreigners are not counted, I want to speak pure American English

Very few people realize there is actually quite a difference between British English and American English.

And then there is also Canuck English, Auzzie English, and Kiwi English too.

In Boston they don't pronounce the "R".

In the South they drawl their vowels.

BS.

Everyone that has seen "My Fair Lady," knows this.

Well, I can generally manage well enough with folks "murdering" the English language so long as they do so in a way that leaves their meaning clear and unambiguous. Besides, the vast majority of folks who would do so rarely have something to say that's critical for me to comprehend. There are, of course, exceptions. Donald Trump is one exception, but only because (1) he sought to be POTUS and (2) he won the election. I find it highly problematic that a person in either of those two circumstances -- along with other leadership roles -- communicates with vague and/or ambiguous expressions. And, no, it doesn't matter what they lead; it could be Sunday choir, and I'd feel the same. If one must lead others, one must communicate clearly and unambiguously.

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ.

They were both lying scoundrels.

Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam.

Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Lies would not matter.

He got elected with lies.

Question is can he now deliver anything that he lied about and get re-elected?

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ. They were both lying scoundrels. Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam. Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Ah, no....I am not the sort who'll cotton to presidential lying for any reason, really, but certainly not simply because I'd become "acclimated" to it by dint of others having done so before. As goes that behavior, commonality/familiarity doesn't not equate to, yield or garner my insouciance or indifference toward subsequent instances of it by later POTUSes.

BTW, I was around for Nixon and LBJ, though I wasn't nearly as forthcoming with and founded in my economic, science or political understanding and views as I now am.

 

[MisterBeale]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Oh you can hear it anywhere New Englanders travel. But it's specific to that region and marks the speaker as such.

Not sure why you say "as you can see" --- what I see is your map makes no mention of it at all. Understandably so, since it's not a dialect map anyway.

However, it is a pretty map.

I love maps. Culture depends largely on language. I think we would find that language variations draw up pretty close to these lines.

 

[yiostheoy]

Please list all candidates. Foreigners are not counted, I want to speak pure American English

Very few people realize there is actually quite a difference between British English and American English.

And then there is also Canuck English, Auzzie English, and Kiwi English too.

In Boston they don't pronounce the "R".

In the South they drawl their vowels.

BS.

Everyone that has seen "My Fair Lady," knows this.

Well, I can generally manage well enough with folks "murdering" the English language so long as they do so in a way that leaves their meaning clear and unambiguous. Besides, the vast majority of folks who would do so rarely have something to say that's critical for me to comprehend. There are, of course, exceptions. Donald Trump is one exception, but only because (1) he sought to be POTUS and (2) he won the election. I find it highly problematic that a person in either of those two circumstances -- along with other leadership roles -- communicates with vague and/or ambiguous expressions. And, no, it doesn't matter what they lead; it could be Sunday choir, and I'd feel the same. If one must lead others, one must communicate clearly and unambiguously.

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ.

They were both lying scoundrels.

Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam.

Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Lies would not matter.

He got elected with lies.

Question is can he now deliver anything that he lied about and get re-elected?

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ. They were both lying scoundrels. Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam. Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Ah, no....I am not the sort who'll cotton to presidential lying for any reason, really, but certainly not simply because I'd become "acclimated" to it by dint of others having done so before. As goes that behavior, commonality/familiarity doesn't not equate to, yield or garner my insouciance or indifference toward subsequent instances of it by later POTUSes.

BTW, I was around for Nixon and LBJ, though I wasn't nearly as forthcoming with and founded in my economic, science or political understanding and views as I now am.

Both Nixon and LBJ were arrogant to the point of ignoring outside advice.

Trump has this same problem apparently.

Nixon saw himself as above the law.

LBJ thought of himself as superhuman.

That kind of narcissism usually always leads to disaster.

I wonder if Putin is narcissistic too or just ruthless?

 

[yiostheoy]

Machiavellian political philosophy says that whatever you do to get power is justifiable.

Trump lied. And Trump beat Hillary.

Hillary lied but not nearly as much as Trump.

 

[Pogo]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Oh you can hear it anywhere New Englanders travel. But it's specific to that region and marks the speaker as such.

Not sure why you say "as you can see" --- what I see is your map makes no mention of it at all. Understandably so, since it's not a dialect map anyway.

NO, I'm telling you, the folks that were using it, were high school kids that lived in Kansas City. Maybe they picked it up from TV broadcasts out of NY on major networks, but there it is.

You know, I'm still reading this thread, and for most part, I agree with you on the whole Y'all issue.

Largely, I think both you and yiostheoy are both correct. In 90 percent of the instances, I think you are correct, but in informal instances, I think there may be cases where the ignorant and uneducated may use it in the context where yiostheoy has presented his case. Logically, I agree with you, it makes no sense. That said, I'm not willing to say that in certain cultural communities, it is not used in this manner. I've studied anthropology enough to know that 1+1 can equal 4 if a community agrees it does, even if the rest of the world doesn't believe it.

You DO agree that there are some folks that believe that world is flat, and others that believe that the world was only created 6000 years ago, right? So what does it matter if this word or that word is plural or this word means possessive or that word mean this or that?

What really matters is the iconography and meaning of what regional people give meaning to individual sounds and meaning to the words they use. You and I cannot possibly meet every sub-grouping and subsection of people in the nation. You may brag that you are the most international person of mystery, but, whatever, you are being arrogant. You both are.

This is why you are both probably right, and you both are probably wrong.

Your biggest issue? You can never be wrong. Even when someone like me is telling you they have met regional folks that lived outside of N. England that have used a term, even when they tell you that they do not live in N. England and have used said term all the time. . . .

YOU STILL insist you are right.


Let it go.

You're putting words in my post now. I never said that it would never occur outside New England -- I said it's a term specific to New England.

I write what I write specifically to mean what it specifically means. When I write a post, it means exactly what I choose it to mean. No more, no less.

And the fact does remain, you tried to pass this map off as proving something about "wicked". It doesn't. Whether you want to assign "wrong" and "right", I don't care. It just doesn't. I really don't care who's "wrong"or "right". It's not about "who" --- it's about "what".

 

[MisterBeale]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Why does Yankeedom (I take offense to that word because Yankees Suck!) extend over to North Dakota? If we are talking accents, I see no similarities between the Boston and the Fargo accents.

Not so much accents, but culture and a world outlook.

"Yankeedom: Founded by Puritans, residents in Northeastern states and the industrial Midwest tend to be more comfortable with government regulation. They value education and the common good more than other regions."
Which of the 11 American nations do you live in?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Kind of on topic...one of my all time favorites:

I like that one too. I think it's great for as much about conjunctions as it covers, which is certainly enough for the target audience.

Moses used conjunctions a lot.

His favorite was "and" or "and then".

He would go on and on with these.

He would even start sentences with them.

Style.

It's kind of a hit and miss venture.

Sometimes people try to pass off lack of editing and proof reading as *style*. But sometimes it's a real and glorious thing.

Well the fascinating thing about Moses is that in 1450 BCE he was actually the first narrative writer that we know of.

He did not have any rules. So he made them up as he went along.

Thus I can imagine Moses telling stories with lots of "and's" and "and then's" in them.

There was no such thing as punctuation because nobody had invented it yet.

Well the fascinating thing about Moses is that in 1450 BCE he was actually the first narrative writer that we know of.

What? Did you not have to read (or read about) Gilgamesh? The Sumerians also wrote even earlier wrote works of non-fiction.

 

[yiostheoy]

Comrade Johnson , is Putin narcissistic in your opinion or just ruthless ??

 

[usmbguest5318]

Very few people realize there is actually quite a difference between British English and American English.

And then there is also Canuck English, Auzzie English, and Kiwi English too.

In Boston they don't pronounce the "R".

In the South they drawl their vowels.

BS.

Everyone that has seen "My Fair Lady," knows this.

Well, I can generally manage well enough with folks "murdering" the English language so long as they do so in a way that leaves their meaning clear and unambiguous. Besides, the vast majority of folks who would do so rarely have something to say that's critical for me to comprehend. There are, of course, exceptions. Donald Trump is one exception, but only because (1) he sought to be POTUS and (2) he won the election. I find it highly problematic that a person in either of those two circumstances -- along with other leadership roles -- communicates with vague and/or ambiguous expressions. And, no, it doesn't matter what they lead; it could be Sunday choir, and I'd feel the same. If one must lead others, one must communicate clearly and unambiguously.

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ.

They were both lying scoundrels.

Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam.

Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Lies would not matter.

He got elected with lies.

Question is can he now deliver anything that he lied about and get re-elected?

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ. They were both lying scoundrels. Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam. Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Ah, no....I am not the sort who'll cotton to presidential lying for any reason, really, but certainly not simply because I'd become "acclimated" to it by dint of others having done so before. As goes that behavior, commonality/familiarity doesn't not equate to, yield or garner my insouciance or indifference toward subsequent instances of it by later POTUSes.

BTW, I was around for Nixon and LBJ, though I wasn't nearly as forthcoming with and founded in my economic, science or political understanding and views as I now am.

Both Nixon and LBJ were arrogant to the point of ignoring outside advice.

Trump has this same problem apparently.

Nixon saw himself as above the law.

LBJ thought of himself as superhuman.

That kind of narcissism usually always leads to disaster.

I wonder if Putin is narcissistic too or just ruthless?

Be all that as it may, I find it problematic every time those traits manifest themselves in a POTUS. Does that mean I'm not completely satisfied with any of the POTUSes over the past 50+ years? Yes.

 

[MisterBeale]

Please list all candidates. Foreigners are not counted, I want to speak pure American English

Very few people realize there is actually quite a difference between British English and American English.

And then there is also Canuck English, Auzzie English, and Kiwi English too.

In Boston they don't pronounce the "R".

In the South they drawl their vowels.

BS.

Everyone that has seen "My Fair Lady," knows this.

Well, I can generally manage well enough with folks "murdering" the English language so long as they do so in a way that leaves their meaning clear and unambiguous. Besides, the vast majority of folks who would do so rarely have something to say that's critical for me to comprehend. There are, of course, exceptions. Donald Trump is one exception, but only because (1) he sought to be POTUS and (2) he won the election. I find it highly problematic that a person in either of those two circumstances -- along with other leadership roles -- communicates with vague and/or ambiguous expressions. And, no, it doesn't matter what they lead; it could be Sunday choir, and I'd feel the same. If one must lead others, one must communicate clearly and unambiguously.

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ.

They were both lying scoundrels.

Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam.

Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Lies would not matter.

He got elected with lies.

Question is can he now deliver anything that he lied about and get re-elected?

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ. They were both lying scoundrels. Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam. Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Ah, no....I am not the sort who'll cotton to presidential lying for any reason, really, but certainly not simply because I'd become "acclimated" to it by dint of others having done so before. As goes that behavior, commonality/familiarity doesn't not equate to, yield or garner my insouciance or indifference toward subsequent instances of it by later POTUSes.

BTW, I was around for Nixon and LBJ, though I wasn't nearly as forthcoming with and founded in my economic, science or political understanding and views as I now am.

OMG, you must have hated Hillary then.

 

[yiostheoy]

Kind of on topic...one of my all time favorites:

I like that one too. I think it's great for as much about conjunctions as it covers, which is certainly enough for the target audience.

Moses used conjunctions a lot.

His favorite was "and" or "and then".

He would go on and on with these.

He would even start sentences with them.

Style.

It's kind of a hit and miss venture.

Sometimes people try to pass off lack of editing and proof reading as *style*. But sometimes it's a real and glorious thing.

Well the fascinating thing about Moses is that in 1450 BCE he was actually the first narrative writer that we know of.

He did not have any rules. So he made them up as he went along.

Thus I can imagine Moses telling stories with lots of "and's" and "and then's" in them.

There was no such thing as punctuation because nobody had invented it yet.

Well the fascinating thing about Moses is that in 1450 BCE he was actually the first narrative writer that we know of.

What? Did you not have to read (or read about) Gilgamesh? The Sumerians also and even earlier wrote works of non-fiction.

But no one person sat down and wrote Gilgamesh. It was more like pre-Hindu folklore -- more like the Iliad.

Not like Moses at all, or even like Sargon of Akkad.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Very few people realize there is actually quite a difference between British English and American English.

And then there is also Canuck English, Auzzie English, and Kiwi English too.

In Boston they don't pronounce the "R".

In the South they drawl their vowels.

BS.

Everyone that has seen "My Fair Lady," knows this.

Well, I can generally manage well enough with folks "murdering" the English language so long as they do so in a way that leaves their meaning clear and unambiguous. Besides, the vast majority of folks who would do so rarely have something to say that's critical for me to comprehend. There are, of course, exceptions. Donald Trump is one exception, but only because (1) he sought to be POTUS and (2) he won the election. I find it highly problematic that a person in either of those two circumstances -- along with other leadership roles -- communicates with vague and/or ambiguous expressions. And, no, it doesn't matter what they lead; it could be Sunday choir, and I'd feel the same. If one must lead others, one must communicate clearly and unambiguously.

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ.

They were both lying scoundrels.

Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam.

Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Lies would not matter.

He got elected with lies.

Question is can he now deliver anything that he lied about and get re-elected?

Too bad you were not around for Nixon or LBJ. They were both lying scoundrels. Nixon lied about Watergate and LBJ lied about Viet Nam. Then the only thing that would bother you about Trump is ineptitude and being a simpleton.

Ah, no....I am not the sort who'll cotton to presidential lying for any reason, really, but certainly not simply because I'd become "acclimated" to it by dint of others having done so before. As goes that behavior, commonality/familiarity doesn't not equate to, yield or garner my insouciance or indifference toward subsequent instances of it by later POTUSes.

BTW, I was around for Nixon and LBJ, though I wasn't nearly as forthcoming with and founded in my economic, science or political understanding and views as I now am.

OMG, you must have hated Hillary then.

I didn't and don't hate Hillary Clinton. I also didn't vote for her. I'd prefer her to Trump, but I didn't vote for either of them.

 

[Pogo]

Let's see if this works --- this is a great dialect map of North America with text link behind it.

​

You have to click the link for full-size map and background.

 

[yiostheoy]

... I find it problematic every time those traits manifest themselves in a POTUS. Does that mean I'm not completely satisfied with any of the POTUSes over the past 50+ years? Yes.

Maybe Machiavelli has just jaded me.

The thing to remember about these political animals of which DJ Trump is the latest genius is that they are playing a game to win the masses.

They won the masses.

That's all that matters.

Trump will now have astronomical powers for the next 2 years at least, 4 years more or less, and 6 to 8 years possibly.

Look what it took -- his daddy had to get super rich. Then he had to get super richer. Then he had to get on tv. Then he had to attract a following. Does not matter how stupid his following is -- they love him.

Trump used all the weaknesses and flaws inherent in popular democracy to become the most powerful person on the planet.

Think about this and it is astronomical.

He did not need to please you or me. We and others like us did not count.

 

[MisterBeale]

My English is wicked good.

For the OP ---- that ^^ adjective is only used in New England.

Not true, we used it throughout the Midwest in the eighties and nineties. Now it is mostly reserved to the upper Midwest and parts that have connections to New England. That's what they refer to as the Yankeedom.

But as you can see, it is still used in parts of the Midwest, including Chicago. During the eighties, I heard it as far away as KC though.

Oh you can hear it anywhere New Englanders travel. But it's specific to that region and marks the speaker as such.

Not sure why you say "as you can see" --- what I see is your map makes no mention of it at all. Understandably so, since it's not a dialect map anyway.

NO, I'm telling you, the folks that were using it, were high school kids that lived in Kansas City. Maybe they picked it up from TV broadcasts out of NY on major networks, but there it is.

You know, I'm still reading this thread, and for most part, I agree with you on the whole Y'all issue.

Largely, I think both you and yiostheoy are both correct. In 90 percent of the instances, I think you are correct, but in informal instances, I think there may be cases where the ignorant and uneducated may use it in the context where yiostheoy has presented his case. Logically, I agree with you, it makes no sense. That said, I'm not willing to say that in certain cultural communities, it is not used in this manner. I've studied anthropology enough to know that 1+1 can equal 4 if a community agrees it does, even if the rest of the world doesn't believe it.

You DO agree that there are some folks that believe that world is flat, and others that believe that the world was only created 6000 years ago, right? So what does it matter if this word or that word is plural or this word means possessive or that word mean this or that?

What really matters is the iconography and meaning of what regional people give meaning to individual sounds and meaning to the words they use. You and I cannot possibly meet every sub-grouping and subsection of people in the nation. You may brag that you are the most international person of mystery, but, whatever, you are being arrogant. You both are.

This is why you are both probably right, and you both are probably wrong.

Your biggest issue? You can never be wrong. Even when someone like me is telling you they have met regional folks that lived outside of N. England that have used a term, even when they tell you that they do not live in N. England and have used said term all the time. . . .

YOU STILL insist you are right.


Let it go.

You're putting words in my post now. I never said that it would never occur outside New England -- I said it's a term specific to New England.

I write what I write specifically to mean what it specifically means. When I write a post, it means exactly what I choose it to mean. No more, no less.

And the fact does remain, you tried to pass this map off as proving something about "wicked". It doesn't. Whether you want to assign "wrong" and "right", I don't care. It just doesn't. I really don't care who's "wrong"or "right". It's not about "who" --- it's about "what".

Okay, fine.

I understand you.

I will admit you are right and I was wrong, if you can post some sort of evidence that this term is "specific" to New England.

The intent of my map was to show that New England is not a culturally significant entity of itself, it is not culturally unique, and nothing originates there by itself. You can't even prove that the term didn't come out of say, Buffalo, or Port Huron, or Green Bay, or Minneapolis.

If you can, I'll admit I am wrong. For the culture of these cities is as close to that of any in New England as you like. They use the same slang, have the same work ethic, enjoy the same hobbies, have the same world out look and POV, etc. Does the culture have a upper Midwestern flavor? Sure. But until you provide some proof of your unverified statement, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just because you just think you come from a unique place doesn't give you license to go on a crusade, you don't.