On Mar 1, 5:36 pm, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 13:41:15 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > > > > > > <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > >On Mar 1, 11:48 am, Hatunen <hatu...@cox.net> wrote: > >> On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 20:23:39 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels" > >> <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> >On Feb 28, 9:50 pm, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> >> > On Feb 28, 1:42 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> >> >>> On Feb 26, 1:40 am, "PaulJK" <paul.kr...@paradise.net.nz> wrote: > >> >> >>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > >> >> >>>>> Do the Pacific states get the same coverage we do? > > >> >> >>>> Ignoring the various pay, satellite, and cable channels, there > >> >> >>>> are about twelve free-to-air locally broadcast channels. > >> >> >>>> One of the free-to-air channels (Prime) broadcasts Winter > >> >> >>>> Olympics every day nonstop from 5:30am to 6:30pm. Looking > >> >> >>>> at today's Friday schedule, apart from the half-hour WO news > >> >> >>>> at 5:30am and Cross Country skiing at 10:30-11:30am all the > >> >> >>>> events are live. > > >> >> >>>> If by "same coverage" you mean "identical programming" then > >> >> >>>> the answer is no. All commentators are either New Zealanders > >> >> >>>> or people who are aware of commenting for the downunder > >> >> >>>> or specifically kiwi audience. Now and then they interrupt > >> >> >>>> the program to switch to another competition to show > >> >> >>>> a kiwi athlete, who would we normally not see, perform > >> >> >>>> their shtick and then switch back. > > >> >> >>> Eh? You take "Pacific states" -- in the context of time zones -- to > >> >> >>> include New Zealand?? > > >> >> >> Whoops, sorry, I didn't realise that by "Pacific states" you meant > >> >> >> "US Pacific states". > > >> >> > We very, very, very rarely use "state" to mean 'independent nation'. > > >> >> And we very, very, very rarely use the expression "Pacific states" > >> >> which would exclude the majority of Pacific states (i.e. non-US > >> >> states in the Pacific). > > >> >"Pacific states" is a wel-established term -- sometimes it includes AK > >> >and HI, sometimes not. > > >> >> This just shows that no matter how hard I try I still sometimes > >> >> fail to correctly translate Merkin E. semantics to English E. > > >> >"State" is not a useful term for 'nation-state' because it is serving > >> >a different, much more salient function not only in the US, but also > >> >in (at least) Mexico and Brazil, and I think Germany. > > >> Germany doesn't have states, it has laender. > > >Which, in English, are called states. > > Which English? I've may have heard that a few times, but > English-speakers calling them states doesn't make them states.
If being called by some name doesn't make an entity an example of the things called by that name, then what does?
