Re: First report on Coní
| From: | Joe <joe@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Thursday, March 27, 2003, 7:18 |
|---|
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nik Taylor" <yonjuuni@...>
To: <CONLANG@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:57 PM
Subject: Re: First report on Coní
> Roger Mills wrote:
> > My _personal opinion_ is that only Republicans seem to get their shorts
in a
> > bind when _their_ presidents are referred to by surname only.
>
> Oh, I have no objections to presidents being referred to by surname
> alone, it's when "Mr." is used. "Bush" and "President Bush" (likewise
> "Clinton" or "President Clinton") are both fine, it's the "Mr." that I
> find somewhat insulting. "Bush" alone just sounds like "President" was
> left off, but "Mr. Bush" makes it sound like "Mr." is being deliberately
> chosen *instead of* President. It's the same thing with any other
> common title, such as Senator or Judge or Dr.
>
On the other hand,Tony Blair is very definitely Mr. Blair.(Prime Minister
Blair just sounds stupid). Same with all MPs, etc.
Replies