What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
Mike Barnes
A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
the aue web site.
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
--
Mike Barnes
Webmaster, http://www.alt-usage-english.org/
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Mike Barnes said:
: What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
:
: A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
: the aue web site.
:
: http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
An interesting article. (Ireland being considered as part of the British
Isles got a choppy reception here some time back.)
I've been noticing of late an increasing tendency to abbreviate the Pound
Sterling to 'GBP'. In a clothes shop the other day I saw that all the
prices were written this way, as in 'GBP 40.00' as opposed to '£40.00'.
But why not 'UKP'?
After all, the currency is legal tender throughout the whole of the United
Kingdom and not just in Great Britain.
--
rud...@ntlworld.com - Nottingham UK - www.lizardnet.freeserve.co.uk
Mark Barratt
<webm...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>
>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>the aue web site.
>
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
And very competently written it is too. One query: 'The term "British
subject" is obsolete', the article says, but I seem to recall
differently.
Hmm. Here's something from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's
website:
"Form C1: Complete form C1 if you are applying for a United Kingdom
passport and are a British citizen, British Dependent Territories
citizen, British Overseas citizen, British subject and British
protected person and are over the age of 16. Please refer to the
accompanying notes when completing your application. The C1 form
should not be used if you are a British National (Overseas) having a
close connection with Hong Kong - use form BNO-A instead."
So it seems that there may well be British subjects yet.
--
The oldest silence speaks the loudest.
rob...@evilmagic.org
> I've been noticing of late an increasing tendency to abbreviate the Pound
> Sterling to 'GBP'. In a clothes shop the other day I saw that all the
> prices were written this way, as in 'GBP 40.00' as opposed to '£40.00'.
> But why not 'UKP'?
Because 'GBP' is the ISO 4217 code. And 'GB' is the ISO 3166 code for the
'United Kingdom'. I don't know why they chose those letters, other than
as a Solomonian compromise between the UK and the Ukraine.
Mickwick
>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>
>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>the aue web site.
>
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
A worthy effort and much-needed, but:
1. This part of the first paragraph...
===
The United Kingdom is a unitary, not a federal, state. Unlike the states
of the USA or Germany the subordinate jurisdictions of the UK (Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland) do not have legislatures with their own
areas of exclusive jurisdiction.
===
...is tendentious. (And it's missing a comma after 'Germany'.)
Factually and legally, England is also a subordinate jurisdiction of the
UK. In many ways, England does dominate the other parts of the kingdom
but, as the disclaimer says, this text is supposed to be 'confined to
legal and other factual issues which seem to be capable of "correct"
answers'.
2. This bit, also from the first paragraph, is also tendentious...
===
The primary principle of our constitutional law is that the UK
Parliament can do anything.
===
...although it's probably true.
3. And so are other parts in the rest of the 'description'.
I agree with most of Don's text (after all, most of it *is* factual) but
written in that way it doesn't really belong below a disclaimer like
that (not at a language website anyway, no matter how political AUE has
become of late).
The whole tone of the thing is that the entity known as the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a ragbag of archaic,
poorly understood, dusty left-overs that needs sorting out, and pretty
damned pronto too, if you don't mind - and that's not something that is
'capable of a "correct" answer'.
--
Mickwick
Mickwick
>Mike Barnes said:
>: What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>:
>: A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>: the aue web site.
>:
>: http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
>
>An interesting article. (Ireland being considered as part of the British
>Isles got a choppy reception here some time back.)
And the article says that Ireland is *politically* part of the British
Isles. Oh dear. True enough in some ways but...
>I've been noticing of late an increasing tendency to abbreviate the Pound
>Sterling to 'GBP'. In a clothes shop the other day I saw that all the
>prices were written this way, as in 'GBP 40.00' as opposed to '£40.00'.
> But why not 'UKP'?
> After all, the currency is legal tender throughout the whole of the United
>Kingdom and not just in Great Britain.
GBP has long been the official three-letter code for the Pound Sterling.
It's wrong but it's right. Ho hum.
(How's your winter been, Rudi? You've been quiet.)
--
Mickwick
(Rowan Dingle)
mplsray
"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote in message
news:p4k85ug0008dfkkmd...@4ax.com...
Ian McKellen, the actor who played Gandalf in *The Lord of the Rings: The
Two Towers,* recently appeared on an American television talk show and made
a point of saying that he was a British subject, not a British citizen.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
Mark Brader
> Because 'GBP' is the ISO 4217 code. And 'GB' is the ISO 3166 code for
> the 'United Kingdom'. I don't know why they chose those letters, other
> than as a Solomonian compromise between the UK and the Ukraine.
I have also seen it argued that the "GB" would be recognizable to speakers
of more languages than "UK" would. In French and German, for example,
"Great Britain" keeps the initials GB while "United Kingdom" becomes RU
and VK respectively.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto / "There are three types of software documentation:
m...@vex.net / tutorial, mnemonic and misleading." --Larry Colen
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Padraig Breathnach
>The whole tone of the thing is that the entity known as the United
>Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a ragbag of archaic,
>poorly understood, dusty left-overs that needs sorting out, and pretty
>damned pronto too, if you don't mind - and that's not something that is
>'capable of a "correct" answer'.
That is something with which Sinn Fein would agree!
PB
Robert Lipton
> Mike Barnes said:
>
> : What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
> :
> : A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
> : the aue web site.
> :
> : http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
My thanks to Mr. Aitken for adding a relatively full answer to a
Frequently asked question.
Bob
Garry J. Vass
news:2oY48.25012$4i5.3...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> I've been noticing of late an increasing tendency to abbreviate the Pound
> Sterling to 'GBP'. In a clothes shop the other day I saw that all the
> prices were written this way, as in 'GBP 40.00' as opposed to '£40.00'.
> But why not 'UKP'?
> After all, the currency is legal tender throughout the whole of the
United
> Kingdom and not just in Great Britain.
GBP is the cable code for Sterling issued by the Bank of England. Whilst
UKP may be more satisfactory on a political level, the Bank of England
doesn't issue all the Sterling throughout the Empire, or even in Great
Britain for that matter.
Kind regards,
GJV
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Mickwick asked (aka LaDingle):
: (How's your winter been, Rudi? You've been quiet.)
Thanks for asking.
'Sheer fucking hell' is the answer.
My very good friend, colleague at the same college, tenant of my upstairs
flat, suffered a major stroke on 25 October.
He's only 40.
But, never the less, a major stroke he suffered.
Total right-side paralysis.
A man with a First from Cambridge.
A man working on his PhD, (some Marxist nonsense on John Berger).
A man rendered, at the beginning, to own only one word: 'Cow', which he
repeated endlessly for three weeks.
A man whose connections with his family are complex in the extreme.
Well, matters have moved apace.
My friend's speech is returning...... but very simple.
Much of my daily involvement with him makes me think of AUE....... how his
patterns of language are fascinating stuff.
How a brilliant mind is reduced to such simplistic tactics........ his
new room at a specialist re-hab unit looks out onto a little copse........
the other day I was remarking on how charming the view was, and we had the
following exchange:
Me: How exquisite is the view from your new room.
Rob: Yes. Animals come.
Me: Animals?
Rob: To the window.
Me: What animals?
Rob: Rabbits. But not rabbits. Smaller.
Me: Do you mean hares?
Rob: No. Rabbits. But smaller.
Me; Ah....... is it squirrels?
Rob: Yes.........
The above exchange is just about the simplest example I can offer...... of
late Rob's language has been far more tortuous.
Aaron Davies
> 1. This part of the first paragraph...
>
> ===
> The United Kingdom is a unitary, not a federal, state. Unlike the states
> of the USA or Germany the subordinate jurisdictions of the UK (Scotland,
> Wales and Northern Ireland) do not have legislatures with their own
> areas of exclusive jurisdiction.
> ===
>
> ...is tendentious. (And it's missing a comma after 'Germany'.)
>
> Factually and legally, England is also a subordinate jurisdiction of the
> UK. In many ways, England does dominate the other parts of the kingdom
> but, as the disclaimer says, this text is supposed to be 'confined to
> legal and other factual issues which seem to be capable of "correct"
> answers'.
And doesn't Scotland have a parliament now?
--
Aaron Davies
aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com
sig coming Soon(tm)
Padraig Breathnach
Yes. Wales and Northern Ireland also have elected assemblies.
But read carefully: they "do not have legislatures with their own
areas of exclusive jurisdiction". Scotland has not, for example,
appointed any ambassadors as it does not control its own foreign
policy.
PB
David Tomkins
The term 'British subject' is quasi-obsolete. Because it is a historical
term, it is technically not 'obsolete' and never will be. Before 1981 there
were no British citizens -- only British subjects. This is a historical fact
and cannot be altered (except perhaps in a totalitarian system!!!). The word
is therefore not obsolete, as it will always continue to have a legitimate
use in describing the situation before 1981.
However, explaining the official verbiage you quoted from the FCO's website,
it is still possible (from a legal perspective) that there are some people
who are 'British Subjects' but not 'British Citizens'. If someone was a
British Subject before 1981 and for some reason the transitional provisions
of the Act didn't automatically make him a British 'Citizen', he is still a
British Subject and entitled to a UK Passport (and most likely British
'citizenship').
On a psychological level, certain people might object to being called
'British Citizens' as 'citizen' has a republican connotation and 'subject'
has monarchical connotation. Some loyal subjects of Her Majesty might object
to being called 'citizens'. Perhaps this is what Ian McKellan (Gandalf in
LOTR) meant rather than a purely legal analysis of whether he is a British
'subject' or 'citizen'.
The problem has arisen partly out of the break-up of the British Empire.
Originally the whole Empire (and later Commonwealth) consisted of
constitutional monarchies united under the British Crown. It was therefore
correct to call Britons, Canadians, Australians, Papua New Guineans, New
Zealanders, South Africans, Indians, Irishmen, Kenyans etc all "British
Subjects". As these colonies (Ireland wasn't a "colony" but was part of the
UK, and for a brief while the Irish Free State was still a monarchy in the
Commonwealth under the British Crown) gained their independence, some later
became republics. The whole concept of a unified British Crown throughout
the Commonwealth (former Empire) was rapidly crumbling.
Even those countries that retained the Crown brought in their own
citizenship laws. So as an Australian, I am no longer a "British subject".
It is, however, still correct (only on a conceptual level, as it has no
legal significance) to say that I am a "subject of Queen Elizabeth II". I am
a subject of the Queen of Australia and I also hold Australian citizenship.
An Australian citizen is by definition a subject of the Queen of Australia.
My status of being a 'subject of the Queen' means that I happen to live in a
country where the Queen is head of state. My nationality is Australian and I
am an Australian citizen. A Canadian is also a subject of the Queen, but is
a Canadian Citizen -- not an Australian citizen. Just because we share the
same head-of-state, there is no automatic right of entry into Australia for
subjects of the Queen from her other realms and territories. Canadians,
Britons etc. must apply to come to Australia in the same way that anyone
else would. In Australia (unlike in the UK) they *are* seen as 'aliens'
because in Australian jurisprudence the Queen of Australia is a different
office from the Queen of the United Kingdom or the Queen of Papua New Guinea
etc, even though the one lady occupies these different roles. This doctrine
has been considerably criticised, especially in relation to the
Constitution. The Constitution (written in 1900) provides that a "subject of
the Queen" is eligible to be a member of the Australian Federal Parliament.
In 1900 this was clearly meant to refer to any British Subject, regardless
of which part of the Empire he came from. In recent years the High Court of
Australia has interpreted "subject of the Queen" to mean "subject of the
Queen OF AUSTRALIA" (as opposed to the Queen of the UK) -- i.e. an
Australian Citizen. This has been criticised as a piece of judicial
legerdemain because the words never originally meant 'Queen of Australia',
and critics argue that High Court judges do not have the power to "change"
the constitution in this way. Rather, the only legal way to change the
Constitution in Australia is to hold a referendum.
Anyway, that's an Aussie perspective on the matter.
DT
--
___________________________________________________________________
for those interested in sending me something other than spiced ham, my real
address is dtomkinsATpncDOTcomDOTau
David Tomkins
news:8i895ug75uethv68q...@4ax.com...
> aa...@avalon.pascal-central.com (Aaron Davies) wrote:
>
> >Mickwick <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >> Factually and legally, England is also a subordinate jurisdiction of
the
> >> UK. In many ways, England does dominate the other parts of the kingdom
> >> but, as the disclaimer says, this text is supposed to be 'confined to
> >> legal and other factual issues which seem to be capable of "correct"
> >> answers'.
> >
> >And doesn't Scotland have a parliament now?
>
> Yes. Wales and Northern Ireland also have elected assemblies.
In addition to the modern Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Norther Ireland
Assemblies, Northern Ireland had its own parliament until 1972 when events
in Northern Ireland forced the British Government to dissolve the N.I.
Parliament, and Scotland had its own parliament until 1707 when a majority
of its members voted for union with the parliament at Westminster
http://www.scotnet.de/eng/last_parliam.htm.
Chris Malcolm
>In alt.usage.english, Mike Barnes <webm...@alt-usage-english.org>
>>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>>
>>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>>the aue web site.
>>
>> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
>A worthy effort and much-needed, but:
>1. This part of the first paragraph...
>===
>The United Kingdom is a unitary, not a federal, state. Unlike the states
>of the USA or Germany the subordinate jurisdictions of the UK (Scotland,
>Wales and Northern Ireland) do not have legislatures with their own
>areas of exclusive jurisdiction.
>===
>...is tendentious. (And it's missing a comma after 'Germany'.)
It's simply wrong. At the union of the Scottish and English Kingdoms
Scotland retained its own legislature & its own education system both
of which differ in some important respects from the English. Unlike
England, it doesn't have an official national religion either, i.e..,
the Queen is the head of the Church of England, but that does not
extend to Scotland. There is no religion in Scotland which has that
kind of link with the nation. That is why laws passed in the UK
Parliament can take a year or two after being passed in England to be
modified and passed in Scotland. In some albeit rare cases new English
laws never reach Scotland, and there are some speciifcally Scottish
laws passed which do not reach England. This has always been the
case. The new Scottish Parliament hasn't changed this, it has simply
extended the scope and likelihood of differences.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@dai.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 650 3085
School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of Informatics
Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205
Henry Churchyard
Mike Barnes <webm...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
> What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
> A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added
> to the aue web site. http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
If you want an executive summary, here's a constituency-tree diagram I
posted in 1995 (view using a non-proportional font):
Under QE2
/ \
/ \
/ \
United Kingdom \
/ \ \
/ \ \
/ \ \
Great Britain \ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
/ \ \ \
England (& Wales) \ \ \
/ \ \ \ \
/ \ \ \ \
/ \ \ \ \
/ \ \ \ \
England (proper) Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Man, Channnel Is.
--
Henry Churchyard chu...@crossmyt.com http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/
Mark Barratt
<see_my_s...@for.my.real.address> wrote:
>"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote
If we're in the mood for FAQ additions, might I propose the above?
This question "British subject" vs. "British citizen" has come up at
least once before.
--
aue: A Usenet group concerned mainly with food and cots.
- Rob Bannister
David Tomkins
news:a32iii$j46$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
[snip]
> >===
> >The United Kingdom is a unitary, not a federal, state. Unlike the states
> >of the USA or Germany the subordinate jurisdictions of the UK (Scotland,
> >Wales and Northern Ireland) do not have legislatures with their own
> >areas of exclusive jurisdiction.
> >===
>
> >...is tendentious. (And it's missing a comma after 'Germany'.)
>
> It's simply wrong.
Yes, but I wouldn't be so harsh in my words. Rather than 'simply wrong', I
would describe it as 'a little too simplistic'. The UK is clearly not a
federal state like the USA, Germany, Australia or Canada. It is, however,
not really correct to equate it with a unitary state (e.g. France). The UK
lies somewhere between these two extremes. Correctly speaking it's form of
government is a "united kingdom" -- a union of the historical kingdoms of
England and Scotland, the remainder of the kingdom of Ireland (the majority
of Ireland is now a republic and no longer a part of the UK) and the
principality of Wales which in many respects retain their individual customs
and powers, but which in other important respects is similar to a unitary
system.
The UK is neither a federal nor a unitary state. Correctly speaking it is a
"united kingdom" (lower-case). But since the author is trying to explain the
United Kingdom (upper-case) to people who don't understand its intracacies,
I'm sure you would agree that it would make very little sense to say "The
United Kingdom is a united kingdom".
> At the union of the Scottish and English Kingdoms
> Scotland retained its own legislature & its own education system both
> of which differ in some important respects from the English. Unlike
> England, it doesn't have an official national religion either, i.e..,
> the Queen is the head of the Church of England, but that does not
> extend to Scotland. There is no religion in Scotland which has that
> kind of link with the nation.
Although you live in Scotland and I in Australia and respect your first-hand
knowledge, I would take issue with this. It is of course true that the Queen
is not "head" of any particular church in Scotland like she is "head" of the
Church of England. But the Act of Union (1707) states in its preamble:
Her Majesty with advice and consent of the Estates of Parliament Resolving
to Establish the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government
within this Kingdom has past in this Session of Parliament an Act entitled
Act for securing of the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church
Government which by the Tenor thereof is appointed to be insert in any Act
ratifying the Treaty and expressly declared to be a fundamental and
essential condition of the said Treaty or Union in all time coming.
Is there not a state-church in Scotland called the "Church of Scotland"? At
every coronation the Moderator of the Church of Scotland plays an official
role (something fitting for the *state religion* of Scotland, wouldn't you
say?) and the incoming monarch swears [as an aside, could a monarch of
non-conformist bent make a coronation *affirmation* if s/he objected to
making the oath?!!!] to uphold the Protestant religion in Scotland and its
Presbyterian system of government. The Queen is not head of the Church of
Scotland, because by definition under a presbyterian system of church
government, you cannot have a "head" of a church as you can under an
episcopal system of church government.
I query therefore whether it is correct to say (as you do) "it [i.e.
Scotland] doesn't have an official national religion". I'd be interested to
hear what you have to say about this.
> That is why laws passed in the UK
> Parliament can take a year or two after being passed in England to be
> modified and passed in Scotland. In some albeit rare cases new English
> laws never reach Scotland, and there are some speciifcally Scottish
> laws passed which do not reach England. This has always been the
> case. The new Scottish Parliament hasn't changed this, it has simply
> extended the scope and likelihood of differences.
I agree with you here.
David Tomkins
[big snip]
> If we're in the mood for FAQ additions, might I propose the above?
> This question "British subject" vs. "British citizen" has come up at
> least once before.
If you're asking whether you have permission to incorporate some of my
answer into the FAQ then I give you my permission. I could probably pen a
more detailed answer if what I've written is not clear enough. The other
thing to consider is that "British subject" once had a meaning in all of the
Commonwealth countries (not just the UK) and may still have a current
meaning in some Commonwealth countries besides the UK. For example, I cannot
tell you if or how the term is used in Barbados, for example.
The problem with these legal terms is that although they once had a common
meaning throughout the whole Empire, as the Empire has dissolved and each
former colony has its own legislature (no longer subject to the legislature
at Westminster) and its own courts (in many cases no longer subject to the
opinions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council) the terms can
differ subtly in meaning throughout the Commonwealth. But I suppose most
people in aue would be interested in the meaning of the term in relation to
the UK rather than any possible current obscure legal meaning in another of
Her Majesty's Realms or Territories.
DT
Ray Chason
>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>
>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>the aue web site.
>
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
Quoth Mr. Aitken:
#10. The United Kingdom and Colonies
#
#This is the total area for which the UK government has international
#responsibility. The remaining colonies (none of which has a population
#of more than 10,000) are mainly in the Caribbean and Pacific.
Hmm...
(going to Google to look up "CIA Factbook"...)
Sure enough, Bermuda is listed with a population of 63,503. The Cayman
Islands has 35,527. The British Virgin Islands has 20,812.
Maybe that 10,000 figure should be 100,000? Or are these territories
part of "The United Kingdom and Colonies"?
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
Mark Brader
> Under QE2
> / \
> / \
> / \
> United Kingdom \
> / \ \
> / \ \
> / \ \
> Great Britain \ \
> / \ \ \
> / \ \ \
> / \ \ \
> England (& Wales) \ \ \
> / \ \ \ \
> / \ \ \ \
> / \ \ \ \
> / \ \ \ \
> England (proper) Wales Scotland Northern Ireland Man, Channnel Is.
Canada
Australia
New Zealand
and her other
realms and territories
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "Pleasant dreams!"
m...@vex.net | "I'll dream of Canada." -- THE SUSPECT
Charles Riggs
<see_my_s...@for.my.real.address> wrote:
>"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> It's simply wrong.
>
>Yes, but I wouldn't be so harsh in my words.
You mean you wouldn't say "bullshit"? I feel honoured, I do.
Charles Riggs
felix
A fine and moving post - good luck to your friend for a speedy
recovery. 'Rabbits. But not rabbits' is great.
felix
ObAUEresponse: No wonder your friends are driven to distraction if you
believe that hares are smaller than rabbits. When the family lived in
Anderson, Indiana, we used to sally forth on a regular basis to gun
down lagomorphs of any species available, and my father used to refer
to them by the mid-Western name...(rambles on until pushed off the
server by the Riggs postathon....)
Mark Barratt
<see_my_s...@for.my.real.address> wrote:
>"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote in message
>news:i4k95u0blosckhadb...@4ax.com...
>[big snip]
>
>> If we're in the mood for FAQ additions, might I propose the above?
>> This question "British subject" vs. "British citizen" has come up at
>> least once before.
>
>If you're asking whether you have permission to incorporate some of my
>answer into the FAQ then I give you my permission.
Well, not me - I was just proposing a motion. Mr Barnes is our new
webmeister, and as I understand it he is authorised to make such
decisions (in consultation with the Totally Official committee, of
course)
--
You mean neither you nor the OED has learned
the futility of disagreeing with Fontana?
- Truly Donovan
Robert Lipton
And two hard-boiled eggs.
People continually complain that some one should write an answer for a
Frequently Asked Question, which then can be stuck in the supplement.
Once in a blue moon, an individual gets off his or her ass and writes an
answer, and then suddenly, everyone who has been complaining that there
should be an answer starts whining that the answer is not written as the
whiner would have written it. The person who wrote the answer put in a
lot of irrelevant stuff and left out a lot of relevant stuff.
Well, having taken a whack at writing a FAQ entry, I can state that some
of the issues raised when Donna and I tried it were justified and useful
and some was just whining and added because it was easier and the end
result was a camel and no one liked it. I want to say to all the people
who complain about the efforts made top expand the FAQ, that if you
don't like the way others are answering the questions, then answer them
yourselves. Then we can whine and drive you nuts.
As for me, I wish to, again, thank Mr. Tomkins for producing an answer
that, even though it is not the answer I would have produced had I been
up on the subject, is a perfectly serviceable one. Well done, sir!
Bob
Tony Cooper
>
> ObAUEresponse: No wonder your friends are driven to distraction if you
> believe that hares are smaller than rabbits. When the family lived in
> Anderson, Indiana, we used to sally forth on a regular basis to gun
> down lagomorphs of any species available, and my father used to refer
> to them by the mid-Western name...(rambles on until pushed off the
> server by the Riggs postathon....)
Anderson! The only working whorehouse I ever knew about was
in Anderson in the 50s. It was near the Coca Cola bottling
plant. A group of my high school buddies and I went over
there once. There was the usual shuffle at the door with
cries of "you first". One guy went in, and the rest of us
chickened out. We had doubts that the one guy actually
partook of the offerings, but he claimed he did.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Tony Cooper
I addressed it, I certainly would have done it differently.
I think you have missed several salient points, Mr. Lipton,
and added quite a few spurious ones.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Whinges without Smileys
Matti Lamprhey
That looked to me as if you had carefully positioned those additions under
"Northern Ireland" until I pasted it into a fixed-pitch Notepad window.
Matti
Donna Richoux
> People continually complain that some one should write an answer for a
> Frequently Asked Question, which then can be stuck in the supplement.
> Once in a blue moon, an individual gets off his or her ass and writes an
> answer, and then suddenly, everyone who has been complaining that there
> should be an answer starts whining that the answer is not written as the
> whiner would have written it. The person who wrote the answer put in a
> lot of irrelevant stuff and left out a lot of relevant stuff.
>
> Well, having taken a whack at writing a FAQ entry, I can state that some
> of the issues raised when Donna and I tried it were justified and useful
> and some was just whining and added because it was easier and the end
> result was a camel and no one liked it.
Hey, *I* liked it. Other people did too. I know you're teasing a bit,
but it distresses me to hear that this is how it stayed in your mind.
All I remember now is that we still need to add another sentence or two
about the informal/formal you/thou, because people have heard about that
concept. I'll get around to that sometime.
It wasn't all that bad. Nothing wrong with camels.
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Mark Brader
> That looked to me as if you had carefully positioned those additions under
> "Northern Ireland" until I pasted it into a fixed-pitch Notepad window.
Nice to know that Matti took the trouble to view my article properly,
but not Henry's.
--
Mark Brader | "The net exists to be used. It is a powerful tool
m...@vex.net | and as long as people treat it as a tool and not a toy
Toronto | it will prosper." --Jerry Schwarz on Usenet, 1982
Don Aitken
<webm...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>
>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>the aue web site.
>
> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
>
Thanks for all the comments on this, and to Mark Brader for suggesting
it should go on the website. If I'd know it was going to get the
eagle-eyed aue treatment, I would have been more careful! And, of
course, it had to happen just at the point when I decided I couldn't
keep up with this group any more. So I'll just respond to a few
points:
"British Subject" (David Tomkins)
David is broadly right, except that his references to 1981 should be
to 1948, which is when the concept of "citizenship" was introduced
into British law. What I missed is that there is a second meaning of
"British subject", used since 1981 to refer to those who, in 1948,
were called "British subjects without citizenship". Their
distinguishing feature is that they are not citizens of *any* country,
and their inclusion is an attempt to give them the minimum rights
necessary to avoid the UK being in breach of the UN Convention Against
Statelessness. I don't know all the details of this, and am not really
interested enough to find out. I don't think it belongs in this
document, anyway.
"subordinate jurisdictions" (Mickwick)
"Jurisdiction" is probably the wrong word here, but what I meant was
that the legislatures of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are
subordinate to that of the United Kingdom. The legislature of England
is not, because it does not exist. No implication that England is on a
higher level than the others is intended - rather the other way round.
Mickwick seems to consider that my text contains political
implications which were certainly unintended and which I still don't
see. In particular, his observation that:
>The whole tone of the thing is that the entity known as the United
>Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a ragbag of archaic,
>poorly understood, dusty left-overs that needs sorting out, and pretty
>damned pronto too, if you don't mind - and that's not something that is
>'capable of a "correct" answer'.
leaves me baffled. I take no such view - I rather like it the way it
is.
"Exclusive jurisdiction" (Padraig Breathnach, Chris Malcolm, David
Tomkins)
The fact that Scotland appoints no ambassadors is not the point.
Neither does Texas. The minimum requirement of a federal system is
that there are things that *only* the constituent units can do. This
is true whether residual powers are with the states (as in the US or
Australia) or with the centre (as in Canada). The legislation which
created the Scottish Parliament carefully reserved power to the UK
Parliament to legislate in *all* matters. The powers of the Scottish
Parliament are *devolved* powers. So the UK is neither a federation
nor some kind of half-and-half construction. It is a unitary state.
And its constituent parts have not "retained" any powers because they
were formerly kingdoms or whatever. For centuries they had no such
powers. Devolution to NI is only 80 years old, and to Scotland and
Wales less than ten.
Chris Malcolm, as so often, is wrong in every respect. David has put
him right on some points. I leave others as an exercise for the
reader.
"Colonies" (Ray Chason)
Unequivocal factual error spotted. Ray wins the prize! (I was
expecting more). Bermuda has either just got or is imminently about to
get its independence, and the others are all much smaller, but yes,
amend "10,000" to "50,000".
Thanks again to everybody.
--
Don Aitken
Padraig Breathnach
>Thanks for all the comments on this, and to Mark Brader for suggesting
>it should go on the website. If I'd know it was going to get the
>eagle-eyed aue treatment, I would have been more careful!
>
It looked to me as if you had taken a good deal of care. Well done,
and thank you.
...
>"Exclusive jurisdiction" (Padraig Breathnach, Chris Malcolm, David
>Tomkins)
>
>The fact that Scotland appoints no ambassadors is not the point.
>
I never intended it to be a core point -- rather an illustration of
what I read into the phrase "exclusive jurisdiction". Your explanation
(below) tells me that I misunderstood the phrase.
>Neither does Texas. The minimum requirement of a federal system is
>that there are things that *only* the constituent units can do. This
>is true whether residual powers are with the states (as in the US or
>Australia) or with the centre (as in Canada). The legislation which
>created the Scottish Parliament carefully reserved power to the UK
>Parliament to legislate in *all* matters. The powers of the Scottish
>Parliament are *devolved* powers. So the UK is neither a federation
>nor some kind of half-and-half construction. It is a unitary state.
>And its constituent parts have not "retained" any powers because they
>were formerly kingdoms or whatever. For centuries they had no such
>powers. Devolution to NI is only 80 years old, and to Scotland and
>Wales less than ten.
>
This clarifies things for me. Perhaps you could work it into your
piece.
PB
Garry J. Vass
news:3c559a86...@news.freeuk.net...
>
> Unequivocal factual error spotted. Ray wins the prize! (I was
> expecting more). Bermuda has either just got or is imminently about to
> get its independence,
>
Just as a side-note, Barbados depicts a broken trident to symbolise her
independence from Britannia. Oozing dramatic metaphor, they also depict a
powerful and defiant Neptune with a readied trident on their 10 dollar coin,
and it's a stunning coin.
AFAIK, Bermuda haven't announced what they are going to do for the next
round; but I suspect it will be along the same lines, and wouldn't be
surprised to see Britannia's trident slip into the motif somewhere there
also...
Skitt
"Tony Cooper" <tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C555CBF...@yahoo.com...
>
> Anderson! The only working whorehouse I ever knew about was
> in Anderson in the 50s. It was near the Coca Cola bottling
> plant. A group of my high school buddies and I went over
> there once. There was the usual shuffle at the door with
> cries of "you first". One guy went in, and the rest of us
> chickened out. We had doubts that the one guy actually
> partook of the offerings, but he claimed he did.
The one I took a couple of Air Force guys to (I was then working at Travis
AFB and had a car), back in the early fifties, was in Benicia, CA. They
knew where it was -- I didn't know anything about it. We had to drive up to
a closed, locked gate, toot the horn, and wait for a maid to come out an let
us in to continue up to a house, set back quite a ways from the front
Cyclone fence. We then sat around, drinking their booze, and the others
were negotiating for the available services. After a while, due to economic
considerations, they decided to remain "unserviced". I too was glad to
leave, as I had never been part of anything like that in my life and felt
very uncomfortable. I was young and totally inexperienced, I tell you! A
very late bloomer, and all.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
DJR
>
> Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> wrote:
> > I've been noticing of late an increasing tendency to abbreviate the Pound
> > Sterling to 'GBP'. In a clothes shop the other day I saw that all the
> > prices were written this way, as in 'GBP 40.00' as opposed to '£40.00'.
> > But why not 'UKP'?
>
> Because 'GBP' is the ISO 4217 code. And 'GB' is the ISO 3166 code for the
> 'United Kingdom'. I don't know why they chose those letters, other than
> as a Solomonian compromise between the UK and the Ukraine.
I fought a rearguard action within my company for about five years to
adopt UK in place of GB for the country code (we have 20,000 staff in
about 40 countries so each employee needs to be identified by country).
The argument against me was the ISO standard of GB. But Lo and Behold!
At some point the ISO standard was extended to show both GB and UK as
the standard for United Kingdom.
Incidentally, the people who set up the concept of URLs in the early
days of the web got it wrong - they should have used .gb if they were
following the standard. UK is, of course, preferable, especially to my
3000 colleagues in Northern Ireland.
From rfc1591:
In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set
of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the
generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that
any other TLDs will be created.
--
David
The address is valid, but I will change it at to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Simon R. Hughes
> Robert Lipton wrote:
> >
> > Mark Barratt wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 14:39:01 +1100, "David Tomkins"
> > > <see_my_s...@for.my.real.address> wrote:
> > >
> > > >"Mark Barratt" <mark.b...@chello.be> wrote
> > >
> > > >> So it seems that there may well be British subjects yet.
[snip]
> I don't think you've addressed this issue well enough. Had
> I addressed it, I certainly would have done it differently.
> I think you have missed several salient points, Mr. Lipton,
> and added quite a few spurious ones.
There is only one thing I can add to these replies; it's there,
right above the paragraph Tony wrote.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!--So much to do, so little time; so much time, so little done.-->
Garry J. Vass
news:a34jbt$14u6a3$1...@ID-61580.news.dfncis.de...
>
>
> The one I took a couple of Air Force guys to (I was then working at Travis
> AFB and had a car), back in the early fifties, was in Benicia, CA. They
I'll never forget the lights. It's the lights that haunt my memories,
regaining conciousness and staring up at the lights...
When I was young sailor (USS JFK, CVA-67), I was assigned to Shore Patrol
duty in the Med, 6th Fleet. And accordingly, sometimes I had to go around
(wearing my sailor suit and sailor hat) to various bordellos in Barcelona,
Palma, Naples, Rhodes, What-have-you and collect those poor ploughboys where
the "servicing ladies" actually worked a marriage scam.
They would get the poor ploughboy to marry them, collect half their salary,
but remain a "servicing lady", and probably never even see them again. It's
free money until the ploughboy gets wise, no? Sometimes I even knew the
lady's name, like "Maria" or "Consuella"...
So Uncle Sam used to send us out to bring them back to the ship before any
papers got signed. And the only problem was those poor lonely ploughboys
(aged 18 - 20) far away from Alabama and Georgia actually believed they
*loved* those ladies. For many, it was their so-called "entry into
manhood", if you catch my drift, and they were besotted. With somebody that
couldn't even speak decent English. And those sad grits weren't about to
let somebody from Shore Patrol spoil their wedding. No sir.
That's why Uncle Sam gave us nightsticks.
But just because I had a nightstick, doesn't mean there wasn't a hellacious
fight. And some of those ploughboys were big enough to cold-cock both my
buddy and I in one fell swoop. BAM GJV -> out cold on the floor.
And some interval after that, I'd come to on a stretcher in sick-bay.
Staring up at the lights, I was always staring up at the lights. Sometimes
they were fluorescent, sometimes they were electric, sometimes I couldn't
tell...
Once I pulled to in the Naval Hospital in Naples and stared at the lights
until it slowly dawned on me that it wasn't a ship! That was scary.
Even today I remember staring up at the lights not knowing where I was... A
Corpsman's face staring down at me and yelling over his shoulder, "This
one's coming 'round". And then telling me, "Don't look in the mirror".
So when it comes to the topic of brothels and the military, all I can think
about is opening my eyes and staring up at the lights.
That's all I have to say about that.
Kind regards,
GJV
Garry J. Vass
> AFB and had a car), back in the early fifties, was in Benicia, CA. They
I'll never forget the lights. It's the lights that haunt my memories,
Padraig Breathnach
>Incidentally, the people who set up the concept of URLs in the early
>days of the web got it wrong - they should have used .gb if they were
>following the standard. UK is, of course, preferable, especially to my
>3000 colleagues in Northern Ireland.
>
All of them? Does your firm employ only supporters of the union?
PB
Philip Eden
Ray Chason <johnn...@southland.smart.net.SPAMMEN.VERBOTEN> wrote in
message news:u59p6b6...@corp.supernews.com...
> Quoth Mr. Aitken:
>
> #10. The United Kingdom and Colonies
> #
> #This is the total area for which the UK government has international
> #responsibility. The remaining colonies (none of which has a population
> #of more than 10,000) are mainly in the Caribbean and Pacific.
>
> Hmm...
>
> (going to Google to look up "CIA Factbook"...)
>
> Sure enough, Bermuda is listed with a population of 63,503. The Cayman
> Islands has 35,527. The British Virgin Islands has 20,812.
>
> Maybe that 10,000 figure should be 100,000? Or are these territories
> part of "The United Kingdom and Colonies"?
>
Philip Eden
Mark Barratt
wrote:
>It wasn't all that bad. Nothing wrong with camels.
I agree. Some of my best friends are camels. They have protuberances
in improbable places, they are of dubious temperament, and getting a
ride on one involves protracted negotiations. At least, I think those
are camels...
Mark Barratt
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:46:48 +0000, Mike Barnes
><webm...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
>
>>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>>
>>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>>the aue web site.
>>
>> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
>>
>Thanks for all the comments on this, and to Mark Brader for suggesting
>it should go on the website. If I'd know it was going to get the
>eagle-eyed aue treatment, I would have been more careful!
Plausibility watch: You knew!
- snip lots of silly attempts to defend the article against all
criticism.
Don - It's a good article. What did you expect on aue? That your first
draft would be acceptable to PEDANTS R WE? Please amend it to correct
any factual errors (I believe you admitted to one) and to admit to
controversy where there is any. The result should easily win consensus
support. If you wanted unanimous agreement with your article, I think
you came to the wrong place.
With respect.
DJR
I assume you are being mildly amusing and/or provocative.
If not: they live in the UK, are employed by a company in the UK and pay
UK taxes, whether they approve or not. Support doesn't come into it.
Anyway - why would a Northern Irish republican prefer GB to UK? The
former simply leaves them out.
Padraig Breathnach
>Padraig Breathnach wrote:
>>
>> DJR <bass.a...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Incidentally, the people who set up the concept of URLs in the early
>> >days of the web got it wrong - they should have used .gb if they were
>> >following the standard. UK is, of course, preferable, especially to my
>> >3000 colleagues in Northern Ireland.
>> >
>> All of them? Does your firm employ only supporters of the union?
>
>I assume you are being mildly amusing and/or provocative.
>
Neither. Perhaps sardonic.
>If not: they live in the UK, are employed by a company in the UK and pay
>UK taxes, whether they approve or not. Support doesn't come into it.
>
That is the sort of insensitivity displayed by many British
politicians in relation to NI.
>Anyway - why would a Northern Irish republican prefer GB to UK? The
>former simply leaves them out.
>
For many of them, it would be Hobson's choice. I didn't suggest that
they would find GB preferable; I suggested that they would not find UK
preferable.
Many motorists from NI travel to France on the ferry service I use. It
is entertaining to survey their choice of national identification
sticker. Some use the officially-correct "GB"; some (whose sympathies
can be guessed) use "IRL"; some use the unofficial "NI"; some use
nothing.
PB
Matt Davis
> Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> wrote:
> > I've been noticing of late an increasing tendency to abbreviate the
Pound
> > Sterling to 'GBP'. In a clothes shop the other day I saw that all the
> > prices were written this way, as in 'GBP 40.00' as opposed to '£40.00'.
> > But why not 'UKP'?
>
> Because 'GBP' is the ISO 4217 code. And 'GB' is the ISO 3166 code for the
> 'United Kingdom'. I don't know why they chose those letters, other than
> as a Solomonian compromise between the UK and the Ukraine.
I say everyone should use £. I don't like seeing people writing e.g. EUR,
USD, UKP, GBP etc. when they can just type £, $, ?. (shift-3, shift-4, alt
gr-4) The euro is printed on the new keyboards, but can still be typed on
the old ones.
Cheers,
Matt
Matt Davis
news:zgjPZnBI...@senrab.com...
> What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
I usually call it England. May be wrong, but I prefer it. After all, we
speak English in England! :)
Cheers,
Matt
Richard
> Many motorists from NI travel to France on the ferry service I use. It
> is entertaining to survey their choice of national identification
> sticker. Some use the officially-correct "GB"; some (whose sympathies
> can be guessed) use "IRL"; some use the unofficial "NI"; some use
> nothing.
>
on the safe side!
In Scotland and Wales, some people use the unnoficial Ecosse/Alba and
Cymru stickers.
I'm not sure if there is a solution to this - the sticker is designed
to show the "nation state" you're from, not as a representation of
what you are, politically.
I suppose it'd be nice to have seperate ones for NI, but then other
countires which look so unified to us might want to assign different
letters to their individual parts. Germany and Switzerland, for
example, are federal.
Brittany Ferries used to send "IRL" stickers to NI people who booked
via their ROI offices. Booking (the same ferry crossing) through their
offices in England meant you got a "GB" sticker.
If only it weren't for the Ukraine and the UK would have been allowed
to use their first choice of UK - instead of which the symbol for the
UK is GB.
The UK's Olympic team is now officially "Great Britain and Northern
Ireland", but the abbreviation is still GBR. This is despite the fact
that very few NI atheletes are in the team these days. Many compete in
the Republic's team, some for political reasons, but others due to the
fact that it is generally easier to get into (smaller population
etc.). Some sports (like Rugby) are organised on an all-Ireland basis
anyway.
Interestingly, the Offical Symbols for the IOM, Jersey, Guernsey and
Gibraltar are GBM, GBJ, GBG and GBZ and none of them are in GB, not
even the UK.
Apparently .ib is reserved as an international symbol for Northern
Ireland, but it is not used anywhere officially. Can't remember where
I read this, however, it was on the internet somewhere.
Richard
Richard
> >UK taxes, whether they approve or not. Support doesn't come into it.
> >
> That is the sort of insensitivity displayed by many British
> politicians in relation to NI.
It is equivalent to saying that NI is part of Ireland.
NI is part of the UK and also part of the island of Ireland.
Both are true and neither should be offensive.
What may be offensive to some is a statement like "The population of
Northern Ireland are 100% British" or "Northern Ireland is part of the
country of Ireland"
Richard
> Mickwick <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The whole tone of the thing is that the entity known as the United
> >Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a ragbag of archaic,
> >poorly understood, dusty left-overs that needs sorting out, and pretty
> >damned pronto too, if you don't mind - and that's not something that is
> >'capable of a "correct" answer'.
>
I imagine that if
a) Northern Ireland leaves the UK
or
b) the Monarchy is abolished
they will rename the whole thing "Britain" and be done with it.
In a), since the UK did not exist until the joining of GB and Ireland
it would be a bit silly to have a *United* Kindom of only one thing.
In b) it would no longer be a Kingdom so they'd have to change the
name.
I can't see either thing happening in the next 25-50 years, but who
knows what will happen after that?
Richard
> There is no religion in Scotland which has that
> kind of link with the nation.
What about the "Church of Scotland" which I believe is Presbyterian?
Soes it just use that name even though it is not the official church?
Is the "Church of Ireland" (Anglican) the official church in Northern
Ireland?
Padraig Breathnach
>Is the "Church of Ireland" (Anglican) the official church in Northern
>Ireland?
It was once the official church of Ireland, but was disestablished a
long time ago (before partition). I could look up the date, But I
don't think it is very important in this context.
PB
Don Aitken
<mark.b...@chello.be> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:01:30 GMT, don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 17:46:48 +0000, Mike Barnes
>><webm...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
>>
>>>What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
>>>
>>>A new article on this subject, written by Don Aitken, has been added to
>>>the aue web site.
>>>
>>> http://www.alt-usage-english.org/whatistheuk.html
>>>
>>Thanks for all the comments on this, and to Mark Brader for suggesting
>>it should go on the website. If I'd know it was going to get the
>>eagle-eyed aue treatment, I would have been more careful!
>
>Plausibility watch: You knew!
>
Since I wrote it to post to a completely unrelated group, without
having aue in mind at all, no I didn't. When Mark Brader asked if he
could suggest it for the aue website, OK, *then* I knew.
>- snip lots of silly attempts to defend the article against all
>criticism.
>
Why silly?
>Don - It's a good article. What did you expect on aue? That your first
>draft would be acceptable to PEDANTS R WE? Please amend it to correct
>any factual errors (I believe you admitted to one) and to admit to
>controversy where there is any. The result should easily win consensus
>support. If you wanted unanimous agreement with your article, I think
>you came to the wrong place.
>
Of course I expected criticism, and was happy to see it. Anything is
better than being ignored. So far the score, as far as I can see, is
one definite factual error, one section that could be better
expressed, and therefore needs altering, and a number of points which
so far leave me unmoved, either because I think they are wrong or
because I think they are irrelevant. Oh, and one missing comma.
I am still slightly unsure about the Irish dimension. Do people feel I
have dealt with this adequately? Padraig?
>With respect.
And to you, and indeed to you all.
I will leave a couple more days for comment before suggesting
amendments. Proof-reading corrections especially welcome.
--
Don Aitken
Donna Richoux
> I will leave a couple more days for comment before suggesting
> amendments. Proof-reading corrections especially welcome.
I admit I haven't studied it carefully, but what puzzles me is that no
mention has been made of the fact we *already* have a long article in
the FAQ or Supplement, written by John Davies, about the very same
subject. I haven't seen anyone explain why we need two, or whether the
new one is a revision of the other.
Surely someone should compare the two.
I can't remember any questions coming in on the general subject since
John wrote his, although maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
Here's what it says in Intro C:
-------------------------------------------------------
England, Britain, Great Britain, United Kingdom, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
We are often asked what the difference is among these and similar terms.
John Davies wrote a long and thorough response which can be found in the
AUE FAQ Supplement; the direct URL is:
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/english_british_uk_et_al.shtml
Padraig Breathnach
>I am still slightly unsure about the Irish dimension. Do people feel I
>have dealt with this adequately? Padraig?
>
I'll go back over it and give my non-expert comments.
<reads>
1. The claim to Rockall is disputed by Ireland. The Irish government
takes an alternative view that an uninhabited and uninhabitable rock
should not ne recognised as creating an economic zone.
[Do other AUE denizens see Rockall as the location for Pinscher
Martin?]
2. Nothing to do with Ireland: what is the status of the lesser
Channel Islands? I believe that Sark is a seigneurate, which is a
feudal relationship with the crown, but do not know what relationship
that gives it to the UK.
3. The UK and Ireland operate a common travel area. I have no idea
what the legal basis is for this. It is a practical necessity because
of a porous 300-mile land frontier.
PB
Apurbva Chandra Senray
> I'm not sure if there is a solution to this - the sticker is designed
> to show the "nation state" you're from, not as a representation of
> what you are, politically.
Except here in the United States, where it seems that every
university, youth-oriented retail chain, and holiday destination has
created its own European-style oval car sticker.
Richard Fontana
>
>
>> I will leave a couple more days for comment before suggesting
>> amendments. Proof-reading corrections especially welcome.
One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to use to
describe people from the UK (etc.). I was thinking about this because an
American AUE poster yesterday used "Briton" and it occurred to me that
this term "Briton" seems generally to be used by Americans. "Brit" is
also commonly used by Americans, often affectionately or jocularly, but
sometimes where I think the intent is to offend.
I thought the article was excellent, a stylistic model for any future
FAQ-supplementary pieces. The one thing I didn't like was the use of the
word "jurisdiction" to mean something like "area of legislative
authority" (but I'm not sure what the best term is).
Don Aitken
>Mickwick <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BqEy4rAyCGV8EwC$@wickenden.demon.co.uk>...
>> And the article says that Ireland is *politically* part of the British
>> Isles. Oh dear. True enough in some ways but...
>
>Not true at all. The British Isles is not a political entity (any
>more). It is a geographical one. Its political components are the UK,
>ROI, IOM, CI.
>
Which is exactly what it says. "6. The British Isles. Another
geographical term referring to the whole group of islands adjoining
Great Britain, including Ireland. Politically it includes the United
Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, and the Isle of Man. Usage is not
consistent as to whether the Channel Islands are included -
geographically they should not be, politically they should. Irish
people may detect political implications in this term, and it tends to
be avoided, although there is no obvious alternative. The term used in
connection with the Northern Irish peace process is just "the Isles",
which could be anywhere."
>Another thing which I thought was wrong about that Article. I thought
>that ROI was still in the Common Travel Area. You certainly don't need
>passports to go between the UK and ROI.
"7. The Common Travel Area
This is the area from which people can enter UK ports without being
subject to routine immigration control. Same as the previous, but
includes the Channel Islands."
I do wish people would read a bit more carefully.
--
Don Aitken
Mickwick
[...]
>Mickwick seems to consider that my text contains political
>implications which were certainly unintended and which I still don't
>see. In particular, his observation that:
>
>>The whole tone of the thing is that the entity known as the United
>>Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a ragbag of archaic,
>>poorly understood, dusty left-overs that needs sorting out, and pretty
>>damned pronto too, if you don't mind - and that's not something that is
>>'capable of a "correct" answer'.
>
>leaves me baffled. I take no such view - I rather like it the way it
>is.
I'm sorry about that. I was feeling a bit, er, flamboyant on Sunday
night. The disclaimer and first paragraph bumped by knee, my knee
jerked, and I was off. As you may have guessed, I didn't bother to read
the rest of the article too closely.
I regret posting that. Clearly, you put a lot of work into the article
and it was wrong to post a baseless accusation just for my own
amusement.
--
Mickwick
Mickwick
> My very good friend, colleague at the same college, tenant of my upstairs
>flat, suffered a major stroke on 25 October.
> He's only 40.
> But, never the less, a major stroke he suffered.
> Total right-side paralysis.
> A man with a First from Cambridge.
> A man working on his PhD, (some Marxist nonsense on John Berger).
> A man rendered, at the beginning, to own only one word: 'Cow', which he
>repeated endlessly for three weeks.
> A man whose connections with his family are complex in the extreme.
Is that the chap who posted here a few times last year? Very polite and
erudite. Plays (played, for now, I suppose) the bassoon or oboe or
balalaika or something? Sad news.
--
Mickwick
Mickwick
[..]
>If only it weren't for the Ukraine and the UK would have been allowed
>to use their first choice of UK - instead of which the symbol for the
>UK is GB.
Aha!
--
Mickwick
Mickwick
>Mickwick <use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>The whole tone of the thing is that the entity known as the United
>>Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a ragbag of archaic,
>>poorly understood, dusty left-overs that needs sorting out, and pretty
>>damned pronto too, if you don't mind - and that's not something that is
>>'capable of a "correct" answer'.
>
>That is something with which Sinn Fein would agree!
I'm nothing if not broad-minded, me. (Or do I mean 'confused'?) I'll
have you know that I voted for the Yogic Flyers in at least two
elections.
They didn't get in. (But you probably knew that.)
--
Mickwick,
who never voted for Screaming Lord Sutch. Splendid democrat though he was (and I
mean that), he was Early Seventies from his top hat to his stripey socks.
Protest votes achieve more (if still very little) when they're kept up to date.
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Matt Davis <ma...@avengah.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a36gjk$vkc$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
: <rob...@evilmagic.org> wrote in message news:42n13a...@europa.arrow...
How do I type the Euro sign on my old keyboard (running Windows95)?
After your dollar sign I see a question mark, '?'. Is this supposed to be
the Euro sign?
--
rud...@ntlworld.com - Nottingham UK - www.lizardnet.freeserve.co.uk
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Richard Fontana said:
: One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to use to
: describe people from the UK (etc.).
UKer.
Donna Richoux
> Richard Fontana said:
>
> : One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to use to
> : describe people from the UK (etc.).
>
> UKer.
How do you pronounce that?
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:1f6snb6.17x4vp51tpo2kfN%tr...@euronet.nl...
Yoo-Kay-uh.
Sounds good, eh?
Rather like AUEer... as in A-Yoo-Ee-uh.
Donna Richoux
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> news:1f6snb6.17x4vp51tpo2kfN%tr...@euronet.nl...
> : Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> wrote:
> :
> : > Richard Fontana said:
> : >
> : > : One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to use
> to
> : > : describe people from the UK (etc.).
> : >
> : > UKer.
> :
> : How do you pronounce that?
>
> Yoo-Kay-uh.
> Sounds good, eh?
> Rather like AUEer... as in A-Yoo-Ee-uh.
Sounds like the department store IKEA. Although I gather that is
pronounced differently in differently places.
Since I'm rhotic, UKer comes out rather like "you care."
perchprism
"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:3c56c840...@news.freeuk.net...
<snip>
> I will leave a couple more days for comment before suggesting
> amendments. Proof-reading corrections especially welcome.
I gave it the once-over. There's only one thing I'd call an error, and
that's the sentence fragment at the beginning of the "Commonwealth" section.
Not that I mind the occasional fragment, mind you. It's just that everything
else is a complete sentence, and I reached the stop hungry for a clause.
A few minor, debatable matters I mention only because I noticed them:
I noted three occurrences of "i.e.", all without a following comma. That
consistency suggests that you consciously rejected the comma, but I, for
one, miss it.
In "Concentric Circles", you have "If, like me, you live in England, you are
part of a number of different entities of increasing size, as follows -".
First, why not a colon? Second, the sense of this tripped me up a bit--what
you're part of is not entities of increasing size, you are part of entities
listed in order of increasing size.
In "'British' and 'Britain'", you have "There was no separate UK citizenship
until 1948 when the term "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" was
used." I'm itching for a comma after "1948", but you seem to use as few
commas as you dare throughout. Also in this section, you have "So it should
probably be taken as a back-formation from "British" hence meaning "United
Kingdom"." That "hence meaning" is rickety to my mind--maybe I'm just not
used to it. And, yes, that is a fragment, too, but it's at the end of the
paragraph and starts with a conjunction. So it's OK.
If Truly was here, I'd ask her whether all those "space, hyphen, space"
things shouldn't be em dashes.
I didn't check the facts beyond what my meager knowledge of the subject
permits.
Nice work. What a complicated state of affairs of state!
--
Perchprism
(southern New Jersey, near Philadelphia)
Simon R. Hughes
> The euro is printed on the new keyboards, but can still be typed on
> the old ones.
Not on this one, it can't.
You have to keep up with the Gateses to have the Euro symbol
installed on your system. Some of us are too intelligent to pour our
hard-earned cash down the throat of that kind of monster.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
<!--So much to do, so little time; so much time, so little done.-->
Don Aitken
wrote:
>don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken) wrote:
>
>>I am still slightly unsure about the Irish dimension. Do people feel I
>>have dealt with this adequately? Padraig?
>>
>I'll go back over it and give my non-expert comments.
>
Thanks.
><reads>
>
>1. The claim to Rockall is disputed by Ireland. The Irish government
>takes an alternative view that an uninhabited and uninhabitable rock
>should not ne recognised as creating an economic zone.
>
Interesting. I didn't know this, and would be happy to include it.
>[Do other AUE denizens see Rockall as the location for Pinscher
>Martin?]
>
Yes. Wasn't it Pincher?
>2. Nothing to do with Ireland: what is the status of the lesser
>Channel Islands? I believe that Sark is a seigneurate, which is a
>feudal relationship with the crown, but do not know what relationship
>that gives it to the UK.
Sark and Alderney are subordinate parts of the Bailiwick of Guernsey,
with some degree of autonomy. I don't know much more than that.
>
>3. The UK and Ireland operate a common travel area. I have no idea
>what the legal basis is for this. It is a practical necessity because
>of a porous 300-mile land frontier.
Included as "7. The Common Travel Area".
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
But the use of GB for this purpose long predates the independence of
Ukraine. I think it goes back at least to the 1920s, when nobody much
cared about these distinctions, but, as Richard would say, ICLIUBITL.
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> I will leave a couple more days for comment before suggesting
>> amendments. Proof-reading corrections especially welcome.
>
>I admit I haven't studied it carefully, but what puzzles me is that no
>mention has been made of the fact we *already* have a long article in
>the FAQ or Supplement, written by John Davies, about the very same
>subject. I haven't seen anyone explain why we need two, or whether the
>new one is a revision of the other.
>
As I have said, this was not written for aue. I wrote it about a year
ago for (I think) alt.history.british and reposted it a few days ago
in reply to a query in soc.history.moderated. Mark Brader noticed it
there and asked me if I was willing to have it on the aue website. I
said yes, Mark suggested it to the webmaster, and it appeared. If it
seems to you that this procedure is a bit cavalier compared with what
most documents go through before appearing there, I can only say that
it appears that way to me too.
>Surely someone should compare the two.
>
This may well be a good idea, but I don't know who the someone might
be. To clarify, I had not seen John Davies's article at the time I
wrote mine. They do indeed cover much of the same ground.
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
<ta...@face.value> wrote:
>How do I type the Euro sign on my old keyboard (running Windows95)?
> After your dollar sign I see a question mark, '?'. Is this supposed to be
>the Euro sign?
>
--
Don Aitken
Don Aitken
<use...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In alt.usage.english, Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>Mickwick seems to consider that my text contains political
>>implications which were certainly unintended and which I still don't
>>see. In particular, his observation that:
>>
[snip]
>I regret posting that. Clearly, you put a lot of work into the article
>and it was wrong to post a baseless accusation just for my own
>amusement.
>
No problem. Amusement is one of our main aims here, no?
--
Don Aitken
Evan Kirshenbaum
> I say everyone should use Ł. I don't like seeing people writing
> e.g. EUR, USD, UKP, GBP etc. when they can just type Ł, $,
And why use AUD when they can just type "$"? And why use CAD when they
can just type "$"? And why use NZD when they can just type "$"? And
why use SGD when they can just type "$"? etc.
According to MWCD10, "$" is used for "dollars" from Australia, the
Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, Canada, Fiji, Guyana, Hong Kong,
Jamaica, Singapore, Trinidad and Tobago, the United States, and
Zimbabwe along with the "Eastern Caribbean Bank"-issued money used in
Andigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts-Nevis, St. Lucia,
and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. It is also used for escudos in
Portugal, pesos in Mexico and Uruguay, ringgit in Malaysia, and tala
in Western Samoa. "Ł" is used for pounds in Cyprus, Ireland, and the
UK as well as dinari in Yemen and lira in Malta
> ?. (shift-3,
But if I type "#", that probably won't communicate effectively these
days. It's "control-x 8 L" on my current keyboard. (Back when I was
working on unix systems, it was "alt-L", but since moving to PCs, I
haven't taken the time to figure out how to have both a meta key and
an alt key at the same time.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |A specification which calls for
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |network-wide use of encryption, but
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |invokes the Tooth Fairy to handle
|key distribution, is a useless
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |farce.
(650)857-7572 | Henry Spencer
Evan Kirshenbaum
> One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to
> use to describe people from the UK (etc.).
The obvious noun is "Ukogbani", which is obviously plural and would
lead to singular male "Ukogbanus", singular female "Ukogbana", and
plural female "Ukogbanæ". Or something like that.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Specifically, I'd like to debate
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |whether cannibalism ought to be
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |grounds for leniency in murder,
|since it's less wasteful.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Calvin
(650)857-7572
Richard Fontana
>Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> wrote:
>
>> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>> news:1f6snb6.17x4vp51tpo2kfN%tr...@euronet.nl...
>> : Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> wrote:
>> :
>> : > Richard Fontana said:
>> : >
>> : > : One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to use
>> to
>> : > : describe people from the UK (etc.).
>> : >
>> : > UKer.
>> :
>> : How do you pronounce that?
>>
>> Yoo-Kay-uh.
>> Sounds good, eh?
>> Rather like AUEer... as in A-Yoo-Ee-uh.
>
>Sounds like the department store IKEA. Although I gather that is
>pronounced differently in differently places.
The one in New Jersey is pronounced /aI'ki @/ ("eye-KEE-a") by residents
of the New York metropolitan area.
>Since I'm rhotic, UKer comes out rather like "you care."
It's not really a matter of rhoticism, I don't think. One can imagine a
non-rhotic accent in which "UKer" and "you care" would be pronounced alike
-- and maybe there is such an accent, though I don't think this is so in
the more familiar British accents. In my accent, which is rhotic, "you
care" is different from "UKer": the one is like [ju'ke@r] and the other
is like [ju'keI R]. "You care" is two syllables and has no "ay" diphthong
(it has the "yeah" diphthong instead, the "Mary" vowel); "UKer" is three
syllables and has that "ay" sound in it. But in some rhotic accents
"UKer" and "you care" might be homophones, or near-homophones.
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Yes..... how extraordinary of you to remember. It's the flute. You can
hear him (and me) at:
<http://www.dollynet.freeserve.co.uk/vogue-music.htm>
It's tragic to think he'll probably never play again........
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai
Richard said:
[vast snippies]
: The UK's Olympic team is now officially "Great Britain and Northern
: Ireland", but the abbreviation is still GBR.
It's so reassuring to remember that the veritably honoured cultural bastion
known as The Eurovision Song Contest refers to us as The United Kingdom,
(or, the frisson-inducing 'Royaume Uni').
Mike Oliver
> I say everyone should use Ł. I don't like seeing people writing e.g. EUR,
> USD, UKP, GBP etc. when they can just type Ł, $, ?. (shift-3, shift-4, alt
> gr-4)
Shift-3 on my keyboard is # (number sign, sharp, hash, octothorpe, or a
different sort of "pound sign"). To get Ł I have to fire up "Character Map"
(OK, I could use Alt+0163--wish me luck remembering it).
This brings up a point -- how did it come to pass that the most usual
name for # is "pound", when it is practically never used with that meaning?
Its use as "number" is surely an order of magnitude more common.
Philip Eden
independent country between 1918 and 1922.
Philip Eden
Tony Cooper
> Anyway - why would a Northern Irish republican prefer GB to UK? The
> former simply leaves them out.
Well, I think that's what they do have in mind.
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots and Tittles
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>[Do other AUE denizens see Rockall as the location for Pinscher
>Martin?]
Read the book, have you?
There's no there there in Pinscher Martin, let alone Pincher Martin,
and no denizens in AUE for the same reason.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
<shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote:
>Thus Spake Matt Davis:
>> The euro is printed on the new keyboards, but can still be typed on
>> the old ones.
>
>Not on this one, it can't.
>
>You have to keep up with the Gateses to have the Euro symbol
>installed on your system. Some of us are too intelligent to pour our
>hard-earned cash down the throat of that kind of monster.
I notice that my new Dell keyboard has it on the 4 key, along with the
$ sign. I can access the dollar sign with Shift 4 but I haven't found
how to type the Euro symbol.
Charles Riggs
Ben Zimmer
Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai wrote:
>
> Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
> news:1f6snb6.17x4vp51tpo2kfN%tr...@euronet.nl...
> : Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai <ta...@face.value> wrote:
> :
> : > Richard Fontana said:
> : >
> : > : One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to use
> to
> : > : describe people from the UK (etc.).
> : >
> : > UKer.
> :
> : How do you pronounce that?
>
> Yoo-Kay-uh.
> Sounds good, eh?
> Rather like AUEer... as in A-Yoo-Ee-uh.
Hmmm... [aIjui@]... if pronounced quickly, is that a heptaphthong or a
hexaphthong?
--Ben
DJR
> I notice that my new Dell keyboard has it on the 4 key, along with the
> $ sign. I can access the dollar sign with Shift 4 but I haven't found
> how to type the Euro symbol.
CTRL-ALT-4
--
David
The address is valid, but I will change it at to keep ahead of the
spammers.
J. J. Lodder
It still was in 1948, under Stalin.
It has always had it's own seat in the UN.
Jan
Padraig Breathnach
>Charles Riggs wrote:
>
>> I notice that my new Dell keyboard has it on the 4 key, along with the
>> $ sign. I can access the dollar sign with Shift 4 but I haven't found
>> how to type the Euro symbol.
>
>CTRL-ALT-4
Or [Alt Gr] + [4]
PB
Padraig Breathnach
Who's a nitpicker?
Yes, I've read the book -- is that to be wondered at?
I misremembered the spelling of the title, and the book is not to
hand. Big deal.
Might I remind you that Pincher Martin is a work of fiction? So not
only is there no there there, there's no Pincher Martin there either.
When I read a book, I read it my way -- that is inevitable. My mind,
my experience, my preferences, my interests, my imagination are all
involved. Rockall is the location; so there.
And I am a denizen here. You might apply to The Committee for your
denizen's ticket. I will be happy to support your application.
PB
Mike Barnes
Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> writes
>On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:24:36 +0100, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux)
>wrote:
>
>>Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I will leave a couple more days for comment before suggesting
>>> amendments. Proof-reading corrections especially welcome.
>>
>>I admit I haven't studied it carefully, but what puzzles me is that no
>>mention has been made of the fact we *already* have a long article in
>>the FAQ or Supplement, written by John Davies, about the very same
>>subject. I haven't seen anyone explain why we need two, or whether the
>>new one is a revision of the other.
We don't need two articles, but we do have two articles. The new one is
not a revision of the old one. They sit side-by-side (well, one directly
under the other) in the "FAQ Supplement" page. They cover similar ground
from different angles. John Davies' article contains much historical
material and Don Aitken's contains much information of a legal nature.
Anyone wishing to be informed on the subject would be well served by
reading both articles.
>As I have said, this was not written for aue. I wrote it about a year
>ago for (I think) alt.history.british and reposted it a few days ago
>in reply to a query in soc.history.moderated. Mark Brader noticed it
>there and asked me if I was willing to have it on the aue website. I
>said yes, Mark suggested it to the webmaster, and it appeared. If it
>seems to you that this procedure is a bit cavalier compared with what
>most documents go through before appearing there, I can only say that
>it appears that way to me too.
I realise in retrospect that I should have taken more trouble to alert
Don to the context in which his article would appear on the site, and in
particular the existence of the other article on the same subject. I
should also have drawn his attention to the probability of debate of the
sort that we're seeing in this thread (though I suspect he recognised
that already).
I apologise to Don for those omissions on my part. Also for the
inconvenience caused, particularly as I know Don doesn't have a great
deal of time to devote to aue matters at the moment.
Some articles in the "FAQ Supplement" were debated in the group before
being posted to the site. Some were just posted to the site. Don's
article was just posted to the site, by me, and I see nothing
exceptional in that. I anticipated that there would be comment, and
perhaps a desire for revision, and as I said previously I should have
alerted Don to those consequences. I didn't think that the possibility
of debate and revision needed explaining to the group, but I'll be more
careful in future to avoid any impression that an article posted to the
web site is a _fait accompli_.
It's too late for this article, I know, but there is the general
question of how potential additions to the "FAQ Supplement" are handled.
One possibility is that they're posted to the group, debated, revised,
agreed (more or less), and posted to the site. The other possibility is
that they're posted to the site with a notification in the group,
debated, revised, agreed (more or less), and re-posted to the site.
How would people prefer to see things done? You can take it as read that
if it's post-to-the-site-first-and-ask-questions-later again, I'll make
it clear that's what it is when making the announcement. It's worth
mentioning that if articles are contributed in HTML format it might be
difficult to convert them for posting to the group.
>>Surely someone should compare the two.
>>
>This may well be a good idea, but I don't know who the someone might
>be. To clarify, I had not seen John Davies's article at the time I
>wrote mine. They do indeed cover much of the same ground.
If someone wants to compare, or combine, these articles, they would be
doing us all a great service. I suspect that few people have the
appetite for that kind of work - certainly I don't. I see nothing wrong
with providing both articles for potential readers.
Mark Brader did suggest that I make the parallel status clearer by
rearranging the links...
from:
* Britain/Great Britain/United Kingdom &C: Some common confusions
* What is the UK? Is it the same as Britain, Great Britain or England?
to:
* What are the differences between the UK, Great Britain, England, etc.?
* John Davies answers
* Don Aitken answers
I decided against that for several reasons which I don't intend to go
into right now. If anyone has any strong views one way or another, I'd
be glad to hear them.
--
Mike Barnes
Webmaster, http://www.alt-usage-english.org/
Joe Manfre
Not that that will necessarily make it readable to the other people
you're communicating with on Usenet. It's not the little pictures on
your screen that are transmitted through the wires to other news
servers, you know. The characters are sent as sequences of eight
binary digits per character (nowadays, for most people), and what will
actually appear on the user's screen depends on the character set and
typeface that the user is using.
(I still post only plain-ASCII on Usenet for the benefit of those
people out there who still don't have eight-bit-clean connections --
there are still a few such people, and I know one of them.)
JM
--
807
M.J.Powell
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> writes
>rfon...@wesleyan.edu (Richard Fontana) writes:
>
>> One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to
>> use to describe people from the UK (etc.).
>
>The obvious noun is "Ukogbani", which is obviously plural and would
>lead to singular male "Ukogbanus", singular female "Ukogbana", and
>plural female "Ukogbanæ". Or something like that.
'Ukogbani' is in common use by short wave listeners.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M.J.Powell
Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
>don-a...@freeuk.com (Don Aitken) wrote:
>
>>I am still slightly unsure about the Irish dimension. Do people feel I
>>have dealt with this adequately? Padraig?
>>
>I'll go back over it and give my non-expert comments.
>
>
>1. The claim to Rockall is disputed by Ireland. The Irish government
>takes an alternative view that an uninhabited and uninhabitable rock
>should not ne recognised as creating an economic zone.
They were only narked because they didn't think of claiming it. Had they
done so, their political view would have done a 180.
Mike
M.J.Powell
Linz
"Rudolf Schwarzkopf-Zskai" <ta...@face.value> wrote in message
news:mfE58.49873$ka7.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> Richard Fontana said:
>
> : One thing you don't seem to address is the issue of what *noun* to
> : use to describe people from the UK (etc.).
>
UKoGBaNIan.
Don Aitken
<webm...@alt-usage-english.org> wrote:
[snip]
>I realise in retrospect that I should have taken more trouble to alert
>Don to the context in which his article would appear on the site, and in
>particular the existence of the other article on the same subject. I
>should also have drawn his attention to the probability of debate of the
>sort that we're seeing in this thread (though I suspect he recognised
>that already).
>
>I apologise to Don for those omissions on my part. Also for the
>inconvenience caused, particularly as I know Don doesn't have a great
>deal of time to devote to aue matters at the moment.
>
No apology necessary. The debate is welcome. I seem to be back; I can
always drop a few other ngs for the moment. I do expect to be moving
in the next couple of weeks, though, so my participation may be a bit
sporadic.
>
[snip]
>It's too late for this article, I know, but there is the general
>question of how potential additions to the "FAQ Supplement" are handled.
>One possibility is that they're posted to the group, debated, revised,
>agreed (more or less), and posted to the site. The other possibility is
>that they're posted to the site with a notification in the group,
>debated, revised, agreed (more or less), and re-posted to the site.
>
Personally, I find it easier to comment on something already on the
site than to move between lots of ng messages. Perhaps things should
be identified as "draft" intil they reach their final form.
>>>Surely someone should compare the two.
>>>
>>This may well be a good idea, but I don't know who the someone might
>>be. To clarify, I had not seen John Davies's article at the time I
>>wrote mine. They do indeed cover much of the same ground.
>
>If someone wants to compare, or combine, these articles, they would be
>doing us all a great service. I suspect that few people have the
>appetite for that kind of work - certainly I don't. I see nothing wrong
>with providing both articles for potential readers.
>
I have now had a closer look at John Davies's article, and come to
these conclusions:
1. There is nothing in it with which I positively disagree.
2. It would be difficult to combine the two articles, since they are
organised in different ways and cover rather different ground.
3. In any case, we would need John Davies's agreement before doing
this; is he still around? I haven't noticed his name in the year or so
I've been here (TINH).
4. I think I agree with Mike that the two are best left in parallel.
[snip]
I will post a list of suggested amendments in the next few days.
--
Don Aitken
Padraig Breathnach
There is a rock of the coast of Kerry with the surprising name of
Stromboli. We never put troops on it and hoisted a flag to say it was
ours. It was taken for granted.
We made the same assumption about Rockall. Marine rocks are associated
with the nearest land mass.
I'll fight you for it.
PB
Tony Cooper
>
> There is a rock of the coast of Kerry with the surprising name of
> Stromboli. We never put troops on it and hoisted a flag to say it was
> ours. It was taken for granted.
>
> We made the same assumption about Rockall. Marine rocks are associated
> with the nearest land mass.
>
> I'll fight you for it.
First one to lay a hand on it get it. It's an old tradition
in Ireland.
Skitt
"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1f6tf5j.fjg...@de-ster.demon.nl...
Between 1917 and 1920, actually.
> It still was in 1948, under Stalin.
I don't believe that. It regained independence from the Soviet Union only
in 1991, but it did, as Ukrainian SSR, join the UN 1945.
From http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/up.html
Richly endowed in natural resources, Ukraine has been fought over and
subjugated for centuries; its 20th-century struggle for liberty is not yet
complete. A short-lived independence from Russia (1917-1920) was followed by
brutal Soviet rule that engineered two artificial famines (1921-22 and
1932-33) in which over 8 million died, and World War II, in which German and
Soviet armies were responsible for some 7 million more deaths. Although
independence was attained in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR, true
freedom remains elusive as many of the former Soviet elite remain
entrenched, stalling efforts at economic reform, privatization, and civic
liberties.
> It has always had it's own seat in the UN.
Since 1945, not always.
See also http://www.brama.com/ukraine/history/century20.html
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).