Engleski kutak: Improve your English — Chat II (English only)

[makaranin]

Woden kaže:

(...)

If you repudiate these simple questions we will certainly know that you should have started your post with: "The thing is that I do not know" (what I am talking about.).

That is not a very nice (or courteous) way to phrase your question if you are serious about receiving a reply. But I'll ignore it as a "slip-up", this time.

I'm guessing that what you (really) want to know is why the elections for the two houses are not (necessarily) held simultaneously? Instead of a long-winded reply from me I'll direct you to a fairly succinct explanation of our system from our Electoral Commission - here's the link .

But allow me to fill you in, fairly briefly, on just how the majority of Australians vote - myself included (when it comes to voting for the Senate). If we vote ALP for the Lower House we vote for the Libs in the Upper House, and vice versa. This ensures/guarantees those "checks and balances" that I alluded to in my earlier post. Indeed, this is further confirmed only recently (over the last week in fact) by events whereby our P.M. nearly lost his position because the Senate would not agree to his proposals to changes to our healthcare and education systems. He has since recanted his stance and stated publicly that he would not tackle the Senate (in a battle that he was destined to lose - meaning that he would discuss it with them first) again.

Not that this is a fool-proof system, but it does give those citizens, who are concerned and politically aware/astute, some control over their politicians and of their own country's destiny (with some quite obvious drawbacks - but the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages).

And, regarding our "system", well, FYI, I had no hand in establishing it. But yes, we are a constitutional monarchy, with the Queen (of the Commonwealth) also our Head of State - and one of the reasons why I get so irate with the Croatian media when they translate Prime Minister as Premier; as we have both a Prime Minister (on the federal level), and Premiers at the state level). But this is largely a ceremonial role - but not always, as was shown with the toppling of the Gough Whitlam government by the then Governor General, Sir John Kerr. But this speaks more about our heritage than anything else in that Australia was settled by the Brits and most Australians have some British heritage (something like 80% of all Australians have European roots). This ties them back to "mother England". Also, the fact that the Queen is very popular still, as was her late Queen Mother. But, I must say that there have been several referendums on Australia becoming a republic. Narrowly defeated, but the tide is slowly swinging towards a full republic - though membership to the Commonwealth would still be retained. I, myself am an advocate for the republic but must wait for a republican consciousness to fully develop and bloom.

[Woden]

I am reading your link in preparation for a proper reply to your post but this is what struck me immediately:

If we vote ALP for the Lower House we vote for the Libs in the Upper House, and vice versa.

Is this how people vote in Australia!? This does not make any sense.

[makaranin]

Woden kaže:

(...)
Is this how people vote in Australia!? This does not make any sense.

Obviously, in order to make a point, I may have over-simplified my response. The process is not so formulated as A=B but, what happens in practice is that (most) people will not vote for the same party in both houses. We have a saying that was coined quite some time ago which is applicable: "...keeping the bastards honest". Otherwise, we would end up having a similar system as that in Croatia where, in effect, there is no Democracy. Or at least not in the form where the Government of the day can do whatever it pleases, including changing the Constitution, deciding what changes are needed in the Constitution, ignoring the wishes and/or needs of its population. You would have people like Peda Grbin (who, I believe, is one of the most dangerous people in Croatia - he behaves like Stalin, Tito,...). He knows what is best (for the rest of you "idiotic peasants"). This is what "we" are most scared of and why we want those "checks and balances" - because of people like him - in "our" system/country.


This mentality is similar to the attitudes in the States where, with all the problems with firearms, the people refuse to give the go-ahead to government to change the Constitution. The general belief being that the Constitution can/should/ought to be changed ONLY be a referendum.

[Woden]

My apologies makaranin but I had to post this interrupting a current stream of thoughts:

Experience: I’ve slept with 3,000 men

It was the night I slept with 14 men that I first started to try to work out how many partners I’ve been with. The truth is, I’m not sure. My conservative estimate is about 100 guys a year for more than three decades. I’m 63 now and I’ve slowed down a little – but only a little.

I tell you what, she is a good looking lady!

[IstoABolje]

Now that's a challenge - join a conversation where topics are voting system in Australia and 63 year old slut

[slafko]

That's what you get when you let the lunatics run the asylum.

[Emericzy]

slafko kaže:

That's what you get when you let the lunatics run the asylum.

Isn't that the core definition of democracy?

[slafko]

Of course not. The core definition would be "We, the Greek men, get to vote and the rest of you can suck our collective dicks". Or something along those lines anyway.

It's what makes both "300" movies so funny.

[Emericzy]

slafko kaže:

Of course not. The core definition would be "We, the Greek men, get to vote and the rest of you can suck our collective dicks". Or something along those lines anyway.

It's what makes both "300" movies so funny.

Given that the ancient Greeks were in so many ways loony by our standards, your definition is not really far from mine.

[goldentip]

Have you ever heard the South African accent of English language. It sounds really odd and fascinating at the same time !!

[slafko]

Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcXNPI-IPPM?

[goldentip]

slafko kaže:

Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcXNPI-IPPM?

Haha, funny, but this is Afrkinaans ( South African Dutch) that they speak, not South African English. In USA some people mistaked me for a South African, since I spoke with my RP English, plus the inevitable influence of the mother tongue. The same thing with my brother in Ireland, they asked him if he was South African. I don't know how it happened that both of us were asked the same thing, me in USA, him in Ireland. I suppose it is the influence of the RP that we're taught in the schools in Croatia, plus our own way of forming vowels and intonations? I've noticed the heavy influence of Slavic intonation can be more easily avoided using the RP than using the American Standard pronunciation. When trying to speak with American Standard pronunciation the Slavic influence is more conspicuous in many speakers who have some Slavic language as a mother tongue.

[slafko]

A few Englishmen asked me if I was black.



Hindisight being 20/20, answering their query with 'Fo shizzle, mah nizzle' didn't exactly help my case.

[winter1212]

I wish I was dead.

I wish I were dead.

[Emericzy]

winter1212 kaže:

I wish I was dead.

I wish I were dead.

The second. As time goes by, increasing numbers of native speakers think the first is quite OK. It isn't.

[winter1212]

Emericzy kaže:

The second. As time goes by, increasing numbers of native speakers think the first is quite OK. It isn't.

Is it OK to write "increasing number"?

Should I put singular than - thinkS ?

[Emericzy]

winter1212 kaže:

Is it OK to write "increasing number"?

Should I put singular than - thinkS ?

If you wish. It's either increasing numbers or an increasing number.

[BojanC]

Emericzy kaže:

The second. As time goes by, increasing numbers of native speakers think the first is quite OK. It isn't.

The comma after by is unnecessary and just breaks up the flow of the sentence.

[Emericzy]

BojanC kaže:

The comma after by is unnecessary and just breaks up the flow of the sentence.

Permit me to disagree. Time does not go by increasing numbers.

You should not confuse your reader unnecessarily. You should help him. Immediate understanding is more important than flow -- except perhaps in poetry.

[slafko]

And freestyle rap.