My god, how long can y'all argue about proper transliteration in a thread that has nothing to do with proper transliteration!?
Substition doesn't mean it is the same as being "part of." If I type. "Kyle Korver is an @sshole" does that make "@" a part of the Roman Alphabet?
I agree this is tedious. As I noted earlier though none of that supports Fmullegan's claim that foreigners are given new names in the PRC.
1)Where did I claim in the post it was the "official letter"? Dd you understand what I was talking about when I typed "v" or not when you said 2) this entire thread is about pronunciation so I think it is pretty relavant
if I would have said Kyle Korver is not an @sshole, I have accepted your used of the substitution and used it myself. As you did with "v" so a. not understanding that v was used instead of ü (for the reasons you listed) b. were actually accepting the v in substitution and were arguing that ü is not in pinyin which one was it?
Pretty straightforward, just type it as "yu" if you are using a regular keyboard. Nobody is preventing you from eating rice with a fork, though.
So you did not know that v in my post was refering to ü? Try using "lu" or "lyu" to type chinese. You get a completely different set of characters 路 or an illegal operation instead of 吕 which you can only get by typing lv. (not uu or w or yu)
Hey when someone tells you that what you said is wrong and you are stupid and you know it is right it gets personal. It is only tedious because they realized they were caught and tried to weazle out of it with talk of "official" and substitute.
Please read the portion you quoted again and note the bolded part: "What I think would be the ideal situation is to insist that Asians (or anyone for that matter) use only one name (Anglo or Asian - whatever their preference) on all their passports, social security card, drivers license, credit cards and any other card/document with their name on it. If they want to have a "nickname," that's fine, but it shouldn't go on the things listed above (just as all my stuff has 'Thomas' rather than 'Tom')." This thread has not been a great example of reading comprehension. Although to be fair, I have read the pages of arguments with fmullegan and the other posters and I still have no idea what the issue is.
Parenthetic information is not important, so I am allowed to gross over. You still single out a race. J/k Back to your proposal. I don't think it is going to work even if it applies to everybody. Because if you make consistent documentation across the board, that necessarily impose burden for those who have inconsistent documentation as of right now to make it consistent for voting. This means folks that cannot afford to make such change are denied the right to vote under your scheme. This is a wealth classification that is irrelevant to one's qualification to vote. Such scheme would be held unconstitutional.
Is it legally required that the ID they use matches the name on their voter registration card? I got screwed out of taking the GRE cause I cut my hair off since my ID picture was taken.
I don't believe a valid ID is even required in order to vote. There might be some local or state policies doing that, but they are probably not constitutional. But ID matching for GRE is not vote, so what I said doesn't apply there.
I just tried this and it is true. If you are typing chinese you have to use "v" for the software to work.
I cannot remember the last time I voted if I had to show ID and the voter card or just the voter card. I see your point, ID's cost money.
Just to get it out of the way in case somebody says government can offer free IDs for the purpose of making them consistent. That probably still would not OK, because to even go to DMV, post office cost money and thus preclude senior folks, who usually vote by mail, from making such change.
Gross over? Don't you mean gloss over? Well, as also noted in my original post, this goes beyond voter identification - in fact, I would argue that issues it can potentially cause employers is much more important. Furthermore, I would hope that if any such law requiring consistency of name between documents were passed, it would also provide an easier means of correcting any discrepancies. Finally, you have taken the wealth disparity argument to it's absurd extreme in just about every post. Keep in mind that just 16 years ago (before the Motor Voter bill), you actually had to go someplace other than the DMV to register to vote. That was never ruled discriminatory or unconstitutional (inefficient maybe). So I don't think claiming that requiring all persons to get a free ID or to require consistency in their documents could ever be construed as unconstitutional.
You mean cost employers. We are even. Frankly, I see the only easy way to make this work is to shift the burden onto each individual by denying his/her right to do something when IDs don't much. That doesn't make whole lot sense, doesn't it? Why does my privilege to drive or right to vote depend on identification consistency between my DL and voter registration card? For practical matter, I don't think government would want to enforce it either because as you implied this issue largely does not affect government function that much: each ID after all most of the time serve its unique purpose. If it concerns the employers, then they should shoulder the burden of inconsistent documents of their employees. Well, it is kinda tenuous, but this is Supreme Court's opinion, if my Con Law memory doesn't fail me. I think there was a case where the Court held Indiana's requirement of state ID at the station was unconstitutional. Someone correct me if I am wrong.
no he meant cause not cost. cause problems problems it could cause employers cost doesn't even make sense.
