contemporary/contemporaneous/current

[navi]

1) He can't name any current soccer player.
2) He can't name any present-day soccer player.
3) He can't name any contemporary soccer player.
4) He can't name any contemporaneous soccer player.

Are of the above correct?
Do they mean the same?
Which would be used if the meaning was that he can't name any soccer
player who is not yet retired?

--
Gratefully,
Navi


Lost in the Twilight Zone of the English language
Obsessed with ambiguity
Interested in strange structures

[Hibou]

Post by navi
1) He can't name any current soccer player.
2) He can't name any present-day soccer player.
3) He can't name any contemporary soccer player.
4) He can't name any contemporaneous soccer player.
Are of the above correct?

I think 'contemporaneous' is happier applied to events rather than
people (M-W takes this view too). Otherwise they're all right.

Post by navi
Do they mean the same?

In (3) 'contemporary' could refer to the past if such were the context.

Post by navi
Which would be used if the meaning was that he can't name any soccer
player who is not yet retired?

(1) and (2) have that implication.

Gosh! I'd be toiling myself. Sporting news washes past me, leaving
little behind it. Mbappé. Got one - but probably only because he meddled
in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think. How does
being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on politics, to have
a louder voice than the next homme?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Hibou
Gosh! I'd be toiling myself. Sporting news washes past me, leaving
little behind it. Mbappé. Got one - but probably only because he
meddled in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think.
How does being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on
politics, to have a louder voice than the next homme?

How many career politicians -- people with no experience in any job
other than politics -- are competent to comment on any subject of
national importance? Very few, I'd say. But they comment anyway.

There used to be a TV quiz show in Australia where one person remained
the reigning champion for two years. In real life he was a school
teacher (history), which I suppose made him better educated than the
average quiz show contestant. Eventually he gave up teaching and entered
politics, and after not very long he became Minister for Science. Why?
Because his colleagues saw him as the only intellectual in the place. If
you're a Pick-A-Box champion, then obviously you know all about science.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Peter Moylan
politics, and after not very long he became Minister for Science. Why?
Because his colleagues saw him as the only intellectual in the place. If
you're a Pick-A-Box champion, then obviously you know all about science.

Among blind people the one-eyed is king.

[Hibou]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan
politics, and after not very long he became Minister for Science. Why?
Because his colleagues saw him as the only intellectual in the place. If
you're a Pick-A-Box champion, then obviously you know all about science.

Among blind people the one-eyed is king.

Well, well, well (that's three Wells).

[Snidely]

Post by Hibou

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan
politics, and after not very long he became Minister for Science. Why?
Because his colleagues saw him as the only intellectual in the place. If
you're a Pick-A-Box champion, then obviously you know all about science.

Among blind people the one-eyed is king.

Well, well, well (that's three Wells).

Gee whiz ... okay, that pun's not going to work. Lemme see what else I
got in the war chest.

/dps

[charles]

Post by Hibou

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan
politics, and after not very long he became Minister for Science. Why?
Because his colleagues saw him as the only intellectual in the place.
If you're a Pick-A-Box champion, then obviously you know all about
science.

Among blind people the one-eyed is king.

Well, well, well (that's three Wells).

and all filled with treacle - or so I was told.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Hibou
in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think. How does
being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on politics, to have
a louder voice than the next homme?

It makes him famous. That's the only qualification you need. I need not
mention a certain president candidate ...

[Silvano]

Post by Hibou

Post by navi
1) He can't name any current soccer player.
2) He can't name any present-day soccer player.
3) He can't name any contemporary soccer player.
4) He can't name any contemporaneous soccer player.
Are of the above correct?

I think 'contemporaneous' is happier applied to events rather than
people (M-W takes this view too). Otherwise they're all right.

Post by navi
Do they mean the same?

In (3) 'contemporary' could refer to the past if such were the context.

Post by navi
Which would be used if the meaning was that he can't name any soccer
player who is not yet retired?

(1) and (2) have that implication.
Gosh! I'd be toiling myself. Sporting news washes past me, leaving
little behind it. Mbappé. Got one - but probably only because he meddled
in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think. How does
being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on politics, to have
a louder voice than the next homme?

Being black in France qualifies to speak out against racist parties and
practices, even more than the mere fact of being human.
Also, everyone is qualified to comment on politics and make political
proposals. It's called democracy.

[Hibou]

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Gosh! I'd be toiling myself. Sporting news washes past me, leaving
little behind it. Mbappé. Got one - but probably only because he meddled
in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think. How does
being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on politics, to have
a louder voice than the next homme?

Being black in France qualifies to speak out against racist parties and
practices, even more than the mere fact of being human.
Also, everyone is qualified to comment on politics and make political
proposals. It's called democracy.

I think you're missing the point. Everyone is entitled to a voice, but
some voices are louder than others - and if there's no good reason for
it, that is not democratic.

And is being black a sufficient qualification in racism? What about
Naomi Campbell and "chocolate soldier"? The article below is
interesting. I knew about Shaw's 'chocolate cream soldier', but not
about the term's use in WW1. (We all know 'chocolate teapot', of
course.) Ngram to follow...

'Watch Your Tongue' -
<https://www.ourtownny.com/news/watch-your-tongue-CVNP1120020226302269998>

<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chocolate+soldier&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>

I don't know whether the writer used "chocolate soldier" unthinkingly or
with intent, but I do think that isms are often more in the mind of the
hearer than in that of the speaker.

[Silvano]

Post by Hibou

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Gosh! I'd be toiling myself. Sporting news washes past me, leaving
little behind it. Mbappé. Got one - but probably only because he meddled
in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think. How does
being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on politics, to have
a louder voice than the next homme?

Being black in France qualifies to speak out against racist parties and
practices, even more than the mere fact of being human.
Also, everyone is qualified to comment on politics and make political
proposals. It's called democracy.

I think you're missing the point. Everyone is entitled to a voice, but
some voices are louder than others - and if there's no good reason for
it, that is not democratic.

Mbappé's voice is louder only if a lot of people are willing to listen
to him more than to most other political commenters. Same for Marine Le
Pen and everyone else. The wisdom of those listeners is questionable.

Post by Hibou
I don't know whether the writer used "chocolate soldier" unthinkingly or
with intent, but I do think that isms are often more in the mind of the
hearer than in that of the speaker.

I don't think so. Anyway, there's a sure test. You point out to someone
that he just said something (racist, fascist, xenophobic or any
appropriate adjective of your choice).
1) He thinks about it and agrees with you or disagrees giving reasons
you can approve. That ism was more in the mind of the hearer, in this
case in yours.
2) He refuses to think about it and defends his words aggressively. That
ism is more in the mind of the speaker, in this case in his.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Hibou

Post by Silvano

Post by Hibou
Gosh! I'd be toiling myself. Sporting news washes past me, leaving
little behind it. Mbappé. Got one - but probably only because he meddled
in the French election - always a dodgy practice, I think. How does
being good at kicking a ball qualify one to comment on politics, to have
a louder voice than the next homme?

Being black in France qualifies to speak out against racist parties and
practices, even more than the mere fact of being human.
Also, everyone is qualified to comment on politics and make political
proposals. It's called democracy.

I think you're missing the point. Everyone is entitled to a voice, but
some voices are louder than others - and if there's no good reason for
it, that is not democratic.

Who decides what reason is good? For the decision to be
democratic, the people decide, and a lot of people are
interested in the opinions of celebrities, unfortunately.

Post by Hibou
And is being black a sufficient qualification in racism? What about
Naomi Campbell and "chocolate soldier"? The article below is
interesting.

The style and the many errors about /Arms and the Man/
(the only thing in the article I know about) don't incline
me to trust the author.

Post by Hibou
I knew about Shaw's 'chocolate cream soldier', but not
about the term's use in WW1. (We all know 'chocolate teapot', of
course.) Ngram to follow...
'Watch Your Tongue' -
<https://www.ourtownny.com/news/watch-your-tongue-CVNP1120020226302269998>
<https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=chocolate+soldier&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3>
I don't know whether the writer used "chocolate soldier" unthinkingly or
with intent, but I do think that isms are often more in the mind of the
hearer than in that of the speaker.

A lot of racism is unthinking, and I think that
these days there's far more racism, sexism, etc., in
people's minds than anyone ever hears. I don't know
about the specific story related to Naomi Campbell.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Hibou]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Hibou
I don't know whether the writer used "chocolate soldier" unthinkingly or
with intent, but I do think that isms are often more in the mind of the
hearer than in that of the speaker.

A lot of racism is unthinking, and I think that
these days there's far more racism, sexism, etc., in
people's minds than anyone ever hears.

I'm sure that's right. I aired my conjecture about racism some while ago
in aue (that it is innate in Man, a consequence of the selfish gene) and
what you say is consonant with it.

Yet there's also this sort of thing:

'Investigation into US professor sparks debate over Chinese word' -
<https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-54107329> :

"In Chinese the word 'na-ge' (那个) is a common filler phrase that people
use when they're hesitating or trying to find the right word. It
literally translates to the word 'that'. / But there have been many
documented incidents of the word being used innocuously and leading to
misunderstandings, and even violence. / In July 2016, a fight broke out
on the subway in the city of Southern Guangzhou, after a black man heard
a Chinese man, saying na-ge and mistook it for the N-word. / Footage
went viral online showing the black man slapping the Chinese commuter
and shouting 'you dare try that again' and 'never say that again'[.]"

(The article in Chinese at the end of the link is not so definite, but
perhaps the BBC had supplementary sources.)

Post by jerryfriedman
I don't know
about the specific story related to Naomi Campbell.

There must be a number of expressions that one would quite happily apply
to a white person - she gave me a black look, he went bananas, he went
ape, chocolate soldier... - that one would be wise to mull over before
applying to a black person.

Hey-ho. With the pace of life what it is, who now gives full attention
to their mulling?

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 08:19:46 +0100

Post by Hibou

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Hibou
I don't know whether the writer used "chocolate soldier" unthinkingly or
with intent, but I do think that isms are often more in the mind of the
hearer than in that of the speaker.

A lot of racism is unthinking, and I think that
these days there's far more racism, sexism, etc., in
people's minds than anyone ever hears.

I'm sure that's right. I aired my conjecture about racism some while ago
in aue (that it is innate in Man, a consequence of the selfish gene) and
what you say is consonant with it.
'Investigation into US professor sparks debate over Chinese word' -
"In Chinese the word 'na-ge' (那个) is a common filler phrase that people
use when they're hesitating or trying to find the right word. It
literally translates to the word 'that'. / But there have been many
documented incidents of the word being used innocuously and leading to
misunderstandings, and even violence. / In July 2016, a fight broke out
on the subway in the city of Southern Guangzhou, after a black man heard
a Chinese man, saying na-ge and mistook it for the N-word. / Footage
went viral online showing the black man slapping the Chinese commuter
and shouting 'you dare try that again' and 'never say that again'[.]"
(The article in Chinese at the end of the link is not so definite, but
perhaps the BBC had supplementary sources.)

Post by jerryfriedman
I don't know
about the specific story related to Naomi Campbell.

There must be a number of expressions that one would quite happily apply
to a white person - she gave me a black look, he went bananas, he went
ape, chocolate soldier... - that one would be wise to mull over before
applying to a black person.

I've inherited the innocent retort "Cheeky Monkey!" - I try to
suppress it.

Post by Hibou
Hey-ho. With the pace of life what it is, who now gives full attention
to their mulling?