# Why the British kant spiel



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 8, 2015)

http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150605-your-language-is-sinful

Some I knew, others I didn't, all interesting. And of course txting dates to Semaphore and Electric Telegraph, not started by mobile SMS or Internet.


----------



## Wiglaf (Jun 8, 2015)

I wouldn't have called American spelling simplified; I would refer to it as de-Frenchified ( z is not simpler than s nor is er simpler than re).  Of course, it is a British article.
However, these differences do make spelling simplification more difficult.  Getting one country to agree to omit an h after a g is nearly impossible getting all the English speaking countries to agree, which almost requires a unified spelling first to be worth the effort, would be beyond the realm of imagination.
It would be nice to reduce some unpronounced combos that foreigners are tempted to pronounce:  gh to g (pronounced by Indians), mb to m (mb is found in some African tongues).


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 8, 2015)

Jeweller -> Jeweler
Others too?
Skipping extra u
Colour - > Color
Authour -> Author (actually UK spells Author too, but I'm told it used to be Authour)
Doughnut ->  Donut
Petrol -> gas  

mh, gh, dh, ph are special in Irish, It did not originally use Roman alphabet (Greek: Alpha Beta, Hebrew/Aramaic/Phoentian: Aleph Beit )

Niamh,  Lough, etc

likely gh kh, mb etc need to be there in many words in not-English


----------



## Gramm838 (Jun 14, 2015)

just to confuse those who have ESL...ghoti is pronouced "fish".

gh from rough
o from women
ti from initiative

therefore, "fish"


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jun 14, 2015)

Except isn't it a made up word? I think I remember our O Level English teacher showing that on the board in late 1960s.


----------



## mosaix (Jun 15, 2015)

For me, spelling at school was a nightmare. I could do subjects that involved being able to deduce the answer but memorising answers was torture.  Consequently my schooldays weren't all happy ones. Then I left school got a job as a computer programmer and never looked back.


----------



## Gramm838 (Jun 17, 2015)

mosaix said:


> For me, spelling at school was a nightmare. I could do subjects that involved being able to deduce the answer but memorising answers was torture.  Consequently my schooldays weren't all happy ones. Then I left school got a job as a computer programmer and never looked back.



so you can spell "switch it off and switch it back on" then, Mosaix?


----------



## mosaix (Jun 20, 2015)

Gramm838 said:


> so you can spell "switch it off and switch it back on" then, Mosaix?



Not necessary, Gramm. In those days, naive as we were, we used to test software *before* delivering it.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 6, 2015)

Ther ar sum vere bad spillers abut.
No on can writ as gud as mi.


----------



## steelyglint (Jul 11, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Petrol -> gas



'Petrol' is actually a trade name. 'Gas' is a poor label for a liquid - better to call it 'Liquid'. However, that would get confusing and quite annoying after trying a few different liquids in your fuel tank and spending days purging the system after each wrong choice. Better to stick with 'Petrol', unless you drive a diesel.

.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 11, 2015)

The name Petrol is derived from Petroleum. It was never a trademark in the UK, the attempt to register it in Victorian Era failed as the word was already in common use as an alternate to "Motor Spirit".

Gas is short for Gasoline. Gasoline or the older spelling Gasolene wasn't ever a trademark either.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 11, 2015)

What _really _annoys me is people who drop, "Rs," at random, but then put them where they were never intended to be;

"Pawn," and, "Porn," *do not* sound the same.

It's, "Idea," not, "Idear," "Car," not, "Cah," "Chairs," not, "Chehs," and, "Drawing," not, "Drawring."

Oh, and pronouncing, "Loch," (or Lough) as, "Lock," should be a hanging offence.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 11, 2015)

Germans can do Loch or Lough, but some Ethnic groups simply have no idea how to make that sound.

I believe some Welsh* feel the same about Ll prefix on words.


[*The Welsh should really be called Western Britons in English as Welsh or Welsch is Anglo Saxon for Foreigner.]


----------



## steelyglint (Jul 11, 2015)

The Ace said:


> Oh, and pronouncing, "Loch," (or Lough) as, "Lock," should be a hanging offence.



Another hanging offence should be reserved for those who, speaking of an executed murderer, say 'hung'. Meat is hung, humans are hanged. Another rope should await those - especially BBC presenters - mouthing the abysmal 'arangatang' when speaking of the Orang Utan. Even Wikipedia seem to think a variant 'orang utang' is acceptable, but that second 'g' should never appear.



Ray McCarthy said:


> Except isn't it a made up word? I think I remember our O Level English teacher showing that on the board in late 1960s.



Er. All words are 'made up'. Unless somebody managed to germinate a dictionary tree.

.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 11, 2015)

steelyglint said:


> when speaking of the Orang Utan


But don't call it a monkey.
You never know.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 11, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Germans can do Loch or Lough, but some Ethnic groups simply have no idea how to make that sound.
> 
> I believe some Welsh* feel the same about Ll prefix on words.
> 
> ...



If the Welsh are anything like the Scots, they won't mind in the least being labelled, "Foreigners," by the English.


----------



## dask (Jul 11, 2015)

I still can't figure out why "peeps" is pronounced "pepys."


----------



## steelyglint (Jul 11, 2015)

dask said:


> I still can't figure out why "peeps" is pronounced "pepys."



It isn't. If you go by the spelling, 'Pepys' is pronounced 'peppies', but it is actually pronounced 'peeps'. Sorry to be a pedant, but you had it backwards.

.


----------



## dask (Jul 11, 2015)

No, I had it the way I wanted. You misunderstood me.


----------



## steelyglint (Jul 11, 2015)

Hmm. 'Peeps' is pronounced 'peeps', but 'Pepys' is pronounced 'peeps', too.

.


----------



## mosaix (Jul 12, 2015)

Perhaps the most annoying mistake that people on online forums make is to type "would of" instead of "would've" or "would have". Quite clearly these people listen a good deal to the radio or television but rarely read. They know what "would've" sounds like but don't know how to spell it and, obviously, don't really know what it means.


----------



## The Ace (Jul 14, 2015)

mosaix said:


> Perhaps the most annoying mistake that people on online forums make is to type "would of" instead of "would've" or "would have". Quite clearly these people listen a good deal to the radio or television but rarely read. They know what "would've" sounds like but don't know how to spell it and, obviously, don't really know what it means.



That's a drawing and quartering offence !


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 14, 2015)

I read out of curiosity about what "hanged, drawn and quartered" meant. I wish I hadn't. The lucky ones were inexpertly hanged so their neck broke and they died before the other two stages.


----------



## BigBadBob141 (Jul 15, 2015)

And a fun time was had by all!!!


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Jul 15, 2015)

Related: Why isn't American a Language?
http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150715-why-isnt-american-a-language

Actually I think it is.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 21, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Germans can do Loch or Lough, but some Ethnic groups simply have no idea how to make that sound.
> 
> I believe some Welsh* feel the same about Ll prefix on words.
> 
> ...



It's only since around the start of Elizabeth 1sts reign that the English started "borrowing" the term Briton.

There was for example a letter written by a French Ambassador, which Cornish Nationalists use in arguments over whether they are Cornish or just English. The King of France wanted to know what peoples made up the largest Island of the British Isles, so the Ambassador asked his English mates at the Court of St James and wrote home with the following info:

To the North, is the Kingdom of Scotland, inhabited by the Scots, who speak, depending on the area, English, "Scots" and Gaelic. the South, the Kingdom of England is inhabited by 2 Peoples. The English, and to the West of the Kingdom, in the Principality of Wallis, and the South West, Kernwal is inhabited by the Britons, who speak the British Tongue.

I forget the exact spelling used for Wales & Cornwall, but it was iirc archaic versions, and its an interesting bit of text from the time that shows that even up to Liz 1's time, the English considered the Welsh & Cornish to be the "Britons" and the 2 "modern" dialects of Brythonic still being spoken to be "the British Tongue"

It would seem that a strong driver behind the English starting to adopt the term British for themselves was, a Welsh Legend. The Legend of Prince Madoc says that Madoc, a Prince of Gwynedd, sailed far West and discovered a new land, he returned home, picked up a few more shiploads of people and vanished west into Myth. Modern claims are that he landed in Mobile, Alabama, and there are various strange tales of an American Indian tribe, who rather than living in teepee's etc, instead lived in stone buildings, in walled settlements, built around a central point, european style, and there are stories of Welsh Redcoat Officers getting lost, and running into natives who they were able to communicate with in a bizarre welsh dialect.

Liz 1 of course was of Welsh descent, and there was a european race on for the new world, and becoming British gives them a better claim on that new world, since legend says a British Prince discovered the place first.

It's an interesting parallel to post Norman Conquest England, many Norman Lords were from the South of Normandy, near the Breton border, and began eagerly manufacturing Breton Ancestory - Bretons descend from the Welsh/Britons, so the Lords were trying to basically claim eventual descent from King Arthur, and thus, as an ancient king of the Britons, giving the Norman Lords the right to rule in England, over the more recent Saxon incomers.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 21, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> Liz 1 of course was of Welsh descent, and there was a european race on for the new world, and becoming British gives them a better claim on that new world, since legend says a British Prince discovered the place first.


Yes, I'd heard that was the reason for adding England to the British Wales and Cornwall 


Erm ... does it mean that in a sense the English are no more British than the Irish?


----------



## The Ace (Aug 21, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Yes, I'd heard that was the reason for adding England to the British Wales and Cornwall
> 
> 
> Erm ... does it mean that in a sense the English are no more British than the Irish?




I always thought they were Germans - that's where the Angles (Angle-land, you may've heard of it) and Saxons came from.  Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are where the Celtic Britons managed to hold on.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 21, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Yes, I'd heard that was the reason for adding England to the British Wales and Cornwall
> 
> 
> Erm ... does it mean that in a sense the English are no more British than the Irish?



Exactly, but add the Scottish to that too!!! Remember, "Scotti" was Roman Slang for "Irish Pirates" and they only began invading/colonising what became Dalriada, then Scotland around the same time as the tribes that became the English where popping over for tea, and rather outstaying their welcome, from the continent 

There is a road sign somewhere in Scotland, I think, in, or near Strathclyde, which is a perfect map of the Peoples who have been there, and came. the Place Names are a mix of British/Welsh, Pictish, Gaelic, and English.

A famous dark age "Welsh" King, Cunedda came from what is now Scotland, and founded the Royal Dynasty of Gwynedd, the House of Aberffraw etc. Ironically, he was asked to come to what is now North West Wales, to protect the region from Irish Pirates and Invasion - should probably have stayed home! 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cunedda

The Bard, Taliesin, wrote about a Kingdom called Manau Gododdin, which was in the area of modern Stratchlyde, and he also wrote a lot about a King, Urien Rheged, Rheged being a kingdom that encompassed parts of what is now Northern England and Southern Scotland.

its amazing how much corrupted Welsh remains in some place names in England and Scotland, and how the modern Welsh names for certain places record how long ago they were given those names, and again show how the peoples and history changed.

Caer Edyn (Edyn's Fort) became Edinburgh, a combination of the Brythonic Edyn and the English Burgh - Glasgow, is of Brythonic origin and means Green Hollow, though in modern Welsh, Glas = Blue. Welsh for Wales is Cymru, and the English northern county of Cumbria takes its name from the same Brythonic Word, being one of the later parts of "England" to lose its original British language and culture.
Glasgow of course is in Strathclyde, or Ystrad Clud as it once was. Cat Coit Celidon is now known as Caledonia.
The Welsh for England is Lloegar - the "Lost Lands" and older Welsh printed works refer to "Hen Ogledd" the "Old North" referring to southern Scotland/Northern England.

When "Wales" and the Brythonic Peoples of the north became separated by various English and later, Viking Kingdoms, those peoples began calling themselves Cymbrogi, which evolved into Cymru & Cumbria. Strangely though, the Cornish, nor the Bretons ever took on that name. Which is very interesting imo, given that the DNA research is showing a marked "ethnic" difference between the Cornish and the Welsh. Hell, there isn't even 1 Welsh ethnic identity, there are 2 - North and South Wales are again markedly different, though I wonder if that is to do with Cunedda and his people coming south.

The weird one is that the Welsh share a strong ethnic link with part of Ireland (I think esp Leinster) and with the Basque people. That we have a huge amount of missing info on our pasts is becoming very clear.

One thing that has always intruiged me are the origin myths. Most peoples in Europe, the origins tend to be from XYZ God, the Norse & Teutonic peoples believing themselves descended from Odin and so on.

But the Welsh and Irish origin myths seem to be of real people rather than gods. Even if some of the Irish myths state that one or two of the invading races were or had giants and so on, they and the Welsh Myths, especially the Brutus of Troy ones clearly describe a people coming, or invading from the "East" makes you wonder. I have read a well reasoned argument that Homer's Oddysey which is always taken to describe a journey around the Med makes no sense, as things like the Weather encountered simply don't match the Med. But, if you have them going West, and up Iberia, towards the British Isles, suddenly it all fits.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 21, 2015)

The Ace said:


> I always thought they were Germans - that's where the Angles (Angle-land, you may've heard of it) and Saxons came from.  Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are where the Celtic Britons managed to hold on.



Like in my previous post, the Scots are a bunch of invaders too 

You missed out Brittany/Armorica, dear sir! That too is where the Celtic Britons also managed to hang on, since it was essentially a Briton colony, possibly founded by Conan Meriadoc, one of Macsen Wledig's Generals (Magnus Maximus). One Welsh story suggests that when Conan's men sent back to Brittania for their Wives and families, a ferocious storm destroyed the fleet, killing them, so the men were forced to take wives from the few remaining Gauls. They then cut out the tongues of their new Gaulish wives, so their Children would grow up speaking British/Welsh, not the "barbaric" Gaulish.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 22, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> Like in my previous post, the Scots are a bunch of invaders too



Stretching the time period out a bit longer, about 13000 years ago (or thereabouts) there was a 1 km-ish ice sheet over most of Britain and therefore I'd suspect no resident human population - therefore everyone has been an "invader"ever since


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 22, 2015)

Venusian Broon said:


> Stretching the time period out a bit longer, about 13000 years ago (or thereabouts) there was a 1 km-ish ice sheet over most of Britain and therefore I'd suspect no resident human population - therefore everyone has been an "invader"ever since



Can you "invade" a place that is not claimed by an indigenous people?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Aug 22, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> Can you "invade" a place that is not claimed by an indigenous people?



Given one of the meanings of the word invader: "enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect." yes you can.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 22, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> "invade" a place that is not claimed by an indigenous people?


Has there been such a situation since last ice age rather than just after?


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 22, 2015)

Ray McCarthy said:


> Has there been such a situation since last ice age rather than just after?



Falkland Islands, possibly Bermuda, there are various places that were uninhabited until European explorers found them.

It's one of the things that Argentinians fail to understand about the Falklands, they genuinely believe thanks to a combination of stupidity, propoganda or a belief that Google is somehow lying that there is an Argentine population under British Oppression in the islands. In the 70's or 80's a group of hot heads crash landed a plane into the Airfield at Port Stanley, rushed out waving Argie flags and telling the bemused Islanders they were finally "liberated" from British Oppression, and got rather a nasty shock when the islanders said "erm, ok, but we are British" The entire nation seems to have an unforgivable lack of knowledge of the realities where the FI's are concerned. Even now they believe the "oppressed argentines under british rule" rubbish, there was an article in I think the Guardian not to long ago, and young Argentines were parrotting out the propoganda, the 70s/80s guys you could forgive, but these were educated university students and graduates with access to the internet.

When pushed, the odd Argentine politician will make a case based on the old Viceroyalty of the River Plate. But surely, you cant be picky and piecemeal with such claims? as so, why are they not also claiming the chunks of Chile for example that were in the Viceroyalty.....

I am of the opinion that History has no place in modern geopolitics, when deciding the future of XYZ place, it is firmly down to the people living there, now, not who lived there 400 years ago. For example, as a Welshman with an Irish Stepfather, I think a United Irish Republic would be marvelous, but it is down to the democratic will of the residents of the 6 Counties whether that happens or not. Same for Gibraltar. At least the remnants of the British Empire have democracy, from what I understand, the Porto Ricans (effectively an American Imperial Colonial Posession) dont have the same rights as US Citizens, nor proper taxation with representation and so on.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 22, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> Same for Gibraltar.


Or bits of North Africa the Spanish Occupy? 



Caledfwlch said:


> the Porto Ricans (effectively an American Imperial Colonial Posession)


Didn't they have a vote and decide to stay as they are?* (Unlike some bits of mainland USA that were forcably joined before the USA Civil War).



Caledfwlch said:


> a United Irish Republic would be marvelous, but it is down to the democratic will of the residents of the 6 Counties


Yes. Or where would it stop? Would Dalriada (on both sides of North Channel) be Irish or Scottish?  Should Brittany be independent or confederated with an Independent Cornwall?
Should Belgium exist at all?
Part of the idea of CM and later EU was to have no more wars in Europe to change borders (Alsace etc).

A degree of National Pride and Preservation of Culture and enjoyment of it is good. Freedom to have your historic Language is good. But once "racial purity", barbed wire, internal passports according to ethnicity, gettos, bombs, beatings, bullets, black and decker drills etc *then it's evil.*


*EDIT*
[* It seems they have voted to remain "Commonwealth", but it's maybe not binding on USA Government anyway.]


> In 1993 Commonwealth status won by a plurality of votes (48.6% versus 46.3% for statehood), while the "none of the above" option, which was the Popular Democratic Party-sponsored choice, won in 1998 with 50.3% of the votes (versus 46.5% for statehood). Disputes arose as to the definition of each of the ballot alternatives, and Commonwealth advocates, among others, reportedly urged a vote for "none of the above"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rico#Political_status



> The proposed political status for Puerto Rico encompasses the different schools of thought on whether Puerto Rico, currently a Commonwealth of the United States, should change its current political status. Although there are many differing points of view, there are four that emerge in principle: that Puerto Rico maintains its current status, becomes a state of the United States, becomes fully independent, or becomes a freely associated state.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_political_status_for_Puerto_Rico

see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_status_of_Puerto_Rico


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 23, 2015)

I suspect that Belgium doesn't have a terribly long future left, there was a panic a couple of years ago when a certain amount of Flemish Nationalists won elections. The Flemish in general hate what they perceive as their hard earned taxes going to support the "lazy" Walloons.

No such Poll has been held in Walloonia, but during the little panic, some French papers did a Poll in France to gauge the appetite of French Citizens, and those who took part were overwelmingly in favour, that if Belgium was to divorce, the French Republic should offer Walloonia entrance into the Republic as a Departement. I could well see the Walloons being behind the idea, as they do lack the ability of Flanders to survive post breakup as an independent state, economically etc.

I suspect a Divorce would be fairly amicable, but where the feathers will fly is over the Brussels Capital Region, as the EU will almost certainly try and intefere and force Brussels out of Flanders, making it a sovereign City State, along the lines of the Vatican, as the HQ region of the EU.

The existence of places such as Puerto Rico and of course, the military annexation of places like texas make a mockery of American claims they dont and never had an "Empire" nor Colonial Possessions 

I am reading an Alternate History at the moment from the Alt History Forums, the Britain (England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland) of 1980 is thrown through time to 1730. The US presence in the UK, around 15,000 people, including military forces are insisting they "own" the same territory and are demanding the UK hands it over. Except this is 1730, there is no USA, just the British Colonies/British North America, and at this time, there is no desire or demand to leave British Rule.


----------



## BAYLOR (Aug 24, 2015)

The Ace said:


> I always thought they were Germans - that's where the Angles (Angle-land, you may've heard of it) and Saxons came from.  Scotland, Wales and Cornwall are where the Celtic Britons managed to hold on.



What about the Picts? Weren't they there before everyone else ?


----------



## Ursa major (Aug 24, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> In the 70's or 80's a group of hot heads crash landed a plane into the Airfield at Port Stanley, rushed out waving Argie flags and telling the bemused Islanders they were finally "liberated" from British Oppression


Given what the Argentinians did to their own indigenous population(s), it's perhaps just as well that those Argentinian flag wavers believed the UK had disposed of the (imaginary) indigenous population of the Falklands, but had been kinder** to all the (imaginary) Argentinians living there under UK oppression; otherwise they might have been waving (and firing) guns instead of flags. 


** - Because they were fellow ex-Europeans and so not indigenous cannon fodder.


----------



## Wiglaf (Aug 24, 2015)

Caledfwlch said:


> Porto Ricans (effectively an American Imperial Colonial Posession) dont have the same rights as US Citizens


Puerto Ricans _*ARE *_US citizens.


----------



## The Ace (Aug 25, 2015)

BAYLOR said:


> What about the Picts? Weren't they there before everyone else ?



The Romans called them Picts, they had their own name for themselves, but they were (and are, their relation to modern Scots is much the same as between the Saxons and the English) just another group of Celts.


----------



## Caledfwlch (Aug 27, 2015)

The Ace said:


> The Romans called them Picts, they had their own name for themselves, but they were (and are, their relation to modern Scots is much the same as between the Saxons and the English) just another group of Celts.



One of the myths that get perpetuated, especially in Scotland is that Hadrian's Wall was built because the Romans were scared/couldn't fight/handle the tough of Scots. The reality is, there weren't any Scots, most of what is now Southern Scotland/Northern England, the "Yr Hen Ogledd" (modern Welsh for the "Old North" coined when the last British Kingdoms in Northern England/Southern Scotland, such as Rheged, Manau Gododdin/Manaw and Ystrad Clut  began to collapse under pressure from invasions by multiple enemies, and of course, despite having common enemies in the English and Irish putting the whole of Britain at risk, British Kings still kept falling out and warring against each other, so the lands came under the rule of the English & the Gaelic Speaking Irish. Here is a cool map showing how the Hen Ogledd began looking







The Roman's of course had farms, homes and iirc trading posts well beyond the Wall, and the Wall was mainly there to mark the borders of the Empire's possessions in Brittania that they could safely control, remember, Cunedda came from Manaw/Manau Gododdin to what is now North Wales, founding the Kingdom of Gwynedd, many say, at the request of the Romans, though it is a disuputed point.

I think the current thinking regarding the Picts sways towards them also being Britons, not hugely different to the Britons found in Yr Hen Ogledd, or Wales, just perhaps a little less advanced, maybe due to not being under Roman rule.


----------



## The Ace (Aug 27, 2015)

The Romans abandoned Scotland because it wasn't worth nicking.

The Dacian Wars broke out about the time that what is now Scotland was being prepared for occupation (there are Roman marching camps as far North as Aberdeen and Inverness, and the Romans were the first people to work out that Britain was an island when their two fleets met in Orkney), and the Dacians were by far the greater threat.


----------



## Ray McCarthy (Aug 27, 2015)

The Ace said:


> and the Romans were the first people to work out that Britain was an island


Or perhaps leave a written record. I'd be sceptical they were the first.


----------

