h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

there are a lot of very reasonable thoughts being expressed here. these thoughts are all being expressed in the english language.

i apologize for repeating the statement that a language is more than characters, symbols, words or grammar.

it is not a picture or a sculpture or other non verbal communication; those can be interpreted in the broadest way depending on the viewers nurture and nature endowed thought patterns.

nor is verbal language in quite what mathematics is. mathematics is, for almost all people, apparent precision. this precision can be seen as what allows it to be regarded as universal (except perhaps for the theorists in pure math and the periphery of astrophysics on the one hand and for the metaphysicists on the other).

it is therefore possible to see verbal communication by peoples of diverse backgrounds in a common language as a means of their commonality in perceiving and comprehending the world. no doubt, there are nuances that only each reader/writer will completely understand or feel. however, for the communication to be successful via a chosen medium such as spoken/written language there must be commonly held beliefs and assumptions. these are far greater in measure than the divergences in thoughts. that is why the product is primarily, for me, most nearly part of its family. even for the so called native speakers there are so many variations in use and comprehension, yet to be able to successfully participate with each other then, that which is mutually understood must far outweigh that which excludes.

that is why perhaps that i think that it is english that is the greatest contribution of the british and for which they may be most proud.

and finally, at the risk of launching yet another firestorm, a more devastating one than my initial post seems to have caused, i dare suggest as follows. that given many of the messes the world over can often be shown to have had a british finger somewhere in the mix i would not care to suggest that the honor of that one people is among the most stellar or a point of pride.

Important Note

The Scots (originally Irish, but by now Scotch) were at this time inhabiting Ireland, having driven the Irish (Picts) out of Scotland; while the Picts (originally Scots) were now Irish (living in brackets) and vice versa. It is essential to keep these distinctions clearly in mind (and verce visa).

That, and stuff like it, is one of the reasons I like being British. I wouldn't say I'm *proud* of it - I just think I'm lucky.

H.

Doesn't it go on to say the Scots were furious they weren't Pict?

Reading and thinking...

Yeah, English is an excellent language for conversing with strangers because most strangers can speak it.

It's also an excellent language for getting things all muddled up, but of course the British have an ancient and honorable reputation for muddling things don't they?

It's really great to find a tool that can be used to compose logical arguments supporting disingenuous notions. And it's got plenty of cuss words too for when you just can't stand the disingenuity a moment longer.

Speaking of disingenuity, it was my understanding that the Picts were settled in what is now Scotland during the Roman occupation and were so non-compromising that the Romans found it necessary to build a huge fence from sea to sea to keep those Picts out. But in the 10th century, Irish people came across one of the seas and invaded the Pict's territory, causing the Picts to disappear utterly.

So now the only difference between Scots and Irish in most cases is that the former are Presbyterians and the latter are Catholics.

Except there's some Presbyterians in Ulster who claim to be Irish. This suggests to me that among the Scots/Irish aka Micks in general, it's thought be be cooler to be Irish than Scots. Probably because the Irish fiddlers can play jigs faster. What do you think?

Analiese:

It's always hard to tell when you're serious and righteously annoyed, and when you're just taking the p**s - and indeed when you're both. But just in case you missed the reference, and thought I could write like that myself, the snatch of "history" above is the quote abcBen was referring to from "1066 And All That". It's a joke.

And since you obviously don't mind the racial epithets as long as they're not directed at you, you can at least get them right and not refer to the Scots as "Micks in general". Those people are JOCKS, and don't you forget it.

H.

Sorry I missed the ethnic humor, Hoovooloo.

I guess it's because in America Jocks aren't necessarily Scots although they could be. Which is probably an example of why British and Americans are separated by a common tongue.

And I do apologize for getting Scots and Irish mixed up.

Now if someone would kindly educate me on the nuances I'm confident I won't f**kup again, at least not real soon.

Oh, by the way, when have I objected to racial epithets being hurled at me? Or am I being paid back for somebody else's breach of Albion etiquette?

You know, that's an interesting one. "Jock" to anyone in the UK is simply "Scotsman". And I think it's fair to say, specifically men, too. It's not even usually derogatory either, unlike, say, "Kraut".

There was a kid's comic when I was a wee nipper which had a strip in it called "The Jocks and the Geordies", which was in retrospect about racially motivated gang warfare between Scots and people from Newcastle... That should give you some idea of how harsh an epithet it really is. "Mick", on the other hand, *is* quite derogatory.

I've always found the US usage of "jock" to mean someone young, dumb and full of... sporting prowess to be quite funny, since it never but never meant (when I came across it) someone with a Scottish accent and the only possible etymology I can imagine for it is that it's derived from "jockstrap", which at least seems appropriate, if a little groinal.



H.

Oh my gawd, I just read something recently about the Scots raiding Newcastle during the Hundred Years War. Is THAT still going on?

Okay, now I know to stay away from the M word.

Who invented that one by the way? I always thought it was the Boston Brahmans who didn't want to be associated with "that rabble" fleeing from the potato famine. I used it to show mostly that those who espouse white supremacy frequent disparage people of their own race as much as the darker ones. Like what are those whites you don't like then guys? Off-white?

This thread has made me consider patriotism as it relates to me, and my feelings for my country. I find there is less than I thought in the past or present that makes me proud to be British.

I am proud of the intellectual and cultural perspective I have, which is a product of my country. And of our langauge, about which I've already written. That's about the best I can do.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The problem of one tribe raiding another seems pretty universal and human history seems to be littered with many occurances, not just British history. The Plains Indians of America seemed to have no problem with raiding each other to steal horses or anything else that wasn`t nailed down! (which- when you think of it is everything.)
After all if you`re not in `our` tribe then you are way outside. I read that the Comanche called themselves `The People` when translated into the universal language and the Sioux apparently called themselves `Human beings`. It did not say what they called the other indian tribes. The `Others`? `Outsiders`?

The US version of "jock" is used to describe an athlete... particularly one who is talented, plays many sports, and pretty much defines himself by his play. Such people don't usually develop their brains as much as their muscles, so it also has that negative connotation, "dumb jock."

The word comes from the name of a piece of safety equipment worn (and usually required) in all sports, the jock strap, which holds the genitals in place and keeps them from bouncing and getting sore in the same way a brassiere protects the breasts.

It's be an interesting piece of etymology if the jock strap has a connection with the Scottish jock... something to do with kilts and dangly bits, perhaps?

Gosh! I don't know, Bornonthe20th, what did they call the others? Please tell us, please?

*IF* I remember correctly the Sioux didn't call themselves the Sioux, either, as that is actually the Comanche(?) or Navajo (?) word for horse theif, and it wss there scouts that introduced the word Sioux to the whites...

Analiese: I know as much about Native Americans as you know about the Celts. I was asking you...?

Okay, fair enough Born.

Lakota means somebody you're related too okay? Sioux is a French word people think comes from Chippewa but the Chippewa don't remember really, and have never been distinguished by their command of French. So I'm not even going to credit that bogus etymology by repeating it.

The Other is the Other, the Stranger, the White Man, or the People Who Sneak Up on Us or whatever. What's the problem? What do Celts call Iraqis or people who live in London?

Now, I can't recall any of these indian people calling somebody vermin but I've sure heard plenty of whites doing it. What does that tell you?

Blue, see above.

Here's a short language review.

Comanche speak a language like Shoshone or Ute or Aztec. Sioux speak Lakota which represents a language group all by itself.

Navaho speak a language similar to Apache, so similar in fact they can often understand each other, sort of.

People are usually called after where they live, what they do for a living, such as what they eat or what kind of houses they build, or some other attribute that clearly distinguishes them from the rest of humanity.

They usually call themselves people because they already know where they live or what they do for living.

Doesn't sound very French derirative to me either, being as French for horse is Cheval - that'd take a hell of a lot of corruptin'.

But I'll shut upnow, as it's not my field, and has little to do with the point of the thread.

Well, it could be the word has nothing to do with horses. Buh!!

But then you should be asking the people who claim it's a French corruption of something the Chippewa said. How do people figure that stuff out anyways?

I am pretty sure most indian tribes considered themseleves "human beings" as Old Lodge Skins firmly implanted in out mythology, and as for raiding, its a DNA thing (not to be confused with Douglas Adams but rather the AGTC stuff).