posted
I feel a need to point out to Mr. Card a mistake in his review of Sahara. I don't remember whether the movie made this clear, but the novel does: The toxic waste is feeding a mutant nonphotosynthetic [some marine microorganism] that is killing photosynthetic plankton and multiplying at an incredible rate. Since photosynthetic plankton produce most of the oxygen we (and fish,yes they breathe oxygen, that is dissolved in water) breathe (way more than the rainforests) if this mutant microbe reaches the coast it will be spread by ocean currents beyond the ability of NUMA to combat it with a special toxin or a biological counteragent. It is this microbe that is the real threat, the toxic waste they want to stop so that it won't make any more of the killer nonphotosynthetic microbe.
I realize that this probably makes even less sense than the movie version, but there it is.
And "Czech Republic" is shorter, thus more convenient, than "Republic of Czechland", which is probably where Mr. Card's advice would lead them.
Posts: 151 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Sorry. I've neither seen the movie nor read the novel, so I have no intelligent input on that.
However:
quote:And "Czech Republic" is shorter, thus more convenient, than "Republic of Czechland", which is probably where Mr. Card's advice would lead them.
Yes, "Czech Republic" is shorter than "Republic of Czechland". What of it? It doesn't matter if the full-length version of the name is long. Who says "United States of America" every time they refer to that country? Who ever says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" in a non-official capacity?
The point isn't how long the full-length form is. The point is how long the shortened form is, and for that, "Czech Republic" is unwieldy and awkward. "Czechland" is faster and is more analogous to similar nations. Therefore it makes more sense as a shortened form, regardless of whether the full-length form is "Czech Republic" of "Republic of Czechland".
posted
I did not make a mistake in my review of the movie Sahara. The movie makes no mention whatsoever of a plausible mechanism for these toxins to infect the whole world - no mention of a microorganism at all. Just stuff in barrels that's seeping into the water.
It had been enough years that I forgot the book's justification of it. And since I was reviewing the movie, not the book, it wouldn't much matter, would it?
As for Czechland, we would no more say "Republic of Czechland" in ordinary conversation than we say "People's Republic of China" when "China" will do. Or "Federated Russian Republic" when "Russia" serves our purposes as well.
Or do you invariably say "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" when in fact you simply mean "England" or "Britain"?
posted
I personally refer to GB as "those folks across the water" or "our beloved former oppressors" or "soccer-hooligan-land" or other such silliness, if I must.
OK, really, I usually say Great Britain, not England, because I am of Welsh, Scottish, and Irish heritage and will not consent to the homelands being referred to as "England."
[ April 29, 2005, 05:11 PM: Message edited by: AB ]
Posts: 32 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for Sahara, aspects of the book and movie blended in my memory and I couldn't remember which details were from which.
And as for the Czexh thing, that was meant as a joke, though apparently it didn't come across that way, which is often a problem for me.
Posts: 151 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of ofical names, we citizens of the U.S. need a new adjective form. This came to my mind when a friend from Latin America pointed out that America means much more than just the U.S. when used in foreign countries, especialy in Latin America, it means both continents and the isthmus that conects them. We have a suitible noun, Unieted States, which can be abreivated convineantly. But what about an adjective Usian will not work, the Spanish Norte Americano refers to Canada and technicly to Mexico. Any Ideas?
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your link meerly heightens my point. Several posters pointed out that the French don't call themselves just Europeans. I think its too late to change the name, so I guess we are stuck with American. Or maybe Usite, which with the exception of ryming with a Bohemian religious reform movement has nothing to be said for it. Actual U.S. is just as bad a America, becuase United States is also part of Mexico's officail name.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The French don't need to just call themselves "Europeans". "Europe" is not their country's name. However, "America" has been this country's name since before this was even a country.
When the Founding Fathers were uniting the thirteen separate colonies into one nation, they needed a name that would be acceptable to all. Unlike Mexico or Brazil or Canada, there was no one word that referred to those thirteen colonies and only to those thirteen colonies. They couldn't just take the name of, say, Virginia (the first colony, and one of the most powerful), or New England (the second colony and another powerful region of a few states) and apply it to the whole country. If they had, the other states would have rejected it and refused to join. That's how precarious our unity was in the beginning.
There were no alternatives. Those lands were already called "America". Its inhabitants were already called "Americans". There were no other words our Founding Fathers could have chosen that would have meant anything to everyone.
And I'd like to reiterate that this entre landmass is not called "America". It is called "the Americas", and its two major divisions are "North America" and "South America". Those terms, and its attendant adjectival forms, are unambiguous. No one hears "South American" and thinks of Alabama. Those phrases are still available, as is "pan-American" for issues dealing with the entire landmass. There's no need to co-opt "American" for those purposes.
And don't respond by pointing out what they do or do not call this landmass in Spanish. They could call it "Strongbadia" for all I care. I'll gladly conform to accepted, standard Spanish use when speaking in Spanish. But in English, I will use accepted, standard English use. And accepted, standard English use has always been to call this country "America" and its inhabitants "Americans". It has been thus since before there was even a "United States" to stick in front of it.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
