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: Mohawks | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 15:44:56 01/03/05 Mon In reply to: Ron 's message, "Wow" on 17:52:16 01/02/05 Sun 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. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous 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 ] |