User talk:Sara Parks Ricker

Hi Sara! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for the gift of Canadian literature. --Stephen Gilbert

---

Hi Sara, I'm already crazy about Stephen's wife and I'll be glad to add you to my list. Hope I didn't come on too strong about the list of writers. The Canadian literature article is excellent. I have an overdeveloped bark and an underdeveloped bite. Ortolan88

---

Welcome Sara! Please sign in at Wikipedians/Canada too. Your contribution about what is Canadian literature is hilarious. I could imagine Stephen Leacock describing these American professors of Canadian literature.

Also it's not just any vinegar that I put on my fries, but clear colourless vinegar -- not the stuff that they serve you in American restaurants. Eclecticology

---

Hi, Sara. Just wanted to say, good work on the Jesus Christ and Breastfeeding articles. Wesley

---

Sara thank you very much for copyediting my initial entry of the Commanadant Stane. I knew it lacked an inspection of a native English speaking person, but hey this is an open project and after all I am trying to do my best with English language. This article, as perhaps anyone, in its first form took me 2-3 after-midnight hours... To put a comma in the right position is sometime hard for me even in my own native language. And there are so tiny differences in English with words as on, in, with, by, of, and many more. You're allowed to laugh as loud as ya wish. BTW I enjoy drinking hot and dark coffee, too. Drinking coffee in Ethiopia, as they say, is nearly a rite. Best regard -- XJamRastafire 17:50 Aug 1, 2002 (PDT)

---

Just one minor point about your grammar correction in the Society for Psychical Research article. The word "headquarters" is optionally singular or plural. Eclecticology 10:20 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

---

A point on Les Automatistes: Breton was never a stream-of-consciousness poet. "Steam of consciousness" is a literary technique and it is radically different from automatism. --Daniel C. Boyer

---

Howdy. :-) After looking at your user page (it looks like you and I would have many interests in common), I'm surprised at how laid-back you seem to be about Korean clubbed-to-death dog soup. Very NPOV, I guess. Have a good one.

---

Hi. Thank you for encouraging me to abuse my Konglish. But my Konglish is too korean. So I'd rather remain silent in English. But if you want to write something about Korean, I'll correct you, or give you Korean view to that like in korean cuisine. And I'm very happy that there are several wikipedians interested in Korea and Korean culture.

If everybody thinks just like me, it'll be boring.

And I have started a Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians/South Korea. If you want to write more about Korea, please take a look at it. --Xaos

---

Hey Sara, here's a link for you: Mispeelings (/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Maintenance&subfunction=mispeelings) -- Stephen Gilbert 02:47 Oct 22, 2002 (UTC)

---

Sara, I'm curious about your fondness for English "whom". Do you see any ways English would be worse off if we lost "whom" in particular, or are you just concerned with losing traditional forms in general? I'm wondering about specifics because I'm pretty suspicious of most efforts to condemn "incorrect" usage. --Ryguasu 20:30 Dec 9, 2002 (UTC)

Hey, Chris. Don't worry ... I'm not one of those nazis who fail to recognise linguistic changes over time as legitimate usage (otherwise, we'd still be speaking some form of low German.......). However, I find that English is losing certain ways of being specific (and a certain amount of beauty) as it loses its more complex grammar. More often than not, I find that the reasons for the changes are simply a baby-ing education system (e.g. lack of challenging reading material for kids) and plain ignorance. These aren't noble causes. I admit, I was always getting in trouble in linguistics class for calling change "deterioration." I guess I am conservatively biased (about language, anyway).Sara Parks Ricker

Didn't it used to be fashionable to attribute all language change to "errors"? Maybe you were just born in the wrong era. =) Anyway, I was less "worried" than curious about examples where a loss of "whom" would prove unfortunate. Do you have a case where you cannot, for example, be as "specific" without using "whom" as you could using it? I figured that, since you listed that word in particular on your page, you might have a whole collection of particularly offensive examples. I was curious whether, upon seeing them, I might sympathize with your position. --Ryguasu 17:12 Dec 12, 2002 (UTC)

Sorry, no flaming examples. I picked "whom" pretty much at random. Sara Parks Ricker

---

Sara, remember the Raelians? You know, that group we ran into in Seoul with the "They took me to their spaceship" book? They're based in Canada, and they've been all over the headlines here for the past day or so, as they've claimed to have produced the first human clone through their company, Clonaid. If possible and/or acceptable to your liking, could you or your husband do a sketch of the Raelian symbol (http://www2.rael.org/int/english/evidence/evidence/cropcircles/images/raelian_symbol.JPG), have Kim scan it and email it to me? -- Stephen Gilbert 13:53 Dec 28, 2002 (UTC)

Heh. I should have used email. :) -- Stephen Gilbert 20:33 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)