Most of you know my sister as an awesome cook, master hostess, and mother of two of the cutest daughters ever. This morning she added a baby boy to the mix- my very first nephew! Anyway, it's a big party, and you're all invited- more details to follow.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
Mazel Tov!
Mazel tov! Gosh, I just saw her yesterday too...
yay mazal tov! no i dont know her but i'm very happy for all of you!!! so are you giving out cigars, or is only the father allowed to do that?
mazal tov
Joy!!!! Nieces are nice, but adding a nephew or two to the bunch adds some variety.
Altie: fathers give out cigars?
Something i heard. when a guy has a baby he gives out cigars to share his joy with others. or is that only when guys get engaged? or both? hmm. either way i dont smoke, i was just wondering.
Only when he has boys.
so im correct then.
CA: are you serious? I never heard of this minhag. Sounds expensive.
ALtie: when guys get engaged they give out cigarettes.
now some guys also give out candy for the non-smokers.
and im correct twice. did you not read what i wrote? and anyway, cigars are way cooler.
It used to be that a snuffbox was a classy present...
Altie: I hadn't read that comment. It hadn't landed in my inbox yet.
How 'bout that. מזל טוב אחי.
Oy, this means that Shabbos table is now going to be more crowded.
Yay! mazel tov!!!
mazel tov!!
Mazal tov!!!
nice post. I would love to follow you on twitter.
Sounds like the non-profit spammer.
Mazal tov!!
Dear Mr. R.S.
Mazal Tov indeed. I hope you continue to enjoy your exanded uncle-duties. Rejoicing in the news, LdT.
Thanks all, and I hope to see you (the males, at any rate) by the sholom zochar and the bris.
that's "at the sholom zochor..."
Good thing I'm a resident of the good 'ol US of A, and not bound by those arcane minutia.
Using "by" instead of "at" is illegal both in America and in England.
Speaking nonsense is illegal throughout the world.
not in the blogosphere
If it’s illegal in the world, it’s illegal in blogosphere. Though it may be not prosecuted.
well it also ain't illegal in the world. It's merely frowned upon in certain circles. In some othere circles speaking nonsense is actually encouraged (cf. credo quia absurdum).
Anyway, by definition, a person cannot be speaking incorrectly in his native tongue from linguistic point of view. “Proper” language is a political idea, not a linguistic one.
which definition?
“Native language” is the language a person speaks by the age of three. It cannot be wrong.
It could be wrong if you dont follow the gramatical rules of your native language.
Mazal tov. Now for the argument:
One of you is wrong but I haven't decided who I feel like arguing with yet.
Altie, there are two different things: 1) native tongue — something one starts speaking at the age of three, 2) politically enforced language — a particular dialect of the language and a particular set of rules that a state or various organizations enforce for political or cultural reasons.
It’s the same thing as with rights. I have unalienable rights given to me by my Creator. The state does not give me these rights; it merely recognizes them. Now, a state can legislate against these rights (as is done in every totalitarian regime — in US, it is done, say 15%; in Nazi Germany it was done 85%). So, according to the state’s laws, my behavior (e.g., not willing to give up my property to the state or hiding victims of genocide in my cellar) could be wrong, but according to my natural rights, I could still be right.
The same is with language. First of all, “rules of languages” are like laws of physics. Scientists observe them, not legislate them. Linguists merely observe that people speak certain way and then write it down in books. Of course, we tend to teach children to speak the way we do, so we enforce upon them some version of the language decided by the state or organizations.
Which is not to say that an adult cannot decide how to speak or write himself. There is nothing wrong with putting punctuation outside of quotation marks. In fact, doing the opposite (as American English “rules” dictate) is quite idiotic and is an example of a bad minhog. Nor is there anything wrong with saying “by” instead of “at”, if that is the way people in your community speak.
Fight the oppression of the tyrants!
MBM, argue with me.
CA: You should live in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts.
Speaking of children, when they speak using slang, it is no more worse than the fact that we no longer use the vast majority of grammatical constructions used in Anglo-Saxon language. Languages drift. People speak the way they find the easiest to express their thoughts. The sooner the parents realize it, the better parents they will be.
Now, what parents can really teach children is ability to express their thoughts in a more effective and cleaner way. Which, oftentimes, the more classical way of speaking has advantage in over the “street” way. Similarly to how classical music expresses emotions more effectively than rap.
TRS: after I get married, speedily in our days, iyH, I’ll consider it.
A. You're a snob. But we knew that already.
B. Perfect- then you can hang out with the Satmar in the summer.
A. In what way is me saying that whatever way you speak is the right way for you snobbish? Au contraire, as Napoleon said when told that he should stay in Smolensk and not advance on Moscow.
B. Satmars reside in NH in summer? I guess that explains the pomegranate story.
A: "Similarly to how classical music expresses emotions more effectively than rap."
B: ?
A. Snobbish that is not. It’s an objective truth.
B. I shall post it one day.
A: Perhaps you're not properly acquainted with the meaning of that word.
B: I can't wait.
A. Was Rashbi’s saying that “if there are two people in the world who know Torah, it’s me and my son” snobbish?
His statement was objectively true.
exactly my point.
But since I am the only teller of objective truth...
CA: have you never heard of the old prescription vs. description conundrum?
Post a Comment