Magna Carta, Still Posing a Challenge at 800(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Magna Carta, Still Posing a Challenge at 800
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/europe/magna-carta-still-posing-a-challenge-at-800.html
38 comments
Yeah, it's become so pervasive that it's not out of the ordinary for American reporters to say 'Mehiko" instead of Mexico while speaking an otherwise English sentence. Or they try to pronounce the surname Velazquez in Spanish, but when it comes to Van Gogh or 習近平, there is no attempt at native pronunciation. This kind of inconsistency is baffling --moreover their Spanish pronunciation is not Castillian even when the person is Spanish. So they are all over the map.
I've been down to Mexico and I'm quite sure people don't try to pronounce 'Nueva York' as 'New York'.
On the other hand, these same reporters mangle Chinese city names with abandon, so it's not as if they're just trying to say the names in a native fashion --which I guess at least would make some consistent sense.
I've been down to Mexico and I'm quite sure people don't try to pronounce 'Nueva York' as 'New York'.
On the other hand, these same reporters mangle Chinese city names with abandon, so it's not as if they're just trying to say the names in a native fashion --which I guess at least would make some consistent sense.
I think it’s a tip-of-the-hat when you use another culture’s pronunciation. When I’m outside the US, sometimes people do that for me.
When I’m speaking a foreign language, I may decide to pronounce an English word with (the so-called) General American accent.
When I’m speaking a foreign language, I may decide to pronounce an English word with (the so-called) General American accent.
If you're going for phonetic correctness, Mexico should be pronounced "Meshi-co" according to the original Nahuatl.
Transcription of foreign languages into Latin script is difficult in its own right since the "obvious" phonetic value of letters presumes certain phonosyntactic rules that don't always hold (e.g., Mandarin Chinese uses an aspirated/unaspirated distinction and not a voiced/voiceless distinction). It furthermore doesn't help that the main sources of transcription (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese) don't agree on the phonetic values of letters, nor that people tend to retain the traditional spellings of place names even when proper phonetic readings of that spelling (or even the verbal pronunciation of the name itself) changes.
In my opinion, trying to enforce "native" pronunciation of foreign place names is misguided: those who argue for it don't argue for Österreich, Deutschland, or Hrvatska, so why should we elevate foreign place names that merely happen to be spelled the same in English as their native tongue to getting special treatment?
Transcription of foreign languages into Latin script is difficult in its own right since the "obvious" phonetic value of letters presumes certain phonosyntactic rules that don't always hold (e.g., Mandarin Chinese uses an aspirated/unaspirated distinction and not a voiced/voiceless distinction). It furthermore doesn't help that the main sources of transcription (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese) don't agree on the phonetic values of letters, nor that people tend to retain the traditional spellings of place names even when proper phonetic readings of that spelling (or even the verbal pronunciation of the name itself) changes.
In my opinion, trying to enforce "native" pronunciation of foreign place names is misguided: those who argue for it don't argue for Österreich, Deutschland, or Hrvatska, so why should we elevate foreign place names that merely happen to be spelled the same in English as their native tongue to getting special treatment?
That's the problem. Either do it for all or don't do it. It's not as if English does not have the words or English pronunciation for all these places.
I don't see many Italians who speak some English saying 'I come from Roma. They say Rome. On they other hand you have people who will say OOrooguay instead of the English Yourugwye. Maybe it's more a Latin American thing, not sure. At least it seems pretty prevalent. Maybe psychologically it has to do with the slightly anti-american disposition of many of the politicians down there. Lot's of them trot out the old "imperialists" trope when it's convenient. so maybe it's a kind of psychologically subversive thing.
I remember someone saying, well that's the name of my country in spanish, so that's why I say it that way --something along those lines. As if saying it with the english pronunciation took something away from their country being whole. Or maybe that was just a one off weird person.
I don't see many Italians who speak some English saying 'I come from Roma. They say Rome. On they other hand you have people who will say OOrooguay instead of the English Yourugwye. Maybe it's more a Latin American thing, not sure. At least it seems pretty prevalent. Maybe psychologically it has to do with the slightly anti-american disposition of many of the politicians down there. Lot's of them trot out the old "imperialists" trope when it's convenient. so maybe it's a kind of psychologically subversive thing.
I remember someone saying, well that's the name of my country in spanish, so that's why I say it that way --something along those lines. As if saying it with the english pronunciation took something away from their country being whole. Or maybe that was just a one off weird person.
Regarding Chinese city names, in the 2008 Olympics, newscasters were trying to use the Chinese name for the location instead of the English name (which is Beijing). It was horrible. It was incorrect. It was "politically correct."
> the English name (which is Beijing)
Beijing? Peking? Pei-ching? Peiping? What is the correct spelling and what isn't for foreign names changes over time.
(It's quite amusing how Germans go to great lengths to use the new, Polish names for cities in former Prussia, while for Belgian cities that haven't been under German control for much longer, they insist on German names.)
Beijing? Peking? Pei-ching? Peiping? What is the correct spelling and what isn't for foreign names changes over time.
(It's quite amusing how Germans go to great lengths to use the new, Polish names for cities in former Prussia, while for Belgian cities that haven't been under German control for much longer, they insist on German names.)
Well in their defense my understanding is they had a somewhat embarrassing dust-up with Poland a few years back.
> Of course, in proper English it's "the Magna Carta."
Nope. You don't say, "the Paris" now do you? There's no particular rule of when you use "the" before a name.
As that notable academic, Tony Hancock, once asked, "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"
Nope. You don't say, "the Paris" now do you? There's no particular rule of when you use "the" before a name.
As that notable academic, Tony Hancock, once asked, "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?"
> There's no particular rule of when you use "the" before a name.
In fact there are rules about when proper nouns require articles. While there are a few exceptions, and the rules are sort of tedious, they do exist, as proved by the fact that you usually (90+% of the time) know whether to use the article on a novel proper noun.
Native speakers don't even know that they know the rules. I only learned through ESL education.
You can get started on the list of rules in a few places, this being one: http://usefulenglish.ru/grammar/part-8-articles-with-miscell...
In fact there are rules about when proper nouns require articles. While there are a few exceptions, and the rules are sort of tedious, they do exist, as proved by the fact that you usually (90+% of the time) know whether to use the article on a novel proper noun.
Native speakers don't even know that they know the rules. I only learned through ESL education.
You can get started on the list of rules in a few places, this being one: http://usefulenglish.ru/grammar/part-8-articles-with-miscell...
Legal documents are preceeded by "the" unless they are numbered. So: the Constitution, the Patriot Act, the Articles of Confederation, the Freedom of Information Act, the Federal Register. But: HB 289, Title IX, Proposition 8.
This is probably just a species of a more general rule dealing with articles and things that have given names.
This is probably just a species of a more general rule dealing with articles and things that have given names.
> Nope. You don't say, "the Paris" now do you?
Or New York. Or London.
> There's no particular rule of when you use "the" before a name.
Well I don't know if the rules cover all cases, but one rule is you don't use "the" before place names. Or given names "the Barack Obama". Titles are OK "the President of the USA".
Clearly the names of "things" like books require the use of "the". Like "the Bible". It's important to distinguish between the "name" of a book and it's title. We clearly don't say "I read the To Kill a Mockingbird".
Or New York. Or London.
> There's no particular rule of when you use "the" before a name.
Well I don't know if the rules cover all cases, but one rule is you don't use "the" before place names. Or given names "the Barack Obama". Titles are OK "the President of the USA".
Clearly the names of "things" like books require the use of "the". Like "the Bible". It's important to distinguish between the "name" of a book and it's title. We clearly don't say "I read the To Kill a Mockingbird".
But you do say, "The Congo" and "The Sahara", while you used to say "The Ukraine" but not any more.
Names of things: "He appeared on television", "He started in radio", "He went to hospital", "He went to school".
It's unclear whether Magna Carta is used as the title of the document or not: it seems to depend.
Names of things: "He appeared on television", "He started in radio", "He went to hospital", "He went to school".
It's unclear whether Magna Carta is used as the title of the document or not: it seems to depend.
Children go to school, even though we mean a specific school, yet adults go to the pub, even when we have no particular pub in mind.
If there are rules behind this I certainly can't see them, and I'm sure foreign learners would agree :)
"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you?"…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNZosqiJISs
What's being celebrated today is not Magna Carta itself, but the myth that's grown up around it.
The UK's best blogger on law, "Jack of Kent", puts it well:
http://jackofkent.com/2015/06/the-meaning-of-magna-carta/
The UK's best blogger on law, "Jack of Kent", puts it well:
http://jackofkent.com/2015/06/the-meaning-of-magna-carta/
He's the guy sitting in the corner on New Year's Eve muttering that its just an arbitrary point on the calendar with no natural significance.
He's also the one pointing out that the UK government is keen to celebrate Magna Carta (which has no constitutional status or enforceability) while dismantling the Human Rights act (which is definitely enforceable).
“In a few months, we will be commemorating the 800th anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta—commemorating, but not celebrating; rather, mourning the blows it has suffered.
[...]
“To be sure, the reach of the charter was limited. Nevertheless, as Eric Kasper observes in a scholarly review, “What began as a relatively small check on the arbitrary power of King John eventually led to succeeding generations finding ever more rights in Magna Carta and Article 39. In this sense, Magna Carta is a key point in a long development of the protection of rights against arbitrary executive power.”
— Noam Chomsky http://www.thenation.com/article/198513/killing-commons
[...]
“To be sure, the reach of the charter was limited. Nevertheless, as Eric Kasper observes in a scholarly review, “What began as a relatively small check on the arbitrary power of King John eventually led to succeeding generations finding ever more rights in Magna Carta and Article 39. In this sense, Magna Carta is a key point in a long development of the protection of rights against arbitrary executive power.”
— Noam Chomsky http://www.thenation.com/article/198513/killing-commons
Here is one provision of the Magna Carta (1297 version) listed among the Acts currently in force for one jurisdiction:
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/mc129725e...
http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/mc129725e...
Nice juxtaposition. Compare the text of the Australian Capital Territory's (ACT) law in the parent's link:
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in any other wise destroyed; nor will We pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
With today's speech by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, to the ACT's Supreme Court [1].
"Examples of [Federal] government overreach, she said, included powers to indefinitely detain - without rights to judicial review - refugees, asylum seekers, the mentally ill, and those suffering from infectious diseases."
The actions of the Australian Federal and ACT governments are diametrically opposite. The ACT government is the local government that looks after Australia's capital city, where the Australian Federal government sits and makes national laws.
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra...
"No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or disseised of his freehold, liberties or free customs, or be outlawed or exiled or in any other wise destroyed; nor will We pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
With today's speech by the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, to the ACT's Supreme Court [1].
"Examples of [Federal] government overreach, she said, included powers to indefinitely detain - without rights to judicial review - refugees, asylum seekers, the mentally ill, and those suffering from infectious diseases."
The actions of the Australian Federal and ACT governments are diametrically opposite. The ACT government is the local government that looks after Australia's capital city, where the Australian Federal government sits and makes national laws.
[1] http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/austra...
That's the problem with Magna Carta, it doesn't actually mean anything. If you change "the law of the land" then you can do all of the things listed above - and note it doesn't even say "lawful judgement and" it is an "or" so you can have detention without trial, even execution without trial as long as it is the law.
It does mean something though; the point is that the Executive (in place of the Sovereign) can't just instruct the police to detain you on a whim - it has to be done in accordance with powers specifically granted by the people's representatives in Parliament.
If you don't like the laws passed by Parliament, vote in different representatives!
If you don't like the laws passed by Parliament, vote in different representatives!
Depends on your definition of freeman, of course. I'll lay odds that Aborigines (sp) were not considered to be covered at various points in history
Can anyone recommend a good book on the Magna Carta and the historical background to it? Keen to do some reading; I know only the basics.
"1215" by Danny Danziger and John Gillingham is exactly what you want.
http://www.amazon.com/1215-Magna-Carta-Danny-Danziger/dp/074...
http://www.amazon.com/1215-Magna-Carta-Danny-Danziger/dp/074...
It's not specific to Magna Carta, but I enjoyed Dan Jones' The Plantagenets, which provides context to how the original document came to be, and how the re-issues were forced by the waxing and waning strength of the kings who followed John. It's an enjoyable book.
Thanks for the suggestion. Looked the author up on Wikipedia and found he has also recently written a book on the Magna Carta called Magna Carta: The Making And Legacy Of The Great Charter.
I didn't read it, but Magna Carta: A Very Short Introduction has been recommend.
Here's a podcast with the author regarding the topic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/05/nicholas_vincen.htm...
Here's a podcast with the author regarding the topic: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/05/nicholas_vincen.htm...
Of interest to the Canadian readers: one version of Magna Carta is on tour and currently on display at the Canadian Museum of History (i.e., the good old Museum of Civilization) in Ottawa. http://www.magnacartacanada.ca/
skidoo(3)
From Wikipdia:
> Magna Carta was given its name in Latin, a language which has no direct, consistent correlate of the English definite article "the". As a result, the usual academic convention is to refer to the document in English without the article as "Magna Carta" rather than "the Magna Carta".
Of course, in proper English it's "the Magna Carta." The rules of Latin have no bearing on proper English.
Also: We don't call Paris "Par-ee" like in French. Words in different languages are different words. "Magna Carta" just happens to be spelled the same in English and Latin.
Leave it to the NYT to do the wrong but "fashionable" "academic" thing. At least we can count on that.
Language is prescriptive, but I don't want to have that debate.