Mr. Meeks, ha. There's a bitter divide, and fools on both sides. It's the Kaleds and Thals, with the daleks yet to appear. Just blaming one side is of no use, though it may comfort you.
Most people, though, just want a reasonable outcome and for things to settle down.
While what did the young get but a housing crisis, stagnant wages, a two trillion quid national debt (borrowed to spend on the oldies) and ever rising student debt.
National minimum wage. Huge public investment. More education than ever before. Strengthened worker protections. Better environmental laws. Historic surpluses (for a while!)
On topic has anyone seen or got a picture of this mural? Just how obvious was it that it was anti-Semitic?
Here you go.
Thanks. Pardon my ignorance but are the Illuminati supposed to be Jewish?
Shocking slur against fine, upstanding Masons also..
I think that both the Masons and the Illuminati have used the eye in the pyramid so it could be both. Of course one of the 2 has the advantage of actually existing.
I accept that the anti-Semitic thing is there now that TSE has pointed it out but I would not accept it is obvious.
Mr. Meeks, ha. There's a bitter divide, and fools on both sides. It's the Kaleds and Thals, with the daleks yet to appear. Just blaming one side is of no use, though it may comfort you.
Most people, though, just want a reasonable outcome and for things to settle down.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
That we might have been surprised to see a mere few thousand people happy to march together under a pro-EU banner back then is kind of indicative of the problem the EU had here with a lack of passionate supporters (and a lot more, I don't like it all that much, but it is for the best, supporters).
I hope they can find a party to represent their very clear and passionate desires.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
That we might have been surprised to see a mere few thousand people happy to march together under a pro-EU banner back then is kind of indicative of the problem the EU had here with a lack of passionate supporters (and a lot more, I don't like it all that much, but it is for the best, supporters).
I hope they can find a party to represent their very clear and passionate desires.
People don't know what they've got 'til it's gone...
Anyway, I must be off. Going to try waking up in time tomorrow. Usually I manage to wake up either for qualifying or the race (when it's early) but not both...
Anyway, I must be off. Going to try waking up in time tomorrow. Usually I manage to wake up either for qualifying or the race (when it's early) but not both...
Have you adjusted for the clocks going forward tonight?
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
We should have more referenda not less.
We should have either none at all, or stacks of them so that the novelty of being able to have an extra pop at the government wears off and people vote on the question they have actually been asked. If you filtered out all the Leave votes which were really saying Yes to the question "Do you think George Osborne is an arse?" that would have swung it for Remain.
While what did the young get but a housing crisis, stagnant wages, a two trillion quid national debt (borrowed to spend on the oldies) and ever rising student debt.
National minimum wage. Huge public investment. More education than ever before. Strengthened worker protections. Better environmental laws. Historic surpluses (for a while!)
Perhaps you could expound on this 'huge public investment' and compare it to that in the twenty years before 1997:
Humber Bridge Dartford Bridge Second Severn Bridge Channel Tunnel Motorway construction Docklands Light Railway Canary wharf etc Light railways in Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle Jubilee line extension Nuclear power stations First gas power stations Last coal power stations Selby coalfield Japanese car factories
I'm sure I'm missing plenty of others as well.
And your other points are meaningless, there's been a steady increase in education, environmental laws and worker protections since the 19th century.
Maybe it is just me but if I was a politician I would do some googling before I backed any cause or agreed to do meetings with organisations. Isn’t that what your office staff are there to help you do your research?
Note that in a visionary homage to PB the artist has shown a pineapple bottom left, and a turnip bottom right.
It's a cracker.
Of course Lenin was partly Jewish, and Marx & Trotsky (also depicted) wholly so. Their heroic portrayal by the Left then is an interesting contrast to eg that rubbishy mural.
While what did the young get but a housing crisis, stagnant wages, a two trillion quid national debt (borrowed to spend on the oldies) and ever rising student debt.
National minimum wage. Huge public investment. More education than ever before. Strengthened worker protections. Better environmental laws. Historic surpluses (for a while!)
Perhaps you could expound on this 'huge public investment' and compare it to that in the twenty years before 1997:
Humber Bridge Dartford Bridge Second Severn Bridge Channel Tunnel Motorway construction Docklands Light Railway Canary wharf etc Light railways in Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle Jubilee line extension Nuclear power stations First gas power stations Last coal power stations Selby coalfield Japanese car factories
I'm sure I'm missing plenty of others as well.
And your other points are meaningless, there's been a steady increase in education, environmental laws and worker protections since the 19th century.
So you have gone from "they did nothing for the people" to "they did some stuff but in the context of the last 200 years not much". I wonder how much your argument will change if more facts are introduced. Someone else can take a turn though as I'm expecting guests!
On topic has anyone seen or got a picture of this mural? Just how obvious was it that it was anti-Semitic?
Here you go.
Thanks. Pardon my ignorance but are the Illuminati supposed to be Jewish?
Shocking slur against fine, upstanding Masons also..
I think that both the Masons and the Illuminati have used the eye in the pyramid so it could be both. Of course one of the 2 has the advantage of actually existing.
I accept that the anti-Semitic thing is there now that TSE has pointed it out but I would not accept it is obvious.
Except that if it were not obvious Corbyn clearly would have defended his comment on that basis - his spinners surely would have not have picked the implausible defence of 'it was clearly anti-semitic, but I didn't look at it before I posted' if they could have used a slightly less implausible 'well, maybe it isn't obvious it is anti-semitic'. So while you might not personally think it is obvious, Corbyn's spinners clearly do think it is obvious, hence needing to defend his comment in other ways.
Maybe it is just me but if I was a politician I would do some googling before I backed any cause or agreed to do meetings with organisations. Isn’t that what your office staff are there to help you do your research?
Yup, and research is an awful lot easier now than it was, when people used to spend days in the library looking for newspaper clippings and academic papers.
Note that in a visionary homage to PB the artist has shown a pineapple bottom left, and a turnip bottom right.
It's a cracker.
Of course Lenin was partly Jewish, and Marx & Trotsky (also depicted) wholly so. Their heroic portrayal by the Left then is an interesting contrast to eg that rubbishy mural.
It seems that Lenin's paternal great grandfather was born Jewish, but converted to orthodox Christianity.
I have to say that googling "Was Lenin a Jew?" takes in some pretty unpleasant antisemitism, but mostly from the right.
Maybe it is just me but if I was a politician I would do some googling before I backed any cause or agreed to do meetings with organisations. Isn’t that what your office staff are there to help you do your research?
Yup, and research is an awful lot easier now than it was, when people used to spend days in the library looking for newspaper clippings and academic papers.
Even back in the day not sure you needed days in the library to know who Gerry Adams and Martin mcguiness were....
Note that in a visionary homage to PB the artist has shown a pineapple bottom left, and a turnip bottom right.
It's a cracker.
Of course Lenin was partly Jewish, and Marx & Trotsky (also depicted) wholly so. Their heroic portrayal by the Left then is an interesting contrast to eg that rubbishy mural.
It seems that Lenin's paternal great grandfather was born Jewish, but converted to orthodox Christianity.
I have to say that googling "Was Lenin a Jew?" takes in some pretty unpleasant antisemitism, but mostly from the right.
Even before the rise of the Nazis there was a concerted effort in the '20s to identify Bolshevism with Judaism, and portray them as the great threat to the world. Some of Churchill's writing on the subject at the time is pretty bloodcurdling.
Maybe it is just me but if I was a politician I would do some googling before I backed any cause or agreed to do meetings with organisations. Isn’t that what your office staff are there to help you do your research?
Yup, and research is an awful lot easier now than it was, when people used to spend days in the library looking for newspaper clippings and academic papers.
Even back in the day not sure you needed days in the library to know who Gerry Adams and Martin mcguiness were....
Catholic freedom fighters.
Shouldn't forget Willie Whitelaw met Mr Adams a decade before Corbyn did.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
Maybe it is just me but if I was a politician I would do some googling before I backed any cause or agreed to do meetings with organisations. Isn’t that what your office staff are there to help you do your research?
Yup, and research is an awful lot easier now than it was, when people used to spend days in the library looking for newspaper clippings and academic papers.
Even back in the day not sure you needed days in the library to know who Gerry Adams and Martin mcguiness were....
Catholic freedom fighters.
Shouldn't forget Willie Whitelaw met Mr Adams a decade before Corbyn did.
Freedom fighters in the same way as that mural is simply rallying against the global elite.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
We should have more referenda not less.
We should have either none at all, or stacks of them so that the novelty of being able to have an extra pop at the government wears off and people vote on the question they have actually been asked. If you filtered out all the Leave votes which were really saying Yes to the question "Do you think George Osborne is an arse?" that would have swung it for Remain.
Yep. That is one reason we should have loads more of them. To normalize them and make them part ofvthe political process.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
While what did the young get but a housing crisis, stagnant wages, a two trillion quid national debt (borrowed to spend on the oldies) and ever rising student debt.
National minimum wage. Huge public investment. More education than ever before. Strengthened worker protections. Better environmental laws. Historic surpluses (for a while!)
Perhaps you could expound on this 'huge public investment' and compare it to that in the twenty years before 1997:
Humber Bridge Dartford Bridge Second Severn Bridge Channel Tunnel Motorway construction Docklands Light Railway Canary wharf etc Light railways in Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle Jubilee line extension Nuclear power stations First gas power stations Last coal power stations Selby coalfield Japanese car factories
I'm sure I'm missing plenty of others as well.
And your other points are meaningless, there's been a steady increase in education, environmental laws and worker protections since the 19th century.
So you have gone from "they did nothing for the people" to "they did some stuff but in the context of the last 200 years not much". I wonder how much your argument will change if more facts are introduced. Someone else can take a turn though as I'm expecting guests!
So unable to come up with any details of this 'huge public investment' you claim you add yet more meaningless drivel and then depart.
Still that will give you plenty of time to try to find some actual facts.
Perhaps you'd like to take the chance to also research into things such as student debt, immigration, industrial output, national debt, home ownership and failed warmongering and how they've changed since the start of the Blair government..
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* Star in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
Maybe it is just me but if I was a politician I would do some googling before I backed any cause or agreed to do meetings with organisations. Isn’t that what your office staff are there to help you do your research?
Yup, and research is an awful lot easier now than it was, when people used to spend days in the library looking for newspaper clippings and academic papers.
Even back in the day not sure you needed days in the library to know who Gerry Adams and Martin mcguiness were....
Catholic freedom fighters.
Shouldn't forget Willie Whitelaw met Mr Adams a decade before Corbyn did.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* Star in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No.
Pause.
Sighs.
No, you can't.
(well, you did ask... )
'Referendum' is the gerundive form of the Latin verb refero, literally "to carry back" (from the verb fero, "to bear, bring, carry"[3] plus the inseparable preposition re-, here meaning "back".[4]) As a gerundive is an adjective,[5] not a noun,[6] it cannot be used alone in Latin and must be contained within a context attached to a noun such as Propositum qui referendum est populo, "A proposal which must be carried back to the people". The addition of the verb sum (3rd person singular, est) to a gerundive, denotes the idea of necessity or compulsion, that which "must" be done, rather than that which is "fit for" doing). Its use as a noun in English is thus not a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word, but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which therefore follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums". The use of "referenda" as a plural form in English (treating it as a Latin word and attempting to apply to it the rules of Latin grammar) is thus insupportable according to the rules of both Latin and English grammar alike. The use of "referenda" as a plural form is posited hypothetically as either a gerund or a gerundive by the Oxford English Dictionary, which rules out such usage in both cases as follows:[7]
"Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund,[8] referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues".[9]
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
I know everybody's banging on about whether his murial is anti-Semitic or not (clue: oh God of course it is) but nobody is making another pertinent observation, namely: his work is absolutely rubbish. Kitsch without the humour, poorly representational, you'd be hard-pressed to find a good one. I bet he's got a shelf full of dragons. Graffiti art is tremendously difficult to pull off and those that do (eg Basquiat) shy away from doing accurate figures.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
None of those was on the ballot paper. (edited for grammar)
I remember in normal times when borrowing a horse from a neighbour or having a dinner on a yacht with a friend of a friend was enough to be a major scandal....
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Any idiot can edit wikipedia, as per your earlier link.
Who needs17.4 million votes when you can get a couple of thousand people to a protest.
The attempts to try and pretend the vote on 23 June 2016 was down to fraud, election misspending, Russia and a bus advert carry on undiminished. But we are supposed to overturn it all it seems because a few people go on a protest?!
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
Its use as a noun in English is thus not a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word, but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which therefore follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums".
And what are they hoping to actually achieve with a complaint nearly two years after the event?
To take away the legitimacy of the Leave victory. If a parliamentary candidate was found to have cheated over expenses then the result could be annuled.
The Referendum was advisory. Parliament voted to trigger Article 50 by a substantial majority.
Quite right. Referenda are bad enough, but if you start quibbling over them and annulling them then we're in a very poor place. In my view we're just about going to get out of the referndum conundrum by actually delivering on Brexit. This has only been possible because the Remaniners ground wasn't well founded. Neither was the Brexit ground, but that doesn't really count now.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
Do you support a referendum on banning referenda?
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No, I'm very proud of my A* in Latin.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
Do you often need more than one?
Only on my birthdays, and in the occasional PB thread.
It seems every day new record breaking polls come out implying that the Tories are going win a stonking landslide on June the 8th, whilst Jeremy Corbyn and Labour would suffer less punishment if they booked 400 dominatrices concurrently that night and chose ‘mower’ as their safe word.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Any idiot can edit wikipedia, as per your earlier link.
So what is the plural of stadium?
The correct answer is stadia.
Indeed. But I doubt that I can edit Wikipedia. I'm not any idiot.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Any idiot can edit wikipedia, as per your earlier link.
So what is the plural of stadium?
The correct answer is stadia.
Its use as a noun in English is thus not a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word, but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which therefore follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums".
I know everybody's banging on about whether his murial is anti-Semitic or not (clue: oh God of course it is) but nobody is making another pertinent observation, namely: his work is absolutely rubbish. Kitsch without the humour, poorly representational, you'd be hard-pressed to find a good one. I bet he's got a shelf full of dragons. Graffiti art is tremendously difficult to pull off and those that do (eg Basquiat) shy away from doing accurate figures.
(has another look at his art)
AAAARGH! MY EYES!
There is a certain William Robertsness about it that said (eg Vorticists at the Eiffel Tower) whether deliberate or not.
I don't know why people think Brexit will be hard - I predict that it will only take us 2-3 more years to come to an agreement about whether referendums or referenda is the correct plural.
I don't know why people think Brexit will be hard - I predict that it will only take us 2-3 more years to come to an agreement about whether referendums or referenda is the correct plural.
Its use as a noun in English is thus not a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word, but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which therefore follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums".
Can we use referendums as the plural instead of the referenda which sounds poncy?
No.
Pause.
Sighs.
No, you can't.
(well, you did ask... )
'Referendum' is the gerundive form of the Latin verb refero, literally "to carry back" (from the verb fero, "to bear, bring, carry"[3] plus the inseparable preposition re-, here meaning "back".[4]) As a gerundive is an adjective,[5] not a noun,[6] it cannot be used alone in Latin and must be contained within a context attached to a noun such as Propositum qui referendum est populo, "A proposal which must be carried back to the people". The addition of the verb sum (3rd person singular, est) to a gerundive, denotes the idea of necessity or compulsion, that which "must" be done, rather than that which is "fit for" doing). Its use as a noun in English is thus not a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word, but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which therefore follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums". The use of "referenda" as a plural form in English (treating it as a Latin word and attempting to apply to it the rules of Latin grammar) is thus insupportable according to the rules of both Latin and English grammar alike. The use of "referenda" as a plural form is posited hypothetically as either a gerund or a gerundive by the Oxford English Dictionary, which rules out such usage in both cases as follows:[7]
"Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund,[8] referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues".[9]
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Any idiot can edit wikipedia, as per your earlier link.
I don't know why people think Brexit will be hard - I predict that it will only take us 2-3 more years to come to an agreement about whether referendums or referenda is the correct plural.
Its use as a noun in English is thus not a strictly grammatical usage of a foreign word, but is rather a freshly coined English noun, which therefore follows English grammatical usage, not Latin grammatical usage. This determines the form of the plural in English, which according to English grammar should be "referendums".
They say that repetition is the best teacher. But my French French teacher considered repetition by itself to be insufficient. It had also had to be louder.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
Any idiot can edit wikipedia, as per your earlier link.
So what is the plural of stadium?
The correct answer is stadia.
Indeed. But I doubt that I can edit Wikipedia. I'm not any idiot.
Stadiums. The English word "stadium" takes the English plural -s. Only pretentious idiots pretend that they're writing in Latin.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
Referenda is a plural.
Anyway, weren't all the consequences, both benefits and difficilties, of Leaving carefully spelt out to the electorate? And dispassionately discussed in detail?
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
Referenda is a plural.
Anyway, weren't all the consequences, both benefits and difficilties, of Leaving carefully spelt out to the electorate? And dispassionately discussed in detail?
The use of "referenda" as a plural form in English (treating it as a Latin word and attempting to apply to it the rules of Latin grammar) is thus insupportable according to the rules of both Latin and English grammar alike. The use of "referenda" as a plural form is posited hypothetically as either a gerund or a gerundive by the Oxford English Dictionary, which rules out such usage in both cases as follows:[7]
"Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund,[8] referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues".[9]
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
Given that we are speaking English, and not Latin, on this blog, the English plural noun should be the preferred option, no?
"Stadium" comes directly from Latin as a noun (via Greek "stadion" of course!), so there are grounds in that case for using "stadia" (though according to dictionary.com "stadiums" is also legitimate.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
Referenda is a plural.
Anyway, weren't all the consequences, both benefits and difficilties, of Leaving carefully spelt out to the electorate? And dispassionately discussed in detail?
Or am I getting forgetful in my old age?
Are you older than Mick Jagger?
Yes, actually. Although I don't look it. He sings better than I do, though.
For TSE As a Latin gerund, referendum has no plural. The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
So actually 2016 was a referenda since it covered the customs union, the single market, the Irish border, Euratom, the EAW, Europol, the EMA, the EBA and the ECJ to name a few...
Referenda is a plural.
Anyway, weren't all the consequences, both benefits and difficilties, of Leaving carefully spelt out to the electorate? And dispassionately discussed in detail?
Or am I getting forgetful in my old age?
Are you older than Mick Jagger?
Yes, actually. Although I don't look it. He sings better than I do, though.
Then I defer to you. Age brings wisdom as I'm sure you agree.
First, belated birthday greetings to PB - I was one of the earliest posters joining in 2004 I believe. There aren't that many of us left and perhaps a thought to be spared for those no longer with us including Mark Senior.
Thank you for the site, OGH and thanks also to Robert for keeping us very much on the road. I still remember the PB event on the terrace of the National Liberal Club - a seriously good evening.
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
Given that we are speaking English, and not Latin, on this blog, the English plural noun should be the preferred option, no?
I agree that we should use the English plural noun. But we are disagreeing what the English plural noun is...
I know everybody's banging on about whether his murial is anti-Semitic or not (clue: oh God of course it is) but nobody is making another pertinent observation, namely: his work is absolutely rubbish. Kitsch without the humour, poorly representational, you'd be hard-pressed to find a good one. I bet he's got a shelf full of dragons. Graffiti art is tremendously difficult to pull off and those that do (eg Basquiat) shy away from doing accurate figures.
(has another look at his art)
AAAARGH! MY EYES!
His art does make a weird and rather polluting impact, that is not easy to forget. Yet it is not quite in the league of "bad enough to be good" like the poetry of William Mcgonagall, or the films of Ed Wood.
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
Given that we are speaking English, and not Latin, on this blog, the English plural noun should be the preferred option, no?
I agree that we should use the English plural noun. But we are disagreeing what the English plural noun is...
I know everybody's banging on about whether his murial is anti-Semitic or not (clue: oh God of course it is) but nobody is making another pertinent observation, namely: his work is absolutely rubbish. Kitsch without the humour, poorly representational, you'd be hard-pressed to find a good one. I bet he's got a shelf full of dragons. Graffiti art is tremendously difficult to pull off and those that do (eg Basquiat) shy away from doing accurate figures.
(has another look at his art)
AAAARGH! MY EYES!
His art does make a weird and rather polluting impact, that is not easy to forget. Yet it is not quite in the league of "bad enough to be good" like the poetry of William Mcgonagall, or the films of Ed Wood.
I know. I'm looking at it and going: how does he earn a living? Genuinely! It's like listening to teenage poetry.
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
Given that we are speaking English, and not Latin, on this blog, the English plural noun should be the preferred option, no?
I agree that we should use the English plural noun. But we are disagreeing what the English plural noun is...
The one ending in "-ums", of course!
Remind me again about the plural nouns "media" and "data". Especially what they are the plural noun of...
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
Given that we are speaking English, and not Latin, on this blog, the English plural noun should be the preferred option, no?
I agree that we should use the English plural noun. But we are disagreeing what the English plural noun is...
The one ending in "-ums", of course!
Remind me again about the plural noun "media" and "data". Especially what they are the plural noun of...
Those come straight from Latin nouns. Referendum is NOT a Latin noun!
The most remarkable thing is the admission has made it even worse than it could have been, by explaining a whole group of senior players sat around and discussed it before doing it, and yet expect people to believe them when they say now that sort of behaviour is 'not them' (plus the guy doing it seems to feel more bad that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and so got caught). How fortunate too that they are caught the very first time they try this.
I am annoyed that the BBC report says the 2006 game when Pakistan were deemed to have forfeited when they refused to come out and play was changed to a draw, as I had thought though that had happened it had then been changed back. Whether the Pakistanis were right to be angry at the time they were told if they did not come out they would forfeit and they didn't in time, so it would be a farce for that to go down as a draw.
Comments
Most people, though, just want a reasonable outcome and for things to settle down.
Huge public investment.
More education than ever before.
Strengthened worker protections.
Better environmental laws.
Historic surpluses (for a while!)
I accept that the anti-Semitic thing is there now that TSE has pointed it out but I would not accept it is obvious.
Reminds me of revisionist historians who think John was a good king because he had a talent for extortion.
Once clear of Brexit I hope that we only ever have referenda on issues that can be immediately decided.
I hope they can find a party to represent their very clear and passionate desires.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads#/media/File:Palacio_de_Bellas_Artes_-_Mural_El_Hombre_in_cruce_de_caminos_Rivera_3.jpg
Note that in a visionary homage to PB the artist has shown a pineapple bottom left, and a turnip bottom right.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/mar/24/cameron-bancroft-ball-tampering-claims-mar-south-africa-v-australia
What’s the betting they were up to the same in the ashes.
Though it seems these illuminati have a plot: Inside the Secret Plot to Reverse Brexit https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-23/inside-the-secret-plot-to-reverse-brexit
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/977614462705422337
https://twitter.com/mearone/status/934570719328968704?s=19
Humber Bridge
Dartford Bridge
Second Severn Bridge
Channel Tunnel
Motorway construction
Docklands Light Railway
Canary wharf etc
Light railways in Manchester, Sheffield and Newcastle
Jubilee line extension
Nuclear power stations
First gas power stations
Last coal power stations
Selby coalfield
Japanese car factories
I'm sure I'm missing plenty of others as well.
And your other points are meaningless, there's been a steady increase in education, environmental laws and worker protections since the 19th century.
Of course Lenin was partly Jewish, and Marx & Trotsky (also depicted) wholly so. Their heroic portrayal by the Left then is an interesting contrast to eg that rubbishy mural.
"they did nothing for the people"
to
"they did some stuff but in the context of the last 200 years not much".
I wonder how much your argument will change if more facts are introduced. Someone else can take a turn though as I'm expecting guests!
I have to say that googling "Was Lenin a Jew?" takes in some pretty unpleasant antisemitism, but mostly from the right.
Shouldn't forget Willie Whitelaw met Mr Adams a decade before Corbyn did.
I'm as fanatical about gerundive forms/Latin as I am about pineapple on pizza.
I'll be happy to use plebiscites as a compromise though.
Honestly you should see me when someone uses 'dominatrixes' as the plural of dominatrix instead of dominatrices.
Still that will give you plenty of time to try to find some actual facts.
Perhaps you'd like to take the chance to also research into things such as student debt, immigration, industrial output, national debt, home ownership and failed warmongering and how they've changed since the start of the Blair government..
I’m a bit dense sometimes but even I got this one...
A group of smirking fat old people with big noses sitting chortling around a pile of money with the masonic pyramid/eye above them
Pause.
Sighs.
No, you can't.
(well, you did ask...
"Referendums is logically preferable as a plural form meaning 'ballots on one issue' (as a Latin gerund,[8] referendum has no plural). The Latin plural gerundive 'referenda', meaning 'things to be referred', necessarily connotes a plurality of issues".[9]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum
(has another look at his art)
AAAARGH! MY EYES!
(edited for grammar)
So what is the plural of stadium?
The correct answer is stadia.
The attempts to try and pretend the vote on 23 June 2016 was down to fraud, election misspending, Russia and a bus advert carry on undiminished. But we are supposed to overturn it all it seems because a few people go on a protest?!
It seems every day new record breaking polls come out implying that the Tories are going win a stonking landslide on June the 8th, whilst Jeremy Corbyn and Labour would suffer less punishment if they booked 400 dominatrices concurrently that night and chose ‘mower’ as their safe word.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2017/04/23/why-a-1997-style-landslide-or-even-a-1983-style-landslide-might-not-happen-but-maybe-a-2005-style-majority-of-66-will/
But I doubt that I can edit Wikipedia. I'm not any idiot.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/labour-seeks-cross-party-consensus-on-irish-border-brexit-deal
Converting a Latin non-noun into an English noun should be a two-step process. The article you've cut-and-pasted assumes that it was converted into an English noun in one step and that the plural form should be formed using English rules thereafter.
It would be equally legitimate (and arguably more legitimate!) to change the Latin non-noun into a Latin noun, then form the plural from the Latin noun using Latin rules, then translate that into an English plural noun.
The former gives you "referendums". The latter gives you "referenda".
stadium [stey-dee-uh m]
noun, plural stadiums, stadia
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stadium
But my French French teacher considered repetition by itself to be insufficient. It had also had to be louder.
Anyway, weren't all the consequences, both benefits and difficilties, of Leaving carefully spelt out to the electorate?
And dispassionately discussed in detail?
Or am I getting forgetful in my old age?
"Stadium" comes directly from Latin as a noun (via Greek "stadion" of course!), so there are grounds in that case for using "stadia" (though according to dictionary.com "stadiums" is also legitimate.
stadium [stey-dee-uh m]
noun, plural stadiums, stadia
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/stadium
https://twitter.com/wutube/status/977639483687321600?s=21
First, belated birthday greetings to PB - I was one of the earliest posters joining in 2004 I believe. There aren't that many of us left and perhaps a thought to be spared for those no longer with us including Mark Senior.
Thank you for the site, OGH and thanks also to Robert for keeping us very much on the road. I still remember the PB event on the terrace of the National Liberal Club - a seriously good evening.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/why-the-plural-of-referendum-must-be-referendums/
"Why the plural of ‘referendum’ must be ‘referendums’
The logically preferable form is clear, even if usage remains divided"
I am annoyed that the BBC report says the 2006 game when Pakistan were deemed to have forfeited when they refused to come out and play was changed to a draw, as I had thought though that had happened it had then been changed back. Whether the Pakistanis were right to be angry at the time they were told if they did not come out they would forfeit and they didn't in time, so it would be a farce for that to go down as a draw.