Discussion:
immigrate vs. emigrate
Add Reply
grammarian1976
2021-03-16 01:10:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Greetings,

It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).

What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?

(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.

(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.

Thank you.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-16 01:34:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.

That seems to be a difference between AmE and AusE, though. I've noticed
that Americans use "immigrate" in many places where an Australian would
say "migrate".

WIWAL the people who came to Australia from other countries were always
called migrants, never immigrants. Perhaps that was because we had a
negligible level of emigration, so never needed to make the distinction.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
occam
2021-03-16 09:12:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.
By using 'migrate' however, don't you diminish the information content
of the sentence? Humans immigrate/emigrate, animals (including humans,
but esp. birds) migrate.

In my understanding:

em- is outgoing
im- is inbound

The above is admittedly irrelevant in the examples given, as these
specify the departure and arrival points explicitly.

By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also lose
the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely you wouldn't
want to abandon vector information in favour of scalar data?
Post by Peter Moylan
That seems to be a difference between AmE and AusE, though. I've noticed
that Americans use "immigrate" in many places where an Australian would
say "migrate".
WIWAL the people who came to Australia from other countries were always
called migrants, never immigrants. Perhaps that was because we had a
negligible level of emigration, so never needed to make the distinction.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-16 09:36:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of
prepositional phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do
you find all four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any
preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (1b) They
immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (2b) They
emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.
By using 'migrate' however, don't you diminish the information
content of the sentence? Humans immigrate/emigrate, animals
(including humans, but esp. birds) migrate.
em- is outgoing im- is inbound
The above is admittedly irrelevant in the examples given, as these
specify the departure and arrival points explicitly.
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely you
wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of scalar
data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases (as
here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if it's needed
to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra information is redundant.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Snidely
2021-03-19 03:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of
prepositional phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do
you find all four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any
preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (1b) They
immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (2b) They
emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.
By using 'migrate' however, don't you diminish the information
content of the sentence? Humans immigrate/emigrate, animals
(including humans, but esp. birds) migrate.
em- is outgoing im- is inbound
The above is admittedly irrelevant in the examples given, as these
specify the departure and arrival points explicitly.
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely you
wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of scalar
data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases (as
here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if it's needed
to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.

/dps
--
"That’s where I end with this kind of conversation: Language is
crucial, and yet not the answer."
Jonathan Rosa, sociocultural and linguistic anthropologist,
Stanford.,2020
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-19 04:32:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
...
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
The above is admittedly irrelevant in the examples given, as these
specify the departure and arrival points explicitly.
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely you
wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of scalar
data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases (as
here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if it's needed
to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
To me, im/em is always intended to be permanent.
--
Jerry Friedman
occam
2021-03-19 08:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
...
Post by Snidely
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
The above is admittedly irrelevant in the examples given, as these
specify the departure and arrival points explicitly.
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely you
wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of scalar
data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases (as
here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if it's needed
to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
To me, im/em is always intended to be permanent.
I think this impression comes from the fact that legal/administrative
procedures are involved.

References to pre-historical population 'migration' (mentioned
elsewhere) almost certainly did not involve admininstartive procedures.
These, however, were just as permanent as im/em-igration.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-19 07:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely
you wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of
scalar data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases
(as here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if
it's needed to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra
information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".

The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-19 13:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:16:06 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely
you wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of
scalar data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases
(as here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if
it's needed to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra
information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
This report from AP uses "pickup truck".
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/texas-man-charged-connection-deadly-221530602.html

The passengers in the truck, some of whom died, are described variously
as "migrants", "undocumented migrants" and "undocumented immigrants".

This report uses "undocumented immigrants".
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-news/driver-charged-in-crash-that-killed-8-immigrants-in-texas/
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-19 17:44:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:27:26 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:16:06 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely
you wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of
scalar data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases
(as here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if
it's needed to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra
information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
This report from AP uses "pickup truck".
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/texas-man-charged-connection-deadly-221530602.html
The passengers in the truck, some of whom died, are described variously
as "migrants", "undocumented migrants" and "undocumented immigrants".
This report uses "undocumented immigrants".
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-news/driver-charged-in-crash-that-killed-8-immigrants-in-texas/
The image in that second report appears to be wrong. I doesn't match the
description of the vehicles in the report.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-22 20:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:27:26 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:16:06 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely
you wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of
scalar data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases
(as here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if
it's needed to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra
information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
This report from AP uses "pickup truck".
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/texas-man-charged-connection-deadly-221530602.html
The passengers in the truck, some of whom died, are described variously
as "migrants", "undocumented migrants" and "undocumented immigrants".
This report uses "undocumented immigrants".
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-news/driver-charged-in-crash-that-killed-8-immigrants-in-texas/
The image in that second report appears to be wrong. I doesn't match the
description of the vehicles in the report.
I suspect that this is further into the cleanup phase, though you MAY be
right that they're just using a stock photo of "guy busted for running
migrants--who by the way actually might BE migrant workers in the AmE
sense rather than trying to settle themselves here permanently".

That's neither common nor uncommon, and seems to be preferred for a web
article than leaving the page entirely unillustrated. I take no stance
on doing so; while it CAN mislead, it also has a chance to keep eyes
whose owners might find a text-only article offputting.

As for WHY there might not be a photo available, a maroon Ram (and I
swear it will take two decades to get me to stop thinking of that as a
Dodge), wrecked after repeated rollovers during a high-speed chase, may
be the sort of photo that compassionate editors either order not to be
taken, or at the least, that if a photographer turns in that shot, the
picture might get spiked rather than printed.

I'd have /preferred/ that the publisher make clearer that this wasn't
the actual crime scene, but I can understand their thinking.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!

---

My subject pronoun is ALWAYS "she", my object pronoun is always "her",
and my possessives are her/hers. There were no pronouns here for 17
years because people used to assume that preference based on "goddess".
Use "they/them" and I'll grudingly tolerate it. Do NOT use "sie" unless
you're talking about me in German and don't use "ze" under any
circumstances. Misgender me instead and you'll wish you were dead.
Tony Cooper
2021-03-22 21:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:27:26 +0000, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 18:16:06 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely
you wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of
scalar data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases
(as here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if
it's needed to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra
information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
This report from AP uses "pickup truck".
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/texas-man-charged-connection-deadly-221530602.html
The passengers in the truck, some of whom died, are described variously
as "migrants", "undocumented migrants" and "undocumented immigrants".
This report uses "undocumented immigrants".
https://worldnewsera.com/news/us-news/driver-charged-in-crash-that-killed-8-immigrants-in-texas/
The image in that second report appears to be wrong. I doesn't match the
description of the vehicles in the report.
I suspect that this is further into the cleanup phase, though you MAY be
right that they're just using a stock photo of "guy busted for running
migrants--who by the way actually might BE migrant workers in the AmE
sense rather than trying to settle themselves here permanently".
Neither of you two are reading the article. Tovar was driving a
maroon Ram (which is made by Dodge) and struck a white Ford F-150. The
truck in the photo is a white Ford F-150. The oval Ford logo is
visible on the tailgate. Based on the news article, the driver in the
Ford F-150 was not involved in "running migrants".

Those killed were in Tovar's truck. It is not pictured, but the other
truck is.

The photo of Tovar's truck is not shown, but some news
agencies/outlets will not publish photos that show injured or dead
people. While it is not shown in the above link, the photograph was
provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety, but copyrighted by
KSAT (television station).

Presumably, the news was released before the dead and injured were
removed from the Dodge Ram so no photo of that truck was available to
be published.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-19 14:58:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
Up Here, a ute is a Sport(s) Utility Vehicle (bigger than an SUV, which
has become the default family car?). "Migrants" are cyclical/seasonal
farm workers (the previous administration tried to destroy the West
Coast's agriculture industry by slashing the number of visas they would
issue). "Illegal alien" must be the wording of some either state or Federal
law. They may well have been migrants who became illegal because they
were denied the visas they would have routinely received in earlier seasons.
Ken Blake
2021-03-19 15:52:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Snidely
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Peter Moylan asked ...
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by occam
By using 'migrate' you not only lose the human element, you also
lose the directionality of the process. As an engineer, surely
you wouldn't want to abandon vector information in favour of
scalar data?
The direction is usually obvious from the context, or in some cases
(as here) given explicitly. We can always add the em- or im- if
it's needed to avoid an ambiguity, but mostly that extra
information is redundant.
I generally consider "migration" to be temporary; im/em -migration is
often permanent.
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged with
"transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated the
article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup" and
"immigrants".
I've never seen or heard the word "ute." Just a guess: is it short for
"utility vehicle"?
--
Ken
Peter Moylan
2021-03-20 02:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged
with "transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated
the article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup"
and "immigrants".
I've never seen or heard the word "ute." Just a guess: is it short
for "utility vehicle"?
Yes, it is, but the long form is almost never used.

If you google for "rusty Holden ute" you'll find an Australian Christmas
song.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-20 10:42:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:16:06 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged
with "transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated
the article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup"
and "immigrants".
I've never seen or heard the word "ute." Just a guess: is it short
for "utility vehicle"?
Yes, it is, but the long form is almost never used.
If you google for "rusty Holden ute" you'll find an Australian
Christmas
Post by Peter Moylan
song.
All you need to know about Oz language is the ability to understand
"I'm off to the bottle shop to pick up a slab [of tinnies] in my ute."
Whilst the dunny might be out back, it's not as far as the Outback. Oh
and an advanced degree in whether the Brumbies can beat the 'tahs or v.
versa, and which bland lager to drink to avoid/cause offense.

No-one there boils their Billy or hides jumbucks in their tucker bag
these days.

But they do still play 2up on Anzac Day.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-20 11:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
All you need to know about Oz language is the ability to understand
"I'm off to the bottle shop to pick up a slab [of tinnies] in my
ute." Whilst the dunny might be out back, it's not as far as the
Outback. Oh and an advanced degree in whether the Brumbies can beat
the 'tahs or v. versa, and which bland lager to drink to avoid/cause
offense.
No-one there boils their Billy or hides jumbucks in their tucker bag
these days.
A billy is still essential equipment for camping. Years ago I often went
camping, but I reached the point where my knees just couldn't face up to
crawling out of the tent in the morning.

On our scout hikes, WIWAL, the billy tea was called frog soup. That's
because it's hard to get a billy full of water from a muddy waterhole
without picking up a few tadpoles as well.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
But they do still play 2up on Anzac Day.
That game is, I gather, illegal on every other day, but that's OK
because nobody but old soldiers wants to play it.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-20 11:38:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:14:37 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
All you need to know about Oz language is the ability to understand
"I'm off to the bottle shop to pick up a slab [of tinnies] in my
ute." Whilst the dunny might be out back, it's not as far as the
Outback. Oh and an advanced degree in whether the Brumbies can beat
the 'tahs or v. versa, and which bland lager to drink to avoid/cause
offense.
No-one there boils their Billy or hides jumbucks in their tucker bag
these days.
A billy is still essential equipment for camping. Years ago I often went
camping, but I reached the point where my knees just couldn't face up to
crawling out of the tent in the morning.
On our scout hikes, WIWAL, the billy tea was called frog soup. That's
because it's hard to get a billy full of water from a muddy waterhole
without picking up a few tadpoles as well.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
But they do still play 2up on Anzac Day.
That game is, I gather, illegal on every other day, but that's OK
because nobody but old soldiers wants to play it.
Thanks for the correction!
Another thing to know is that the RSL are several levels above our
British Legion clubs!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-21 01:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 11:14:37 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
But they do still play 2up on Anzac Day.
That game is, I gather, illegal on every other day, but that's OK
because nobody but old soldiers wants to play it.
Thanks for the correction!
It wasn't a correction. I should have make this clearer: two-up is legal
on one day of the year.
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Another thing to know is that the RSL are several levels above our
British Legion clubs!
I was a member of an RSL club for a while, before it folded, although
I've never been in the military. The RSL clubs are having trouble
surviving, because of falling numbers, so they encourage anyone at all
to join.

I still go to an RSL club for a meal now and then when I'm travelling.
Just recently I had a good lunch at the Bulahdelah RSL. No, I'm wrong,
that was the golf club. I don't play golf either.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ken Blake
2021-03-20 15:13:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
On Sat, 20 Mar 2021 02:16:06 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged
with "transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated
the article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup"
and "immigrants".
I've never seen or heard the word "ute." Just a guess: is it short
for "utility vehicle"?
Yes, it is, but the long form is almost never used.
If you google for "rusty Holden ute" you'll find an Australian
Christmas
Post by Peter Moylan
song.
All you need to know about Oz language is the ability to understand
"I'm off to the bottle shop to pick up a slab [of tinnies] in my ute."
Whilst the dunny might be out back, it's not as far as the Outback. Oh
and an advanced degree in whether the Brumbies can beat the 'tahs or v.
versa, and which bland lager to drink to avoid/cause offense.
No-one there boils their Billy or hides jumbucks in their tucker bag
these days.
What, not even a jolly swagman?
--
Ken
Peter Moylan
2021-03-21 01:49:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
No-one there boils their Billy or hides jumbucks in their tucker
bag these days.
What, not even a jolly swagman?
The jolly swagmen have all died out. They've been replaced by European
backpackers, who travel from place to place picking fruit.

At least, that was true until international travel stopped about a year
ago. The fruit growers are currently in big trouble, because nobody else
is willing to work for slave wages.

On the positive side, the federal government is claiming credit for
creating huge numbers of new rural jobs, to replace the jobs lost in a
collapsing economy.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Ken Blake
2021-03-20 15:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Peter Moylan
My newspaper this morning had an article from Austin, Texas, where
"Eight migrants in Mr Tovar's ute died". The driver was charged
with "transporting illegal aliens resulting in death".
The use of the word "ute" suggested that someone had translated
the article into Australian. The original probably had "pickup"
and "immigrants".
I've never seen or heard the word "ute." Just a guess: is it short
for "utility vehicle"?
Yes, it is, but the long form is almost never used.
Interesting, thanks.
Post by Peter Moylan
If you google for "rusty Holden ute" you'll find an Australian Christmas
song.
--
Ken
Lewis
2021-03-16 10:01:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.
Migrated is a very different word and meaning than immigrated.

One emigrates FROM and immigrates TO.

Migrate is used for animals or for people, generally undesirable people,
who are seeking work in a new location, and generally not for people who
are moving their permanent residence.

You can also migrate within a country, and that is generally not
derogatory or classist, but sometimes it is.
Post by Peter Moylan
That seems to be a difference between AmE and AusE, though. I've noticed
that Americans use "immigrate" in many places where an Australian would
say "migrate".
I'd say that many people would be insulted to be called migrants.
Post by Peter Moylan
WIWAL the people who came to Australia from other countries were always
called migrants, never immigrants. Perhaps that was because we had a
negligible level of emigration, so never needed to make the distinction.
Since immigrate and emigrate already exist and are specifically about
humans and not animals, I'd say they are the better words to use unless
you know specifically that these people are coming temporarily for jobs.

The definitions are identical in CODA and ODE.
--
When men talk to their friends, they insult each other. They don't
really mean it. When women talk to their friends, they compliment
each other. They don't really mean it.
Lewis
2021-03-16 12:05:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
The definitions are identical in CODA and ODE.
NOAD, not CODA. Don't know what my brain was thinking of there.
--
"Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking... NERFHERDER!"
"Who's Scruffy looking?"
CDB
2021-03-16 13:11:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of
prepositional phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do
you find all four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any
preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (1b) They
immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (2b) They
emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.A
common term here for visiting farm help from Mexico or the Caribbean
is "migrant workers".
"Welcome, Welcome, Emigrante"


Post by Peter Moylan
That seems to be a difference between AmE and AusE, though. I've
noticed that Americans use "immigrate" in many places where an
Australian would say "migrate".
WIWAL the people who came to Australia from other countries were
always called migrants, never immigrants. Perhaps that was because we
had a negligible level of emigration, so never needed to make the
distinction.
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
Joy Beeson
2021-03-18 03:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
When I was a child, migrant workers came from Kentucky.
--
Joy Beeson, U.S.A., mostly central Hoosier,
some Northern Indiana, Upstate New York, Florida, and Hawaii
joy beeson at centurylink dot net http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post.
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-18 03:32:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joy Beeson
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
When I was a child, migrant workers came from Kentucky.
That was before "Harvest of Shame".
--
Jerry Friedman
Snidely
2021-03-19 03:18:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.

/dps
--
Ieri, oggi, domani
Quinn C
2021-03-19 13:24:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Snidely
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.
In a German radio program, I just heard the question raised how to
classify someone who works in agriculture in Germany in the summer, in
gastronomy in Austria in the winter, but spends most of his weekends
with his family in Poland throughout.
--
I'll call you the next time I pass through your star system.
-- Commander William T. Riker
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-19 19:58:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Snidely
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.
In a German radio program, I just heard the question raised how to
classify someone who works in agriculture in Germany in the summer, in
gastronomy in Austria in the winter, but spends most of his weekends
with his family in Poland throughout.
EU citizen.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Cheryl
2021-03-20 23:18:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Snidely
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.
In a German radio program, I just heard the question raised how to
classify someone who works in agriculture in Germany in the summer, in
gastronomy in Austria in the winter, but spends most of his weekends
with his family in Poland throughout.
EU citizen.
I'd suspect the newish local term "rotational worker" would apply. The
lifestyle, if that's the right name, is long-established, but of course
has gotten much more attention during COVID. It refers to people who
have a home base in one province and work in another province, or
possibly on an oil rig or ocean-going ship or even another country, for
weeks or months at a time. They don't normally get home every weekend,
though.
--
Cheryl
bruce bowser
2021-03-23 20:47:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Quinn C
Post by Snidely
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or the
Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.
In a German radio program, I just heard the question raised how to
classify someone who works in agriculture in Germany in the summer, in
gastronomy in Austria in the winter, but spends most of his weekends
with his family in Poland throughout.
EU citizen.
I'd suspect the newish local term "rotational worker" would apply.
Even revolving-door worker could apply.
Post by Cheryl
The lifestyle, if that's the right name, is long-established, but of course
has gotten much more attention during COVID. It refers to people who
have a home base in one province and work in another province, or
possibly on an oil rig or ocean-going ship or even another country, for
weeks or months at a time. They don't normally get home every weekend,
though.
--
Cheryl
Peter Moylan
2021-03-20 02:18:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Snidely
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or
the Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.
In a German radio program, I just heard the question raised how to
classify someone who works in agriculture in Germany in the summer,
in gastronomy in Austria in the winter, but spends most of his
weekends with his family in Poland throughout.
An American academic well-known in systems theory managed to get himself
a joint appointment to two universities, so that each year he spent six
months in Europe and six months in the USA. I don't know which seasons
he aligned this with.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-20 08:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Quinn C
Post by Snidely
CDB suggested that ...
Post by CDB
A common term in Canada for visiting farm help from Mexico or
the Caribbean is "migrant workers".
That was my experience in Oregon, with fewer Caribes.
In a German radio program, I just heard the question raised how to
classify someone who works in agriculture in Germany in the summer,
in gastronomy in Austria in the winter, but spends most of his
weekends with his family in Poland throughout.
An American academic well-known in systems theory managed to get himself
a joint appointment to two universities, so that each year he spent six
months in Europe and six months in the USA. I don't know which seasons
he aligned this with.
It used to be very common (1890s or so, I think) for southern Italians
to commute to Argentina so as to get two periods in the year when they
had some income. Only about 80% returned to Italy each year, and over
20 years that produced the heavily Italian character Argentina has
today.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
Quinn C
2021-03-16 13:18:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.
That seems to be a difference between AmE and AusE, though. I've noticed
that Americans use "immigrate" in many places where an Australian would
say "migrate".
WIWAL the people who came to Australia from other countries were always
called migrants, never immigrants. Perhaps that was because we had a
negligible level of emigration, so never needed to make the distinction.
Context is not all, but a lot. I believe many Germans like to talk about
migrants (Migranten) because they don't want them to stay.

"Germany is not an immigration country" was repeated, as we say, like a
prayer wheel in the 1980s/90s, and yet, in the last 50 years, 50 million
people have moved into Germany (IIRC). Different from the "classic"
immigration countries like Canada or Australia, a much larger number of
people leave (often, ... again). Net immigration is maybe a quarter of
that number.

Nerdy me has the complaint that there are plenty of migrants from rural
areas to the city - well, that's mostly over, but still, from poorer
regions of the country to the ones with more jobs.
--
... while there are people who are consecrated, chronic
assholes--like Donald Trump for example, or General Patton--
it's a condition that all of us are liable to.
-- Geoffrey Nunberg, 2012 interview
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-16 15:33:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by grammarian1976
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
I would use "migrated" in all four cases, although I can see how a
Mexican would prefer 2a and 2b, while a Usonian would use 1a and 1b.
That seems to be a difference between AmE and AusE, though. I've noticed
that Americans use "immigrate" in many places where an Australian would
say "migrate".
"Migrate" is simply 'move from one place to another', perhaps even on a
regular cycle, like birds or nomads. The em- and im- ones are one-way
events and involve major changes in life circumstances.
Post by Peter Moylan
WIWAL the people who came to Australia from other countries were always
called migrants, never immigrants. Perhaps that was because we had a
negligible level of emigration, so never needed to make the distinction.
AIUI some indigenous Australians migrate great distances to sacred places
for ritual events.
Bebercito
2021-03-16 06:08:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thank you.
(1b) and (2a), as one first and foremost immigrates to a country
and emigrates from a country, and secondarily from/to another
country, respectively.
Eric Walker
2021-03-16 07:01:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination with
"from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all four
sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Usage Note from the AHD 5th:

Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure:
"After the Nazis came to power in Germany, many scientists emigrated."

Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination:
"The promise of prosperity here in the United States encouraged many
people to immigrate."

Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.

Also:

Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of great
magnitude, as in "In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes
began migrating to England."
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Mark Brader
2021-03-16 09:25:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
--
Mark Brader "The matryoshka limit: It is impossible
Toronto to nest more than six HO layouts."
***@vex.net --Randall Munroe

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Eric Walker
2021-03-16 10:23:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
Try striking off the trailing prepositional phrases:

(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.

(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.

Do you think all four of those are sound?

The trailing phrases add information to the leading clause, but it is the
preposition in that leading clause--the core of the sentence--that
determines the proper verb for the sentence.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Quinn C
2021-03-16 13:10:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.
(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.
Do you think all four of those are sound?
Absolutely. I expect to see them where the left out origin or
destination is understood from context.
--
... speaking the right words might not make you a good person,
but the wrong ones have real and destructive consequences.
-- Philip Sayers, The Walrus, Jan. 2020
Mark Brader
2021-03-16 18:59:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.
(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.
Do you think all four of those are sound?
Of course. 1c answers the questions "Where did these immigrants
come from?"; 1d answers the question "Where did those emigrants
go to?" And you knew that.
--
Mark Brader | "And it's a moment in which there has never been
Toronto | a bigger ocean of [alphabet] soup from which
***@vex.net | to draw letters." --Philip Bump

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Brader
2021-03-16 19:00:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Of course. 1c answers the questions "Where did these immigrants
come from?"; 1d answers the question "Where did those emigrants
go to?" And you knew that.
And I meant 2d, not 1d. Sorry.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "How can you develop a reputation as a straight shooter
***@vex.net | if lying is not an option?" --Alex Kozinski
Eric Walker
2021-03-16 22:42:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (2b) They
emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.
(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.
Do you think all four of those are sound?
Of course. 1c answers the questions "Where did these immigrants come
from?"; [2d] answers the question "Where did those emigrants go to?"
And you knew that.
Did we not all agree that one immigrates to and emigrates from? If so,
how can you say that 1c or 2d are sound?
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-16 23:58:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Eric Walker
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990. (2b) They
emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.
(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.
Do you think all four of those are sound?
Of course. 1c answers the questions "Where did these immigrants come
from?"; [2d] answers the question "Where did those emigrants go to?"
And you knew that.
Did we not all agree that one immigrates to and emigrates from? If so,
how can you say that 1c or 2d are sound?
I thought we agreed that "immigrate" is from the point of view of the new
country and "emigrate" is from the point of view of the origin. We as
Americans can say that the So-and-sos immigrated in 1990, meaning
that they came to America in 1990. Thus we can say they immigrated
from Mexico, meaning they came to America from Mexico.

It's just like "come" and "go". You can come to a place if the place is here.
"Come to my arms, my beamish boy!"
--
Jerry Friedman
Eric Walker
2021-03-17 00:56:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...]
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Eric Walker
(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.
(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.
Do you think all four of those are sound?
Of course. 1c answers the questions "Where did these immigrants come
from?"; [2d] answers the question "Where did those emigrants go to?"
And you knew that.
Did we not all agree that one immigrates to and emigrates from? If so,
how can you say that 1c or 2d are sound?
I thought we agreed that "immigrate" is from the point of view of the
new country and "emigrate" is from the point of view of the origin. We
as Americans can say that the So-and-sos immigrated in 1990, meaning
that they came to America in 1990. Thus we can say they immigrated from
Mexico, meaning they came to America from Mexico.
It's just like "come" and "go". You can come to a place if the place is here.
"Come to my arms, my beamish boy!"
Is that not parallel to 1c, which we could as well write "They came here
from Mexico"? But could we write "They came here to here," which is what
1d is in effect saying? (And the c/d pair is the same sort of thing.)
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-17 01:43:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Eric Walker
(1c) They immigrated from Mexico.
(1d) They immigrated to the U.S.
(2c) They emigrated from Mexico.
(2d) They emigrated to the U.S.
Do you think all four of those are sound?
Of course. 1c answers the questions "Where did these immigrants come
from?"; [2d] answers the question "Where did those emigrants go to?"
And you knew that.
Did we not all agree that one immigrates to and emigrates from? If so,
how can you say that 1c or 2d are sound?
I thought we agreed that "immigrate" is from the point of view of the
new country and "emigrate" is from the point of view of the origin. We
as Americans can say that the So-and-sos immigrated in 1990, meaning
that they came to America in 1990. Thus we can say they immigrated from
Mexico, meaning they came to America from Mexico.
It's just like "come" and "go". You can come to a place if the place is
here.
"Come to my arms, my beamish boy!"
Is that not parallel to 1c, which we could as well write "They came here
from Mexico"?
I meant it as a parallel to 2d. It's got "to", not "from".
Post by Eric Walker
But could we write "They came here to here," which is what
1d is in effect saying?
Yes, that's my objection to 1d, but above you asked about 1c and 2d. Anyway,
as I just said to Lewis, it's not redundant if the readers don't know where "here"
is.
Post by Eric Walker
(And the c/d pair is the same sort of thing.)
...
--
Jerry Friedman
Lewis
2021-03-16 12:08:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
No, they are not correct. "I immigrated from Mexico" is nonsense.
--
"Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking... NERFHERDER!"
"Who's Scruffy looking?"
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-16 15:41:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
No, they are not correct. "I immigrated from Mexico" is nonsense.
Really? Then where did you immigrate from?
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-16 15:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
No, they are not correct. "I immigrated from Mexico" is nonsense.
I don't follow that at all.

I could see a case that "I immigrated to the United States" is redundant.
--
Jerry Friedman
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-16 15:54:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
I could see a case that "I immigrated to the United States" is redundant.
English can be more subjective than one might expect.
Lewis
2021-03-17 01:15:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
No, they are not correct. "I immigrated from Mexico" is nonsense.
I don't follow that at all.
You immigrate TO a country, you emigrate FROM a country. Emigration is
the act of leaving, immigration is the act of arriving; they are
opposites.
Post by Jerry Friedman
I could see a case that "I immigrated to the United States" is redundant.
You could immigrate to any country, not just the USA.
--
Insanity laughs, under pressure we're cracking
Can't we give ourselves on more chance?
Why can't we give love that one more chance?
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-17 01:39:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
No, they are not correct. "I immigrated from Mexico" is nonsense.
I don't follow that at all.
You immigrate TO a country, you emigrate FROM a country. Emigration is
the act of leaving, immigration is the act of arriving; they are
opposites.
Sure. But when you arrive, you come from some place, and there's no reason
not to say where in the same sentence.
Post by Lewis
Post by Jerry Friedman
I could see a case that "I immigrated to the United States" is redundant.
You could immigrate to any country, not just the USA.
But when you say "I immigrated," you're in that country that you immigrated
to (or you're outside it but just temporarily, still thinking of yourself as part of
it).

I guess it wouldn't be redundant if you're on an Internet forum or something
and the people reading your post don't know what country you're in.
--
Jerry Friedman
Sam Plusnet
2021-03-17 01:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
You immigrate TO a country, you emigrate FROM a country. Emigration is
the act of leaving, immigration is the act of arriving; they are
opposites.
They are usually the two sides of the same coin - unless you are given
to wandering in the wilderness for 40 years or so.
--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2021-03-17 13:18:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 12:08:48 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
Post by Lewis
Post by Mark Brader
Post by grammarian1976
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Emigrate describes the move relative to the point of departure...
Immigrate describes the move relative to the destination...
Of course.
Thus, (1a) and (2b) are not correct.
Nonsense. All four are correct, as the prepositional phrases are
independent; it's a matter of style and emphasis.
No, they are not correct. "I immigrated from Mexico" is nonsense.
Not to me.

Context matters.

If it is known that the speaker had immigrated to the US then "I
immigrated from Mexico" is "I immigrated to here from Mexico" with "to
here" omitted.

One could say "I immigrated to the US from Mexico".
It would be superfluous to say
"I emigrated from Mexico and immigrated to the US".

Better:
"I immigrated to the US from Mexico".

If it is known that the speaker now lives in the US:
"I immigrated here from Mexico".

The "here" could be seen a redundant if it is known that the speaker
lives in the US:
"I immigrated from Mexico"
because, in context, "immigrated" means "came to live here"
and I see no problem with:
"I came to live here from Mexico"
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 21:17:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One could say "I immigrated to the US from Mexico". It would be
superfluous to say "I emigrated from Mexico and immigrated to the
US".
That's precisely what genealogical software does. It makes sense if
you're giving dates, for an era where the voyage took a couple of months.

It also makes sense if the conversation is international, as it is on
Usenet. The choice of words is normally governed by the speaker's
viewpoint, and we don't always know where the speaker is located.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Lewis
2021-03-16 10:04:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of great
magnitude, as in "In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes
began migrating to England."
Yes, when used about FLOCKS of people, bit when used about individuals,
however. There it is rather different.

Historic migration is rather different than referring to you neighbors
who've recently emigrated from Canada as migrants.
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain... but how would we ever determine Sandra
Bullock's shoe size?"
Eric Walker
2021-03-16 10:13:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in "In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England."
Yes, when used about FLOCKS of people, bit when used about individuals,
however. There it is rather different.
Historic migration is rather different than referring to you neighbors
who've recently emigrated from Canada as migrants.
I believe that the point the AHD Usage Note makes is that "migrate" just
does not correctly apply to individuals or small groups like a nuclear
family (granted, they said "usually", but I reckon that means that any
other use would be "unusual".)

I would refer to neighbors who've recently moved from Canada to the U.S.
as immigrants.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Lewis
2021-03-16 12:04:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in "In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England."
Yes, when used about FLOCKS of people, bit when used about individuals,
however. There it is rather different.
Historic migration is rather different than referring to you neighbors
who've recently emigrated from Canada as migrants.
I believe that the point the AHD Usage Note makes is that "migrate" just
does not correctly apply to individuals or small groups like a nuclear
family (granted, they said "usually", but I reckon that means that any
other use would be "unusual".)
Yeah, I agree with both your rake and with that distinction.
Post by Eric Walker
I would refer to neighbors who've recently moved from Canada to the U.S.
as immigrants.
Exactly.

But I also know people who are (or were) migrant workers. A friend from
childhood (well, a friend of my brothers) used to work as a migrant
worker in California, but he was never an immigrant nor a emigrant.
--
"Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking... NERFHERDER!"
"Who's Scruffy looking?"
Quinn C
2021-03-16 13:23:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
I would refer to neighbors who've recently moved from Canada to the U.S.
as immigrants.
Exactly.
Not so quick! Immigration to me implies at least the intention to
acquire permanent residence, i.e. to apply for a Green Card. Canadians
can easily work in the US for a few years without doing that, and in
that case, they're just expats.
--
Motives? Who cares for motives? Humans, perhaps.
-- Klingon Ambassador Kell
Jerry Friedman
2021-03-16 15:41:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tuesday, March 16, 2021 at 6:04:44 AM UTC-6, Lewis wrote:
...
Post by Lewis
But I also know people who are (or were) migrant workers. A friend from
childhood (well, a friend of my brothers) used to work as a migrant
worker in California, but he was never an immigrant nor a emigrant.
My brother was a migrant worker one summer, picking baby's-breath
as well as fruit. As he tells it, he had a good deal of trouble communicating
with his co-workers but got along well with them anyway.
--
Jerry Friedman
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-16 07:21:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thank you.
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the
"im-" and the "e-" are made redundant.

"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as has
already been posted.
Eric Walker
2021-03-16 07:57:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 00:21:36 -0700, ***@my-deja.com wrote:

[...]
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-" and
the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as has
already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.

Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of great
magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes
began migrating to England.

That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources generally
agree.

Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Peter Moylan
2021-03-16 09:11:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-"
and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as
has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.

In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to, to
distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or a family.

Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted because
it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual migration of
birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year migration to
Australia dropped by over 80%".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Eric Walker
2021-03-16 10:17:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Mar 2021 20:11:30 +1100, Peter Moylan wrote:

[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Post by Peter Moylan
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to, to
distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted because
it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual migration of
birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year migration to
Australia dropped by over 80%".
My feeling is that "migration" has a slightly different sense when
applied to flocks or herds or whatever of animals, and more or less
implies "mass" in that context.
--
Cordially,
Eric Walker
Lewis
2021-03-16 12:12:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we don't
have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a political usage of
'migrant' to other people seen as not real Australians.
Post by Eric Walker
My feeling is that "migration" has a slightly different sense when
applied to flocks or herds or whatever of animals, and more or less
implies "mass" in that context.
"The duck that was hanging out in our pond has migrated south" would be
fine, but animals tend to migrate as groups.
--
"Why, you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking... NERFHERDER!"
"Who's Scruffy looking?"
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-16 12:42:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?
The Macquarie.
Post by Lewis
) we don't
have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a political usage of
'migrant' to other people seen as not real Australians.
Post by Eric Walker
My feeling is that "migration" has a slightly different sense when
applied to flocks or herds or whatever of animals, and more or less
implies "mass" in that context.
"The duck that was hanging out in our pond has migrated south" would be
fine, but animals tend to migrate as groups.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
CDB
2021-03-16 13:18:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we don't
have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a political usage of
'migrant' to other people seen as not real Australians.
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
My feeling is that "migration" has a slightly different sense when
applied to flocks or herds or whatever of animals, and more or less
implies "mass" in that context.
"The duck that was hanging out in our pond has migrated south" would be
fine, but animals tend to migrate as groups.
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 04:29:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian
English, so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD
doesn't speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in
this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we
don't have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a political
usage of 'migrant' to other people seen as not real Australians.
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got around to
replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can search the on-line version.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Tony Cooper
2021-03-17 04:35:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:29:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian
English, so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD
doesn't speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in
this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we
don't have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a political
usage of 'migrant' to other people seen as not real Australians.
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got around to
replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can search the on-line version.
I am envisioning the property settlement agreement in which the
soon-to-be-ex demands the house, the dog, and the Macquarie.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 04:56:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:29:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record
Australian English, so it's probably redundant to say that
the ADHD doesn't speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the
need to say it in this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we
don't have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a
political usage of 'migrant' to other people seen as not real
Australians.
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got around
to replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can search the
on-line version.
I am envisioning the property settlement agreement in which the
soon-to-be-ex demands the house, the dog, and the Macquarie.
It was more complicated than that. We had a collection of large
dictionaries in several languages. I lost them all. Oh, wait, almost
all. I still have the Russian one. And I did get to keep the cat.

In a different divorce, the big argument was over the Bob Dylan records.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-17 10:42:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 04:56:54 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:29:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
[]
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter Moylan
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got around
to replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can search the
on-line version.
I am envisioning the property settlement agreement in which the
soon-to-be-ex demands the house, the dog, and the Macquarie.
It was more complicated than that. We had a collection of large
dictionaries in several languages. I lost them all. Oh, wait, almost
all. I still have the Russian one. And I did get to keep the cat.
In a different divorce, the big argument was over the Bob Dylan records.
I could see why that would be a problem. <OK songwriter, rubbish singer>
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tony Cooper
2021-03-17 12:54:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:56:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:29:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record
Australian English, so it's probably redundant to say that
the ADHD doesn't speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the
need to say it in this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we
don't have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a
political usage of 'migrant' to other people seen as not real
Australians.
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got around
to replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can search the
on-line version.
I am envisioning the property settlement agreement in which the
soon-to-be-ex demands the house, the dog, and the Macquarie.
It was more complicated than that. We had a collection of large
dictionaries in several languages. I lost them all. Oh, wait, almost
all. I still have the Russian one. And I did get to keep the cat.
In a different divorce, the big argument was over the Bob Dylan records.
I hesitate to pry into your personal experience in this area, but your
post does make me wonder about the occupation (or interests) of the
wife who kept the dictionaries.

From what I've heard, about-to-be-exes of the female type usually go
for the most liquid assets unless spite is on the table. Were the
dictionaries of use to her in her occupation or interest area, or was
it "You want it, so I'm going to take it"?
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 21:22:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:56:54 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:29:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got
around to replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can
search the on-line version.
I am envisioning the property settlement agreement in which the
soon-to-be-ex demands the house, the dog, and the Macquarie.
It was more complicated than that. We had a collection of large
dictionaries in several languages. I lost them all. Oh, wait,
almost all. I still have the Russian one. And I did get to keep the
cat.
In a different divorce, the big argument was over the Bob Dylan records.
I hesitate to pry into your personal experience in this area, but
your post does make me wonder about the occupation (or interests) of
the wife who kept the dictionaries.
From what I've heard, about-to-be-exes of the female type usually go
for the most liquid assets unless spite is on the table. Were the
dictionaries of use to her in her occupation or interest area, or
was it "You want it, so I'm going to take it"?
A bit of both, I'd say. She did do some interpreting and translation
work at times, and that would justify keeping the French and Dutch and
Italian dictionaries.

And, now that I think of it, a lot of what I lost was because I had to
leave the house in a hurry.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Graham
2021-03-17 15:00:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 17 Mar 2021 15:29:32 +1100, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by CDB
Post by Lewis
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by Peter Moylan
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian
English, so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD
doesn't speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in
this case.
Fair enough: it is the _American_ Heritage Dictionary.
Oxford Dictionary of English agrees, so unless we have an AusE
dictionary (is there such a thing? I assume there must be?) we
don't have a lot to go on other than what I suspect is a political
usage of 'migrant' to other people seen as not real Australians.
Yeah, anybody got a Macquarie?
I used to have one; but I lost it to divorce, and never got around to
replacing it. Unfortunately only subscribers can search the on-line version.
I am envisioning the property settlement agreement in which the
soon-to-be-ex demands the house, the dog, and the Macquarie.
Hmmm. My ex got the table saw!
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-16 15:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-"
and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as
has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to, to
distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted because
it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual migration of
birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year migration to
Australia dropped by over 80%".
As usual, EW is entirely out of touch with the American language.
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-23 09:59:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-"
and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as
has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to, to
distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted because
it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual migration of
birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year migration to
Australia dropped by over 80%".
As usual, EW is entirely out of touch with the American language.
"EW is out of touch"?!?

You /agree/ with Peter that "immigrate" and "emigrate" are words whose
time has passed and that the modern language either uses or should use
"migrate" to replace both?

I'm sure this is absolutely no surprise, but I disagree vehemently.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-23 14:01:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-"
and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as
has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to, to
distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted because
it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual migration of
birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year migration to
Australia dropped by over 80%".
As usual, EW is entirely out of touch with the American language.
"EW is out of touch"?!?
You /agree/ with Peter that "immigrate" and "emigrate" are words whose
time has passed and that the modern language either uses or should use
"migrate" to replace both?
I'm sure this is absolutely no surprise, but I disagree vehemently.
Are you able to count chevrons?

EW wrote "Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement
when referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude." Does he think that migrant workers move to a farm
and stay there?

PM is perfectly correct to distinguish "mass migration" and "migration."
If the groups of people aren't crossing national borders, im- and e(m)-
don't come into it. Retirees don't "emigrate" from NY to FL, except
jocularly.
Chrysi Cat
2021-03-24 00:29:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-"
and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as
has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and
Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian English,
so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't speak for me.
Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to, to
distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted because
it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual migration of
birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year migration to
Australia dropped by over 80%".
As usual, EW is entirely out of touch with the American language.
"EW is out of touch"?!?
You /agree/ with Peter that "immigrate" and "emigrate" are words whose
time has passed and that the modern language either uses or should use
"migrate" to replace both?
I'm sure this is absolutely no surprise, but I disagree vehemently.
Are you able to count chevrons?
I can count chevrons just fine. In addition, I run Thunderbird, which
converts /non-printing/ chevrons into indentations flanked by a
colour-coded line.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
EW wrote "Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement
when referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude." Does he think that migrant workers move to a farm
and stay there?
EW wasn't writing that, he was QUOTING it--from the American Heritage
Dictionary, 5th Edition.

I'm not entirely sure what the issue here is, but I can see a possibilty
that in AHD's editors' opinion, migrant workers don't "migrate" as per
their definition. They'd be wrong, but that's because I would have said
something along the lines of "when used to indicate a permanent change
of settlement, migrate usually refers to a *group* of people and implies
historical demographic shifts of great magnitude", possibly with an
extra usage note elsewhere that when used to instead deal with
individuals or small family units, migrate implies IMpermanence. It's
certainly the way I UNDERSTOOD the AHD folks to have intended their
note, even though the plain language seems to imply that indeed migrant
workers would move to a farm and stay there.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
PM is perfectly correct to distinguish "mass migration" and "migration."
If the groups of people aren't crossing national borders, im- and e(m)-
don't come into it. Retirees don't "emigrate" from NY to FL, except
jocularly.
I don't consider retirees to "migrate" from NY to Florida either, unless
they're full-on snowbirds who make the return trip every spring. but
you're right, they neither emigrate nor immigrate--YET--either.

Of course, depending on whether the US can weather another secession
crisis or not, your example there MAY cease to be an accurate statement
anyway.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Tony Cooper
2021-03-24 03:32:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 23 Mar 2021 18:29:14 -0600, Chrysi Cat <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
As usual, EW is entirely out of touch with the American language.
"EW is out of touch"?!?
You /agree/ with Peter that "immigrate" and "emigrate" are words whose
time has passed and that the modern language either uses or should use
"migrate" to replace both?
I'm sure this is absolutely no surprise, but I disagree vehemently.
Are you able to count chevrons?
I can count chevrons just fine. In addition, I run Thunderbird, which
converts /non-printing/ chevrons into indentations flanked by a
colour-coded line.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
EW wrote "Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement
when referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude." Does he think that migrant workers move to a farm
and stay there?
EW wasn't writing that, he was QUOTING it--from the American Heritage
Dictionary, 5th Edition.
I'm not entirely sure what the issue here is,
If you follow the group long enough, you will notice that PTD responds
to any post EW makes with some criticism. Usually it's along the
lines of EW being out-of-touch with current language usage. EW does
have a very prescriptive of how our language should be used, but he is
far from out-of-touch. It's very rare here for anyone other than PTD
to find anything objectionable or argument-worthy in EW's output.

When there is disagreement, unless it's from PTD, EW will respond in a
civilized manner and disscuss his reasoning. EW never responds to, or
acknowledges, PTD. That is, by far, the most wounding tactic one can
employ with PTD.

EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here. PTD has never
been able to garner respect despite the fact that - in his own
specialty - PTD is an acknowledged expert. His failure is that he
doesn't have the sense to stay within that field.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Kerr-Mudd,John
2021-03-24 11:46:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Peter T. Daniels
As usual, EW is entirely out of touch with the American language.
"EW is out of touch"?!?
You /agree/ with Peter that "immigrate" and "emigrate" are words whose
time has passed and that the modern language either uses or should use
"migrate" to replace both?
I'm sure this is absolutely no surprise, but I disagree vehemently.
Are you able to count chevrons?
I can count chevrons just fine. In addition, I run Thunderbird, which
converts /non-printing/ chevrons into indentations flanked by a
colour-coded line.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
EW wrote "Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement
when referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude." Does he think that migrant workers move to a farm
and stay there?
EW wasn't writing that, he was QUOTING it--from the American Heritage
Dictionary, 5th Edition.
I'm not entirely sure what the issue here is,
If you follow the group long enough, you will notice that PTD responds
to any post EW makes with some criticism. Usually it's along the
lines of EW being out-of-touch with current language usage. EW does
have a very prescriptive of how our language should be used, but he is
far from out-of-touch. It's very rare here for anyone other than PTD
to find anything objectionable or argument-worthy in EW's output.
When there is disagreement, unless it's from PTD, EW will respond in a
civilized manner and disscuss his reasoning. EW never responds to, or
acknowledges, PTD. That is, by far, the most wounding tactic one can
employ with PTD.
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here. PTD has never
been able to garner respect despite the fact that - in his own
specialty - PTD is an acknowledged expert. His failure is that he
doesn't have the sense to stay within that field.
He's wrong in so many fields it makes me wonder if he's any good in his
own.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-24 14:14:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here. PTD has never
been able to garner respect despite the fact that - in his own
specialty - PTD is an acknowledged expert. His failure is that he
doesn't have the sense to stay within that field.
He's wrong in so many fields it makes me wonder if he's any good in his
own.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Is Mudd ever going to attempt to explain how he could possibly know that,
given that he sees nothing that PTD writes except what is quoted as selectively
and deceptively as possible by his stoogemaster?
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-24 14:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
When there is disagreement, unless it's from PTD, EW will respond in a
civilized manner and disscuss his reasoning.
He has no "reasoning." He has nothing but quotations from a century-old
"college" (actually high school) review grammar by someone who had
published a backward-looking reference grammar of English in two
turgid volumes.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW never responds to, or
acknowledges, PTD. That is, by far, the most wounding tactic one can
employ with PTD.
It's called "killfiling." Maybe you should try it.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here.
What a bizarre assertion. He's usually ignored, sometimes disagreed with.

He apparently is knowledgeable about baseball, and he built a house
basically ripped off from Frank Lloyd Wright's concepts about building
into the environment.
Tony Cooper
2021-03-24 14:47:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
When there is disagreement, unless it's from PTD, EW will respond in a
civilized manner and disscuss his reasoning.
He has no "reasoning." He has nothing but quotations from a century-old
"college" (actually high school) review grammar by someone who had
published a backward-looking reference grammar of English in two
turgid volumes.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW never responds to, or
acknowledges, PTD. That is, by far, the most wounding tactic one can
employ with PTD.
It's called "killfiling." Maybe you should try it.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here.
What a bizarre assertion. He's usually ignored, sometimes disagreed with
When EW posts something, and there is no reply, that does not mean he
is being ignored. That can mean that the readers of that post are in
agreement with what he wrote, that what he wrote covered the subject
sufficiently, and there is no need to respond.

And, yes, sometimes people disagree. Unless it's you that is
disagreeing, he will either respond in a civilized,
non-confrontational manner, or "agree to disagree".

The reason there are so many responses to your posts is that your
posts so often contain statements that people *do* disagree with
because of factual or prejudicial errors. And are right to do so.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
He apparently is knowledgeable about baseball, and he built a house
basically ripped off from Frank Lloyd Wright's concepts about building
into the environment.
An interesting, but typically PTD, view. "Ripped off" has the
connotation of indicating the theft of a concept or plan. I don't
know the origins of EW's plans for "Owlcraft", but to say that he
"utilized Frank Lloyd Wright's concepts about building into the
environment" could be the perfectly acceptable - even admirable -
description.
--
Tony Cooper Orlando Florida
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2021-03-24 17:54:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 07:12:07 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
When there is disagreement, unless it's from PTD, EW will respond in a
civilized manner and disscuss his reasoning.
He has no "reasoning." He has nothing but quotations from a century-old
"college" (actually high school) review grammar by someone who had
published a backward-looking reference grammar of English in two
turgid volumes.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW never responds to, or
acknowledges, PTD. That is, by far, the most wounding tactic one can
employ with PTD.
It's called "killfiling." Maybe you should try it.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here.
What a bizarre assertion. He's usually ignored, sometimes disagreed with
When EW posts something, and there is no reply, that does not mean he
is being ignored. That can mean that the readers of that post are in
agreement with what he wrote, that what he wrote covered the subject
sufficiently, and there is no need to respond.
Yes, that's usually the reason I don't reply to Eric, except perhaps
with a "+1".
Post by Tony Cooper
And, yes, sometimes people disagree. Unless it's you that is
disagreeing, he will either respond in a civilized,
non-confrontational manner, or "agree to disagree".
The reason there are so many responses to your posts is that your
posts so often contain statements that people *do* disagree with
because of factual or prejudicial errors. And are right to do so.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
He apparently is knowledgeable about baseball, and he built a house
basically ripped off from Frank Lloyd Wright's concepts about building
into the environment.
An interesting, but typically PTD, view. "Ripped off" has the
connotation of indicating the theft of a concept or plan. I don't
know the origins of EW's plans for "Owlcraft", but to say that he
"utilized Frank Lloyd Wright's concepts about building into the
environment" could be the perfectly acceptable - even admirable -
description.
--
Athel -- British, living in France for 34 years
CDB
2021-03-24 16:20:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
When there is disagreement, unless it's from PTD, EW will respond
in a civilized manner and disscuss his reasoning.
He has no "reasoning." He has nothing but quotations from a
century-old "college" (actually high school) review grammar by
someone who had published a backward-looking reference grammar of
English in two turgid volumes.
Post by Tony Cooper
EW never responds to, or acknowledges, PTD. That is, by far, the
most wounding tactic one can employ with PTD.
It's called "killfiling." Maybe you should try it.
Maybe you should. You're the one who gets all hissy.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here.
What a bizarre assertion. He's usually ignored, sometimes disagreed with.
I disagree with Eric sometimes, but I still respect him.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
He apparently is knowledgeable about baseball, and he built a house
basically ripped off from Frank Lloyd Wright's concepts about
building into the environment.
Quinn C
2021-03-24 17:19:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
EW is quite respected by the rest of the group here.
What a bizarre assertion. He's usually ignored, sometimes disagreed with.
As the German saying goes, everyone is good for something, and be it as
a bad example. Eric is a textbook example of how not to think about
language.
--
... English-speaking people have managed to get along a good many
centuries with the present supply of pronouns; ... It is so old and
venerable an argument ... it's equivalent was used when gas, railways
and steamboats were proposed. -- Findlay (OH) Jeffersonian (1875)
Peter Moylan
2021-03-17 04:31:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by s***@my-deja.com
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the
"im-" and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences,
as has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons,
and Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian
English, so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't
speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to,
to distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual or
a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted
because it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual
migration of birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year
migration to Australia dropped by over 80%".
I forgot to add that that last example is from an Australian government
source, so I'm not the only one to use "migration" that way.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter Moylan
2021-03-21 10:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
[...]
Post by s***@my-deja.com
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the
"im-" and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four
sentences, as has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons,
and Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian
English, so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't
speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to,
to distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual
or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted
because it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual
migration of birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year
migration to Australia dropped by over 80%".
I forgot to add that that last example is from an Australian
government source, so I'm not the only one to use "migration" that
way.
Elsewhere in the thread I said that I didn't have an Australian
dictionary, but I've just remembered that I have "The Little Macquarie
Dictionary". Its coverage is pretty good for a pocket dictionary,
although it does require one to have a magnifying glass.

Anyway, here are the relevant entries.

migrant, n. 1. One who migrates. 2. an immigrant. -adj. 3. of or
pertaining to migration or migrants.

migrate, v., -grated -grating. 1. to pass periodically from one region
to another, as certain birds, fishes, and animals. 2. Colloq. to
immigrate or emigrate. - migration, n. - migratory, adj.

So it appears that I use a colloquial meaning. I didn't realise that.

For completeness I looked up emigrate and immigrate, but there are no
surprises there.

(Cross-thread comment: on the same page mike is given as a colloquial
term for microphone, but there is no entry for mic.)
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-21 14:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Eric Walker
Post by s***@my-deja.com
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the
"im-" and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four
sentences, as has already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of
great magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons,
and Jutes began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources
generally agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
I guess American dictionaries don't normally record Australian
English, so it's probably redundant to say that the ADHD doesn't
speak for me. Nevertheless I feel the need to say it in this case.
In my language we use "mass migration" for the sense you refer to,
to distinguish it from the more common migration of an individual
or a family.
Of course there are situations where the "mass" can be omitted
because it's obviously implied. When talking about the annual
migration of birds, for example, or in statements like "Last year
migration to Australia dropped by over 80%".
I forgot to add that that last example is from an Australian
government source, so I'm not the only one to use "migration" that
way.
Elsewhere in the thread I said that I didn't have an Australian
dictionary, but I've just remembered that I have "The Little Macquarie
Dictionary". Its coverage is pretty good for a pocket dictionary,
although it does require one to have a magnifying glass.
Anyway, here are the relevant entries.
migrant, n. 1. One who migrates. 2. an immigrant. -adj. 3. of or
pertaining to migration or migrants.
migrate, v., -grated -grating. 1. to pass periodically from one region
to another, as certain birds, fishes, and animals. 2. Colloq. to
immigrate or emigrate. - migration, n. - migratory, adj.
So it appears that I use a colloquial meaning. I didn't realise that.
It may be an older dictionary.
Post by Peter Moylan
For completeness I looked up emigrate and immigrate, but there are no
surprises there.
(Cross-thread comment: on the same page mike is given as a colloquial
term for microphone, but there is no entry for mic.)
Have you seen the expression in local print recently?
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-21 16:27:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Elsewhere in the thread I said that I didn't have an Australian
dictionary, but I've just remembered that I have "The Little Macquarie
Dictionary". Its coverage is pretty good for a pocket dictionary,
although it does require one to have a magnifying glass.
Anyway, here are the relevant entries.
migrant, n. 1. One who migrates. 2. an immigrant. -adj. 3. of or
pertaining to migration or migrants.
migrate, v., -grated -grating. 1. to pass periodically from one region
to another, as certain birds, fishes, and animals. 2. Colloq. to
immigrate or emigrate. - migration, n. - migratory, adj.
So it appears that I use a colloquial meaning. I didn't realise that.
For completeness I looked up emigrate and immigrate, but there are no
surprises there.
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Bearing in mind the distances involved, would "moved here"
have the same strength as "immigrated"?
Lewis
2021-03-21 16:36:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I've just remembered that I have "The Little Macquarie Dictionary".
[ ... ]
(Cross-thread comment: on the same page mike is given as a colloquial
term for microphone, but there is no entry for mic.)
What year was the dictionary published?
--
I gotta straighten my face This mellow-thighed chick just put my
spine out of place
Peter Moylan
2021-03-22 01:01:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Lewis
I've just remembered that I have "The Little Macquarie Dictionary".
[ ... ]
(Cross-thread comment: on the same page mike is given as a colloquial
term for microphone, but there is no entry for mic.)
What year was the dictionary published?
I have the 1997 reprint, but the copyright date is 1983.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-16 10:42:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Eric Walker
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the "im-" and
the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as has
already been posted.
Sorry, but No, it is not.
Migrate usually indicates a permanent change of settlement when
referring to people and implies historical demographic shifts of great
magnitude, as in In the 5th century AD the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes
began migrating to England.
That's the AHD 5th (Usage Note at "migrate"), but other sources generally
agree.
Peoples migrate; people emigrate or immigrate.
Your dictionary is more definite than mine.

The Chambers Dictionary entry starts off:-
migrate:-
To pass from one place to another,
To change one's place of abode to another country, etc
To change habitat according to the season....

It is not until you get to the noun "migration" that large numbers are mentioned.

I suppose the other thing to be kept in mind is whether you are
looking at things subjectively or objectively.

If you are at one or other of the places then immigration (say to the USA)
or emigration (say from Italy, Ireland or Germany) makes more sense than migration.
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-16 15:34:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@my-deja.com
Post by grammarian1976
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
When you name the places at both ends of the journey then the
"im-" and the "e-" are made redundant.
"Migrated" is the correct verb in all the above four sentences, as has
already been posted.
Evidently a major difference between AmE and Br/AusE.
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-16 11:59:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thank you.
You can of course get round the problem by saying
that the family moved from Mexico to the US in 1990
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-16 15:29:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thank you.
All are fine, depending on the point of view of your narrative/narrator.

As I read through my 1961 *World Book Encyclopedia* (I was 9 for
almost all of 1961), I was greatly puzzled by the existence of two
long articles, "Emigration" and "Immigration," which seemed to treat
of the same topic but never said what the difference between them was.

Nowadays, the *World Book* carries my articles on the letters of the
alphabet and allied topics.
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-16 15:41:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by grammarian1976
Greetings,
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Thank you.
Having thought it over again, I note that in all four sentences the verb refers to only one end of the journey.
On balance I now prefer a two verb sentence
"They emigrated from Mexico and moved to the USA in 1990."
This runs nicely and is totally neutral in tone.
I prefer it to the alternative using "immigrated" because immigration can sometimes
have a negative connotation
Peter T. Daniels
2021-03-16 16:31:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by s***@my-deja.com
Post by grammarian1976
It seems to me that, despite the difference in meaning between
"emigrate" and "immigrate," they can each be used in combination
with "from"-PPs and "to"-PPs (source and target of a movement).
What I can't decide is whether the proper sequence of prepositional
phrases changes depending on which verb is used. Do you find all
four sentences below correct? If so, do you have any preferences?
(1a) They immigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(1b) They immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
(2a) They emigrated from Mexico to the U.S. in 1990.
(2b) They emigrated to the U.S. from Mexico in 1990.
Having thought it over again, I note that in all four sentences the verb refers to only one end of the journey.
On balance I now prefer a two verb sentence
"They emigrated from Mexico and moved to the USA in 1990."
This runs nicely and is totally neutral in tone.
You need to reveal the intermediate stop.

"They emigrated from Honduras and moved to the USA" might describe
the new situation under the Biden administration, because Mexico is
the intermediate stop.
Post by s***@my-deja.com
I prefer it to the alternative using "immigrated" because immigration can sometimes
have a negative connotation
The US is, proverbially, a "nation of immigrants."
s***@my-deja.com
2021-03-16 17:39:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@my-deja.com
Having thought it over again, I note that in all four sentences the verb refers to only one end of the journey.
On balance I now prefer a two verb sentence
"They emigrated from Mexico and moved to the USA in 1990."
This runs nicely and is totally neutral in tone.
You need to reveal the intermediate stop.
Given the context it is hard to find one.

"In 1990 they emigrated from Mexico and moved to the USA" might lessen
any suspicion that there was a gap.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
"They emigrated from Honduras and moved to the USA" might describe
the new situation under the Biden administration, because Mexico is
the intermediate stop.
If an intermediate stop had been relevant, then it would have been mentioned in the original question,
and my suggested sentence would have taken the fact into account
I
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@my-deja.com
I prefer it to the alternative using "immigrated" because immigration can sometimes
have a negative connotation
The US is, proverbially, a "nation of immigrants."
Then I prefer a two verb "emigrated" version because it runs better off the tongue!
Loading...