Category Archives: Savoir vivre and Etiquette
This week’s ruling in the UK House of Lords ruling that informal Muslim marriages which don’t get registered with the state won’t be treated as marriages on a par with those which are so registered, provoked the usual knee-jerk squealing by those who think that Muslims are being systematically victimised by horrible right-wing Christians, namely the Muslim pressure groups themselves in dischordant chorus with their Haw-Havian leftist enablers.
This post sets out to explain how they are in fact being treated exactly the same as everyone else, in fact many right-wing Christians have it worse than they do in countries they themselves run.
If a person has a marriage in their Church, Mosque, Temple or Synangogue and doesn’t register it with a nation state, then nation states won’t recognise them. Nation it is written, shall speak peace unto nation, and thus it is, as the Propesy says. The world has been divided as a result of the Napoleonic era and the emergence of the modern times rather than the middle ages, (the “last times” in which we currently see more and more preparations for the emergence of the Antichrist as described in Scripture) into relatively secular states in which both royal families and also religious institutions are free to exist and may be incorporated into the paraphenalia of states, but in fact we have these things called countries and these are boxes based largely around land and borders, with economies and governments and thei systems of taxing, spending, legilating and defending themselves which they devise.
Each one has a legal system, a flag, a system of government more or less democratic (although the best are defective) a national anthem, a dialling code, an internet country suffix, an ISO abbreviation. New countries get these by sending off to the UN for a “new countries kit” which contains a constitution, a dialling code, a flag, a national anthem, and an internet .tld and this costs $3999.99 plus postage and packing, although I can probably arrange a discount for you, if you have a new country and need to watch your budget.
And each country deals on a peer-to-peer basis with other countries. They are not dealing with churches or mosques or temples or synagogues, any more than they are dealing with tropical fish clubs or local restaurant karaoke clubs. If you want to get married in a Church, or a Mosque or a Karaoke club, you can. You are free to do that. You can get married in a Jehovahs’ so-called Witnesses so-called Kingdom Hall, in a Masonic Lodge (which is more or less the same thing but more public) or in a Spearmint Rhino if you like. You are free to do all these things. But if you want the recognition of a State for your marriage then you have to do it in a way that either the State you live in recognises, or from another State which mutually recognises the marriages.
Now if someone gets married in Saudi Arabia and has plural wives because that is all fine there, then actually the UK will recognise this as a foreign state did it even though you wouldn’t be able to enter multiple marriages in the UK. So it is not like we are not recognising Muslim marriages, but if you want to get amrried in this country then for it to be official it has to be done officially. And it is the same for all of us nobody is victeemising Muslims, sorry to tell you, because I know that will cost you tears of bewilderment and disappointment to find out to don’t have a valid basis for your usual whinging. In fact in most European counries the model looks like Poland, where you have to have a church and also a civil wedding even though the country is 93% Roman Catholic. Just getting married by the priest is not enough to be accepted by the State, just as Catholics would say that just marriage by the state doesn’t make it a sacrament. The reasons why treating marriage or the alternative in the catholic system of Ordination as a sacrament is bad theology in the first place is material for a whole ‘nother blogpost.
I’m a Calvinist, so for me marriage is not a sacrament, but a creation ordinance and “an holy estate of life” and the last time I looked, nikah was not a pillar of Islam either, and therefore you Muslims just like we Calvinists are married in the sight of God even if all we do is a civil ceremony. It’s not like we can put tinfoil around the Registry Office so that God cannot look in. So spare a thought for the poor Roman Catholics in Poland, they are the ones if anyone with a right to feel hard done by here.
First produced by me as an answer to a Quora question, this became relatively popular over there, so I thought I would bring it home here and share it with you. It is a few unwritten rules (now written) for how you can avoid comment or offence of general faux pas in these eating situations known as buffets, and they include rules that apply in varying contexts, including conference or party buffets where people know each other or who are supposed to be getting to know each other, as well as restaurants having buffets like the “Swedish table” at breakfast where you are not expected to be using the food as an adjunct to another social purpose. Some are in public places, others inside comanies or even people’s houses. Some of these buffets are culinary occasions intended to enable the tasting of different types of food and some are mere convenience, with containers piled with cheaply made and poor-quality food. Some of these rules don’t apply therefore to every occasion, whereas some probably would. Unless you know that a rule wouldn’t apply, assume it would.
- If there’s a queue, don’t jump it.
- Once you have charged your plate with a reasonable amount of food, move away from the area in order not to cause congestion.
- If there are platters for vegans, or food allergy people, only take from them if you are in that group, unless it is close to the end and you’re sure they won’t need them. It’s a dirty trick by greedy pigs to analyse what some other people can’t eat in the company and come to that last, but go first to the only stuff those people can eat. Don’t be like that.
- Don’t hog all the best things because you were lucky enough to be near the front of the queue.
- Don’t pile your plate high.
- Don’t take more than you can eat. I know you cannot send the food from this buffet to the starving children, but that is not a reason to be wasteful.
- Take the cutlery and handle it appropriately. If you are not sure you can handle the food in mod air without dropping it on the floor, take it to one of those tables (in mixer situations). Then ask the people who are already round that table if you can join them.
- Don’t handle the food with your fingers, and if you have taken something, don’t put it back. Don’t maul the collective food even with the tongs. If you have to cut cheese, know how to cut it in a civilised way, with a “nez” and not straight on like some kind of philistine. If you are no good at cutting bread, don’t do it. If you do want to cut bread, handle the loaf via the cloth. try and show a certain culture in a discrete way, because people may be observing you even without especially meaning to.
- Likewise don’t sneeze, cough, fart, spit, or leave your dirty plates and cups around the food. Leave the dirty plates, glasses and cutlery in the place provided or give them to the waiter. Especially don’t leave glasses in places where someone could accidentally break them and cut themselves.
- If the idea of the buffet is a social event then bear that in mind and use it as a means to the end of getting to know people and don’t live for food like some modern Epicurian.
- If you have a buffet arrangement as part of a job interview then bear in mind you are still on parade during this time and someone is likely watching your savoir-vivre and true character which tends to come out when the trough opens before certain people’s snouts.
- Use the cloakroom especially if it is a standing buffet. Don’t have people tripping over your briefcase, and don’t knock someone’s plate or glass out of their hand with your stupid backpack. Don’t come inappropriately dressed if there was a dress code stated on the invitation, and don’t wear outdoor clothing to an indoor event.
- If you are the host, or an employee of the hosting company or organisation, you must stand back and give the best of it to the guests.
- Don’t juggle with too many containers or items of cutlery, and don’t take risks with other people’s carpets.
- If it’s a restaurant don’t take the food out unless it was all paid for by the event organisers and would just go to waste, in which case you should indeed take some to go but always check with the manager. If it’s an in house do make sure any decent left overs are saved for those colleagues who couldn’t attend the event.
- Don’t gatecrash if you are not supposed to be there or try to weedle other unexpected guests in at the last minute. Likewise if you are expected but know you cannot attend, try to give the organisers some notice, the more the better.
- Be polite to the wait staff and the cloakroom attendant, including being aware of and adhering to the tip culture of the place you are.
- Don’t hog one person if it is a networking buffet, cramping their style, but circulate. Work the room, and develop some elegant ways of rounding off conversations. If you tell someone you have to go home and they see you chatting away to someone else ten minutes later, you can well imagine what conclusion they will come to and what they will think. Better is to say “I promised such and such to catch up with him this evening, please excuse me”.
- Don’t forget you business cards for social buffets and don’t forget the follow-up in mail or phone afterwards. Don’t worry if you don’t meet everyone. I usually leave when I have ten cards even if I could get more. Good follow up on ten cards is better than thirty cards with poor follow up.
- Have some regard for your health. If you are on a diet, the abundance of quality free food is not reason enough to abandon it. I like to walk home afterwards, weather and safety permitting.
Playout date: 9 May 2007
This was done still in the early days with still less than 200 films and under 300 subbers, asking for more, but being utterly perplexed by a letter addressing me as “my gentleman”.
Read the rest of this entry
Today’s post is not the first in taking the form of a brief epistollary.
Regular commentator and reader, though not in that order, of this blog, Mr A… B… , wrote to me a few days ago saying the following:
Dear Mr James,
Please forgive my writing directly but I’m not certain how I can post a general message on Huliganov TV.
I thought that perhaps you could put me out of my grammatical misery. I have a grammar query that is driving me nuts for want of an answer. The question concerns the case system in German (I hesitate to call it a system as it seems half-baked to me but that could be my misunderstanding).
I appreciate that in German (as in many languages) the nominative / accusative case endings (I am not concerning myself here with the other cases) applied to masculine words will enable me to identify the subject and object of a sentence. All well and good. So, for example, if I use the classic biting / bitten scenario we would have something like:-
Der Hund beisst den Mann. And if I reverse the word order (Den Mann beisst der Hund) the meaning remains the same, namely “the dog bites the man”. Directly comparable to the Latin usage of the case system – “Canus virum mordet” with the same versatility of word order.
BUT, it seems to me that where the Latin uses it’s nominative and accusative endings consistently (in that there are ending for masculine, feminine and neuter nouns) this is not carried through to German as the different noun endings apply to the masculine nouns ONLY where the accusative is concerned.
So, if I now use a feminine object in my example, Der Hund beisst die Frau the word order would now have to be rigid as reversing it could mean that the woman is biting the dog (not impossible of course, but rather eccentric behaviour for woman or a man to have! ). Same applies to a neuter object. It seems to me there is little or no point in applying a different ending for accusative noun unless it is applied equally to ALL genders.
German ACC endings are : (maculine) ‘der’ becoming ‘den’ ; (feminine) ‘die’ unchanged ; (neuter) ‘das’ unchanged. Had there been something like :- Der/den ; die / det ; das / dax (the feminine and neuter accusative endings being my inventions), then I would see the point of it and it would be a very useful feature. As it is, it is confusing and pointless.
If we take a Latin feminine object example, “Canus matronam mordet” we can still have any word order without changing the meaning. This is not the case (no pun intended !) with German accusative usage as we are unable to distinguish the nominative ‘die’ from the accusative ‘die’. Hence there is uncertainty about the feminine noun being subject or object.
Allowing for my poor Latin and looking at the principle involved, am I missing some important point in the German case system or is it (as I believe it to be) poorly implemented and inconsistent ?
I do hope you can throw some light on this as nothing that I can find on an Internet trawl can offer any guidence. I even asked a German native speaker about it on a Skype session, but he seemed to miss the point of my confusion.
If my suspicion about this German case usage is correct I shall abandon any further study of the language and spend the time saved reading Mark Twain’s “The Awful German Language” section of his book of 1880, “A Tramp Abroad” .
Sincerely and with best wishes to you.
So I wrote back with the following information:
even if the person being bitten is die Frau or das Kind, they are still in the accusative. The fact that in Germanic (the same applies incidentally in Icelandic, others have lost three genders and have two or only a default gender for all but personal pronouns) the feminine and neuter have the same endings and have had for more than a thousand years in feminine and neuter genders for the masculine and accusative cases doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Look again at it with personal pronouns.
She bites the dog – Sie beisst den Hund
The dog bites her – Der hund beisst sie.
He bites the dog – Er beisst den Hund
The dog bites him – Der Hund beisst ihn.
So, you have more diversity for gender in English, arguably, than in German, alhough the fact is we took the DATIVE case pronouns and mae them good for both the dative and the accusative.
Der Hund gibt IHM / IHR viel Vergnuegen
The dog gives him/her much pleasure. When it is not biting them, presumably. You can see the same m and r endings carrying over.
In Slavic Neuter has identical nominative and accusative, also vocative for that matter, where it exists, but differentiates in masculine and feminine. German just goes one little bit further. It is on the way to ending up with the Dutch or Scandinavian system of having two genders only.
Hope this helps.
Can I put the Q & A back onto HTV?
And then A… replies as follows:
Many thanks, David, for your fast reply to my question and your interesting explanation. This certainly helps in addition to providing extra insights to the case system in general.
I’m still a little confused though. Am I correct in saying that if we have a simple German sentence containing a feminine subject and a feminine object (neither being a pronoun) we could not distinguish subject from object merely by looking at the articles. Only perhaps by context or word order ?
I can see that no problem arises where there is a masculine noun in the sentence because the change made to its ending would determine its function in the sentence and the remaining noun would automatically be determined by default. So if the masculine noun has den or einen as its article, it is an object in the sentence so the remaining noun (of any gender) has to be the subject in the sentence.
However,if the sentence contains only feminine or neuter nouns, their appears to be no way of knowing which is intended to be the subject and which the object by inspection of the articles used. From what you have said, it seems that only the use of pronouns would resolve the uncertainty (context and word order perhaps also being of value).
Is my understanding faulty here or am I near the mark ?
[yes please, would you put the content onto HTV for the benefit of others that are perhaps as confused by cases as I am ! ]
Very best wishes,
And since I did not manage to answer this second letter yet, I will answer it now, especially as I have the kind agreement of A… to let everyone see our linguistic discussion.
Basically, when it comes to masculine nouns in German, they retain a fuller set of differentiation in the case endings than the feminine or neuter do, and nevertheless the word order remains flexible.
You can say “Der Hund beisst den Mann” and “Den Hund beisst der Mann” and the direction of the bite is precisely opposite, but what is not the same is the syntax.
This is what is usually left unsaid by people who use this sentence, and others like it, as an illustration of how cases work and allow more flexibility in word order. It is effectively a very good example of why syntax is one thing and grammar another. Syntax is the place at which grammar means style.
The sentence “Den Mann beisst der Hund” actualy does not have the same semantic loading as the sentence “Der Hund beisst den Mann”. True, the bite is being carrying out by the same canine agent in both sentences, but the meaning has changed. In the sentence “Der Hund beisst den Mann” you have a simple form. The dog is biting the man. There is no doubt about which dog it is or the man, as we are simply following the default SVO of German.
When I invert that and say “Den Mann beisst der Hund” then I am making a new emphasis. I am showing that there was uncertainty about which man was being bitten by the dog. Therefore I bring it to the beginning of the sentence. German sentences can be very long and if in cases of urgency I don’t bring the key information about which man it is to the start of the sentence, by the time I get to the close, he could have already bled out, und das wollen wir nicht.
This means the intonation also changes, when you say the inverted OVS sentences. You won’t hear them in the same tone of voice as the SVO simple forms. So, bearing in mind that spoken language precedes written language by centuries if not millennia, this is why there seems no need to worry that the Feminine form seems to maintain the mystery of who is biting whom. The tone of voice would have made it clear. In writing, you generally have context, and that ought to make it clear. If you make a piece of writing in which a feminine nouns is object and subject in an OVS sentence without any context, then for sure you have an ambiguity. Language speakers are usually quite good at exploiting ambiguities like this for jokes so it would be a pity if it weren’t there.
You can imagine how in German this could work and in English not:
– Eine Schlange biss meine Schwiegermutter.
– Autsch, ist sie giftig?
– Naja, aber nicht so schlimm wie der Schwiegervater.
“A snake bit my mother-in-law”
“Ouch, is it toxic?”
“Well, yes, but not as bad as my father-in-law”
There are two grammatical reasons why the joke sounds very confusing in English.
The joke is possibly confusing in German also, but only because Naja, in addition for being a common colloquial German affirmative, is the Latin name for a very poisonous snake.
No wonder the Germans come across as a little verbissen at times…
Just for your information, a title plus the first name is decidedly old-fashioned in English now. We use it for people with very high titles, such as Sir Cliff (Richards), Dame Edna (Everage) but not Lord and Lady. Mr, Miss and Mrs were used only with surname already before Ms was revived in the 20th Century. Ms plus first name is recorded in the seventeeth century. Ms then went out of use for two centuries, (because it is actually short for “mistress” which took on a risqué meaning).
The use of any title less than Sir or Dame plus first name seems decidedly quaint now. One is put in mind of that traditional old Texas oil baron Jock Ewing, who persisted in calling his wife “Miss Ellie” even after they were married and even just before his funeral. I understand that this is a bit of a Texas thing.
In the English-speaking world, first names seem to be in general use now and in the main people do not even ask for permission to switch to it. However there are still situations where deference is called for, such as to a client or a teacher, in which case Mr/Miss/Mrs/Ms or a professional/academic title like Dr or Professor are used with the surname. More highly honorific titles still, such as Excellency for embassadors, highness or majesty for royalty are not usually combined with names at all in direct address. It is also usually appropriate to use the term once in a meeting and then default to “sir, ma’am” after this. The use of first or second name after foreign titles used in English will follow the usage in the language of origin. Examples include Don Giovanni, Sheikh Yamani, Mufti Menk and Imam Bayildi.