[Peace-discuss] dream about the moonlight on the wall bash...

["E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森"]

While it is true that the mainland uses simplified characters while
taiwan and hongkong use the complex versions, the complex versions
don't provide a serious challenge to the mainland readers.  Even
I can read most of the complex characters if I know the simplified version.
The taiwan chinese may have a bit more trouble with some highly 
simplified versions,
but actually such shorthand was in use long before 1949.

There are even more complex variants found in literature than the complex
versions used in taiwan/hk.  Some famous poems from the Tang dynasty
use some characters that have fallen out of general use much like reading
Chaucer, or Elizabethan English.

It's the local spoken dialects that cause the most consternation.

In some places one needs more than one translator.


2011-5-15 23:54, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> As the pun-loving Earl of Oxford put it in /The Tragedy of Julius Caesar/,
>
> CASSIUS: Did Cicero say any thing?
> CASCA: Ay, he spoke Greek.
> CASSIUS: To what effect?
> CASCA: Nay, an I tell you that, I'll ne'er look you i' the face again: 
> but those that understood him smiled at one another and shook their 
> heads; but, for mine own part, it was Greek to me. I could tell you 
> more news too: Marullus and Flavius, for pulling scarfs off Caesar's 
> images, are put to silence. Fare you well. There was more foolery yet, 
> if I could remember it.
>
> And I'm told that there's an expression in Mandarin
>
> 聽起來像火星話。/听起来像火星话
>
> that updates the reference...
>
>
> On 5/15/11 8:41 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>> I grew up thinking that Wabash, river, and cannonball, had at least 
>> one or 2 ells in it.
>>
>> It's a thin line between paronomasic eleutherianism and cruel&unusual 
>> pun ish ment.
>>
>>
>> On 5/15/2011 11:05 AM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> Your title is almost funny enough to justify the loss of a little 
>>> more liberty...
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/14/11 8:48 PM, "E. Wayne Johnson 朱稳森" wrote:
>>>> INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English 
>>>> Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 
>>>> Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their 
>>>> homes.
>>>>
>>>> In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said 
>>>> if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no 
>>>> reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the 
>>>> officer's entry.
>>>>
>>>> "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a 
>>>> home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern 
>>>> Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that 
>>>> allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence 
>>>> and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without 
>>>> preventing the arrest."
>>>>
>>>> David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police 
>>>> still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to 
>>>> protest the illegal entry through the court system.
>>>>
>>>> The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which 
>>>> police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing 
>>>> outside their apartment.
>>>>
>>>> When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told 
>>>> police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could 
>>>> not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the 
>>>> officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on 
>>>> the husband and arrested him.
>>>>
>>>> Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of 
>>>> Law, said the court's decision is consistent with the idea of 
>>>> preventing violence.
>>>>
>>>> "It's not surprising that they would say there's no right to beat 
>>>> the hell out of the officer," Bodensteiner said. "(The court is 
>>>> saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act 
>>>> wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to 
>>>> bring a civil action against the officer."
>>>>
>>>> Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a 
>>>> Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court's 
>>>> decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
>>>>
>>>> "In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by 
>>>> essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now 
>>>> enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a 
>>>> warrant, consent or exigent circumstances," Rucker said. "I disagree."
>>>>
>>>> Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its 
>>>> permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they 
>>>> would have supported the ruling.
>>>>
>>>> But Dickson said, "The wholesale abrogation of the historic right 
>>>> of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his 
>>>> dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad."
>>>>
>>>> This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week 
>>>> involving police entry into a home.
>>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a 
>>>> home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. 
>>>> Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain 
>>>> a judge's permission to enter without knocking.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20110518/2c079654/attachment.html>