« first day (723 days earlier)      last day (4194 days later) » 

9:50 PM
0
A: "Emigrant" vs. "immigrant"

NewAlexandriaThe term used for a national living abroad, or a permanent resident of foreign origin, is often an "Expatriate" or expat. A person temporarily or permanently residing in a country and culture other than that of the person's upbringing.

This needs a long discussion for me. The answer is totally wrong (I didn't down vote it though). But in the most literal terms an expat seems to be the same as an e/immigrant. How are they different then?
 
@Mitch Ayup.
0
A: "Emigrant" vs. "immigrant"

tchristA Useful Mnemonic Device Not to detract in any way from what Rob has said, let me offer a little mnemonic trick I learned as a kid and which has always served to distinguish the two words: An immigrant is an in-migrant, someone who has migrated in to somewhere else. You remember it because i...

Your wish is granted.
Now why the hell did my emasculatory answer get two downvotes? Have I gored someone’s sacred cow, or what?
@Rob I’m not trying to supplant your answer, just trying to grant @Mitch his request.
 
@tchrist is emigre the same as expat? an emigre doesn't seem like an e/immigrant either.
 
No, it is not. An émigré is a forced political exile. An expat is just a temporary migrant, usually for (very generally speaking) business purposes in my own experience.
The US ambassador to China is not an émigré, although he is an American expat living abroad.
 
@tchrist but NewAlexandria's answer though essentially wrong, is following logically the ostensible definitions in equating the two, right?
@tchrist right.
 
However, one might call the Dalai Lama a Tibetan émigré rather than a Chinese expat.
Let me look at her answer. I didn't really read it closely, just thought that I wanted to tell people about my mnemonic trick.
The original question asked how to tell the difference between an immigrant and an emigrant.
I didn't even see the temporary migrant part at the end.
 
10:07 PM
@tchrist There's gotta be a relevant Bible verse about being emasculated by being gored by a bull.
 
The disturbingly common Eggcorn expatriot is something else.
Or should be.
There certainly are verses about being gored by a bull.
 
@tchrist yeah, like they're not a patriot any more because they left.
 
I don’t recall whether caponization was involved.
Exodus.
Chapter 21.
 
I looked through leviticus...that's where most of the weird prohibitions are.
oh.
 
> If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
> But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
A wonton ox.
Good in Chinese soup, they say.
Oh check this out:
> Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him.
That’s a subjunctive form!
> If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
> But if the ox gores a slave, either male or female, the animal's owner must pay the slave's owner thirty silver coins, and the ox must be stoned.
 
10:12 PM
which version are your looking at?
 
And so is this:
> And if one man's ox hurt another's, that he die; then they shall sell the live ox, and divide the money of it; and the dead ox also they shall divide.
 
there's some craxzy stuff in there.
 
I’m looking at all of them.
> If someone's ox injures a neighbor's ox and the injured ox dies, then the two owners must sell the live ox and divide the price equally between them. They must also divide the dead animal.
They are really concerned with oxen.
 
NIV? KJV? RESV? RESPECT?
 
More subjunctivitis:
> Or if it be known that the ox hath used to push in time past, and his owner hath not kept him in; he shall surely pay ox for ox; and the dead shall be his own.
 
10:14 PM
Oxen are a big deal. Sheep, not so much.
 
I’m quoting from KJV vs NIV.
> However, if it was known that the bull had the habit of goring, yet the owner did not keep it penned up, the owner must pay, animal for animal, and the dead animal will be his.
> But if the ox had a reputation for goring, yet its owner failed to keep it under control, he must pay full compensation--a live ox for the dead one--but he may keep the dead ox.
Hm.
 
I like the Good News version. How can you beat good news?
@tchrist Right. Did that happen often enough for there to be a general rule for it?
 
@Mitch If that ain’t the gospel truth!
 
Or are these laws just made up in a back room? 'Hey, here's one that should be a rule...you know, it just might happen!'
 
Apparently so.
 
10:17 PM
Yes, they spoke exclamatorily back then.
 
Hi.
@Robusto I was not exactly amused.
 
What’s the choral fugue with "Good News" starting a perfect fourth ascending?
Google and Youtube alike are both idiots that don't know how to field such a simple tonal query.
It must be from Messiah.
 
I am waiting for the rain to stop. It's museum night, so we're visiting lots of musea tonight, all with one ticket. Thankfully my house is in between musea, so I could take cover. Next museum is a 17th-century secret church.
Because catholics weren't allowed to practice in public.
It was not really "secret", but unobtrusive from the outside.
 
@Cerberus everybody knew anyway.
 
10:21 PM
Yup.
 
'shh...we're passing the ...you know...that place.'
 
And it was allowed. They probably had to pay some fee to the city council.
Haha.
Yeah, like that.
 
Ha ha. unless you're catholic
 
There were many catholics in town...
 
what if you were spanish? one of the ruling caste when they owned/controlled parts of the Netherlands?
 
10:23 PM
@Mitch There was never a Spanish ruling class.
 
what does the sign say?
 
You would never guess.
Look how gaudy and catholic!
 
What? Not knowing anything, weren't there hapsburgs and such transferring pieces of Europe from royal fmail to royal family and at some point there were the 'Spanish' Netherlands?
@Cerberus Exactly like how those Catholics are.
 
Found it.
 
We were the Spanish Netherlands, and the representative of the King resided in Brussels with his or her staff.
 
10:25 PM
See! they were expats!
 
It’s in “Glory to God in the Highest” from Messiah. The fugue is on “Good will . . . ”, p4 up.
 
But we were ruled by own own city councils and noblemen, especially outside Brussels.
 
but really, there were then some Spanish (presumaby at least nominally Catholic) there.
 
A handful of Spanish representatives were probably scattered around the provinces, but you mustn't forget how little power the King had over the various countries, duchies, and bishoprics.
 
10:27 PM
It’s pretty short, but still fugal.
 
He tried to centralise some power, and that's when we revolted.
 
@Cerberus No bishoprics in this chat.
 
Okay, change of plans: we're going to the Portuguese synagoge.
 
The Spanish probably think the Dutch are still revolting.
 
I've already been to that secret church anyway.
 
10:28 PM
The Spanish probably still think the Dutch are revolting.
 
Later all!
 
@tchrist Keep trying.
 
@tchrist Perhaps...but we kicked their derrières!
 
Still, the Spanish probably think the Dutch are revolting.
They don’t have derrières.
They have culos.
 
And they're the ones who are hairy.
poof
 
10:29 PM
@Cerberus Hairy poofs?
 
@Cerberus True, the Spanish ejected the twinks in 1492.
All who remained were hairy.
 
@Cerberus But if the history books call it Spanish Netherlands, either the Dutch moved to a small part of Spain, or the Spanish invaded and colonized the Netherlands, eradicating the local populace. Since you are presumably now not in Spain, the only conclusion we can make is that you are in fact of Spanish descent... Pedro.
 
@Mitch He’s one of those twink émigrés he was talking about.
 
Now that @Cerberus is gone, isn't it a little late to be going to church? It's not like it's Christmas or something. I have a feeling alcohol is involved.
 
Lord, more sacral kine! What is the world coming to? If they weren’t meant for sacrifice, they wouldn’t be sacred now would they? Sheesh!
 
10:35 PM
@Mitch When it's Cerb we're talking about, that's a safe bet
 
He doesn't have to drive.
all this church walking.
 
What is it with these people who think that, they should put a comma after their thats? Are they like, Germans?
There, this should keep ’em busy:
I really can’t see how that that that that you put you after that other that makes that make any sense. — tchrist 3 mins ago
I really can’t see how that that that that you put you after that other that makes that make any sense. — tchrist 4 mins ago
Weird.
That is not the that that I am seeing.
> I really can’t see how that that that that you put after that other that makes that that make any sense.
 
11:29 PM
Why do people now refer to posts instead of to postings as formerly prevailed?
 

« first day (723 days earlier)      last day (4194 days later) »