MOST (was Zodiacal light linked to ancient Martian oceans)

Henry Spencer wrote:
One might as well wonder why Americans persist in celebrating on
the 4th of July, when the US realistically more-or-less completed
becoming a nation on, um, well, perhaps Oct. 18th, or June 21st,
or July 26th, or March 4th, or May 29th, or even Dec. 24th.

Because that's when the US officially declared independence from
Britain.

The ratification of the Constitution is irrelevant, as it's not the
document which established or named the United States. Neither is it
relevant when other countries recognized the US, or stopped fighting
against it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article ,
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Because that's when the US officially declared independence from
Britain.

Precisely my point: that's when things formally got started, insofar as
one can identify one single date for that. And July 1st, *not* Dec. 11th,
is the analogous date for Canada.

The ratification of the Constitution is irrelevant, as it's not the
document which established or named the United States.

There is actually room to argue about that. The US was "established" only
in the loosest possible sense before the ratification of the Constitution.
It resembled a single nation about as much as the CIS resembles one today.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

In article ,
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
Because that's when the US officially declared independence from
Britain.

Precisely my point: that's when things formally got started, insofar as
one can identify one single date for that. And July 1st, *not* Dec. 11th,
is the analogous date for Canada.

The ratification of the Constitution is irrelevant, as it's not the
document which established or named the United States.

There is actually room to argue about that. The US was "established" only
in the loosest possible sense before the ratification of the Constitution.
It resembled a single nation about as much as the CIS resembles one today.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Henry Spencer wrote:

There is actually room to argue about that. The US was "established" only
in the loosest possible sense before the ratification of the Constitution.
It resembled a single nation about as much as the CIS resembles one today.

Agreed. It's telling that before the Civil War, it was convention to refer to
the United States in the plural. Only after the war did Americans begin to
use the United States as a singular noun.

--
Dave Michelson

Henry Spencer wrote:

There is actually room to argue about that. The US was "established" only
in the loosest possible sense before the ratification of the Constitution.
It resembled a single nation about as much as the CIS resembles one today.

Agreed. It's telling that before the Civil War, it was convention to refer to
the United States in the plural. Only after the war did Americans begin to
use the United States as a singular noun.

--
Dave Michelson

In sci.space.policy Dave Michelson wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:

There is actually room to argue about that. The US was "established" only
in the loosest possible sense before the ratification of the Constitution.
It resembled a single nation about as much as the CIS resembles one today.

Agreed. It's telling that before the Civil War, it was convention to refer to
the United States in the plural. Only after the war did Americans begin to
use the United States as a singular noun.


Isn't that part of generic language changes? Just like the difference in how
say corporate entities doing things are expressed?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In sci.space.policy Dave Michelson wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:

There is actually room to argue about that. The US was "established" only
in the loosest possible sense before the ratification of the Constitution.
It resembled a single nation about as much as the CIS resembles one today.

Agreed. It's telling that before the Civil War, it was convention to refer to
the United States in the plural. Only after the war did Americans begin to
use the United States as a singular noun.


Isn't that part of generic language changes? Just like the difference in how
say corporate entities doing things are expressed?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++