Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: Wow | |
Author: Ron | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 17:52:16 01/02/05 Sun Wow! I'm amazed people like you guys still exist... Isn't this idea a little... well, past it? [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Yep. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (IOM) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:12:02 01/02/05 Sun Much like the US Constitution (217 years old), the Union with Scotland (400 years old), wearing neck-ties (c. 300) and the idea of a federally United Europe (about 60 years old, courtesy of Jean Monnet). All these things are terribly old fashioned and should be abolished. As should modern English, which, at 600 years, is truly "past it". Dunque, ho deciso di trasferirmi a Tibet per fare l'agricoltore di yacchi. Ciao tutti - spero straordinariamente che ci sentiamo dopo. On the other hand, you could accept that something is only "past it" if it is perceived to be, and that perception does not necessarily reflect reality. After all, I understand that there are people who sew booties for the babies on British soap operas. If you think that the idea is a bit old fashioned, old hat, etc., then that is a statement of political modishness and not a practical objection, surely? But what would I know? Clearly, my support for the FCS indicates plainly that I have a handle-bar moustache, drink Scotch out of a silver hip-flask, wear tweed in the country, pinstripe In Town, and a solar topee abroad, and I shout "Egad, Sir!" and "By Jove!" when excited; in addition, I ask my Indian manservant for a chota peg at the end of the working day and call him Bhoi, and my drawing room is decorated with the spoils of big-game hunting in Africa, with the places of honour given to the heads of particularly endangered species, notably Bengal Tiger and White Rhinoceros. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Devil's advocate | |
|
Author: Ron [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:36:19 01/03/05 Mon "Much like the US Constitution (217 years old), the Union with Scotland (400 years old), wearing neck-ties (c. 300) and the idea of a federally United Europe (about 60 years old, courtesy of Jean Monnet). All these things are terribly old fashioned and should be abolished." Hmmm... many people want rid of the Union in Scotland (enough to form the opposition there), and the US constitution faces its problems, from those who hate the right to bear arms, and those who hate church and state being separated... so I'm not sure that these are non-issues. "I do not hear any voices within these countries who argue that such notions of Parliamentary democracy, Common Law, Habeas Corpus and the English language are an anachronism in the modern age" Common law isn't UK wide though. "Which political and cultural ties does the United Kingdom share with the following countries, which are more profound and worthy of developing than she has with Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, to name many of the current members of the EU" Well, a language that is a cross between German/Dutch and French - or is it anachronistic to call it that? European Christianity and Protestantism in particular... architecture, music, literature etc etc. Not to mention the Roman influence, the concept of the novel, philosophic interchange between the likes of Kant and Hume etc etc [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (IOM) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:22:15 01/03/05 Mon I think that what we're talking about here is extent. Of course we are part of a shared western civilisation, in terms of art and music, although, after Chaucer, not really literature. But then, of course, so are Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If our shared membership of the Roman Empire gives us something in common with, say, the Spaniards, then that applies to a New Zealander as well. On the other hand, we could argue that these ties, being centuries if not millenia old, are 'past it', whereas the ties between CANZUK, being strong until the very end of the 20th Century, are more recent and hence, perhaps, more relevant and less 'past it'. Furthermore, you suggest that we have strong linguistic ties with Europe, English being a sort of blend of Latinate, Teutonic, Nordic, Gallic, Celtic and Semitic languages. I agree, but if this gives us a link with countries which speak one of English's component languages, how much stronger must be our ties with those countries which actually speak the very same language? To use an analogy, Spanish and Italian share very strong common roots in Latin, but Spain's cultural ties with South America are certainly stronger than her ties with Italy. There are two elements to this, in my humble opinion. The first is that, because of our lingo, however far we wish to drift apart, we will always read the same books, watch the same TV programmes, go to the same movies and plays, listen to the same music, etc., so we can never become too culturally distinct from each other. The second is perhaps more important: the phrase "English-Speaking World" is inadequate, since it implies that the language is the only thing which we have in common, as if it were some bizarre cosmic coincidence that we all speak English. Rather, there is more going on here than that. I concede your point that there are problems with the Act of Union, with the US Constitution, et al. On the other hand, these problems are not really related to their age. When we consider that they are older than many defunct institutions (the League of Nations, the USSR, the British Empire and other things of the past) but have lasted better, then we begin to get a better picture. On the other hand, they are younger than a lot of things which are a good deal older, such as the Union with Wales, the Japanese monarchy, Cambridge University, and the Swiss system of cantons, and these venerable institutions seem rock-solid. Of course there are arguments against the aspirations of the FCS, but I just don't buy the argument that history-just-isn't-moving-in-that-direction-any-more. Quite apart from the fact that History never was moving in that direction, I don't think that it's a valid criterion to object to something, any more than saying ah-well-things-are-clearly-going-that-way-so-why-resist is a valid criterion to support something, from Chinese encroachment in Taiwan to the E.U. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: ctd | |
|
Author: Ron [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:37:22 01/03/05 Mon "If our shared membership of the Roman Empire gives us something in common with, say, the Spaniards, then that applies to a New Zealander as well" NZ was in the Roman empire? Nah, I was referring to a strong Roman influence. Scotland and Ireland have Roman influences but weren't really ruled by them... "Furthermore, you suggest that we have strong linguistic ties with Europe, English being a sort of blend of Latinate, Teutonic, Nordic, Gallic, Celtic and Semitic languages." I said that English was a blend of German and French. There's hardly any Semitic in it, and while there is Celtic influence... it is mainly the Saxon (i.e. from Saxony, part of Germany) and Norman (i.e. Normandy in France) influence which predominates. The English are much closer to those countries than they like to admit... their kings, queens and political system have strong connections with both areas... "Spain's cultural ties with South America are certainly stronger than her ties with Italy." Yes and no... Some South American cultures esp. the native ones are utterly alien to the Spanish. In countries such as Peru and Paraguay the natives are a hefty chunk... I mean what does a Brit have in common with a Mohawk? Not much. "The second is perhaps more important: the phrase "English-Speaking World" is inadequate, since it implies that the language is the only thing which we have in common, as if it were some bizarre cosmic coincidence that we all speak English." Well... English speaking world would have to include the USA and large chunks of other continents. "Chinese encroachment in Taiwan " Though Taiwan has an independence movement, doesn't it consider itself China? Not the PRC but an alternative Chiang Kaishek government left over from before the Revolution. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hm, let's start at the beginning... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (back in London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:05:11 01/05/05 Wed I don't normally like to do these point-by-point refutations, but I'll give it a go. 1) Of course NZ wasn't a province of Rome, but if British people have Roman influence in their culture, then so do Kiwis, because the British emigrants took it with them. Rome is part of their culture as much as it is ours. Not the Maoris, of course, but then they are no more native to Aro Te Aroa than we were. 2) I'm not sure about your linguistic analysis of English. It is more Nordic than German, for a start, and most Teutonic words came via Scandinavia (Norwegian is as Teutonic as German) rather than straight from Saxony. Celtic languages are heavily influenced by Semitic elements, since the Celts came from the Middle East (indeed there is a gene which makes some people from the Outer Isles allergic to a certain type of medication - my step-father is one of them - and this congenital intolerance is only seen in one other place: Arabia). As for the strong Norman-French influence, I would be cautious. Quite a lot of words came directly from Latin, rather than via their French forms (which also came from Latin and so are deceptively similar). This can be proved by the fact that we have always used 'Germany', like the Latin 'Germania', whereas the Normans called them 'allamannis', hence the modern French 'Allemagne'. 3) There are large 'native populations' in the Spanish colonies, the only close analogies to which within the British Empire were our South African colonies (from which, originally, I hail). And they are hardly British at all. In North America and Australasia, however, any large native populations didn't last very long, which allowed us to create countries entirely in our own image to an extent impossible in the Spanish Empire. This does not make the virtual extermination of several civilisations any less reprehensible, but it is true nevertheless. 4) Yes, the phrase "English speaking world" ("l'Anglophonie", perhaps?) does include large slabs of other continents and the USA. Why shouldn't it? How is this an argument against what I was saying? Why do you imagine that the USA speaks English? Because of the Chinese immigrants, perhaps? Moreover, if you think that the fact that India and America and Zambia speak English but are not culturally compatible with Britain in the same was as Australia, Canada and NZ are, then surely this reinforces our belief that there is more going on in the relations between our four countries than there would be between 4 completely foreign places. 5) China calls Taiwan China. Taiwan does not. China also calls all sorts of other places China, including Tibet, parts of Mongolia and various countries which are about as Chinese as Tunbridge Wells. And even if my example was bad, surely that does not invalidate my point, which was that resigning oneself to the historical inevitability of something ghastly is spineless and stupid, and as an attitude it would not have done us much good in 1940. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maori | |
|
Author: Hunches [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:21:43 01/10/05 Mon "Not the Maoris, of course, but then they are no more native to Aro Te Aroa than we were." The Maori are more native than the Pakeha, because of the simple fact that they were there several hundred years longer. Don't forget they were in NZ when England was still a province of Normandy! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "native" simply refers to where you were born | |
|
Author: Ian (native of Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:50 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No it doesn't. Kangaroos are not native to Britain, but some have been born there nt | |
|
Author: Randy [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:25:44 01/10/05 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: you aren't seriously suggesting that Maoris are a different species from the rest of us, are you Randy? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:25:48 01/10/05 Mon If you want to discuss it at the species level, then surely you would have to say that homo sapiens as a whole either is or is not native to New Zealand. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maoris have been there longer and had the land taken off them. The previous lot are gone. The Maoris are still there. | |
|
Author: It's time to give it back. [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:57:21 01/12/05 Wed HOW CAN YOU SLEEP WHEN YOUR BEDS ARE BURNING? - MIDNIGHT OIL [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:31:12 01/10/05 Mon That's just the point, laddie. They were there several hundred years longer, and managed to make several hundred animal species and at least one human civilisation completely extinct. Specifically, they ate them all, animals and humans. In all the time that we've been there, the Brits have got rid of maybe a dozen animal species and no human cultures. I like the modern Maoris, but they were rather savage invaders of New Zealand originally, in a way which makes the evil Anglo-Saxons seem like the most good-natured Swiss. Moreover, if you claim that a nation should belong to the people who were first there, then there are a few completely extinct tribes which should rule NZ, and all humans generally should be ruled from the Zambesi Delta (that's Robert Mugabe's stomping ground). As for them being there when England was a province of Normany, it could be argued that the Normans were Scandinavian primitives before they discovered that ships could take them places, and Britain was governed from Rome even before that, and by Welsh druids before that. When do you stop? Perhaps we should dissolve parliament and find some dark-haired, blue-eyed Celts on the Isle of Man to rule us from the Tynwald, which, after all, was the centre of the Scandinavian Empire and has been going for at least 1200 years... Mind you, their present ruler, old Ian Macfadyen, might blench at ruling Britain, since he seems to undertand very little which doesn't have two wings and a jet engine. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: not to mention geographical | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:15:56 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: We do indeed still exist... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:05:49 01/02/05 Sun This idea is as relevant today as it has ever been. This idea is as relevant today as it has ever been. The identities and independence of each of the Crown Commonwealth countries are under greater threat now than at any time since the Second World War. The current divisions between the nations of the Crown Commonwealth are entirely superficial, and are a manifestation of years of misguided Government policy and neglect, much of which is entirely Britain’s fault. Where I acknowledge that there are differing opinions on who should be the head of state, or what the flag should look like within the former dominions of the British Empire, I do not hear any voices within these countries who argue that such notions of Parliamentary democracy, Common Law, Habeas Corpus and the English language are an anachronism in the modern age. Look at the alliances today between the four countries of CANZUK and ask yourself this? Which political and cultural ties does the United Kingdom share with the following countries, which are more profound and worthy of developing than she has with Australia, Canada and New Zealand? Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, to name many of the current members of the EU. Similarly, I would ask what common ties exist between Australia and the nations of South East Asia and the Pacific Community that she does not share with New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom. What is it that is unique about Canadian identity that differentiates themselves from their southern neighbours who have rejected their links with the Commonwealth? I have just watched the highlights of Edinburgh’s Military Tattoo on the television, and I was amazed at the common cultural bonds that still exist between our nations: from the Highland dancers of Australia, to the Pipes and drums of Canada’s “highland” regiments. This common identity is our strongest asset, and I’m sorry that you feel that these people who share our view on the unique relationship between our countries are “past it”. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: I'm intrigued by your concept of "past it" | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:33:01 01/03/05 Mon Presumably you were one of the people who fell into a deep depression when the Berlin Wall came down. After all, the idea of a united Germany must have seemed just so passe by the end of the 80s. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Actually... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (IOM) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:09:33 01/03/05 Mon I was against re-uniting Germany, but not because it was passe. Get hold of a copy of Guenter Grass' "One Country, Two Nations" - it says it better than me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Germanland | |
|
Author: Ron [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:38:53 01/03/05 Mon The poor East Germans got shafted in the deal. I don't have a big problem with reuniting Germany... at least they aren't a big military force anymore. Many Germans are not very keen on the EU either. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: german reunification | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:25:43 01/04/05 Tue Ed, I cant find anything to do with Guenter Grass on the topic os German reunification on google. Was preventing reunification really feasable? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: It was the will of the people... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:32:03 01/04/05 Tue ...and it did not look likely that anyone, including the machine gun toting Stasi could have prevented the massive influx of people to the West on that memorable night. It's hard to see how unrelenting people power could reunify the British Commonwealth across the vast oceans however. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Spell it "Gunter" and you'll find it | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:32:59 01/04/05 Tue Ed was spelling "ü" (u with umlaut) as "ue": quite a legitimate thing to do, but Google doesn't make the leap of logic required to recognise it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Cheers Ian | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:56:36 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I mean | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:00:48 01/05/05 Wed Cheers, but I did find stuff about him just not on the topic of German reunification. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Mohawks | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:44:56 01/03/05 Mon What does a Brit have in common with a Mohawk? Lots. Mohawks have been speakiing English for nearly two hundred years. There is far more in common here than a Frenchman or a German. Besides natives make up only 1 per cent of the Canadian population - a far greater percentage have blood ties with the United Kingdom. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: What in common? | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:07:14 01/05/05 Wed Mohawks speak English and Mohawk. Few English however speak Mohawk, let alone Welsh... While the natives of Canada are heavily influenced by British culture, the reverse can't be said. Natives influenced Canada etc... but didn't really influence the UK much (other than donating the sport of lacrosse to girls' private schools perhaps!) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: What proportion of Canada;s population is "native" | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:27 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: About one per cent | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:19:46 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: But you could go on... | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:23:51 01/05/05 Wed To that 1% which has its own territory, you could add vast swathes of French speaking Canada. How many Brits are *native* French speakers? When it comes down to it, the English (and to a lesser extent the other peoples of the UK) have had a big influence on Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but the influence the other way is neglible. The Kiwi influence on the UK is minimal, and consists of expat clubs, backpackers and half-decent rugby players! The Kiwi influence on Canada is even smaller. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: This shows that you do not know all of the facts | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:08:56 01/05/05 Wed First of all, the Scots have had a huge influence on Canada - even more than the English. Even our accent has a Scottish twinge to it (we pronounce the 'about' as 'aboot'). Our first PM, Sir John A. MacDonald, was a Scot. Have you forgotten all the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders (and South Africans and Indians, etc.) who fought and died for Britain in two world wars? Canadian troops were in England right away in September 1939 and were fighting alongside the British right through the war. You are saying that Britain has more in common with foreign countries on the continent that have fought Britain in the past, have different languages and totally different forms of government, than three or more countries which share Britain's head of state, have the same form of government, the same legal system, the same spelling, the same sports (except for Canada) and mostly the same language? By the way, 80% of Canadians are English-speaking and most of the 20% French-speaking people are bilingual (French and English). I fail to see your logic that Britain has more in common with the EU than the Commonwealth. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: facts...and misreadings | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:26:01 01/05/05 Wed "I fail to see your logic that Britain has more in common with the EU than the Commonwealth." I didn't say that. You're reading what you think I said, not what I did. "First of all, the Scots have had a huge influence on Canada" But not as big as the English. Is Canadian law based on Scots law? What is the main language? "By the way, 80% of Canadians are English-speaking and most of the 20% French-speaking people are bilingual (French and English)." Which 80% includes people of many, many origins who don't all relate to "Britishness", not even those of British origins. "Have you forgotten all the Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders (and South Africans and Indians, etc.) who fought and died for Britain in two world wars?" No I haven't, but the Americans, Soviets and Chinese weren't exactly in the Commonwealth though. "You are saying that Britain has more in common with foreign countries on the continent that have fought Britain in the past, have different languages " Ireland and Wales used to have different languages. Still do to an extent. You'll be telling me no one speaks them, like the Mohawks' tongue. But you probably don't like to admit why that is... i.e. it was usually physically beaten out of them. "the same legal system" Erm, Scotland and England themselves don't have the same legal system. What was that about "facts"? "the same spelling" Canada has its own spelling system, different to both England and America. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What do you mean Canada has its own spelling system? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:16:28 01/05/05 Wed I live here, I should know, we use the following British spellings: colour, centre, pyjamas, programme, enclyclopaedia. The only American spelling Canadians have adopted is 'tire' instead of 'tyre' and 'organization' instead of 'organisation'. I would say that our spelling is mostly British with a couple of Americanisms. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Spelling | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:07:06 01/06/05 Thu Australia largely uses British spelling, the only American spelling that I have noticed that has really caught on is spelling "programme" as "program", I suspect this is largely due to Bill Gates and Microsoft. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: two andrews | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:12:12 01/06/05 Thu hope no one thought that chap who was arguing earlier was me...and i think Canada should adopt all British spellings, mainly because it would make it easier for schools and for the rest of us, instead of people thinking 'should i spell it plough or plow? tyre or tire? gaol or jail? standardise or standardize? besides using a 's' in words like standardise makes more sense (you dont see people spelling 'arise' like 'arize') [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Not quite... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:07:03 01/06/05 Thu The 'makes sense' argument can't apply to English spellings. That's why the American spelling reforms were so pointless: either English is written phonetically or it isn't - there's no point in mucking around with a few words, because however hard you try to spell 'plough' as 'plow', there are still words like 'although' and so forth which would be difficult to change because of their more frequent usage. I think that we should just accept English spellings as they are, and never mind any attempt to systematise the blighters. I would, however, point out, that the use of the letter zed in such words as 'surprize' and 'organize' is in fact the older usage. The 18th Century ship of a familiar name was the HMS Enterprize, not the Enterprise. In this instance, as with many others, the Yanks are purists and we're corrupt. This doesn't, however, apply to colonial idiocies such as 'color' and 'ax'. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: English spelling can never be phonetic | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:29:09 01/06/05 Thu There are simply too many accents and thus many ways to pronounce the words. Attempting to make spelling phonetic for one accent will automatically make it LESS phonetic for pretty much all of the others. English spelling is sort of like the monarchy: people may say it is anachronistic or irrational, but it is the same for everyone and it is one of the links that keeps us together. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Auspel | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:43:35 01/06/05 Thu "the only American spelling that I have noticed that has really caught on is spelling "programme" as "program" I doubt anyone uses the spelling "gaol" anymore in Australia. Or very few. Jail is the US spelling. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Zed | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:34:33 01/06/05 Thu Canadians still call the last letter of the alphabet 'zed' while the Americans call it 'zee'. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good for them | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:09 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good for who? Canadians for 'zed' or Americans for 'zee'? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:23:54 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good for Canadians! | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:22:59 01/07/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Canada speaks the same language as Scotland. | |
|
Author: Dave(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:27:55 01/05/05 Wed ...and most of the 1.3% of the Scots population who speak Gaelic also speak English... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Gealic and Welsh speakers | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:37:48 01/05/05 Wed Thats how few Scots speak Gaelic? I wasnt sure how the language situation compared to Wales. My views on Gaelic and Welshy are mixed. I am proud of Welsh culture but those that speak Wlesh have a nasty habit of telling me the English are evil colonialists. 15-20% of Wales speaks Welsh as a first language and 35-40% are fluent second language speakers. I dont actualy like the idea of anyone speaking it first language, I like English. I myself actualy intend to learn the langauge someday (I missed out on it by moving to England) but I wouldnt really miss it if everyone forgot it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well, my figure was the 1991 census | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:39:36 01/05/05 Wed It's proabably less than that now... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I see | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:44:23 01/05/05 Wed I think its probably a good thing. As much pride as we may take in our local cultures I reckon were all better off speaking English. Dying languages may hit a romantic stroke in us but there are other things to be considered. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It would be a shame to lose it... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:47:51 01/05/05 Wed I think some effort needs to be made to preserve these languages for posterity if nothing else. However, as a modern language, it is as equipped to deal with the modern world as Latin. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: preservation | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:54:47 01/05/05 Wed But by preserve do you mean have it taught in schools? Is it not enough to have it recorded so that those of a particular interest in it could learn it? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Teach it? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:57:15 01/05/05 Wed Teach it to today's kids? God no! I would concentrate on teaching them English first ;-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Teach them? Absolutely! | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:24:11 01/06/05 Thu Australia has lost around 200 languages since 1788, and that is a tragic loss. No civilised person should calmly accept the dying of a language. That doesn't mean not teaching English, of course. People are more than capable of learning two or more languages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Perhaps... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:22:10 01/06/05 Thu To an extent I sympathise, but I think our state education system has problems teaching basic literacy in English nowadays, let alone any other languages. It could be (and probably is - it’s eleven years since I was at High School) an optional part of the curriculum however. Besides, if we discard the notion of obsolescence, and cling on to everything regardless of merit, do we not run risk of running contrary to the patterns of human progress? I’d be interested in your theory as to why languages differ from any other human invention such as the steam engine or the typewriter. Items such as these have become museum pieces and objects of historical interest, rather than working, living instruments. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: a language is more like a work of art than a tool | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:12:50 01/06/05 Thu Obsolescence? Would you advocate destroying gothic cathedrals because we now have modern ones? Would you wipe out all memory of the Beatles because we now have Coldplay?I wouldn't. For the same reason, I would not advocate allowing a language to die - along with all its implicit ways of understanding the world - just because it is currently unfashionable or seen as "superseded". You can abolish typewriters without affecting all of the works of science, philosophy and literature that were produced on typewriters, but if you allow a language to die, you automatically lose that language's way of seeing the world, and that is a far greater loss that the destruction of a gothic cathedral or the Beatles' back catalogue. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Personally... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:26:06 01/06/05 Thu I would get rid of both the Beatles and Coldplay. I've never heard of the latter but I'm sure that he, she, or they are terrible. I have ambivalent feelings towards language as an art. On the one hand, I think that language is a medium for expressing art, in the form of literature, and that the same idea can be expressed in all languages. On the other hand, some languages are better at expressing certain ideas than others, which is where I would agree with you that we shouldn't get rid of them. The problem is further complicated, however, by English, which is an odd creature, the linguistic camel, which is generally better for expressing most ideas than any other language, which is why we have the greatest literary tradition in history. This is an irony, of course, because, to quote a great old man, "from the railleries of the Romans on the barbarity and misery of our island, one can not help reflecting on the fate and revolution of kingdoms: how Rome, once the mistress of the world, seat of the arts, empire and glory, now lies sunk in sloth, ignorance and poverty... while this remote country, anciently the jest and contempt of the polite Romans, is become the happy seat of liberty, plenty and letters, flourishing in all the refinements of civil life." I am inclined to think that our achievements in this field should not be allowed to decay because of sentimental nostalgia for Celtic languages. Our children should have a facility with English, or we're all in trouble; and if they want to learn foreign languages out of intellectual interest, as you and I have done, then that is up to them to decide individually. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I do see language as a tool... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:42:01 01/06/05 Thu It's a tool of communication between humans. I don't think the cathedral analogy is appropriate, as these buildings still serve a purpose. The concept of obsolescence means that something stays around until it is replaced by something better. In my view, the mediaeval cathedrals have yet to be bettered. Similarly, using Coldplay to replace the Beatles is not a fair analogy, as they are both performers of modern English-language music. Obsolescence in this sphere is more akin to the move from old diatonic scales to the modern scales found in current western music. I see language on the other hand as more natural, and in keeping with Darwinism with the way languages evolve and become extinct. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the problem with that... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:45:42 01/06/05 Thu The problem with seeing language as a tool is that the "tool" is inseparable from the product. It is impossible to separate a language from the things created in that language: let a language die, and you let all its products die. Simple as that. Anyone who has ever worked with translation knows how much is lost in the process. Your extinction analogy is a good one: neither species nor languages become obsolete, they are merely pressured out of existence. The idea of one species being "better" than another simply won't wash. I don't think we should be sitting by sipping our gin and tonics as species go extinct, because once they are gone they are really gone and more variety is always more interesting. Languages are the same. English may be better equipped than Welsh to talk about the latest mobile phone technology, but it will never be anywhere near as good for expressing Welsh poetry. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fair Enough... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:02:22 01/06/05 Thu I am not a translator, so thanks for your insight into a topic in terms a Software Engineer can understand. The thing is, with my profession, most of the “languages” I deal with daily are programming languages. There are more similarities with written language than you probably think. In this field, languages evolve in similar ways and borrow from each other. However, when a language is replaced with something newer and invariably better, I am usually glad to see the back of the old language. Maybe languages can be seen to be a specific tool for a specific job, with certain languages more appropriate for explaining the ideals of certain cultures than others. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ambiguity | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:11:27 01/07/05 Fri Since one of the functions of human language is to permit ambiguity, and hence humour and poetry, and one of the functions of computer languages is to exclude that possibility, I would say that the use of the term "language" for machine codes is a convenient metaphor at best. The two are far from being the same thing. A programming "language" is certainly a tool for a specific purpose. A real, human language does not have any such limited purpose: we live in our languages the way fish live in rivers. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:38:01 01/07/05 Fri It is certainly possible to have logical ambiguity in programming languages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: dying languages | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:54:39 01/06/05 Thu Ian, I dnat agree with your anologie for beatles and coldplay. I will use them for my point. You cant hear the Beatles just anywhere anymore. Occasionally you will hear it in a record shop, but your morely likely to hear coldplay. You can of course still buy there music if you really want to, its your choice. The same should be with dying languages. The facilites should be available to learn them if you really want to but we should not try to prevent them fading. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Is British English dying? | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:09:04 01/06/05 Thu "The same should be with dying languages." Isn't British English a dying language/dialect? It seems to me that all the time it is becoming more and more Americanised. The influence is nearly all one way. It isn't just German and French that are going that way. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Frankly... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:29:05 01/06/05 Thu I dont care. I will use British speeling my entire life, but if by the next generation it has evolve dthen so be it. And besides it shouldnt be compared with French and German as you correctly point out its a dialect not a language, a completely different topic to that of losing a language. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Like Owain, I also use British speeling | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:29:17 01/07/05 Fri Say what you wil, but the speeling porduced in the colonis just is'nt up to scartch [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:44:07 01/08/05 Sat Soory if your so offended by my typos, but you really are doing nothing but distracting from the point. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh dear... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:42:20 01/08/05 Sat ...reminds me of a daft book - Flowers for Algernon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: British English | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:51:00 01/10/05 Mon Complete rubbish. All dialects grow and take in vocabulary and sometimes grammar from elsewhere - at least unless they're dead. British English is quite distinct from American English - both are evolving and changing all the time, and not necessarily in the same way. But it's not true to say one is the slave of the other. There has long been a tendency for young people in Britain to ape aspects of American youth culture, which is much less often a two-way process (though 'England' was the cultural centre in the second half of the sixties), but you shouldn't mistake this for the mainstream language. Youth fads are just that. Most street slang comes and goes in a matter of a few years and always has done. Examples of British linguistic influence on the US in the last decade are actually quite prominent - there is a growing use and comprehension of irony and understatement in the US (popularised by The Simpsons and Friends), and words like 'wanker' and 'slapper' are increasingly common. Even the word 'bloody', whilst seen as characteristically English, is starting to be used in conversation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Marvellous | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:57:59 01/10/05 Mon "'wanker' and 'slapper' are increasingly common. Even the word 'bloody'" etc... What a great contribution to world culture! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: furthermore... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:01:19 01/10/05 Mon Recomended reading: http://slate.msn.com/id/2103467/ [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: There are veyr few jobs in the world that call for proficiency in Gaelic or Welsh or Cree or Mohawk | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:03:36 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's because those languages were DELIBERATELY exterminated nt | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:50:03 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: langwidjz | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:54:28 01/06/05 Thu "I dont actualy like the idea of anyone speaking it first language" Isn't that their business? "However, as a modern language, it is as equipped to deal with the modern world as Latin." Well, Dave you don't appear to know the language so who are you to say? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Because I live in Scotland... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:11:10 01/06/05 Thu ...and I see lots of Gaelic programmes on T.V where English words are used frequently to describe the modern world, where no Gaelic word exists. Now, I realise that English has "borrowed" words from other languages. However, Gaelic only seems to borrow words from one language - English. This begs the obvious question: Why not borrow all the words and speak English? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: but you still don't speak it | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:22:41 01/06/05 Thu "and I see lots of Gaelic programmes on T.V where English words are used frequently to describe the modern world, where no Gaelic word exists." Actually you're wrong. All this shows is that the speaker doesn't know the Gaelic word, not that the word doesn't exist. In many cases it does. I once saw a programme where the speaker used the word "ferry" and "cousin", yet when I asked someone else, I found there was several words for both. That just shows up the fact that the state never educated speakers properly in their native tongue, not the lack of words. "However, Gaelic only seems to borrow words from one language - English. This begs the obvious question: Why not borrow all the words and speak English?" Yet a quick bit of research shows that it has borrowed words from French, Latin, Greek and Norse... hmm. Perhaps you need to do some reading up. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: OK, I'll rephrase... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:33:55 01/06/05 Thu I meant that Gaelic tends to borrow new words from English. I was not referring to the the source of old words. With regard to the T.V programmes, you think it is more likely that presenters from the Western Isles do not know the word for computer, rather than the word simply being borrowed from English? Supposition, don't you think? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The state? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:56:23 01/06/05 Thu Crikey, the State is supposed to be educating people now, is it? Gawd help us. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Opera vs welsh | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:50 01/06/05 Thu "Crikey, the State is supposed to be educating people now, is it? Gawd help us." I mean "education" in the broadest sense of the word. The 1872 Education act meant that effectively all education had to be done through English, whether or not the child spoke it or not. It's only recently that's been reversed. It would have been far better to teach them English through their own language than give them teachers who spoke nothing else and used corporal punishment to enforce it. The only reason there's any Welsh tv is due to hunger strikes. More people speak Welsh than are interested in opera, but the BBC had no problem showing opera from the year dot. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Welsh more popular? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:32:50 01/06/05 Thu Less than 40% of the Welsh speak Welsh, less than half of that as a first language. Speaking Welsh does not mean one does not like Opera and it would be silly to think the majority of Welsh speakers (those that have it as second language) prefer to watch those frankly rather poor quality Welsh-language sitcoms other than as extra revision on spekaing. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Opera or Wpyra? | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:49:18 01/06/05 Thu Owain, as you know, Opera is a mainly upper class minority interest, yet it has always been publicly funded up to the eyeballs. There's been no deliberate attempts here to wipe it out. Yet I think it's a fairly good bet that more people know a good deal of Welsh in the UK than are hardcore opera fans. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I seriously doubt that | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:24:34 01/06/05 Thu There are more upper class Englishmen than there are Welshmen let alone those that speak Wlesh so I find that unlikely. Oh and at the Welsh "national" opera they have operatic performances in Welsh. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:14:05 01/06/05 Thu "I meant that Gaelic tends to borrow new words from English." When a Gael talks about spaghetti is that English or not? I tend to think it's Italian. English has no word for tomatoes, bananas, potatoes, oranges, automobiles and dozens of other everyday things. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: *Sigh* | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:28:55 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Once again: Dear God! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:33:13 01/06/05 Thu I think that this ends the debate for me. All words come from somewhere. "Orange" can be traced back to arabic, along with giraffe (ziraffa) and gazelle (ghazahl). Heaven knows where "tomato" comes from. "Potato" is, presumably, a Native American word. The point is that these exist in different forms in different languages. You might as well say that the French "Eglise" for 'church' is not French, it is Greek, because it comes from "ekklesia" meaning 'assembly'. There was someone else on this forum who argued that English didn't really exist because 'admirable' was clearly just the Latin 'mirabile' in disguise, and other such nonsense. Enjoy the rest of your debate - it has become a little absurd for my tastes. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: as a gaelic learner... | |
|
Author: maren girvilas [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:52 01/07/05 Fri ... living in germany, i find it quite sad and weird to see such contempt against the gaelic language, expressed by scottish people, popping up now and again in such discussions. i'm involved with several european minority languages, and nowhere else do i hear such stupid attacks against a language than in scotland or maybe also ireland. other countries have obviously learned from the flaws of history and have developed a more positive attitude towards their multilingual culture. gaelic is a language the whole country could be proud of. instead, some people treat it as if it were a sickness. maren [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: well said, Maren | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:05:21 01/07/05 Fri I studied Gaelic at university in Australia (along with German and Murrinh-Patha), and I certainly don't feel it was time wasted. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hi Maren... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:30:56 01/08/05 Sat Welcome to the forum... The Scots are a practical people, so please do not confuse pragmatism with contempt. We have often placed praticality before nostalgia... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Linguistic Terrorists | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:43 01/12/05 Wed Unfortunately I certainly feel that Scots and Irish Gaelic are commonly presented as a manifestation of Nationalism in Scotland and Ireland, and I imagine that they earn contempt from many English speakers and unionists more for that reason than pure ignorance. Remember that the majority of the ancestors of the modern day populations of Scotland and Northern Ireland (particularly Scotland which has been mostly English speaking since English was invented) never spoke Gaelic, yet many 'Gaels' try to present their languages as central to those places history, nationhood and 'otherness' in relation to the 'English'. Personally I find this a provocation and an irritation, and it makes me less positively disposed to the languages than I would be otherwise. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What about the other language? | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:51:55 01/06/05 Thu And why's that Dave? Because they used to thrash the living shit out of people who dared to speak it at school for instance? Gave it no official recognition even when hundreds of thousands of people spoke nothing else? Anyway, millions of Scots speak Lowland Scots as their first language rather than English. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Excuse me? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:15:49 01/06/05 Thu As a lowland Scot, I feel I am qualified to respond to this. I can assure you that we speak English, and have not spoken like Burns for well over 150 years. This is not to say that we do not use old Scots words as colloquialisms, we do. However, these are no more prevalent in Scotland than Cockney rhyming slang is in London. Does this mean that Londoners do not speak English? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Lowland Scots | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:27:57 01/06/05 Thu "As a lowland Scot, I feel I am qualified to respond to this. I can assure you that we speak English, and have not spoken like Burns for well over 150 years. This is not to say that we do not use old Scots words as colloquialisms, we do. However, these are no more prevalent in Scotland than Cockney rhyming slang is in London. Does this mean that Londoners do not speak English?" There are various cases for arguing that Lowland Scots is a separate language, most of which don't apply to Cockney and are not purely lexicological. I suggest you read up on it, in addition to researching your other national language, which you seem to know precious little about. Did they teach you anything about Scotland in school at all? I've met plenty of people who are bilingual in Lowland Scots and English. People talk about Afrikaans or Norwegian, yet there's precious little difference between them and Danish/Swedish and Dutch. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: You misunderstand me... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:40:31 01/06/05 Thu Patronising me is not going to win your argument. Lowland Scots is indeed a different language, which evolved alongside English. I am not disputing this. However, we do not speak that anymore, as I have already stated. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I'll repeat myself... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:54:07 01/06/05 Thu As I have already stated, old Scots words are used with various dialects in Scotland. This is not old Scots. This is not the language of Burns. They are not speaking old Scots any more than I am speaking French when i say restaurant. What you heard in Aberdeen was "Doric". This is a dialect, not a language. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Dialects | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:15:41 01/06/05 Thu "As I have already stated, old Scots words are used with various dialects in Scotland. This is not old Scots. This is not the language of Burns." You don't speak like Shakespeare. "They are not speaking old Scots any more than I am speaking French when i say restaurant. What you heard in Aberdeen was "Doric". This is a dialect, not a language." Burns spoke a "dialect" too. It even got called "Doric" (the use of the term was broader then). Standard English is a DIALECT in itself. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmm | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:36:41 01/06/05 Thu We seem to be engaging in operations in semantics now. As you have decided to reclassify dialects as languages, you should have originally stated that there are over ten languages in Scotland, and not merely Lowland Scots and Gaelic. Shetlandic Orcadian Northern Aberdeen/North East (Doric) Mid Northern South Northern Dundee Scots Edinburgh Scots Glasgow 'Patter' Glaswegian Ayrshire Scots Southern Scots ...among many others I'm sure It must be pointed out that many of the groups above do not understand one another’s dialect, sorry, language – obviously due to enormous deficiencies in their schooling, as obviously happened to me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Lowland Scots | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:46:54 01/06/05 Thu "Lowland Scots is indeed a different language, which evolved alongside English. I am not disputing this. However, we do not speak that anymore, as I have already stated." It very much is spoken now. I must have imagined working class people in Fife using it, or farmers in Aberdeenshire speaking in it. It's still a living language, despite education's attempts to eradicate it. It hasn't quite gone the way of Cornish or Norn yet. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Numbers | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:21:55 01/06/05 Thu I am somewhat sceptical about the claim that "millions of Scots speak Lallands as their first language rather than English." If you mean that they all speak like Billy Connolly, then (a) that is not a separate language, although a certain degree of regional ignorance on the part of English people make make it appear so to their parochial minds; (b) Scots don't all speak like that anyway - try visiting the place; and (c) how many people do you imagine there are in Scotland? Can't be more than 7 million, so 'millions of Scots' speaking Lallands would make English a minority language up there, which, I think I am right in saying, is not the case. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 5 Million... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:25:41 01/06/05 Thu Of which 4,934,022 speak English, albeit in a various different accents from the Home Counties. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: langwedges iii | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:29:38 01/06/05 Thu "that is not a separate language" Based on what? You'll actually find that many linguists DO class it as a separate language based on various criteria. And if it was, why the big problem? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed. | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:37:43 01/06/05 Thu And many linguists wear sandals and socks and don't get out much. It flatters their intellectual snobbery to see a different language where in fact there is only a funny accent and some slang words. I suppose that, left to them, Yorkshire and Somerset would be defined as speaking totally different languages, and we should lobby the Oxford University Press to bring out separate dictionaries with "Eh oop" in the former and "Orroit moi lover" in the latter, and they could write smarmy little treatises tracing the etymology of the Yorkshire usage of "while five o'clock" to indicate "by five o'clock", and suggesting that an Academie Somersetaise be established to preserve the purity of their unique and ancient language. Daft bat. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Languages... | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:44:47 01/06/05 Thu It isn't just some of the linguists who think so. Many of the speakers do. Unlike the dialects of Yorkshire etc in England, Lowland Scots was used as a higher register for court records, law, ecclesiastical matters. Even in the case of the various English dialects (of which Standard English is one), there is no reason to look down on "regional" ones. If a Yorkshireman speaks to me in a broad accent, I prefer to hear what he has to say, than how he says it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes, but... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:52:07 01/06/05 Thu There is nothing that you have said here with which I disagree, but I do feel that you are arguing from a misapprehension: Glaswegian accents are not Lallands Scots. Yes, it was and still is a separate language with a fine and legitimate tradition, but when you ask for directions to the pub in Paisley and can't understand the response, this is not because they are speaking this Grand Auld Language, but because of the strong accent. Now, you can call this a dialect, and quite legitimately so. We should take the example of Italy, where each region has a stronger variation in dialect even than between Surrey and Skye. But it never occurs to the speakers of these dialects - say, a Piedmontese and a Calabrian - that they are not speaking Italian. Indeed, they laugh at the poor fools in the other region for not speaking Italian properly, rather than saying, "well, clearly, since they sound so odd to us then we must be speaking a different language. How about that, eh, Georgio, all this time we've been speaking a foreign language and never even knew it! We must be genii!" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Italians etc | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:20:53 01/06/05 Thu "We should take the example of Italy, where each region has a stronger variation in dialect even than between Surrey and Skye" That's a bad choice Ed, because Highlanders have never really had very broad accents only having learnt English recently. Half the people in Skye probably have settled from Surrey these days anyway! "Glaswegian accents are not Lallands Scots" Some are. "But it never occurs to the speakers of these dialects - say, a Piedmontese and a Calabrian - that they are not speaking Italian" Unlike the UK no stigma is attached to these though. But there are strong language movements especially amongst the Friulians. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Fiulians? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:25:54 01/06/05 Thu Aren't they the ones generally acknowledged by scholars to speak the purest and best Italians? They sound odd to me, now you come to mention it, but I always thought that this was because I learned Eye-Tie in Venice, where the blighters sound half Spanish and half-German, and throw in occasional defunct Kaverathousa words to confuse us. L'azento venessiano, indeed! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: attitudes | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:49 01/06/05 Thu Dave, I hate to say it, but if you speak to your "pals" in Scotland like this all the time, no wonder they're hardly queuing up to join the FCS. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:36:55 01/06/05 Thu Speak to them like what? I am merely pointing out the factual errors you have made about the language Scots speak. I'm sorry you find that offensive. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:26:01 01/06/05 Thu "Speak to them like what?" The way you do about the languages etc... nto to mention that you seem to think there is no national football side in your country (which isn't a country). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ?? | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:43:09 01/06/05 Thu I am very well aware of the Scottish football team. I do not believe that the UN defines nationhood on the basis of football teams. I prefer to go by what it says on my passport. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: nations iii | |
|
Author: andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:47:05 01/06/05 Thu "I am very well aware of the Scottish football team. I do not believe that the UN defines nationhood on the basis of football teams. I prefer to go by what it says on my passport." Tibet is a nation. The UN doesn't recognise it. The Kurds are too. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:53:29 01/06/05 Thu Andrew, I am quite happy to debate with you on the issues raised here, but I am not going to be drawn on a debate as to whether the UK is a nation or not. This is rediculous. I don't know where you are from, but you should be aware of an act of Parliament called the Act of Union, that effectively dissolved the Scottish state, and formed the United Kingdom in 1707. It exists, honest. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Maastricht etc | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:55:26 01/06/05 Thu "I don't know where you are from, but you should be aware of an act of Parliament called the Act of Union, that effectively dissolved the Scottish state, and formed the United Kingdom in 1707. It exists, honest." I know all about the treaty of union, but a piece of paper doesn't change people. Anymore than the Maastricht treaty stopped you being British. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Natives | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:20:23 01/05/05 Wed When I spoke about natives I wasnt reffering to the french. Anyway 1% of the population is not a good reason to not do what we want. Ok lets throw the French in the "native" pile. 21% of non-brits is not a good reason to not go ahead with our aims. Even if only 51% were of British decent it would be worth going ahead with our aims. Thank god for democracy. Of course thats all the presumption that a Canadian German decnet wouldnt want free trade and free rights of passage between the greatest places on earth but ah well. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Something old is not neccesarily past it | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:35:01 01/04/05 Tue The first attempts at a planned, intitutionalised unification of Europe was attemped by Charlamagne and the pope (this was quite a while ago now). However the idea has been popular ever since, especially with dictators and autocratic madmen. Does this mean the idea of European unification is "past it"? No it doesnt because its still a damn good diea (in the sense that it serves certain peoples ideological interests). The same good be said of the FCS, infact its an even newer idea and thus much less past it than European unity. "I'm amazed people like you guys still exist" We've only just come into existance. Thank god were not all like you because the world would never achieve anything. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Another example | |
|
Author: Kevin (U.S.) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 06:25:25 01/05/05 Wed I guess another example of "unification" of Europe would be the Napoleonic wars. Although I suppose you could call that more or an invasion under the rule of Napoleonic code. But if you allow that to slide, then I guess you could add Hitler's little European theater show that he directed in the 30's - 40's. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Europe | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:58:55 01/05/05 Wed Hitler, Napoleon, Charlamagne, Louie the something or other... I'm waiting for a British name to come up. (also an uncannily number of Frenchmen) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Britain | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:10:24 01/05/05 Wed Henry II is the British name that springs to mind as a ruthless bastard who tried to conquer Europe. He ruled all of Britain, half of France, some Mediterranean islands and all sorts of other things. His dominions were bigger than Charlemagne's and he was the greatest power since the fall of Rome. We don't think about that much because it was all lost by his son John, and so the first British Empire lasted only a generation. (Apologies to Scots on this forum, but the next even reasonably powerful monarch in our islands was Edward I 100 years later...) Besides, as Ron would probably point out, he was half-French anyway, being an Angevin. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Bigger domain than Charlamagnes? That surprises me | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:57:22 01/05/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It shouldn't... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:49:18 01/05/05 Wed Charlemagne won a lot of battles but didn't really rule the territories of his vanquished foes, so to speak. Bloody amateur... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: lol, couldnt build an empire like a Brit | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:53 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Henry II and inaccurate history | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:56:01 01/06/05 Thu "Henry II is the British name that springs to mind as a ruthless bastard who tried to conquer Europe. He ruled all of Britain" No he didn't. He never ruled Scotland and barely controlled Ireland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Really? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:02:25 01/06/05 Thu The King of Scotland was a dependent of Henry's, just as the Indian maharajas ruled their kingdoms on sufferance. As I said, though, it didn't last. As for Ireland, in the Middle Ages the monarch barely controlled his own country let alone his conquered territories - communications were slow, bureaucracy was even more inefficient than our own, and conquest was more about prestige than anything else. This is to say, that so long as a king had a piece of parchment saying, "We, the people of Pointlessland, do fulsomely submit to You our only sovereign", then that country could get on with it while the king boasted about his territories in the courts of Europe. And, be this as it may, I belive that the point was about warmongering tyrants who wanted to conquer Europe, and Henry II was the closest I could think of. If even he was not much of a conqueror, then we're better off not worse off. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Vassals etc | |
|
Author: Andrew [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:17:53 01/06/05 Thu Henry II didn't rule Scotland... at least not all of it. He wouldn't have ruled the Shetlands and Orkneys either, which were ruled by Norway until the 1400s... his control of the west of Ireland was minimal (even Elizabeth I had trouble with it, centuries later). The Hebrides would have been completely outside his control too... Vassalage is a complicated thing... sometimes it implies complete servitude, other times just tokenism. An example of the two extremes might be the monarchs of Muscovy. At the beginning they were completely servile to the Mongols, but at the end they were still paying homage, but little else. It was only a minor step for them not to go in the end, because they had so much power. The whole matter of vassalage applied within Scotland too. Because many of the Highland chiefs would often swear fealty etc to the King of Scots and go off and do their own thing. So it's even arguable how much central control the Scottish kings themselves had. I agree with what you say. People forget, for instance, that William the Conqueror never controlled the whole of England, I think in fact Cumbria doesn't appear in the Domesday book... yet he is termed King of England! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Could someone please enlighten me on what the Domesday Book was? | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:41:31 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Er... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:46:42 01/06/05 Thu ... about the most famous book in British history, which can be seen a few hundred yards from my flat, in the British library. It was William of Normandy's complete national census. He decided that it would be a lot easier to tax his new and very wealthy dominion if he knew what was in it, so every town, village, cottage, church, farm, person and animal was recorded in a great tome, down to the last chicken and egg in the most miseably backwards Fenlands hamlets. Domesday allowed William to introduce the rigid structures of French feudalism to Anglo-Saxon England. As Andrew says, however, there were quite a number of places which he hadn't subdued yet, which don't appear in the book. The last place to fall was Chester, which he couldn't subdue until long after the census was complete. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sorry, I was never taught about it in school in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:51:20 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: No problem! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:57:45 01/06/05 Thu If you didn't study the Norman Conquest at school - and there is no reason why you necessarily should - then naturally you won't have heard of it. I imagine that not many British schoolchildren know much about the Durham Report. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and what baout the british kids... | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:34:27 01/06/05 Thu that dont know about the domesday book? I would sya that is most of them sadly. I was never taught about it at school, I learnt about it from my Dad. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: British history in Canada | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:07:04 01/06/05 Thu British history is taught in school in Canada (or I should say English history for the earlier days). I am certainly aware of the Norman Conquest of 1066. My ancestors were Normans who fought alongside William. However, I was not aware of the Domesday Book. I think it's safe to say that we learned British history in general, but not in too much detail. I think that British history is relevant to Canadians because we are part of it. We had a year of British history and then a couple of years of Canadian history. American history was also covered in a year. It's too bad that British students don't get a more detailed history of the dominions. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:36:29 01/06/05 Thu What do you mean a "more" detailed history of the dominions? We dotn get anything atall about them! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:49:55 01/06/05 Thu We did in my school, but we're old fashioned... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: differnet gneration | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:28:02 01/07/05 Fri Your a differnet generation to me thats why. History teaching has gone down hill. Thats why a very clever fellow worte a book called the "Pocket Book of Patriotism", its well worth getting for the political message if nothing else, that we need to take pride in our history not hide it away. The line on the first page sumes up perfectly: "This story the good man shall teach his son" The story being the history of the British people. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sauce! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:56:51 01/07/05 Fri I only took my A-Levels in June 2000. Not exactly a huge age gap... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: lol | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:56:27 01/08/05 Sat lol sorry I thought you were older. Well you were very fortunate then. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Good thing I put the Empire history page on the FCS Canada site - we can refer people to it | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:25:41 01/06/05 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I learned my history from "1066 and all that" | |
|
Author: Ian (the colonies) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:37:42 01/07/05 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: I wonder if Canadian school children still get a year of British history? (I doubt it) | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:59:21 01/12/05 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |