Conference thebay::joyoflex

	Oh no, not that again!  Or was that in the GRAMMAR conference?

		-- C

I'm pretty sure it was ASKENET.

    Guess I haven't been around long enough...  Lord knows there are notes
    in JOYOFLEX that I haven't seen, too...  Never enough time to just
    browse all that buried treasure...

    Alice Springs is known down under as "The Alice".

re .3:  MEIS::ASKENET (KP7 or SELECT and all that).

Ukrainian nationalists object to the term "the Ukraine," claiming that
it implies that it's a region (like "the midwest") rather than a nation.
Since Lebanon is now essentially a vassal state of Syria, perhaps
"the Lebanon" is in for a revival.

    Re: .5
    
    Except that the definite article before a proper noun placename does
    not imply "regional" status.
    
Lew Lasher

    Apologies for probably repeating something that was probably discussed
    a long time ago, but anyway, here are a few examples that Ukrainian
    nationalists might be asked to explain:
    
      The Netherlands
      The United States of America
       "    "      "    "  Brazil
       "    "    Kingdom
       "    "    Nations
       "  Union of Soviet Socialist Republics [obsolete example]
    
    and without a "the":
    
      Eastern Germany

    Re: .7
    
    These are not similar to "the Ukraine," because the nouns following the
    definite article are improper nouns.  (This is only a little bit of a
    stretch for "the Netherlands.")
    
    Other examples, though, are "the Sudan," and "the Bronx."
    
Lew Lasher

How 'bout "the Congo"?

...

Or "the China"?  As in, "No, no, the *good* china."

    I always felt that "the Lebanon" (which I've never actually heard,
    BTW) was a faulty extrapolation from "the Levant", which refers to
    that region.
    
    						Ann B.

    re .11
    
    I believe two mountain ranges along that coast are called
    "The Lebanon" and "The Anti-Lebanon".
    
    		-John Bishop

re .12

>   I believe two mountain ranges along that coast are called
>   "The Lebanon" and "The Anti-Lebanon".

    I just so happen to have a rather old map of "Canaan in the Patriarchal
    Ages" handy.  It shows a "Mt. Lebanon (Libanus)" and a "Mt. Lebanon
    (Anti Libanus)" separated by, guess what?, Valley of Lebanon.
    Mt. Hermon is the prominent peak of Anti Libanus.

    I *don't* have a detailed map of modern Lebanon handy, but it appears
    that "Anti Libanus", the more eastern of the two, is in modern day Syria.

    (I'll leave any "anti" Lebanon cracks to the next punster.)

    OK, here's one more proper than The Netherlands.
    
    The Philippines.

    Re: .14
    
    	"OK, here's one more proper than The Netherlands.
    
    	"The Philippines."
    
    Derived from "the Philippine Islands" (just as "the Bronx" is derived
    from "the Bronx river").
    
Lew Lasher

Both "the Lebanon" and (just plain) "Lebanon" are found in Psalm 29 in the
original Hebrew.

    Is Lebanon named after a geographical feature, such as "The Lebanon
    Mountains" or some such?
    
Lew Lasher

The Argentine and The Wales, as in Save The Wales

Phillip

re: .15

It's "Da" Bronx.

    There is now a definitive answer for a question raised in the basenote. 
    The Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph today had an article entitled,
    "Ukraine leaves, taking a dacha [Gorby's] and a 'the'".

    The final sentence reads:

    "In addition, the U.S. Government and The Associated Press are now
    referring to the fledgling country as Ukrainians wish it to be called:
    Ukraine, without the 'The' before the name."

>   "In addition, the U.S. Government and The Associated Press are now
>   referring to the fledgling country as Ukrainians wish it to be called:
>   Ukraine, without the 'The' before the name."

    ... countered by the U.S. News & World Report, in its Dec. 2-ish issue. 
    Substantiating its decision, it printed a picture of a Ukrainian woman
    protesting, somewhere in The Ukraine, in behalf of Ukrainian
    independence.  The woman was carrying a sign on which was printed,
    among other things, in Roman script, "The Ukraine", twice.

    Hmmm.  I wonder which should be given more credibility: the US
    government or a Ukraninan carrying a sign in her second language. I
    guess I'm not willing to bet a lot on either one.

In addition to sociology and etymology, politics and language are involved.

There was a little piece on this subject a couple of weeks ago on "All Things 
Considered" (National Public Radio).  Sorry, but my memory is a bit fuzzy.

The piece included statements from both political scientists and language 
experts.  The political scientist noted that many of the situations that go by 
"The" ____________ are vestiges of colonial rule.  If you control it, you can 
call it what you want, but he had no explanations why that colonialist would 
prefer "The" ___________.  This could explain why "The Lebanon"is more common 
in Great Britain than in the U.S., because the British were more involved in 
colonial ventures in the Middle East than the U.S.

My Digital Standard Issue American Heritage Dictionary leaves off the article 
in "Netherlands," "Congo," "Phillipines."  However the name of the city in 
Netherlands is identified "The Hague" (can anyone explain that one?)   

The language expert claimed that the term "The Ukraine" didn't make sense, 
because in the local language (Russian?) the article "the" didn't exist.  Can 
anyone confirm or dispute this?  This could explain why the "the" is added 
when the word gets translated into some other language that has the article.

Clay  

    Re: .23
    
    Correct, neither Russian, nor the similar but distinct Ukrainian
    language has definite or indefinite articles.
    
Lew Lasher

>My Digital Standard Issue American Heritage Dictionary leaves off the article 
>in "Netherlands," "Congo," "Phillipines."  However the name of the city in 
>Netherlands is identified "The Hague" (can anyone explain that one?)   

*My* DSAHD (� 1976) has the following:

Netherlands, the
Congo (river)
Congo, Democratic Republic of the (now Zaire, former Belgian colony)
Congo, Republic of (former French colony)
Phillippines, Republic of the

I believe "The Congo" comes from "The Belgian Congo."  Wasn't the French one
called either "French West Africa" or "French Equatorial Africa"?

The Netherlandish name for "The Hague" is something like "'s Gravenhage".
I think the "'s" is some kind of article.

   Re: Note 929.25 by NOTIME::SACKS 

> The Netherlandish name for "The Hague" is something like "'s Gravenhage".
> I think the "'s" is some kind of article.

   I thought "The Hague" was "Den Haag."


   							Terza

>in "Netherlands," "Congo," "Phillipines."  However the name of the city in
                                -- -
>Phillippines, Republic of the
    --
    
    You both need new dictionaries.

    Re:.25,.26
    
>> The Netherlandish name for "The Hague" is something like "'s Gravenhage".
>> I think the "'s" is some kind of article.

>   I thought "The Hague" was "Den Haag."
    
    You're both right. The city's official name, seat of the government but
    not our capital, is "'s Gravenhage", but it more commonly referred to
    as "Den Haag". The "'s" is a posessive pronoun (?). 
    


                                                 - Rik -
    
    BTW. I thought our language was referred to as "Dutch", not
    "Netherlandish"
    

    Re:  Netherlandish

    More word games.  That is the whole point of this notes conference.

    A synonym for "netherlandish" might be "outlandish".	:-)

	Ref .28 
	
	's Gravenhage (Den Haag) = The Hague.

	Another Dutch town is 's Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch)

	Does that have an English name, too?  It *should* be The Wood (?)

	And are there other names with a similar architecture?

	Jim

	

Netherlandish and outlandish are not synonyms, just so our non-native speakers
of English are not confused.

Outlandish means simply foreign, but now has the meaning of strange, flmaboyant,
risque. Netherlandish is a coinage of the noter, I suspect, or if not it is
certainly archaic. "Netherlandish" certainly _is_ outlandish.

I don't think the explanation offered from the radio programme that the use of
"The..." is a colonialism can explain many such occurrences. Who, for example,
colonised the Ukraine? The Russians did, and there is no article in Russian.
The English did not colonise much of South America, but we refer to The 
Argentine. We didn't colonise continental Europe after the Middle Ages, but we
say The Netherlands - the one exception I can think of is our colony to the
south of Spain, which we do not call The Gibraltar (and very rarely do we call 
it The Rock.) We never said The Ireland or The Ulster. I think whoever came up
with the theory is working from a political position rather than a linguistic
one. 

Phillip

    All Things Considered last evening used "Ukraine" without the "The".

Back in .21 (all of two days ago) I posted U.S. News' policy to use the "the". 
Well, to paraphrase Mark Twain, "if you don't like a publication's policy, wait
a week".  From the Dec. 16, 1991 issue, page 10,

    English usage sometimes changes quickly, and so must we.  Last week, we
    discussed how one emerging nation should be described.  Ukraine has now
    emerged, and it has done so without an article preceding it.  The U.S.
    government and the new Ukrainian president have both dropped the "the". 
    Effective this week, so do we.  - The Editors

    The MacNeal Lehrer Report last night was a bit divided over the issue. 
    The anchors managed to leave the "The" off, but one of the field
    reporters apparently hadn't received the message. Or hadn't integrated
    it into his spiel.

    In today's issue of Livewire, World News, there is an article about DEC
    getting into Russia, *Ukraine*, and another country.
    
    
    E Grace

Re .31:  You might call it The Argentine, but I call it Argentina. I think 
the "The" construction is becoming archaic. I too have noticed that now we
have to talk about "The" Ukraine a lot, it is becoming simply Ukraine.

The one exception is the Netherlands. I can't see that contracting to just
Netherlands, not yet anyway.


Rod

    's Gravenhage    (Den Haag)  = The Count's Hedge 
    
    's Hertogenbosch (Den Bosch) = The Duke's Wood
    
    As far as I know, The Hague is the only Dutch city that has its name
    translated into English. Tjietjerksteradeel and Broek-op-Langendijk
    have a much lesser international profile, obviously reducing the need
    to have their names translated (or transliterated). And after a couple
    of days of reporting on the recent conference in Maastricht the BBC
    newsreaders came awfully close to our pronounciation of that city's
    name.
    
    BTW, to me Netherlandish certainly isn't outlandish. 
    


                                                 - Rik -
    
    Not your Dutch Uncle. :-)

    Re: .37
    
    	"As far as I know, The Hague is the only Dutch city that has its name
    	translated into English."
    
    What does it mean in English?
    
Lew Lasher

.37>    's Gravenhage    (Den Haag)  = The Count's Hedge 
    
	You didn't know .37 was a reading comprehesion test, did you?

    Re:.38
                           -< Er, what's a "hague"? >-
    
    How would I know? We already have two names for this city, more than
    enough I'd think. You (=the general English/outlandish-speaking
    community) coined the third, you tell me its meaning. 
    :-) :-) :-)
    


                                                 - Rik -
    
    'Hague' looks French to me, and indeed in Normandy there is a town
    called La Hague. Which, in English, is pronounced Sellafield. :-)

OK, if you don't like Netherlandish, how about Hollandaise?

Along the line of Nederlandish, what about Luxembourgish ?  It exists and
doesn't have an alternate.

    THAT oughta start a good fight!  :-)

    
    Isn't "Netherlands" (with or without the article) a translation or
    transliteration of "Low Countries?"  I ask because my desk dictionary
    defines the latter as "Western Europe bordering on the North Sea and
    comprising Belguim, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands."  And I don't
    think anyone includes those other countries when speaking about
    Netherlands (though I do recall another term for those three countries
    but it escapes me just now).
    
    Perhaps the Dutch ought to accept the fait accompli and call their
    entire country Holland.  Spouse, who is of Dutch descent, tells me that
    sea-faring Dutch would often answer "Holland" when asked where they
    were from because so many of them came from that particular part of the
    country.
    
    JP

>    comprising Belguim, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands."  And I don't
>    think anyone includes those other countries when speaking about
>    Netherlands (though I do recall another term for those three countries
>    but it escapes me just now).

    Perhaps you're thinking of "Benelux", a made-up term of self-evident
    derivation, formerly used as the name of a loose economic union 
    of those three countries. This was a precursor to the Common
    Market, I believe, now known as the EC. But the name may have stuck
    around.

    ...Robert

    (I meant, of course, that the common market, not Benelux, is now
    the EC. Sorry)
    
    ...Rob
    

    
    Yes! Benelux is it, thanks.
    
    JP

    re: .44
    
    Yes, Netherlands means "low lands [or country]", as does the French
    "Pays Bas".
    
    -Tom

    Re .40:
>    'Hague' looks French to me, and indeed in Normandy there is a town
>    called La Hague. Which, in English, is pronounced Sellafield. :-)
    
    	Yes, but in French, the Dutch town is known as "La Haye".
    			Denis.

    I wasn't listening very closely to The World This Weekend, on Radio 4,
    on Sunday.  But I think that this morning (on the Today programme)
    was the first time I heard a BBC announcer say `Ukraine' _tout_sec_
    (dry, unlike the Lowlands).
    
    I think this amounts to a sort of diplomatic recoegnition.
    
    b

    Re: .-1
    
    I seem to be missing something.  What does "_tout_sec_ (dry, unlike the
    Lowlands)" mean?   I know the meaning of the individual words, but I
    don't know the meaning of the string and how it relates to 'Ukraine'.

    If you wait in line all day, the stores are still empty of vodka.

    re .51
    In British English (though probably not in French any more) `tout sec'
    means plain/as it comes/without embellishment. The rest was an attempt
    to tie up a loose rathole.
    
    b

>   <<< Note 929.41 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>
>
>OK, if you don't like Netherlandish, how about Hollandaise?
     
    Did I say so? but anyway, as Hollandaise is generally associated with
    fish, and our country (indeed LowLands) is for a part below sea level
    (a rather fishy situation I'd think) this seems quite appropriate. 


                                                 - Rik -
    
    The other name 'Holland' means 'Hollow Land'.  When walking, some parts
    don't feel all that solid, with the groundwater level just underneath
    the soil surface. Sometimes people just disappeared into it.
    

    BBC have, in my opinion, gone too far by removing the definite article
    from "the United States."
    
Lew Lasher

  I don't know how typical of British usage this may be, but at least in
  Hong Kong the press would say "Government" when referring to the gummint.
  
  Re: "the United States"
  These are not the only United States.  See "America" topic.  Then again,
  dropping the definite article might be considered even worse.
  
  Did you notice that in the US press, "US" is often used as shorthand for
  "federal"?
  
  --Simon
  

  Let me clarify my previous note:
  
  re .56 (re .55), "the United States"
  
  Well, yes, with or without the definite article, there's no mistaking the
  referent--the United States of America--notwithstanding the fact that
  other sovereign states, e.g. the United States of Brazil, U.S. of Mexico,
  also have "United States" in their name.  The USofA is certainly not THE
  United States.  But that is really a moot point.
  
.56>  dropping the definite article might be considered even worse.
  
  That is to say, to go one step beyond the hubris of "THE United States,"
  to drop the definite article might imply there are no other United
  States.  But, I admit it's not good form for me to harp on this.
  
>  Did you notice that in the US press, "US" is often used as shorthand for
>  "federal"?
  
  The point I'm trying to make is, outside the USofA, "US" means all of the
  country or any part thereof; the distinction between federal and state
  or local government is one that is mostly foreign to people outside the
  USofA.
  
>                               -< "Government" >-
>
>  I don't know how typical of British usage this may be, but at least in
>  Hong Kong the press would say "Government" when referring to the gummint.
  
  In the USofA, you would rarely if ever see "the Government" written thus.
  "The Administration," maybe, or some other more specific term.  Similarly
  for the UK, I'm not sure that the nameless "Government" is ever called
  that.  But in Hong Kong, the Government goes without the definite article
  for some strange reason.  Or at least it used to.  (I wasn't much of a
  newspaper reader during my last assignment there.  But in my youth when I
  was into the Correspondence section of the newspapers this practice of
  referring to "Government" was discussed, and I guess it stuck in my
  mind.)  Note also that in a non-democracy like a Crown Colony, the term
  "Government" does have some real meaning in both theory and practice.
  But I am getting dangerously close to a rathole.
  
  --Simon
  

    Perhaps THE USofA was the first group of united states which used that
    name, so at the time it was THE, no hubris involved. Then it stuck.

    Since "U.S." is shared by a couple other countries, and "America" is
    also shared, what do we call ..um.. that country whose president is
    currently Mr. Bush?  Is there a unique name that no other country
    shares even a part of? ..oops.. I mean "of which", of course, and all
    that.

    "Amerika" might make a few happy.
    How about Confederation of Semi-related States?

    re .58:  Actually I agree with you and I don't buy the "hubris"
    trap that Marilyn vos Savant fell into, even if her IQ is higher.
    (Ref: topic 969)
    
    (Come to think of it, I never had my IQ tested, so I only assume
    that her IQ is higher.  How's that for hubris?)
    
    --Simon
    

    The reason for the "the" is that "states" is an improper noun.  For the
    same reason, we say "the Federal Republic of Germany."
    
Lew Lasher

  �In the USofA, you would rarely if ever see "the Government" written thus.
  �"The Administration," maybe, or some other more specific term.  Similarly
  �for the UK, I'm not sure that the nameless "Government" is ever called
  �that.  
    
    ???? But everyone (here in England) speaks of `the Government'. In the
    Palace of Westminster, they usually qualify it in the form `Her
    Majesty's Government'. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone speaking
    British English refer to the Government as `the Administration'. (It's
    conceivable that some speakers of British English who say `the
    Administration' sometimes mean, specifically, the Administration of the
    USofA - I'm not saying this is a usage I'm sure I've heard, just that
    it's one that wouldn't surprise me.)
    
    b

    I thought that leaving off the article was a clear discriminator
    between British and American English.  For example,
    "In hospital." and "In the hospital."  Although we Americans
    are inconsistent: "In school."
    

    	No, both are valid in British English, but with a shade of meaning.
    The article is left off when the state is more important than the
    precise location.
    
    "He is always in church on Sunday mornings".
    "He is preaching in the church of Little Dunmow this morning".
    
    	If you added "the" to the first sentence the reader would assume
    that he made a very special attempt to attend his regular church.
    Removing "the" from the second sentence would just be incorrect.
    
    	If there was only one hospital within many miles one would use
    "the", while if there were several and one was uncertain to which the
    ambulance had gone one would omit the "the".

Or to put the distiction another way ...


He is in hospital.  	He is very sick ... so much so that he has been
                    	hospitalized. (A statement more reflecting concern
			for his state rather than his physical location)

He is in the hospital.  You will find him in a specific (name implied)
                        hospital ... as a patient.

He is at hospital.	This structure is not used at all.

He is at the hospital.  You will find him at a specific (name implied)
                        hospital ... not as a patient.


She is in school.  	She is a student. (This is not a statement of her
			physical location).

She is in the school.  	She is inside the school building.

She is at school.  	She is not home ... but at school (during a regular
			school activity i.e. during a normal school day).

She is at the school.	She is physically on the school premises for any
			non-specific reason.


Stuart

    "He is in hospital" is simply never heard in American usage.
    All the other examples in .-1 appear to be the same in both
    American and British usage.

He is in Ukraine.	He is very sick ... so much so that he has been
                    	made into a Ukrainian (A statement more reflecting 
			concern for his state rather than his physical 
			location)

He is in the Ukraine.   You will find him in a specific (name implied)
                        former state of the Soviet Union ... as a patient.

He is at Ukraine.	This structure is not used at all.

He is at the Ukraine.	You will find him at a specific (name implied)
                        former state of the Soviet Union ... not as a patient.


She is in Lebanon.	She is Lebanese.  (This is not a statement of her
			physical location).

She is in the Lebanon.	She is inside Lebanon.

She is at Lebanon.	She is not home ... but at Lebanon (during a regular
			Lebanese activity, i.e. during a normal Lebanese day).

She is at the Lebanon.	She is physically on the premises of Lebanon for any
			non-specific reason.


Cliff

    I really do think that Cliff has lost it ...
    
    They say it's the tie that binds ... but his tie must have been too tight!
    
    Stuart :-)
    
    

    Re: .-1
    
    Me thinks, perhaps, the Cliff Note is the only rational one in the
    whole series.	:-)

.57>  In the USofA, you would rarely if ever see "the Government" written thus.
.57>  "The Administration," maybe, or some other more specific term.  Similarly
.57>  for the UK, I'm not sure that the nameless "Government" is ever called
.57>  that.  But in Hong Kong, the Government goes without the definite article
.57>  for some strange reason.  Or at least it used to.

.62>    ???? But everyone (here in England) speaks of `the Government'. In the
.62>    Palace of Westminster, they usually qualify it in the form `Her
.62>    Majesty's Government'.

I believe that .62 is misinterpreting .57; I think that the following is what
Simon meant:
    1)	In the United Kingdom, if I'm not mistaken, "the government" refers to
	Her Majesty's ministers as a group.
    2)	In the United States, "the Administration" refers to the President,
	those who work directly under him, and the Cabinet.  In the US, "the
	government" refers to all of the various bodies that are elected (or
	appointed by those who are elected) to run the country.
    3)	In Hong Kong, if I understand Simon, "Government" is or was used to
	mean the same thing as "the government" does in the US.  It is this
	that Simon found interesting.

    In England there's another issue. Her Majesty's Government is made
    up usually of MPs who sit in the House of Commons (so individuals
    can be thrown out at a General Election). Sometimes a Minister
    (part of HMG) sits in the House of Lords (not democratically
    elected). I don't know if there are constitutional limits to the
    number/proportion of Ministers in a Government who can be thus
    ballot-proof, or what this has to do with the Ukraine.
    
    b

    Re .69: But are we allowed to use it in the final?
    
    -The Beth

    	There is no constitutional restriction on whom the monarch can
    choose as a minister. The traditions look something like the following
    :-
    
    1) The Prime Minister is appointed as a person who can command a
    majority in the House of Commons. Cases are imaginable where the
    monarch would have a choice, where several people *would* have a
    majority *if* appointed. Queen Victoria was the last monarch to violate
    this tradition by choosing someone who could not have a majority there
    (Disraeli). Others of her choices were members of the House of Lords
    who could expect to command majority support from the House of Commons.
    
    2) All ministers are chosen from either the House of Commons or the
    House of Lords. The current queen was the last monarch to violate this
    tradition. �
    
    3) Having made a choice of Prime Minister the monarch chooses all other
    ministers with that person's advice. I am not sure if/when this has
    ever been violated, because such a violation would (because of
    tradition 1) be a very delicate case of political infighting that would
    not be publicised.
    
    � Patrick Gordon-Walker was appointed Foreign Minister even though he
    had lost his parliamentary seat at a general election. When he later
    also lost a by-election the Queen and Prime Minister did not persist, and
    found someone else for the job.

    Re:.71
    
    I would expect a Minister in the Government (or Administration, or
    whatever they may wish to call it) of the Ukraine, the Lebanon and
    similar countries to care more about his being bullet-proof than
    ballot-proof. 


                                                 - Rik -
    

    Re .40: The capital of Slowakia (Bratislava) is very close to the
    border crossing of Austria, Hungary and Slowakia. It belonged even to
    the Roman Empire as well, so it had different names in different ages
    ruined by different nations. (Slowakia as an independent land exists
    only a few yeras ago.)
    The romans called it Poshonium (maybe the spelling is not right). The
    Hungarian name is Pozsony. (Hungarian parliament used to be seated
    there for centuries...)
    According to a relocated/repatriated DECciee Br�nyik K�roly (Karcsi,
    Charlie) Pozsony has 14 different names in different languages, but he
    couldn't know them. Can anybody help?
    Maybe, I should have added this in a separate note... Moderator?
    
    GyJ