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: North-East Assembly | |
Author: Dave (UK) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 09:43:01 11/05/04 Fri So, it turns out that nearly 80% of those who voted rejected John Prescott's regional assembly. Most political commentators now regard regional devolution as dead in the water. There will be disquiet on the streets of Brussels tonight ;-) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> Subject: Regions | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:54:00 11/05/04 Fri This is quite a disappointing result as we need English regions to be established in order for our plan to work. It will now probably be at least another 10 years before progress can be made again. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: 10 years | |
|
Author: Joel (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:00:09 11/06/04 Sat it's safer that devolution in England is forgotten about until the EU is no longer a factor. A few years will make no difference to us because Commonwealth federation has not reached public awareness.....yet [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: ass emblies | |
|
Author: Nick (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:24:34 11/05/04 Fri I agree. Although I have no sympathy for Brussels, I think regional assemblies could be useful in England, though there's no doubt they are a double-edged sword. Of course while it's possible to proceed with a federation in which England is a single entity and has half the seats in parliament, I would have thought this would be more difficult to sell outside England. If that's not the case, fine, but if it is, it seems a small price to pay. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: good news | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:24:14 11/05/04 Fri Being as you area all awaree opposed to UK devolution in all its forms, I cant help but be pleased by the news. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: good news (revised) | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:26:40 11/05/04 Fri Bloody hell. Here it is again only better. Being as you are all aware, opposed to UK devolution in all its forms, I cant help but be pleased by the news. Is that other forum used atall? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Regionalism | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:30:34 11/05/04 Fri I've said before on this forum that the only unease which I feel with the FC proposal is the fragmentation of England: not only because it seems like such a bizarre idea to an Englishman, but because, arising from this, I just don't think that it will work. People won't have it. This plebiscite up north shows that quite clearly: apart from Cornwall, Northumbria is the least "English" region of England, with their own dialect, previously their own language, strong Hollandish and Nordic influences, different economic situation... and still people wouldn't buy it. While it will be difficult to sell the FC in the former dominions while England is still a bloc, it will be near impossible to sell the FC in England if it involves our fragmentation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: And... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:54:27 11/05/04 Fri Just think about imagery in literature... it's all about England. "Oh to be in England, now that April's there." "Was Jerusalem builded here in England's green and pleasant land?" "There is some corner of a foreign field that shall be forever England." "Never the lotus closes, never the wildfowl wake, But a soul goes out on the East Wind that died for England's sake. Man or woman or suckling, mothe or bride or maid - Because on the bones of the English the English flag is stayed." "... This Earth, this realm, this England; This England that were wont to conquer others hath made a shameful conquest of herself!" Not many land-mark expressions of national identity with lines like "Oh to be in the South East Sub-Regional Divion now that Spring is here..."; not many battle cries like, "For God, Queen, and the North West Region Unitary Authority!" It doesn't have the same resonance as "England", and there is a reason for that. I imagine that a similar thing could be seen in Scotland if someone tried to separate politically the Highlands and Lowlands. And as for Ireland, well... I think we can see every day how much of a psychological difficulty it is for the Irish to live in two countries on their one island. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: England! Where the Sacred flame/Burns before the inmost shrine.... | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:08:09 11/05/04 Fri What you are illuminating here is exactly one of the problems our 'British' identity has - the English insist on going on about England all the time - often when they mean Britain, or even the Empire. It leaves everyone else out. It p*sses them off. It encourages them to sing about flowers of Scotland and killin gthe English for their arrogance. It is not very helpful. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Exactly! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:30:21 11/05/04 Fri And I mean "exactly" towards both Dave and Nick's comments. It is one of the problems but its origin is in age. England as one unitary, homogenous political, cultural and economic entity is 1300 years old. Scotland too, although I think that the evolution of a central government in Edinburgh came later... say, at most a mere 900 years ago. Difficult to overturn that overnight. But it is irritating when people say "England" to mean Britain... it makes me froth at the mouth, and I live in England! Foreigners are the worst at this, and in some cases it is not their fault: the Italians, for example, don't have a word for "British" except for "Britannico", which really refers to the ancient Britons as a tribe, not the modern sense of an adjective meaning "pertaining or refering to the United Kingdom"; so they just say "inglese". The Americans, though, have no excuse, and only the other day some Republican senator was talking about rebuilding the Atlantic alliance, and he said, "What's the point? In our future missions we'll be looking for the support of countries with military reach and experience, which doesn't mean France or Germany, it means England." Bit rude, considering that the chaps helping out the Yanks in the Triangle of Death this week are all Scots! And this sort of mistake doesn't help. Still, no-one can answer for anyone but himself; in which context, I can state that it is not a mistake that I ever make, and I am proud to call myself British. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: annoyance | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:33:23 11/05/04 Fri Ed and Nick, you are both right about the annoyance of having my country reffered to as England. I get so mad about it (one time I got so mad about it on the paradox forum that they band me, which was the first time). Its such an insult towards me and the rest of Wales, plus Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is one of the reasons I wnat to see a united British sports teams, that way people will get used to saying Britain rather than Wales, England or Scotland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Flower of Scotland vs God Save the Queen | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:58:08 11/05/04 Fri "It encourages them to sing about flowers of Scotland and killin gthe English for their arrogance." As opposed to God Save the Queen which had a verse about killing the Scots? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Had, and only the rebellious ones | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:59:46 11/05/04 Fri GSTQ HAD a verse about killing Scots, and only the rebellious ones.:-) [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It's still offensive | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:03:22 11/05/04 Fri You can't complain about one, without complainign about the other. Which do you want, an anti-English one reminding us of past atrocities or an anti-Scottish one reminding us of past atrocities? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:08:35 11/05/04 Fri But that verse is no longer part of GSTQ, and hasn't been for a long time. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Offensive anthems | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:11:09 11/05/04 Fri "But that verse is no longer part of GSTQ, and hasn't been for a long time." It's part of the original song. Perhaps forcing people to sing about religion and a foreign queen is offensive too. Even Jerusalem would be a better choice. Or land of hope and glory. They have better tunes. But still mention religion... what the hey..> The good news is that more and more Scots recognise GSTQ for what it is. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 'Rebellious Scots to crush' wasn't part of the original song - it was inserted during the Jacobite rebellion, then erased. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:53:10 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: It still annoys many Scots though. I think GSTQ is an unsuitable anthem anyway nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:11:19 11/08/04 Mon -- [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: not entirely true | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:30:54 11/05/04 Fri Well as it happens there is no official version of GSTQ so you could argue that killing the scots is still part of it if you like. The Monarchy has has always refused to make any version pernament, thus allowing it to change with the times. Aslo note that at the time it was first written the jacobite rebellion was on everyones mind. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anthems, teams etc | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:05:37 11/06/04 Sat “Perhaps forcing people to sing about religion and a foreign queen is offensive too” Please explain why the Queen is a foreigner? “Even Jerusalem would be a better choice. Or land of hope and glory” Jerusalem would make a good anthem for England, but I have always regarded Land of Hope and Glory to be a British, rather than an English song. I admit that I get quite annoyed when England sports teams sing the anthem of the United Kingdom. However, there is nothing to stop the Scottish teams singing it also. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening, and we will continue to sing Roy Williamson’s dirge of hatred for the foreseeable future. I’m with Owain here - unite the sports teams, and the problem is solved. It would be a fair deal - Scotland would participate in the best Rugby and Football teams in the world, and England would share in Curling glory! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Combined Team | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:27:26 11/06/04 Sat I would support a combined UK team in all sports apart from Rugby Union. If that happened the internation game would be destroyed! The Six Nation would become the 4 nations, with a weaker Ireland because Ulster players would be playing for the UK rather than an all-Ireland team. The Four Nations champion would simply be decided by whoever won the test between the UK and France. What would happen to the near sacred British and Irish Lions? Although they could still go on it would be less. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: We would have a better five nations... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:34:20 11/06/04 Sat We would instead have a new five nations of the UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and France. This would be a much better tournament, where the winner would not be a foregone conclusion every year. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: too far to travel for each round - keep the teams as they are | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:20:16 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: 5 nations | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:10:37 11/06/04 Sat It would simply spoil the world cup. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Speaking of which... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:49:54 11/06/04 Sat Has anyone given any thought to a proposed FC anthem? I suppose that there ought to be one, as well as a flag and all that malarkey. Since Canada, NZ and Australia have stopped using 'God Save the Queen', it now has, I fear, the connotation of representing HM's subjects in the UK only, and as such would probably not be acceptable to the former dominions. Thoughts, anyone? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anthem | |
|
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:15:04 11/07/04 Sun A recent poll in Australia had support for "God Save the Queen" as Australian anthem at 1%. I think we will need to find a new completely unbiased anthem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anthems | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:51:49 11/09/04 Tue Bloke suggested to me an old Pan-Britannic hymn as an anthem. He seemed to think that it was written at the time of the New Imperialism, around 1890, but I rather fancy that the words were written during the 'Old' New Imperialism after 1759 and the music was written before 1870. Still, for what it's worth... Hills of the North, rejoice; River and mountain spring, Hark to the advent voice; Valley and lowland, sing; Though absent long, your Lord is nigh; He judgment brings and victory. Isles of the southern seas, Deep in your coral caves Pent be each warring breeze, Lulled be your restless waves: He comes to reign with boundless sway, And makes your wastes His great highway. Lands of the East, awake, Soon shall your sons be free; The sleep of ages break, And rise to liberty. On your far hills, long cold and gray, Has dawned the everlasting day. Shores of the utmost West, Ye that have waited long, Unvisited, unblest, Break forth to swelling song; High raise the note, that Jesus died, Yet lives and reigns, the Crucified. Shout, while ye journey home; Songs be in every mouth; Lo, from the North we come, From East, and West, and South. City of God, the bond are free, We come to live and reign in thee! It's fairly obvious, reading between the lines, that a lot of this is about the British Empire, especially the last verse: people from all parts of the globe, all races of the human family, 'coming home' to Jesus etc., cunningly worded in imperial cliches ('palm and pine' stuff) so that it can also mean the British administrators and soldiers coming home from all over the world to Blighty. I imagine that this hymn inspired Kipling's "The Flag of England", which in turn inspired the US Marine's battle hymn, which contains almost identical references to the non-geographical nature of their reach and influence - appropriate for the FC, whose concept of nationality is not geographical. Perhaps not appropriate for the US marines, though, who have difficulty subduing a small town occupied by a few hairy ne'er-do-wells armed with water pistols. Anyway, whatever you think of the words, I like the melody! Try and find a midi-file of it on the internet. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: if only we could take out the "Jesus" references ... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:28:57 11/10/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Absolutely | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:45:06 11/10/04 Wed I quite agree. But, of course, we needn't remove the vague references to 'god', since people of whatever religion have some kind of god... except for the Buddhists, I suppose, but then we could hardly have a reference to Sidhartha Gautama and karmic oneness in the anthem: it would be a bit New Age for me. But, as Disraeli said, there should be some state acknowledgement of god, not just because he wanted to suggest that the function of the state had a spiritual as well as a material dimension, but also to acknowledge "our belief in morality and hope for the future of humanity". (A touch of Enoch Powell here, perhaps? "I never think of religion, but I believe that there should be an established Church and that the Queen shouldbe the head of it"...) That's why I think that the U.S.A.'s oath of allegiance and all that "in God we trust" stuff works so well: it doesn't say which god! But, to summarise: yes, enough with the Jesus bit already, but that doesn't mean that the anthem needs to be entirely secular. I accept that, even though, if I were pressed for a religious opinion, I would have to call myself an agnostic at best, and an atheist at worst. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Poll | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:03:35 11/08/04 Mon Pffff, glad I'm far away from there. ;-) Could you provide a link to the aforesaid poll? And I suppose that 'Rule, Britannia!' is out of the question? :-P [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: God Save The Queen is still Canada's Royal Anthem | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:45:13 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bizarre Scottish Regions | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:17:07 11/05/04 Fri I agree with Ed here. Regional boundaries are more than just lines on a map. They are a part of our identity. I understand why people from Australia or Canada might be puzzled by this, as their boundaries are just arbitrary straight lines in many instances. We have so many historical boundaries in this country such as the constituent countries of the UK, the ancient provinces of Anglo-Saxon times, and the present day county shires, which Britain would be a much poorer place without. It’s funny that you should mention Scotland Ed, as this is exactly what happened during the seventies, when the last iconoclastic Labour Government were in power. They abolished our historic shires and ancient kingdoms, and replaced them with meaningless monolithic regions such as Strathclyde, Highlands and Islands, Grampian, Border, Central and so forth. Strathclyde was probably the worst, and lumped in people from the Argyll peninsular, Isle of Arran, Ayrshire and Metropolitan Glasgow in the same Authority. Thankfully, the Conservatives ended this madness, and restored the county system. Although I got my county back, it was split into three (North, South and East Ayrshire), but for political reasons, this is no bad thing. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Provinces | |
|
Author: Deira Bernicia [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:57:01 11/05/04 Fri "We have so many historical boundaries in this country such as the constituent countries of the UK, the ancient provinces of Anglo-Saxon times" The only Anglo-Saxon province in Scotland was Northumbria. Try Norse, Pictish etc [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ? | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:03:46 11/05/04 Fri Genetically, the whole of the East coast of Scotland up to and including Dundee has been populated by Anglo-Saxons since they arrived here in the dark ages. It is referred to as the "Anglo-Saxon coast" historically. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Wrong!!! Very wrong! | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:10:04 11/05/04 Fri The Anglo-Saxons reached the Forth. They did NOT reach the Tay. Hence you find medieval English names in Fife, but not true Anglo-Saxon ones. You will however find plenty of Pictish and Gaelic names in Fife and Dundee from around a thousand years ago. The main boundary of the Anglian kingdom was the Forth to the north, and the Esk in the west, although this boundary was unstable, and once reached into West Lothian. Genes don't come into it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I suggest you find out what you are talking about... | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:26 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Actually he/she is right - the Anglo-Saxons didn't reach the Tay, they reached the Forth, a big difference. They didn't reach Glasgow either nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:12:23 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:26:17 11/07/04 Sun And don't the Highlanders traditionally refer to Lowlanders as 'Sassenachs', which, I can only presume from my limited knowledge of Gaelic, means 'Saxon'? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Generally no | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:01:39 11/08/04 Mon The Highlanders tended to refer to the Lowlanders as "Gall". Incidentally this same element is found in the name of the Hebrides (na h-Innse Gall), DoneGAL, GALLoway (Gaidhlig speaking until the 19th century see Lorimer et al in "Scottish Gaelic Studies", "Carn" and other sources), and GALway. The Lowlands are known as "Galldachd" (Gall-dom), NOT "Sasainn". Sasunnach does indeed mean Saxon, but what Wattie Scott got wrong, is that it was more used for proper English, than anglicised Lowlanders. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I see... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:20:25 11/09/04 Tue Thanks for the correction. I see I must brush up on my Gaelic. I have a copy of Mog an Cat somewhere which may help. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Anglo Saxon Scotland | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:40:05 11/06/04 Sat Deira, whether there were Anglo-Saxon provinces in Scotland or not is irrelevant. I imagine you were trying to correct something I said with your comments? If you look at my quote that you so helpfully included in your post, you will see that I made no such reference to Anglo-Saxon Scotland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: English regionalism | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:10:04 11/05/04 Fri These strike me as having the most powerful identities... The Scouse and the Geordies. In fact, they almost separate themselves off from other English. Then... Yorkshire... p.s. The Cornish are not English, according to various bodies in Cornwall. Under ethnicity, when you sign up for a doctor you can say English OR Cornish! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:10:24 11/06/04 Sat You can't sign "Jewish", since it is considered only a religion and not an ethnicity. This is bizarre, and only goes to show that official definitions of what consitutes racial, cultural and ethnic groups are usually far from accurate. I trust only how people define themselves, not how HM Government chooses to pigeon-hole them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Regions are the way to go. | |
|
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:55:19 11/05/04 Fri Well I'm an Englishman and I don't understand why it's a problem. I've always thought of myself as British, rather than English, and I have always seen my loyalty as being to the whole UK, the Crown (symbolically) and the Commonwealth. I think that spirit is exactly what an FC is about, and I think petty regionalism is a fairly modern disease - at least among the English. It's precisely because I'm not a regionalist that I have no problem with England being split into more manageable chunks. In fact, I think it's romantic nonsense to say that the lowlands of Scotland have less in common with the home counties than does Northumberland or Devon. As they said in my first sex education programme when I was 10 entitled 'Living and Growing': "we are all the same, yet different". So far as I am concerned the division into regions is just a replacement of national government with a less centralised and powerful regional government which nevertheless has sufficient critical mass in population and resource terms to be more credible as a political entity than the current counties (which I would retain with some of their powers going to the regional level). England does not need its own government, but the UK does require that England is incorporated into the regional structure of which the Celtic fringe is now a part, or I think separatism will eventually pull the Celtic fringe away, just as a larger federation might be in danger if the UK were left intact. Whilst I don't believe that England has to be further subdivided, I think it will LESSEN the impact of regionalism elsewhere. It will be saying within the federation 'there's nothing special about being English, it's no different from being a New South Welshman, a Scottish Highlander or an Albertan. We are all equal, we are all the same, we all belong equally. I'm not sure many people have ever fully aceepted that within the current UK, and it is a fundamental destabilising influence within our union which was unmanageable at the imperial level and so would risk being unmanageable at the federal level too. England be damned. I am a Briton! I'm as British as Rolf Harris. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Oh, I agree... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:09:01 11/05/04 Fri I am in total accord here. Especially with your comments about highlanders and Snowdonians... Someone from Skye has more in common with people from North Wales, the Lake District and the South West than he does with someone from GLasgow or Edinburgh, because he shares the same problems and lifestyle: heavily depopulated areas, largely reliant on tourism, desperate to revive the fishing fleets, etc etc. Whereas someone from Glasgow or Edinburgh will have more in common with people from London or Birmingham because he shares the same problems and lifestyle: densely populated areas, reliant on the services industries, desperate to resolve problems of over-crowding and high housing costs... That is why, in my opnion, the United Kingdom works, and why, say, and independent Scotland would not work. It is urban arrogance to assume that advertising salesmen in Glasgow are more "in touch" with the needs of highland crofters than advertising salesmen in London. All I wanted to point out is that many people would not agree. Particularly in the more backwards areas of England, like the Welsh border counties and the fens, they will not say they're Britons but Englishmen. I am British and damned proud of it; but I admit that this is not universal. This would be no problem if we were not discussing fragmenting England - the UK is an acknowledgement that lots of different areas (or countries, if you like) can live together. But for people who do not see themselves as British but English, then regionalisation becomes a problem. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Regions... | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:07:42 11/05/04 Fri "Someone from Skye has more in common with people from North Wales, the Lake District and the South West than he does with someone from GLasgow or Edinburgh" The only things those three areas have in common is large influxes of bourgeois colonists from SE England! There's not as much in common between these as you might think. The South West has a denied nation (Cornwall), and goodish infrastructure, and ties to France. It is the only binational region of the three. North Wales is not far from big cities and has ties to Ireland. Skye has ties to the outer Hebrides, and is near no big cities. It will take you the best part of a day to reach Glasgow. They even have three separate languages, if you factor the nation of Cornwall into the south west. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Gaelic | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:15:00 11/05/04 Fri There are only 60,000 first language speakers of Gaelic in Scotland. That is 1% and it is decreasing. It is not a national language of Scotland. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Scottish Gaelic | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:02:46 11/05/04 Fri "There are only 60,000 first language speakers of Gaelic in Scotland. That is 1% and it is decreasing. It is not a national language of Scotland." That's what you say after you ban a language and physically abuse its speakers? Scottish Gaelic is the older national language of the Scots. If it is small it is because it has been deliberately targeted. Choice came after, not before persecution. If English dwindled to that level within several generations, would it cease to be the tongue of England? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: another p.s. | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:07:25 11/05/04 Fri Before you claim this is "ancient history", speakers of Celtic languages still get abuse. People were being hit and grassed on in schools up til the 60s and 70s! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Gaelic speakers | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:17:28 11/06/04 Sat My step-father is a Highlander, and was brought up speaking Gaelic at home, and spoke English at school. He never had problems such as those you describe, even after he went to a grammar school in Glasgow in the late '50s and early '60s. He has now forgotten most of his Gaelic simply because he has had so few opportunities of using it, since hardly anyone speaks it. This is not choice, nor is it persecution: it is simply the natural result of real circumstances in the real world. It seems odd to me that, at a time when the whole world is bending over backwards to learn fluent English, in the UK there is a deliberate and systematic attempt to make it harder for schoolchildren to communicate in English. Oh, and a funny story... A friend of mine was brought up in Wales and went to school there. On one occasion, there were not enough chairs in the class-room and he was sent next door to see if there were any spares. He knocked on the door and went in, and asked the Welsh Nationalist teacher if she had any spare chairs. She said that he could only have one if he asked for it in Welsh. So he said, "Look you, boyo, can I a chair have if you please, Ivan?" He was promptly given a detention! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Why Welsh nat? | |
|
Author: David Hicks [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:08:54 11/06/04 Sat "She said that he could only have one if he asked for it in Welsh. So he said, "Look you, boyo, can I a chair have if you please, Ivan?" He was promptly given a detention!" But that's not Welsh. Why is someone a Welsh nationalist if they back the Welsh language? Isn't Welsh part of a rich united kingdom? The Tories support it in Wales sometimes. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indigenous Languages | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:27:46 11/06/04 Sat Ed makes a good point about the English language. It is indeed odd that Government policy seeks to promote indigenous minority languages in a world where English is the de-facto standard, and the second language of choice for those who don't speak it. It draws me to a greater point. When Britain was at its greatest, we had a truly global outlook on life. Our society that we are promoting today is trying to re-establish that global world-view. While I agree that we need to preserve these languages for posterity, as they are part of our heritage on these islands, I would never like to see us get into an Irish-Style parochial and politically motivated bilingualism. This would ultimately result in dividing and demeaning our nation. I laugh today when I watch Gaelic programmes on Scottish TV, and realise how they are so unsuitable for the modern era, with English words creeping in whenever an issue relating to science and technology is discussed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: the risk of losing languages | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:48:16 11/06/04 Sat Losing a language means losing a whole world view, and that is not a good thing. I think it is important to encourage the use of Celtic languages in the UK and Aboriginal languages in Australia. I see no reason to feel good about losing either Gaelic or Murrin-Patha, both of which I studied at university. Both have structures that reveal interesting ways of conceptualising the world. I also think it is important that everyone in our countries learn English. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: "English words creeping in" aren't you joking Dave - they're NOT English! | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:09:14 11/08/04 Mon "I laugh today when I watch Gaelic programmes on Scottish TV, and realise how they are so unsuitable for the modern era, with English words creeping in whenever an issue relating to science and technology is discussed." As a Gaelic speaker, may I remind you that most of what you have just written there is NOT English... Programme - French Television - Greek and Latin Suitable - part French Modern - Latin Era - Latin/Greek Issue - ? but not English* Science from Latin Scientia, again, not English. Technology - Greek Discussed - Latin I think you need to know a bit about the history [from ancient Greek- "historia"] of English, since it seems that English is "woefully" inadequate [inadequate from Latin "adaequatus", past participle of adaequre, to equalize] for expressing [Latin] the vagaries [French] of modern [Latin] civilisation [Latin], computing [Latin] and technology [Greek]. English speakers have no right to complain that other languages [from French "langue"] borrow! Don't you know that English is just pidgin Norman French and Germanic thrown together? It's the worst borrower of the lot! * [Middle English, from Old French eissue, issue, from Vulgar Latin *exta, alteration of Latin exita, feminine past participle of exre, to go out : ex-, ex- + re, to go; see ei- in Indo-European Roots.] [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Words have to come from somewhere | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:48:49 11/08/04 Mon Oh don't be so pendantic! You try inventing the million or so words that a language uses from no-where; all you'll end up is sounding like you're trying to drunkenly gargle a frog. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Oh dear, there is no such language as English, we must all revert to Latin. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:36:22 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Television = Greek and Latin? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:22:33 11/09/04 Tue "Television" is not English? You really ought to try and make some distinction between Greek and Latin *words* and words invented from Greek and Latin *roots*. "Television" is quite obviously an English word. To be consistent, you should also seek out the roots of these Greek, Latin and other words that you post as if they had simply been invented one Friday afternoon by a committee of linguists. They also came from somewhere. English a mongrel tongue? Absolutely! Borrowing words is what all living languages do. You say English is "the worst borrower of the lot": I would have thought the case could be made for it being the *best* borrower of the lot! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bravo | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:30:34 11/09/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:45:34 11/09/04 Tue Isn't there a character in the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy called "Random"? Were your parents Douglas Adams fans? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Well... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:06:08 11/09/04 Tue He's probably related to all the other "Randoms" on this forum, by IP Address! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Why Welsh nat? | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:28:55 11/06/04 Sat He didn't say she was a Welsh nationalist because she wanted the boy to ask in Welsh, but that someone who happened to be a Welsh Nat. wanted it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That's right | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:29:50 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: We can hardly be responsible for that... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:11:04 11/05/04 Fri 'If English dwindled to that level within several generations, would it cease to be the tongue of England?' Yes. Again, for all I care, speak a mixture of the Darleck language and Classic Latin. Who cares what you speak? Obviously, for legal purposes, things are little different. But if you're having a quick chat with a friend, then there's no probelm with Welsh, Scots, Cornish (if anyone knows it), French, Russian, whatever the hell you like. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: devoluton | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:41:09 11/05/04 Fri Despite my great dislike of devolution I do believe that a fragmented England would be better than the current situation. I am not happy with this half 'n' half federalism. Its just that would much prefer no devolution atall. Power to Westminster. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: City State? | |
|
Author: Seven of Nine [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:02:06 11/05/04 Fri The problems come from denying that Scotland and Wales are nations... or that Cornwall is different. From trying to assimilate them like the Borg and crush their identities and languages. "That is why, in my opnion, the United Kingdom works, and why, say, and independent Scotland would not work." A centralised Scotland wouldn't. That's why it shouldn't copy [London] city state & imperialist UK. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: assimilation | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:34:00 11/05/04 Fri No one here is denying that Scotland or Wales are nations. The only person who coems close to saying such is myslef and I'm a Welshmen myself. I am just as keen to "assimilate" the English into Wales as vice versa, I'm firm believer in intergration. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: Going native... | |
|
Author: Seven of Nine [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:01:12 11/05/04 Fri "The only person who coems close to saying such is myslef and I'm a Welshmen myself. I am just as keen to "assimilate" the English into Wales as vice versa," I too hope the English in Wales go native. It would be a pity for Wales' language if nothing else if they didn't. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: language is not important | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:04:07 11/05/04 Fri "Going native" in Wales is not linked to language. Not Me, My Dad and my Grandad can speak Welsh. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Language IS important | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:27:08 11/05/04 Fri "Not Me, My Dad and my Grandad can speak Welsh." Not something to be proud of. You should try and change it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Why is language important? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:54:13 11/05/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Because language has so much bound up on it. The person who speaks only one language is poor | |
|
Author: Curnoack [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 00:45:04 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hah! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:46:53 11/06/04 Sat I speak almost a dozen of the things, and feel no richer for it. Being a student of furrin languages has taught me one thing above everything else: that English is a great language, and can express a range of things which put other languages into the shade. 600,000 non-inflected words, compared to, say, Korean's 50,000. I asked an Italian friend a little while ago how to say "drizzle" in Italian. I had to explain what it was, and went on about very light but persistent rain, and he continued to look at me as if I were mad, and said, "You people have a whole word just for that?" Forza Inglese! Abassa lingue straniere! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: lol good good | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 08:07:13 11/07/04 Sun Very good point Ed. If your ever in Wlaes watch that terrible soap opera in Welsh (I forget what its called). Due to the the Wlesh languages complete lack of usefullness so much of its in English or modern angloised Welsh words that I can follow whats going on anyway. I think the benefit of having anothe rlanguage is to do more with certain abilities you pick up in the process rather than the actualy ability to speak another language, but its still hardly the most amazing thing in the world. One of the greatest steps forward in education recently was getting rid of that stupid thing whereby every student had to do a language GCSE of some sort. If I was just one year older I would have had no choice about taking French for GCSE (French being the only language my school teaches). Whatever the benefits of learning some dying language is, not being forced to allowed me more options in my GCSE all of which have their beneifts just as much as learning another language. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ed why aren't you speaking English? | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:21:50 11/08/04 Mon Why can't the English speak English? All they speak is Normanised Anglo-Saxon and mangled Latin!!! "If your ever in Wlaes watch that terrible [Latin/French] soap opera [Latin] in Welsh (I forget what its called). Due to the the Wlesh languages [French from "langue"] complete [French] lack of usefullness [from Latin "utilisare"] so much of its in English or modern [Latin] angloised [Latin] Welsh words that I can follow whats going on anyway. "I think the benefit [Latin] of having anothe rlanguage [French] is to do more with certain [French] abilities Latin] you pick up in the process [Latin] rather than the actualy [Latin] ability [Latin] to speak another language [French], but its still hardly the most amazing [French] thing in the world. One of the greatest steps forward in education [Latin from "educare" to lead out] recently [French] was getting rid of that stupid [Latin "stupidus"] thing [Old Norse "thing"] whereby every student [French] had to do a language [French] GCSE [mixture of French and Latin] of some sort. If I was just one year older I would have had no choice [French] about taking French for GCSE (French being the only language [French] my school [latin "schola"] teaches). Whatever the benefits [Latin] of learning some dying language [French] is, not being forced [Latin "fortia"] to allowed me more options [Latin] in my GCSE all of which have their beneifts [Latin] just as much as learning another language [French]" Now then... you guys complain [Old French complaindre] about Gaelic and Welsh "borrowing", why can't you write your own language [French] without recourse [French] to borrowings? This is an extreme [Latin] example [French], but I hope in future [Latin], you shall realise [Latin] that speakers of your language [French] have no right to say such things [Norse] to others. English is a MONGREL tongue. No way round it. It's stolen from every one on the planet [Latin for wandering star] [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Yes! So right! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:29:21 11/09/04 Tue You're right! English is the archetypical mongrel language! That's why I love it... You see, French is Teutonic and Latinate. German is Teutonic and Slavic. Gaelic is Celtic, Gallic, Latinised and vaguely Semitic even. But English is all of its influences at the same time. That's why the English vocabulary has about eight times more words than its nearest rival. We can say 'king-like' [German], 'royal' [French] and 'regal' [Latin], all of which mean something different. But the Germans can only say 'koeniglich', the French 'royale', and the Italians and Spanish 'reale'. Just as mixed-race people tend to be more clever (and, dare I say it, better looking), I think that linguistic miscegenation produces better languages. And I defy you to come up with a better example of a mixed and messed-up language than English! It doesn't even stop at Europe... we can say 'I don't give a dam' (a 'dam' being a small Indian coin minted by the Mughals and worth about a farthing), 'I'm going to run amok' (from Malasian, or is it Burmese, for 'beserk' [which itself is Nordic]), and 'I'll clobber you with my knobkerrie' (the latter being a Zulu word for 'stick'). I love my language, and your calling it a mongrel tongue just reinforces that affeection. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: But... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:06:07 11/09/04 Tue But you're not right when you say that this mongrel language is not English. 'English' is the name which we use to denote modern demotic Latinised-Normanised Anglo-Saxon. It is not the name for Olde Englyshe or for Anglo-Saxon or for Saxon or for Nordic-Saxon. Wulde thas thow wille meg su sprike Anglishe-Sachsen, jeg kunne fal den, butte jeg will nyt. Jeg see for nye Anglishe, thow pictishe tribusmann! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Random: Stop talking crap - this is a forum promoting greater unity among the Commonwealth, not Etymologists Annonymous... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:53:11 11/09/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: really? | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:36:56 11/07/04 Sun Obviously I think English is a brilliant language, but I don't see any advantage in not learning other peoples' world views. Surely you come across words (and thus concepts) in other languages that have made you stop and think about the way we see the world in English. For example, the fact that we have the verb "play" and the noun "game" - used both for the final of Wimbledon and something you do with your kids - says something about how we see these activities. In Portuguese, there is no obvious link between the two concepts. When your Brazilian mate hacks your shins during a friendly spot of football, it is hard to tell him not to take it so seriously when you have to use the equivalent of "relax, it's only a fixture". And that is an interesting thing to learn. I also discovered that speakers of Aboriginal languages tend to think English rather sloppy in dealing with relationships. How, they ponder, can you live in a language which uses the single world "uncle" for four such different relationships? What on earth does my father's brother have in common with my mother's sister's husband? And what about our pronoun "we", which doesn't have any way of telling the listener whether or not he is included? "We are going to the cinema" - does that mean you are invited or not? Aboriginal speakers of English will often use "yunme" (you and me) for a "we" that includes the listener, and "metupella" (me and two other fellows) for a "we" that excludes the listener. I like that. And Owain, calling French "some dying language" is just arrogant nonsense. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: French | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:57:05 11/07/04 Sun Owain has a point, but perhaps not the one which he wants to make! Sorry. I mean that, in criticising the learning of French as the primary second language in British schools, we are about 200 years out of date. French has not been the language of diplomacy and science and all the rest of it for centuries, and more over it is one of the least-spoken languages in the modern world. Why continue to teach it in the 20th Century, let alone the 21st? Spanish would be much more useful, but at the moment only public schools offer it. German is the language of finance, so why not that rather than French? Or world languages: Japanese and Chinese will be very important in the 21st Century, as the centre of the world shifts from the Atlantic to the South China seas. And what about Arabic, spoken by almost one billion people, in what is proving to be politically the most important region in the world? Swahili, Africa's lingua-franca? Hindi and Urdu, spoken by hundreds of millions of people? Personally, I deprecate the teaching of French as a self-sustaining and self-referencing cycle: people who learn a little French do not use it, since no Frenchman speaks worse English than a schoolboy speaks French; and those who learn it properly (i.e. at A-Level, then University) go on to teach other people high-level French whose only use for it is to teach other people, and so on and so on. Teaching other languages would instantly remove this pointless waste of money from the education budget. Moreover, teaching languages like Swahili, Arabic, Bengali, Latin American Spanish, would provide prestigious and well-paid jobs for thousands of immigrants with these as their first languages, who would otherwise have to take menial jobs as waiters and cleaners. But, on a personal level, I'd say that the King's English and Ancient Greek are the only two languages which a gentleman needs... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:23:58 11/07/04 Sun Oh, and Sanskrit. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I personally feel that my life has been severely hampered by my limited grasp of the linear B script | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:34:58 11/07/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: And... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:36:22 11/07/04 Sun And mine by ignorance of the Walla-Walla Borioboolaga dialect! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I'd rather have Latin... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:35:50 11/07/04 Sun My dad suggests that we should bring back Latin as the common language of Europe - not a bad idea really. Better than French, and moreover, it could be highly useful for understanding English. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Latin | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Off to London again) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:18:39 11/09/04 Tue You know, the Scandinavians - well, a couple of Scandinavian countries - are just nuts about Latin, and show the weather forecast in that splendid old language. Sweden is certainly one, but I forget the other. Perhaps they would support the reintroduction of Latin as the 'European' language? Just so long as it is not accompanied by Roman Law, I'm happy with that... it's Common Law for me, laddie; none of that bloody Justinian Code as far as I'm concerned. Decius and Julian were all right, but Diocletian and Theodosius and Justinian's legal frameworks - which I fear have crept into the Euro Constitution - make me want to tear my hair out and bite people to death. Well, not quite... but they make me rather angry. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I quite agree that there are more relevant languages to learn than French | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:38:03 11/07/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: French isn't too bad, but Spanish is probably more useful nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:27:02 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I would disagree with that analysis, Ed. | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:55:39 11/07/04 Sun In a great many countries speaking French is very much a sign of being civilised. Most of the better words in English come from French. Who can doubt that impenetrable is several orders of magnitude greater than the hellishly barbarian ungothroughable? Yes, practically no-one speaks it on a global scale but nevertheless its litereture is far superior to Spanish and is still, by a long way, the best language to express many feelings. In diplomatic terms, it is one of the few languages that can be spoken slowly and with little animation required to emphasise a point. Also French is a very precise language unlike English in many intances. Quite apart from that, seven million of H.M. subjects speak French as a first language. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Ah,,, | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:53:33 11/08/04 Mon So true... mustn't forget the Quebecois. But I still think that, after English, there are languages whose speakers outnumber those of French in HM's realms. As for the sophistication and elegance, having studied French and French literature - and, though I say it who shouldn't, having done it rather well, coming top in the country for my year - I really don't think that it can match English, or Italian. And English is only imprecise because we allow it to be, combined with its diffuse and evolving nature. I like to think of the relationship between the mind, language, and meaning in terms of a quaint metaphor, involving boats and expanses of water. Ancient Greek, for example, is like navigating up a river with many tributaries: it takes you in a straight line from where you are to the end, ever pushing you forwards, with new flows coming in from the sides and forcing you further and faster forward in the same direction, towards the inevitable, the only outcome. Explains a lot of Sophocles, that. But English is like being in a small coracle in the middle of the Atlantic: you can go in any direction, for thousands of miles, with more over the horizon, no end in sight, you can even go straight downwards if you don't row properly. Explains a lot of modern poetry, that. And French is precise because it is like going up a canal in a barge: it's straight, it's concrete, and occasionally you have to pause while the lock-gates open and you have to wait for the water to come up to your level. Great for science, lousy for poetry. I have many French friends and am quite the Francophile, but I don't care for the language, and have never understood the emphasis which is placed on it. It sounds pretty, but if that is to be our basis for deciding which languages are most important, then we should all be learning Italian, Swahilli, or those wonderful-souding native American languages. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Blesse mon coeur d'une langueur monotone! | |
|
Author: Paddy (Scotland) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:24:10 11/08/04 Mon Perhaps you have a point about French poetry... A translation into French of Beowolf would lack a certain somthing. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Aha! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Back in Shropshire) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:05:07 11/08/04 Mon A chink in the Auld Alliance, methinks! ;-) Well, perhaps not until Scots bumper stickers stop saying "Ecosse" on them... Seriously, though, I do feel that some languages would make good translations of Beowulf. I've seen a rather nifty one in Norwegian, and indeed most Teuto-Nordic languages can translate English quite well... I know I'm always banging on about Norwegian, but if you want proof that we're not a Latin people just get a Norwegian grammar book: Norwegian sounds like Scotsmen trying to speak Dutch... fantastic. I do take your point about some cracking words comming from French, but I would say that many of them come straight from Latin and were in use here before the Norman Conquest. The classic example is the word "Germany". The Romans said 'Germania', we say 'Germany'... but the French say 'Allemagne', so we couldn't have got the word from them. Beware of Frenchmen who tell you that "soixant pour-cent des mots anglais ont une origine francaise'... At least half of those, I'd say, come straight from Latin, and another quarter are scientific words from the 18th Century, like Newton's "centrifugal forces". That said, I'm not quite a Thomas Beecham... was it he who wanted to remove all Latin/French words from English, and would not call himself the 'conductor of the orchesta' but insisted on 'master of the band', because the latter phrase uses only Germanic words? Ah, our country has produced some fine eccentrics! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Languages... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:34:15 11/07/04 Sun My school offers Spanish, which I was originally going to do. However, I wormed my way out of it and did History at the last minute, which I'm very happy with. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I only speak English. I wouldn't mind speaking other languages, but it is not a high priority for me. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:26:24 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: English is a mangle of other tongues, more so than the Celtic languages were nt | |
|
Author: Random Jock [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:30:42 11/08/04 Mon [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: OH NO! MY LIFE IS RUINED! | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:56:42 11/09/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: speaking more than one language is a good thing | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:52:22 11/05/04 Fri It broadens your view of the world, apart from anything else. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: no less Welsh | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 07:35:17 11/06/04 Sat Yes I recognise that knowledge of anothe language is handy. But it I am no less Welsh for not knowing the language. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: What kind of Russian or Frenchman doesn't speak Russian or French though? nt | |
|
Author: David Hicks [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:06:30 11/06/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Two languages in Wales.... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:28:28 11/06/04 Sat That is an entirely different scenario... There is only one lanugage there... there are two in Wales; one more ancient than the other, perhaps; but both spoken by Welsh peopel for many years. I think no less of a Welshman who can't speak Welsh. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Indeed | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 22:58:45 11/06/04 Sat Indeed Riberdin. The British language is English and I am British first and foremost (also I do currently live in England). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: ironic | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:33:02 11/07/04 Sun Literally, of course, the British languages are Welsh and Cornish (and Breton). I would not say that you are less Welsh for not speaking Welsh, but I do find it odd that you are *proud* of not speaking Welsh. That sounds dangerously close to being proud of ignorance, to me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: That is a bit silly - just because it was the first, does not make it de facto. | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:37:27 11/07/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: etymologically speaking | |
|
Author: Ian [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:39:21 11/07/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: proud? | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:42:10 11/07/04 Sun I dont recall saying I am proud of my inability to undersatnd the langauge. I simply dont care one way or the other. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: a month or so back | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:12:52 11/07/04 Sun I seem to recall that you expressed pride in the fact that neither you nor your father nor your grandfather could speak Welsh. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: hmmm | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:12:01 11/07/04 Sun Maybe. Pride more in the fact that I dont feel I must spend my time showing just how Welsh I am, the way a large portion of the nation does. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: fair call | |
|
Author: Ian [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:41:55 11/07/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: names | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:11:30 11/05/04 Fri As you lack the confidence to use a real name I shall no longer debate with you. We can resume if you chose to use your real name and stick to it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: How do I know your real name? | |
|
Author: Question [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:22:19 11/05/04 Fri "As you lack the confidence to use a real name I shall no longer debate with you. We can resume if you chose to use your real name and stick to it." Why don't you use your surname yourself then? And even if I did, how could I prove you were who you said you were. I've no problem with whatever name you use. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: names | |
|
Author: Ben.M(UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:31:12 11/05/04 Fri Trust. I have been posting on this forum since early this year using the same name. If all of these posts you have been making were all under the same name I would be okay with it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Erm... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:24:28 11/05/04 Fri I use a net alias here. The fact that if you search for mine on Google you will probably find information credit card companies drool over obtaining is of little relevance; the name 'Roberdin' is obviously not mine. Whether people use 'Seven of Nine', 'Bob', 'Fred', 'John', or 'Anika Hanson' is unimportant, what is important is that use the same name so that we can understand who they are and their views. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> Subject: Bhagvan! | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Off to London again) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:05:10 11/09/04 Tue Does anyone else think that posting about English regionalism, morphing into a discussion about Anglo-Scots rivalry, then coming round to demotic etymology and advanced linguistics, then moving on to a chat about which languages should be taught in schools, finishing with an acimonious echange about various persons' true identities, is straying somewhat from the purpose for which this forum was founded? Have we, in the process of creating this conversation-post which takes about 5 minutes to scroll through with a good mouse, advanced the cause of the FC? I shall just say, though, in conformity to this random in-and-out running, that I am sitting in the top floor of a wobbly old 16th Century half-timbered building, looking at a very pleasant sunset over a pretty little Shropshire village. Nice country this... why do I have to go abroad again? Yuk. "Si prega di assicurare che le vostre centure di sicurezza sono in luogo prima della nostra partenza..." [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: You have summed everything up perfectly. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:51:04 11/09/04 Tue [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Tantegrazie | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (London) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:23:00 11/10/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: If this were all we were doing, I'd say we were wasting our breath | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:31:18 11/10/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: Then perhaps it is correct to say we are wasting our breath | |
|
Author: Owain (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:50:02 11/11/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: don't know about you, young sprout, but I feel that getting letters published in respected newspapers has some chance of raising the profile | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:20:34 11/13/04 Sat [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |