New York City just finished replacing the Kosciuszko Bridge, a critical segment of the BQE (I278). Most people in New York say "the koss-key-oss-ko bridge", though my understanding is that the pronunciation is more like "Ko-shuz-kuh"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosciuszko_Bridge
New Yorkers pronounce it “kozz-e-us-ko” or “kozz-e-oos-ko” not with a hard c towards the beginning.
If you listen to NYC traffic reports on AM radio(1010 WINS)where this bridge is mentioned almost daily its pronounced "Koz Cuse Ko." I have never heard anybody use the pronunciation you are referring to.
You're not wrong unfortunately. It hurts me on a few levels when I hear the pronunciation butchered by pretty much all Australians. I understand why / don't hold it against them, but it's still totally wrong pronounciation.
Australians are notorious syllable droppers in general. Many of us don't even pronounce the name of our own country correctly in our own language. ('Straya)
> ... you probably haven’t heard of Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kosciuszko. Nor can you spell it or pronounce it; join the club, but we’re working on it. The largest mountain in Australia is named after him. So most Australians know, and can pronounce, his surname at the very least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Kosciuszko
Emmm sorry to doubt Aussies, but type in Kościuszko in google translate and hit play. Their TTS is really good at pronounciation. It's hard to do it correctly if your native tongue is not slavic. I'd like to be wrong though. They should know the name, though. Yup. If anyone's inclined towards random wiki trip I suggest reading about Strzelecki, who named the moutain. He was an explorer.
”It's hard to do it correctly if your native tongue is not slavic.”
I guess it’s also hard to hear whether somebody pronunciates it correctly if your native tongue isn’t Slavic.
What strikes me the most whenever I read about this period is how no-hassle moving between countries used to be. For some reason we think of the modern world as finally "global" and "open", but it doesn't necessarily seem as such when you try to get a visa.
I'm not sure if this comment is serious or sarcasm. Today, for those rich enough to own estates, it is very easy to move between countries, as it always has. Today, it is also much easier than in the past for those not as fortunate to move between countries. How can this be so, given the often onerous immigration requirements between countries? Well, a Polish (or any other European) peasant would have been considered…
I'm not being sarcastic at all. In particular, during the Age of Mass Migration, it was very common for the oldest son who was to inherit the land because of primogeniture to stay home and for his landless young brothers to go try their luck in the New World.
> and I have no idea why there hasn’t been a movie made about him. because hollywood would never tell a tale that shows the founding fathers as being pro-slavery. Reparations is still a hot topic in the US.
> because hollywood would never tell a tale that shows the founding fathers as being pro-slavery.
Sounds like a good subject for Tarantino. He could probably secure funding as well.
History is complicated, I know. And I've never claimed that Alexander didn't abolish serfdom, or even that he was a bad ruler. All I'm trying to say is nobody should be surprised that his accomplishments are not part of the school curriculum as he was simply an occupier.
> he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore a…
> when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe
To what degree it was his doing though? Industrial revolution was happening all over Europe, so what Tzar had to do with it? (I'm genuinely asking). I imagine that maybe he approved projects for building railroads which allowed industry to flourish, but otherwise I am out of ideas.
What strikes me the most whenever I read about this period is how no-hassle moving between countries used to be. For some reason we think of the modern world as finally "global" and "open", but it doesn't necessarily seem as such when you try to get a visa.
I feel the same when reading books or watching films about people doing that in the 50s or the 80s. “Let me just go to Italy and live there for a year.” Completely legally, as far as I can tell, and without being bound by five-year employment contracts. Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure few Western countries want more lowly software developers.
> he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore a…
> when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe To what degree it was his doing though? Industrial revolution was happening all over Europe, so what Tzar had to do with it? (I'm genuinely asking). I imagine that maybe he approved projects for building railroads which allowed industry to flourish, but otherwise I am out of ideas.
Well, this isn't so much a question of whether there was progress at all, because, as you're saying, the industry was booming all over Europe, but a question of what parts of the Russian Empire would benefit from it the most. One would think that a Russian Emperor would do everything to make sure that it's the metropolis that gets the cake, not the peripheries. All the more that Russia had been lagging in the industrial development, as would later be brutally demonstrated during the Revolution of 1917, so focusing on the western provinces would seem like a misinvestment (clearly, in the case of a war they would be the first ones to be chopped off). Of course, I'm not saying Alexander II was a covert lover of all things Polish. In fact, at times he, just like Alexander I during the Kingdom of Poland era (1815–1831), would have to back down under the pressure of the Saint Petersburg elites, who were not happy with a favourable policy towards Poland. Intuitively, one would think that a Russian emperor would put the interests of the metropolis first, and use, or even exhaust, the peripheries for the good of it. It's what the British Empire would do, for sure. ;-) Yet, under Alexanders I & II it was different. Which is why I think he deserves a radically more nuanced description than an occupier.
> he was simply an occupier That's not the history, as you just admitted yourself: he abolished serfdom and started a period of unprecedented prosperity in Polish history (when the Polish city Łódź had gone from a village to become one of the main industrial centers in the whole of Europe), among many other things. The list could go on but the point is this: you pick statements that suit your feelings and therefore a…
"I would even argue, as a separate point, that he wasn't an occupier at all, much like Donald Trump is not an occupier of Native American lands." Alexanders policies against Poles were direct result of the January Uprising. Polish, Lithuanian, Ukrainina and Belarusian languages were banned, and many people were sent to Siberia. You're comparing this to current situation of Native Americans? That's a joke right? I kno…
No, there's no insurrection of Native Americans going on. And they can, if they wish to, speak their indigenous languages, and are not being expelled to Alaska. Indeed, you properly identified the cause-and-effect relationship between imprudent and reckless insurrections, and the repressions that follow. That link is the reason why so many residents of the Kingdom of Poland were strongly against insurrections at the time when they were provoked. And it is the very same reason why there was no such thing in Finland, which was also part of the Russian Empire. Finland, in contrast to Poland, kept its autonomy the whole time, and patiently waited for the right moment to say “cards up” to try to separate from the Empire and have an independent state, which was at the end of World War I.