What Is The Conflict?!!
PaperStreet
hype...
The movies are terrible as movies...
I've talked to fans of these movies, attempting to understand what's
so great, and they all say "Well... you really have to read the
books..."
But see... that really gets me when people say that. Because, in the
world of movies, this makes no sense whatsoever! If you need to read
three books to be able to understand one conflict in a 9 hour
production: You have failed as a film maker...
Because, apparently, to care about what happens to Aragorn and his
merry men, you have to read seven tons of literature, and history...
Because, you can't possibly explain a character without writing eight
books of background first...
Braveheart is a great example... It's as long as one of those Lord of
the Rings fiascoes... and it has you in tears at the end. It's a
story of a man. You understand where he's coming from, what he's
fighting for, and what's at stake five minutes in… and you care with
all your heart what happens to him. Now… did we have to see him
sitting around with his father for three hours drinking tea to realize
that it would be devastating to see him killed, no!
I'm not stupid... I know that... I can get it... everyone has just
brushed me off with... here, ten hundred books to read, it's the only
way...
And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
Take Braveheart as an example again: At every turn you know what the
question is... and you're waiting for the answer. Question: They need
to beat the heavy horse... Answer: long pikes. Small conflicts,
leading into the big conflict. You know what the questions are, and
you're waiting for the hero to solve them. You don't find out about
the question after you've heard the answer. ...
So my question is, what's the conflict? And don't say "Good vs Evil"
because as far as I can tell - That's the definition of conflict.
Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
the answer. Are these just terrible movies? Or are the books just as
ponderous?
Gemini Jackson
>hype...
>The movies are terrible as movies...
>Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
>the answer. Are these just terrible movies? Or are the books just as
>ponderous?
I think it might be too much for you. Try Terry Brooks 'Sword of
Shannara', I bet you'd love it!
~GJ~
Kathryn
"PaperStreet" <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> wrote in message
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Let's just say I don't really understand the whole Lord of the Rings
> hype...
> The movies are terrible as movies...
>
I think in your opinion they are terrible movies. Too many people would
disagree for this to be true.
Kathryn
Martin Francis
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
> hype...
> The movies are terrible as movies...
Would it now be unfair of me to write a rant about people who complain a
story is overly complex? I mean, personally I found "Piglet's Big Movie" too
simple, but I don't go to Winnie the Pooh newsgroups and whine about it...
--
Here lies the late Martin Francis
He couldn't tell you the technical merits of Leitz and Zeiss
But he did take some photographs once.
BaronjosefR
>news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
>> Let's just say I don't really understand the whole Lord of the Rings
>> hype...
>> The movies are terrible as movies...
>
>Would it now be unfair of me to write a rant about people who complain a
>story is overly complex? I mean, personally I found "Piglet's Big Movie" too
>simple, but I don't go to Winnie the Pooh newsgroups and whine about it...
Well, let's turn this back to Tolkien then......what would Tolkien have thought
about "Piglet's Big Movie"?
me
"PaperStreet" <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> wrote in message
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
> hype...
> The movies are terrible as movies...
>
> I've talked to fans of these movies, attempting to understand what's
> so great, and they all say "Well... you really have to read the
> books..."
Then you have only spoken to total twits. I never read the books until after
I saw the first movie; and had no difficulties in comprehending what was
going on, what it meant, and I utterly loved for what it was. After seeing
the first movie and then reading the books, and after seeing all of the
movies several times now AND on my 3rd read of the books (and a few of
Tolkein's other works), I think I can still say with some certainty that the
movies stand very well on their own. If you want to understand the true
scope and depth of the books, then yes, read the books. (That goes with any
work of literature translated to the screen). If you want to see a damned
good movie that really does capture the spirit of the story Tolkien told,
then go see the movies. They are not interdependant on each other.
[SNIP]
>
> So my question is, what's the conflict?
I have simply decided to be annoying and *just* not answer this.
> And don't say "Good vs Evil"
> because as far as I can tell - That's the definition of conflict.
Good VS Evil is most certainly not the only definition of conflict: Man Vs
Nature? How is that Good Vs Evil? A story of some man fighting to survive in
a blizzard on the Arctic tundra is very different than Father Merrin trynig
to cast the devil out of the little girl in "The Exorcist".
And anyone that's told you LOTR is just Good vs Evil is waaay
over-simplifiying it.
> Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
> the answer. Are these just terrible movies?
Have you seen the movies? I get the distinct impression you really haven't.
If you haven't - SEE THEM and decide for yourself. No one can do that for
you. If you have seen them, why are you asking *us* if *you* should like
them?
Doug McDonald
>
> Braveheart is a great example... It's as long as one of those Lord of
> the Rings fiascoes... and it has you in tears at the end. It's a
> story of a man.
No, it's an action movie. Exceedingly historically inaccurate.
> You understand where he's coming from, what he's
> fighting for, and what's at stake five minutes in… and you care with
> all your heart what happens to him. Now… did we have to see him
> sitting around with his father for three hours drinking tea to realize
> that it would be devastating to see him killed, no!
It's also built around the history of Scotland ... and it's
a bit hard to figure out what's going on from the movie. And
it gets the stories of all my ancestors in it wrong! Piers
de Gaveston was indeed Edward II's boyfriend, but he was not
a flaming twinkie and didn't get thrown out a window.
>
> And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
> like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
> plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
> it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
> you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
>
> So my question is, what's the conflict? And don't say "Good vs Evil"
> because as far as I can tell - That's the definition of conflict.
>
> Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
> the answer. Are these just terrible movies? Or are the books just as
> ponderous?
There are two types of conflict that should be seen by the
viewers of these movies:
1) Good versus evil .... i.e. Sauron and Saruman vs everybody else
2) The inner conflict inside certain people between doing the
right thing versus the wrong thing, i.e. "temptation".
The major players here are Elrond, Galadriel, Boromir, Faramir,
and Denethor.
In this story the second is more important than the first. And it
is not played up anywhere near enough in the movies. In very very
unmovielike fashion many of the people make the right decision right
at
the start. This you clearly don't like.
There is probably another feature of the story that bothers you:
the good guys lose only one small battle (Osgiliath). This
is against everything Hollywood. (Not counting the Shelob
affair as a battle.) It prevents the building up of the tension
expected by people accoustomed to Hollywood. And the second
big tension builder ... the journey of Frodo across Mordor ...
is simply left out entirely. However, not losing battles is
a very essential part of the plot!
If you didn't get all this, Jackson somehow failed. If you
did but still didn't like the movies, go watch a 90 minute
car chase movie.
Doug McDonald
Hamlet
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com:
> So my question is, what's the conflict? And don't say "Good vs Evil"
> because as far as I can tell - That's the definition of conflict.
>
> Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
> the answer. Are these just terrible movies? Or are the books just as
> ponderous?
Overall, the three movies revolve around a quest--
Frodo's quest to destroy the ring in the fires of Mordor.
The conflict arises from his desire to do that, and the
desire of (almost) every other character to prevent him
from doing so by taking the ring from him. That's pretty
much it in a nutshell.
--Hamlet
Aris Katsaris
"PaperStreet" <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> wrote in message
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
> hype...
> The movies are terrible as movies...
>
> I've talked to fans of these movies, attempting to understand what's
> so great, and they all say "Well... you really have to read the
> books..."
>
> But see... that really gets me when people say that. Because, in the
> world of movies, this makes no sense whatsoever! If you need to read
> three books to be able to understand one conflict in a 9 hour
> production: You have failed as a film maker...
Well *some* of us do indeed believe that Peter Jackson failed as
a film maker, and that the movies failed both as adaptations and as
standing by themselves.
> And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
> like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
> plotlines".
Actually the movie added many unneeded complexities, even as it
removed others.
> So my question is, what's the conflict? And don't say "Good vs Evil"
> because as far as I can tell - That's the definition of conflict.
I don't understand your question I'm afraid. There are numerous
conflicts in the films, both internal and external. Frodo striving under
the tremendous weight of the Ring's will. Gollum striving with himself.
The physical confrontation of armies.
There are even more "conflicts" in the books, especially if you are looking
about confrontations of wills, not lame action sequences.
> Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
> the answer. Are these just terrible movies? Or are the books just as
> ponderous?
They are bad movies. The books are tons better, and much more meaningful.
Aris Katsaris
Aris Katsaris
"Hamlet" <Ancie...@NOSPAMwowmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9479ADA0...@24.71.223.159...
Wow, you've probably never read either books nor seen the movies.
Almost every other character tries to prevent him by taking the
ring from him?
Want us to count named characters and see if they are trying to
help Frodo or stop him?
Aris Katsaris
kitznegari thinks it has wings
>Almost every other character tries to prevent him by taking the
>ring from him?
>
>Want us to count named characters and see if they are trying to
>help Frodo or stop him?
>
>Aris Katsaris
oh christ, can you stop being an anal twit for as much as two consecutive
posts?
- k i t z -
i will take you to the oracle, but first i must aporogize.
bite me at: http://quiz.ravenblack.net/blood.pl?biter=kitznegari
Aris Katsaris
"kitznegari thinks it has wings" <kitzn...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040123221319...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> >Wow, you've probably never read either books nor seen the movies.
> >Almost every other character tries to prevent him by taking the
> >ring from him?
> >
> >Want us to count named characters and see if they are trying to
> >help Frodo or stop him?
>
> posts?
Not the best month for such an attempt to be made.
Aris Katsaris
the softrat
Nop.e The movies ARE terrible and the book (it's ONE romance in three
volumes) is GREAT!
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
My opinions are my own unless I steal them from someone else.
the softrat
cares deeply 'what others think') and is functionally illiterate (his
lips hurt all the time).
me
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ihp310ts42auo547b...@4ax.com...
> Because he is intellectually and emotionally thirteen years old (he
> cares deeply 'what others think') and is functionally illiterate (his
> lips hurt all the time).
Oh.
Hamlet
@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr:
>> Overall, the three movies revolve around a quest--
>> Frodo's quest to destroy the ring in the fires of Mordor.
>> The conflict arises from his desire to do that, and the
>> desire of (almost) every other character to prevent him
>> from doing so by taking the ring from him.
>
> Wow, you've probably never read either books nor seen the movies.
> Almost every other character tries to prevent him by taking the
> ring from him?
> Want us to count named characters and see if they are trying to
> help Frodo or stop him?
> Aris Katsaris
I'm over-generalizing the conflict, of course,
in order to make it easier to understand. :-)
Certainly many characters helped Frodo,
but they were also tempted by the power of the Ring,
which added to the overall conflict--would they
resist the temptation, or give in to it?
PaperStreet
be true about Tolkien fans. They don't want you to be a fan. They
DEFY you to be a fan. All except for Doug McDonald, Hamlet, and maybe
Aris' last post… you all just lashed out at me, deciding it was better
to ridicule me than answer the question. I'm sorry if it was too much
for you.
And I'm sorry to disappoint. For I didn't come to whine at the shrine
of Tolkien. Holding my pathetic, tired head in my hands, as I wailed
over the intricate, mystifying plotlines. Please God, may some
heaven-sent angel come down and explain this to me!
I was discussing the movies. "me (paul...@cox.net)" started to tell
me that he perfectly understood the story without reading the books…
but it was obviously too hard for him to explain to me. What was the
point of saying that? Was I just to fall down and worship?
I would also like to congratulate the Scotsman on his very original
criticism of Braveheart. I'd just like to know if he had this great
well of knowledge about William Wallace before or after the movie was
made?
I thank you for finishing my search into this topic. It seems like a
very time-consuming waste, to which, the end result is nothing more
than turning into a self-centered, prideful, stuck up, British twit.
Who can recite a bunch of meaningless facts to either: a crowd of
other arrogant fools who will constantly correct you on your
ridiculous mix-up between the Brandybucks and the WibbleWobbles; or a
crowd of people who will just look at you sadly, and say… that poor
man… he has wasted so much of his life learning this… I should at
least smile and nod. Either way, I'm sure I don't envy you.
As a parting gift though, I thought I'd leave you all with a selection
from A History of the Crusades, Volume I by Steven Runciman. It makes
me think of you, and your great love of long lists of names. Also, my
gift includes the amazing chance (if you should choose to embrace it),
to learn about something that actually happened. Enjoy:
The Emperor Michael had tried to oppose the Turkish advance. The
prudent treachery of Roussel of Bailleul had enabled his Franco-Norman
regiment to survive the disaster at Manzikert. Unreliable though
Roussel had proved himself, Michael was obliged to make use of him.
To him he attached a small native army, under the young Isaac
Comnenus, nephew of the former emperor. The choice of Isaac was wise.
He and his brother Alexius, who accompanied him, belonged to the
family that most bitterly hated the Ducas clan; but, despite their
mother's urging, they remained loyal to Michael throughout his reign,
and both proved their worth as generals. But Isaac's loyalty was
cancelled out by the perfidy of Roussel. Before the Byzantine army
had met the Turks, Roussel and his troops threw off their allegiance.
Isaac, attacked by both Turks and Franks and hopelessly outnumbered,
was taken prisoner by the Seldjuks.
Aris Katsaris
"Doug McDonald" <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:4011B0B0...@scs.uiuc.edu...
> PaperStreet wrote:
> >
> > Braveheart is a great example... It's as long as one of those Lord of
> > the Rings fiascoes... and it has you in tears at the end. It's a
> > story of a man.
>
> No, it's an action movie. Exceedingly historically inaccurate.
It's been a while since I've seen Braveheart, but based on my
memory of it...
...it's not an action movie, because defeat and victory don't arise
from action sequences, but from personal decisions -- e.g. a major
battle is lost because of the betrayal of several characters.
Wallace's personal combat skills don't win him or lose him many
(if any) battles, it's his personal determination and will that rallies
people to his will and does it. And his combat skills can't save him
from being captured and tortured to death.
I'd argue that ROTK-M is more of an action movie than
Braveheart was -- certainly e.g. Shelob's defeat feels much more
action-oriented there than in the book, where it has a religious
tone... and Denethor's pyre is also resolved by action.
> > You understand where he's coming from, what he's
> > fighting for, and what's at stake five minutes in. and you care with
> > all your heart what happens to him. Now. did we have to see him
> > sitting around with his father for three hours drinking tea to realize
> > that it would be devastating to see him killed, no!
>
> It's also built around the history of Scotland ... and it's
> a bit hard to figure out what's going on from the movie. And
> it gets the stories of all my ancestors in it wrong! Piers
> de Gaveston was indeed Edward II's boyfriend, but he was not
> a flaming twinkie and didn't get thrown out a window.
But he was indeed killed because of his relationship with Edward
II, wasn't he?
From the little I know of Scottish history, I'd say that "Braveheart"
was about as close to historical reality, as LOTR-M was to the
LOTR books.
Aris Katsaris
Stephen Horgan
(PaperStreet) wrote:
>Let's just say I don't really understand the whole Lord of the Rings
>hype...
>The movies are terrible as movies...
>
Well, first of all that is just your opinion. Many people, including
many film professionals and reviewers do not agree with you.
>I've talked to fans of these movies, attempting to understand what's
>so great, and they all say "Well... you really have to read the
>books..."
>
This one doesn't . How about a great cast, good scripting, stellar
special effects and sky-high production values?
>But see... that really gets me when people say that. Because, in the
>world of movies, this makes no sense whatsoever! If you need to read
>three books to be able to understand one conflict in a 9 hour
>production: You have failed as a film maker...
>
You didn't get that Sauron was the bad guy?
>Because, apparently, to care about what happens to Aragorn and his
>merry men, you have to read seven tons of literature, and history...
> Because, you can't possibly explain a character without writing eight
>books of background first...
>
One of the main criticisms from admirers of the books of the films has
been the way the films ensured that each character was consistent
within the film, as opposed to completely consistent with the written
text. You do not need to read anything.
>Braveheart is a great example... It's as long as one of those Lord of
>the Rings fiascoes... and it has you in tears at the end. It's a
>story of a man. You understand where he's coming from, what he's
>fighting for, and what's at stake five minutes in… and you care with
>all your heart what happens to him. Now… did we have to see him
>sitting around with his father for three hours drinking tea to realize
>that it would be devastating to see him killed, no!
>
I didn't like Braveheart much. It was historically inaccurate on
numerous levels and the writing and characterisation was typical
Hollywood dross.
>I'm not stupid... I know that... I can get it... everyone has just
>brushed me off with... here, ten hundred books to read, it's the only
>way...
>
What do you not understand?
>And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
>like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
>plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
>it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
>you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
>
What is complex. There are two plots, they have to destroy the ring
and the King has to claim his birthright. That's it.
>Take Braveheart as an example again: At every turn you know what the
>question is... and you're waiting for the answer. Question: They need
>to beat the heavy horse... Answer: long pikes. Small conflicts,
>leading into the big conflict. You know what the questions are, and
>you're waiting for the hero to solve them. You don't find out about
>the question after you've heard the answer. ...
>
Take Braveheart for example. First we have the typical Hollywood
revenge motivation. So, Wallace would have stood by and let the evil
English oppress his people if they hadn't murdered his wife eh? Then
you have the battlefield nonsense where a load of half-dressed
beardies are meant to beat a well-equipped English army, with
sharpened sticks no less! As if you can instantly turn a rabble into a
block of pikemen, without pikes! Total garbage. Compare that to the
level of detail in any of the numerous Lord of the Rings battle
scenes. Hell, the battle in the prologue to the first film was better
than any in Braveheart.
>So my question is, what's the conflict? And don't say "Good vs Evil"
>because as far as I can tell - That's the definition of conflict.
>
So you would characterise the Vietnam war as Good vs Evil would you?
Conflict might just a bit more complex than you think.
>Hopefully you can help me, there has to be someone out there who knows
>the answer. Are these just terrible movies? Or are the books just as
>ponderous?
The films were great, though aimed at an audience over 12. The books
are brilliant.
--
Stephen Horgan, http://www.horgan.org.uk
"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"
Öjevind Lång
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
> Let's just say I don't really understand the whole Lord of the Rings
> hype...
> The movies are terrible as movies...
>
> I've talked to fans of these movies, attempting to understand what's
> so great, and they all say "Well... you really have to read the
> books..."
Many people who haven't read the book loved the movies.
Öjevind
Een Wilde Ier
> On 23 Jan 2004 12:46:33 -0800, PaperS...@boomerbible.com
> (PaperStreet) wrote:
<snip>
>>I'm not stupid... I know that... I can get it... everyone has just
>>brushed me off with... here, ten hundred books to read, it's the only
>>way...
>>
>
> What do you not understand?
>
>
>>And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
>>like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
>>plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
>>it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
>>you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
>>
>
> What is complex. There are two plots, they have to destroy the ring
> and the King has to claim his birthright. That's it.
Plus the little matter of winning wars against both Saruman and Sauron.
The overthrowing of Sauron in the destruction of the Ring was
unforeseen, remember?
>>Take Braveheart as an example again: At every turn you know what the
>>question is... and you're waiting for the answer. Question: They need
>>to beat the heavy horse... Answer: long pikes. Small conflicts,
>>leading into the big conflict. You know what the questions are, and
>>you're waiting for the hero to solve them. You don't find out about
>>the question after you've heard the answer. ...
>>
>
> Take Braveheart for example. First we have the typical Hollywood
> revenge motivation. So, Wallace would have stood by and let the evil
> English oppress his people if they hadn't murdered his wife eh?
*Wallace* (in the film) wasn't the only one fighting the English. The
murder of his wife (which wasn't an element of invention by Gibson et
al) may have lent an edge of personal vendetta to proceedings, but there
was already more than enough justification even without it.
> Then
> you have the battlefield nonsense where a load of half-dressed
> beardies
Grr.
> are meant to beat a well-equipped English army, with
> sharpened sticks no less!
"Half-dressed beardies". Why don't you just call them 'Scottish
savages', and be done with it? (and wait for Jette to disembowel you
with her athame ;-)
> As if you can instantly turn a rabble into a
> block of pikemen, without pikes! Total garbage. Compare that to the
> level of detail in any of the numerous Lord of the Rings battle
> scenes. Hell, the battle in the prologue to the first film was better
> than any in Braveheart.
LOL. The battles in LOTR (the Prologue, Osgiliath I, Osgiliath II, the
Pelennor, the Black Gate) *are* between rabbles. Possibly due to the
primitiveness (relatively speaking, vs. live-action) of Massive, Weta's
cgi system. I've already explained my irritation elsewhere with the
silliness of Osgiliath I.
Stephen Horgan
<theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stephen Horgan wrote:
>
>> On 23 Jan 2004 12:46:33 -0800, PaperS...@boomerbible.com
>> (PaperStreet) wrote:
><snip>
>>>I'm not stupid... I know that... I can get it... everyone has just
>>>brushed me off with... here, ten hundred books to read, it's the only
>>>way...
>>>
>>
>> What do you not understand?
>>
>>
>>>And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
>>>like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
>>>plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
>>>it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
>>>you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
>>>
>>
>> What is complex. There are two plots, they have to destroy the ring
>> and the King has to claim his birthright. That's it.
>
>Plus the little matter of winning wars against both Saruman and Sauron.
>The overthrowing of Sauron in the destruction of the Ring was
>unforeseen, remember?
>
There are plots, and there are subplots.
>>>Take Braveheart as an example again: At every turn you know what the
>>>question is... and you're waiting for the answer. Question: They need
>>>to beat the heavy horse... Answer: long pikes. Small conflicts,
>>>leading into the big conflict. You know what the questions are, and
>>>you're waiting for the hero to solve them. You don't find out about
>>>the question after you've heard the answer. ...
>>>
>>
>> Take Braveheart for example. First we have the typical Hollywood
>> revenge motivation. So, Wallace would have stood by and let the evil
>> English oppress his people if they hadn't murdered his wife eh?
>
>*Wallace* (in the film) wasn't the only one fighting the English. The
>murder of his wife (which wasn't an element of invention by Gibson et
>al) may have lent an edge of personal vendetta to proceedings, but there
>was already more than enough justification even without it.
>
The film made it into a typical 'they stole his biro, now it's payback
time!' nonsense.
>> Then
>> you have the battlefield nonsense where a load of half-dressed
>> beardies
>
>Grr.
>
Scottish troops of the period looked a lot like English troops of the
period. They wore armour; they didn't just put on a kilt, slap on some
warpaint and hope for the best.
>> are meant to beat a well-equipped English army, with
>> sharpened sticks no less!
>
>"Half-dressed beardies". Why don't you just call them 'Scottish
>savages', and be done with it? (and wait for Jette to disembowel you
>with her athame ;-)
>
Because I'm not trying to insult the Scots, just the film made about
them. The way the Scottish soldiery were portrayed in the film bore
little relation to the scottish soldiery of the period. We are asked
to believe that they have castles, kings and nobles, a highly
developed medieval society, but when they arrive on the battlefield
they revert to the dark ages?
>> As if you can instantly turn a rabble into a
>> block of pikemen, without pikes! Total garbage. Compare that to the
>> level of detail in any of the numerous Lord of the Rings battle
>> scenes. Hell, the battle in the prologue to the first film was better
>> than any in Braveheart.
>
>LOL. The battles in LOTR (the Prologue, Osgiliath I, Osgiliath II, the
>Pelennor, the Black Gate) *are* between rabbles. Possibly due to the
>primitiveness (relatively speaking, vs. live-action) of Massive, Weta's
>cgi system. I've already explained my irritation elsewhere with the
>silliness of Osgiliath I.
Prologue, first film, disciplined ranks of well-equipped soldiery
fighting in formation and responding to orders. A two-minute section
that left every battle scene in Braveheart for dead.
Een Wilde Ier
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:56:45 +0000, Een Wilde Ier
> <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Stephen Horgan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 23 Jan 2004 12:46:33 -0800, PaperS...@boomerbible.com
>>>(PaperStreet) wrote:
<snip>
>>>>like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
>>>>plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
>>>>it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
>>>>you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
>>>>
>>>
>>>What is complex. There are two plots, they have to destroy the ring
>>>and the King has to claim his birthright. That's it.
>>
>>Plus the little matter of winning wars against both Saruman and Sauron.
>>The overthrowing of Sauron in the destruction of the Ring was
>>unforeseen, remember?
>>
>
> There are plots, and there are subplots.
The War is certainly a major plot element! It is what causes Aragorn's
journey to Gondor, and leads to his claiming of the throne.
>>>>Take Braveheart as an example again: At every turn you know what the
>>>>question is... and you're waiting for the answer. Question: They need
>>>>to beat the heavy horse... Answer: long pikes. Small conflicts,
>>>>leading into the big conflict. You know what the questions are, and
>>>>you're waiting for the hero to solve them. You don't find out about
>>>>the question after you've heard the answer. ...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Take Braveheart for example. First we have the typical Hollywood
>>>revenge motivation. So, Wallace would have stood by and let the evil
>>>English oppress his people if they hadn't murdered his wife eh?
>>
>>*Wallace* (in the film) wasn't the only one fighting the English. The
>>murder of his wife (which wasn't an element of invention by Gibson et
>>al) may have lent an edge of personal vendetta to proceedings, but there
>>was already more than enough justification even without it.
>>
>
> The film made it into a typical 'they stole his biro, now it's payback
> time!' nonsense.
Which is Mel's trademark in his movie persona.
>>>Then
>>>you have the battlefield nonsense where a load of half-dressed
>>>beardies
>>
>>Grr.
>>
>
> Scottish troops of the period looked a lot like English troops of the
> period. They wore armour; they didn't just put on a kilt, slap on some
> warpaint and hope for the best.
LO. No, the "grr" was on a rather more personal note
>>>are meant to beat a well-equipped English army, with
>>>sharpened sticks no less!
>>
>>"Half-dressed beardies". Why don't you just call them 'Scottish
>>savages', and be done with it? (and wait for Jette to disembowel you
>>with her athame ;-)
>>
>
> Because I'm not trying to insult the Scots, just the film made about
> them. The way the Scottish soldiery were portrayed in the film bore
> little relation to the scottish soldiery of the period. We are asked
> to believe that they have castles, kings and nobles, a highly
> developed medieval society, but when they arrive on the battlefield
> they revert to the dark ages?
We have to be very careful here as to which "Scots" we are referring to.
As was the case in Ireland, those Gaelic lords nearest the English
points of invasion copied various aspects of Anglo-Norman warfare. The
Old English (Hiberno-Norman) lords confuse the issue even further in
their adoption of much of Irish custom.
(It is said that at a meeting of the foremost Anglo-Irish lords in
Dublin in the fifteenth century, one had to translate the contents of a
letter from the English king to the others, as they spoke not a word of
English between them).
I don't think that I'm going out on too much of a limb in suggesting
that similar hybridization existed in Scotland. And this before we even
start into the bloodbath that is the debate over whether Wallace's army
were Lowlanders, Highlanders or a mixture of the two.
>>>As if you can instantly turn a rabble into a
>>>block of pikemen, without pikes! Total garbage. Compare that to the
>>>level of detail in any of the numerous Lord of the Rings battle
>>>scenes. Hell, the battle in the prologue to the first film was better
>>>than any in Braveheart.
>>
>>LOL. The battles in LOTR (the Prologue, Osgiliath I, Osgiliath II, the
>>Pelennor, the Black Gate) *are* between rabbles. Possibly due to the
>>primitiveness (relatively speaking, vs. live-action) of Massive, Weta's
>>cgi system. I've already explained my irritation elsewhere with the
>>silliness of Osgiliath I.
>
>
> Prologue, first film, disciplined ranks of well-equipped soldiery
> fighting in formation and responding to orders. A two-minute section
> that left every battle scene in Braveheart for dead.
The ranks are present only to get in the 'cool' scything action. The
subsequent action and fly-over camera show a mob brawl with no lines at all.
Morgil
"Stephen Horgan" <ste...@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:u36510lmp8lmpnspi...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:56:45 +0000, Een Wilde Ier
> <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Stephen Horgan wrote:
> >> Take Braveheart for example. First we have the typical Hollywood
> >> revenge motivation. So, Wallace would have stood by and let the evil
> >> English oppress his people if they hadn't murdered his wife eh?
> >
> >*Wallace* (in the film) wasn't the only one fighting the English. The
> >murder of his wife (which wasn't an element of invention by Gibson et
> >al) may have lent an edge of personal vendetta to proceedings, but there
> >was already more than enough justification even without it.
Actually Wallace was not planning to start a rebellion
at all. He just wanted vengeance. He became a freedom
fighter only gradually. He was only a commoner after all.
> The film made it into a typical 'they stole his biro, now it's payback
> time!' nonsense.
If you didn't notice, RotK did pretty much the same.
"You must save the World or Arwen dies!"
Morgil
Tamzin
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:buu0gh$koc$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
>
> From the little I know of Scottish history, I'd say that "Braveheart"
> was about as close to historical reality, as LOTR-M was to the
> LOTR books.
>
You are 100% correct to think so :o)
Tamzin
Stephen Horgan
<theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Stephen Horgan wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 15:56:45 +0000, Een Wilde Ier
>> <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Stephen Horgan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On 23 Jan 2004 12:46:33 -0800, PaperS...@boomerbible.com
>>>>(PaperStreet) wrote:
><snip>
>>>>>And don't say "well, the movie is extremely complex because it's just
>>>>>like the book, and movies are very hard to watch with multiple
>>>>>plotlines". Because, basically, that's bunch of B.S. I don't believe
>>>>>it's hard... it shouldn't be hard... if you have a main concept...
>>>>>you should be able to lead up to it... three plots or one...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What is complex. There are two plots, they have to destroy the ring
>>>>and the King has to claim his birthright. That's it.
>>>
>>>Plus the little matter of winning wars against both Saruman and Sauron.
>>>The overthrowing of Sauron in the destruction of the Ring was
>>>unforeseen, remember?
>>>
>>
>> There are plots, and there are subplots.
>
>The War is certainly a major plot element! It is what causes Aragorn's
>journey to Gondor, and leads to his claiming of the throne.
>
Plot is about character. The war is a background event, albeit a major
one.
>>>>>Take Braveheart as an example again: At every turn you know what the
>>>>>question is... and you're waiting for the answer. Question: They need
>>>>>to beat the heavy horse... Answer: long pikes. Small conflicts,
>>>>>leading into the big conflict. You know what the questions are, and
>>>>>you're waiting for the hero to solve them. You don't find out about
>>>>>the question after you've heard the answer. ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Take Braveheart for example. First we have the typical Hollywood
>>>>revenge motivation. So, Wallace would have stood by and let the evil
>>>>English oppress his people if they hadn't murdered his wife eh?
>>>
>>>*Wallace* (in the film) wasn't the only one fighting the English. The
>>>murder of his wife (which wasn't an element of invention by Gibson et
>>>al) may have lent an edge of personal vendetta to proceedings, but there
>>>was already more than enough justification even without it.
>>>
>>
>> The film made it into a typical 'they stole his biro, now it's payback
>> time!' nonsense.
>
>Which is Mel's trademark in his movie persona.
>
He grafts the same plot onto film after film and, frankly, it's
getting a bit old.
>>>>Then
>>>>you have the battlefield nonsense where a load of half-dressed
>>>>beardies
>>>
>>>Grr.
>>>
>>
>> Scottish troops of the period looked a lot like English troops of the
>> period. They wore armour; they didn't just put on a kilt, slap on some
>> warpaint and hope for the best.
>
>LO. No, the "grr" was on a rather more personal note
>
You must hate Gillette adverts.
>>>>are meant to beat a well-equipped English army, with
>>>>sharpened sticks no less!
>>>
>>>"Half-dressed beardies". Why don't you just call them 'Scottish
>>>savages', and be done with it? (and wait for Jette to disembowel you
>>>with her athame ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Because I'm not trying to insult the Scots, just the film made about
>> them. The way the Scottish soldiery were portrayed in the film bore
>> little relation to the scottish soldiery of the period. We are asked
>> to believe that they have castles, kings and nobles, a highly
>> developed medieval society, but when they arrive on the battlefield
>> they revert to the dark ages?
>
>We have to be very careful here as to which "Scots" we are referring to.
>As was the case in Ireland, those Gaelic lords nearest the English
>points of invasion copied various aspects of Anglo-Norman warfare. The
>Old English (Hiberno-Norman) lords confuse the issue even further in
>their adoption of much of Irish custom.
>
>(It is said that at a meeting of the foremost Anglo-Irish lords in
>Dublin in the fifteenth century, one had to translate the contents of a
>letter from the English king to the others, as they spoke not a word of
>English between them).
>
>I don't think that I'm going out on too much of a limb in suggesting
>that similar hybridization existed in Scotland. And this before we even
>start into the bloodbath that is the debate over whether Wallace's army
>were Lowlanders, Highlanders or a mixture of the two.
>
All good points. In Braveheart and army that is slightly less well
equipped than the Britons who faced the Romans trounces a force with
longbows, armoured infantry and heavy cavalry. No chance. It just fits
the Hollywood cliche that all you need is to believe something enough
then material concerns do not matter.
>>>>As if you can instantly turn a rabble into a
>>>>block of pikemen, without pikes! Total garbage. Compare that to the
>>>>level of detail in any of the numerous Lord of the Rings battle
>>>>scenes. Hell, the battle in the prologue to the first film was better
>>>>than any in Braveheart.
>>>
>>>LOL. The battles in LOTR (the Prologue, Osgiliath I, Osgiliath II, the
>>>Pelennor, the Black Gate) *are* between rabbles. Possibly due to the
>>>primitiveness (relatively speaking, vs. live-action) of Massive, Weta's
>>>cgi system. I've already explained my irritation elsewhere with the
>>>silliness of Osgiliath I.
>>
>>
>> Prologue, first film, disciplined ranks of well-equipped soldiery
>> fighting in formation and responding to orders. A two-minute section
>> that left every battle scene in Braveheart for dead.
>
>The ranks are present only to get in the 'cool' scything action. The
>subsequent action and fly-over camera show a mob brawl with no lines at all.
The subsequent action captures to confusion of close combat, but I
would not characterise it as a mob brawl. Moreover the Massive
software allowed the first depiction of a really large battle instead
of the few hundred extras trying to spread out that we have been used
to.
Morgil
"Stephen Horgan" <ste...@horgan.REMOVETOREPLY.co.uk> kirjoitti
viestissä:nq07101f4585pggk6...@4ax.com...
> >>>>Then
> >>>>you have the battlefield nonsense where a load of half-dressed
> >>>>beardies
> >>>
> >>>Grr.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Scottish troops of the period looked a lot like English troops of the
> >> period. They wore armour; they didn't just put on a kilt, slap on some
> >> warpaint and hope for the best.
> >
> >LO. No, the "grr" was on a rather more personal note
> >
> You must hate Gillette adverts.
Mr. Flood is trying to tell that he *was* one of those
half dressed bearded freaks you see on the screen, as
he worked as an extra on that production. Wheter
there are any close-ups of him mooning to the English
shall remain a mystery...
Morgil
Stephen Horgan
PaperStreet
And would still today, if it wasn't for the English outlawing the language.
Póg mo Thón
Kevin Logan
PaperStreet <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> writes
>You've all done a perfect job of hardening in stone what I've found to
>be true about Tolkien fans. They don't want you to be a fan. They
>DEFY you to be a fan. All except for Doug McDonald, Hamlet, and maybe
>Aris' last post… you all just lashed out at me, deciding it was better
>to ridicule me than answer the question. I'm sorry if it was too much
>for you.
>
>And I'm sorry to disappoint. For I didn't come to whine at the shrine
>of Tolkien. Holding my pathetic, tired head in my hands, as I wailed
>over the intricate, mystifying plotlines. Please God, may some
>heaven-sent angel come down and explain this to me!
>
actually SEEN the movies or whether you are just discussing the hype.
If you have seen the movies, you presumably saw the prologue at the
start of the first one. However, basically:-
Sauron is a very big powerful dark lord, who forged the One Ring to help
him control the people of Middle Earth. This you should see in the
prologue of the first film.
Despite this, Sauron was defeated and the ring was taken from him, but
the person who took it was later ambushed and the ring was lost
(prologue again).
Sauron cannot be completely destroyed until the ring is destroyed.
Without that happening, he will remain a major threat to Middle Earth
(prologue again).
The ring has now been found again. Sauron is searching for it and if he
gets it everyone in the world is in deep, deep manure (prologue again).
Ring tends to corrupt anyone who has anything to do with it for long (I
don't remember how well that came out in the prologue but it should have
been reasonably clear by the time Bilbo had his chat with Gandalf and
then later when Gandalf threw the ring into the fire and had his chat
with Frodo).
Some of the conflicts are:
Sauron vs everyone else for control of Middle Earth.
Ring attempting to corrupt Frodo so that it can return to its master, vs
Frodo resisting corruption.
Hobbits vs Ringwraiths in journey to Bree.
Hobbits + Strider vs Ringwraiths on journey to Rivendell.
Conflict between use vs hiding vs sending away vs destruction of the
ring at the Council of Elrond.
Conflict between Arwen and Elrond over whether she should marry Aragorn
(Strider).
Conflict between the Fellowship and the weather on Caradhras.
Conflict between the Fellowship and the Watcher at the gate of Moria.
Conflict between the Fellowship and the various guardians of Moria,
culminating in the balrog.
Conflict between Galadriel's wish to take the ring (freely offered by
Frodo) to destroy Sauron and protect Lothlorien, and her knowledge that
doing so will ultimately turn her into another Dark Lord, just as bad as
him.
Conflict between Boromir and Frodo when Boromir tries to steal the ring
to use as a weapon to defend Minas Tirith.
Conflict between the remainder of the Fellowship and the orcs after
Frodo leaves.
Conflict between Rohan and Saruman.
Conflict between Eowyn's desire to take part in the battles and her
uncle's wish that she stay home and lead the civilian population.
Okay, still not near the end, but does that set you on the path? If you
watch the films you should be able to pick up that basically the ring is
bad, Frodo has to take it somewhere to be destroyed, and that lots of
people and the ring itself are trying to stop him. If you can stay
awake through the films you should be able to work that out. If you
don't want to see the films then no synopsis that any of us could write
here will result in you thinking that they are worthwhile. People who
have read the book before seeing the film are highly likely to advise
you to read the book (for any film/book) - life's like that.
>I was discussing the movies. "me (paul...@cox.net)" started to tell
>me that he perfectly understood the story without reading the books…
>but it was obviously too hard for him to explain to me. What was the
>point of saying that? Was I just to fall down and worship?
>
What I have just written is a very poor explanation, and it has been a
LOT of work to do just that. So yes, explaining to you (or anyone) IS
hard. In light of the doubt as to whether you have seen the movies, he
might have been suggesting that if you sat down and watched that you
probably would understand.
I'm not entirely sure whether I'm doing this to help or doing it out of
irritation. I hope the former and that you will take it that way, but
either way it's past my bedtime and I'm going to sleep now.
--
Kevin Logan
sleepy Brit
Öjevind Lång
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
Huh? All I said was "Many people who haven't read the book loved the
movies."
Öjevind
Ben Luts
It is very clear to me that you have absolutely no fantasy and you only live
in a dull world full of idiots like yourself
"Aris Katsaris" <kats...@otenet.gr> wrote in message
news:busmi9$1lue$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
The American
"Ben Luts" <fa05...@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:40153a1e$0$324$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> The books are fantastic and so are the movies.
> It is very clear to me that you have absolutely no fantasy and you only
live
> in a dull world full of idiots like yourself
>
No, it's: top posting = idiot.
T.A.
Aris Katsaris
> It is very clear to me that you have absolutely no fantasy and you only live
> in a dull world full of idiots like yourself
It's very clear to me that you are an asshole who needs to insult
everyone that don't share his opinion.
May you die horribly.
*plonk*
Aris Katsaris
me
"PaperStreet" <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> wrote in message
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
> of Tolkien.
And yet that is just what you've done. You've pretty much asked people on
this forum to spoon-feed the story to you and demanded it to be fed to you
in an overly simplistic way - a way that is just impossible. A bit like
asking to be fed a good hearty soup with a slotted spoon - all you'll ever
get is a little taste of the broth and none of the other stuff that gives it
it's flavor.
If it MUST be boiled down to a single conflict, then it is 'Good vs Evil',
but that leaves out a lot of other stuff that's just as relevant as the
major elements of the story. And *you* had already made 'Good vs Evil'
verboten as an answer:
">So my question is, what's the conflict? And don't say
"Good vs Evil"
">because as far as I can tell - That's the definition
of conflict."
> I was discussing the movies. "me (paul...@cox.net)" started to tell
> me that he perfectly understood the story without reading the books.
> but it was obviously too hard for him to explain to me.
I didn't answer because you rather arrogantly demanded a single answer where
a single answer just will not do, and just felt like frustrating you.
WHY? Because it seemed to me you felt like frustrating us first. You seemed
to make it deliberately ambiguous as to weather you've read the books or
seen the movies, and it seemed that right up front (due to the overall tone
of your original post) that you had already made up your mind that you
didn't like either the books or the movies. And after reading this post, it
seems obvious now that your only intent was to trap and antagonize (AND very
clumsily done, I might add). In short, you're a troll. If all those were not
your intent, then you seriously need to develop a real style of discourse.
If that was your intent, then you need to learn to not toy with cognoscenti
in regards to a subject about which you know nothing.
> What was the
> point of saying that? Was I just to fall down and worship?
No. Just to go away and make your own decisions about what you like. And not
ineptly try to bait people that are smarter than you. Did it make you feel
good, taunting the geeks? Superior? No? Well then, go back to your video of
"Girls Gone Wild"...
[snip - because it's pretty much replied to above]
me
"PaperStreet" <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> wrote in message
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
Oh, one more thing...
> And I'm sorry to disappoint. For I didn't come to whine at the shrine
> of Tolkien. Holding my pathetic, tired head in my hands, as I wailed
> over the intricate, mystifying plotlines.
um... The plotlines really are rather simple, although there are many - that
is very likely a HUGE part of Tolkien's universal apppeal. Yet you've
demanded that they be even simpler. That tells me your either too stupid for
something as simple as "Piglet's Big Movie", or you're just not trying very
hard.
Try harder.
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
boxer or briefs or thong
Jette Goldie
"cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-26...@c131.ppp.tsoft.com...
> > If it MUST be boiled down to a single conflict, then it is 'Good vs
Evil',
>
> boxer or briefs or thong
"tighty whities" thanks
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Jette Goldie
"PaperStreet" <PaperS...@boomerbible.com> wrote in message
news:2d8a6925.04012...@posting.google.com...
Don't be rude. (some of us DO understand your last
comment)
So, now that Ireland has an official language of Irish,
and it is taught in schools to children - why do so may
Irish folks seem to speak English as a first language?
Gaelic was similarly outlawed in Scotland - and in the
North West folks tend to speak English as a *second*
language, not their first.
Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
>language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
I hate to break this to you, but if it aint Pictish and it aint
Gaelic, then it is a dialect of English. If the Angles and Saxons had
been unsuccessful against your ancestors, you wouldn't be speaking it
at all: it wouldn't exist.
Actually you probably be speaking a descendent of Norse.
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the
cheese. -- Steven Wright
Jette Goldie
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:aq8p10thf2p88jlf0...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:58:50 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
> >Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
> >language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
>
> I hate to break this to you, but if it aint Pictish and it aint
> Gaelic, then it is a dialect of English. If the Angles and Saxons had
> been unsuccessful against your ancestors, you wouldn't be speaking it
> at all: it wouldn't exist.
No it is *not* a dialect of English - you could as easily say that
English is a dialect of *it*, since they developed side by side
from the same roots.
>
> Actually you probably be speaking a descendent of Norse.
Indeed, some of the words *are* derived from Norse.
Henriette
> "the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:aq8p10thf2p88jlf0...@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:58:50 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> > <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
> > >language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
> >
> > I hate to break this to you, but if it aint Pictish and it aint
> > Gaelic, then it is a dialect of English. If the Angles and Saxons had
> > been unsuccessful against your ancestors, you wouldn't be speaking it
> > at all: it wouldn't exist.
>
> No it is *not* a dialect of English - you could as easily say that
> English is a dialect of *it*, since they developed side by side
> from the same roots.
I happened (if coincidence it is...) to read an ad today in which
young doctors who spoke either "English or Scottish", were invited to
come and work in GB. I don't know what they mean by Scottish, if they
don't mean Gaelic.
> > Actually you probably be speaking a descendent of Norse.
>
> Indeed, some of the words *are* derived from Norse.
They match your blood type :-)
Henriette
Jette Goldie
"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com...
> "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
news:<4w5Tb.3289$Iu2.29...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
> > "the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> > news:aq8p10thf2p88jlf0...@4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:58:50 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> > > <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
> > > >language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
> > >
> > > I hate to break this to you, but if it aint Pictish and it aint
> > > Gaelic, then it is a dialect of English. If the Angles and Saxons had
> > > been unsuccessful against your ancestors, you wouldn't be speaking it
> > > at all: it wouldn't exist.
> >
> > No it is *not* a dialect of English - you could as easily say that
> > English is a dialect of *it*, since they developed side by side
> > from the same roots.
>
> I happened (if coincidence it is...) to read an ad today in which
> young doctors who spoke either "English or Scottish", were invited to
> come and work in GB. I don't know what they mean by Scottish, if they
> don't mean Gaelic.
This
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language
and for more detail
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Apache and Dakota
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/kitties.html
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:aq8p10thf2p88jlf0...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:58:50 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
>> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
>> >language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
>>
>> I hate to break this to you, but if it aint Pictish and it aint
>> Gaelic, then it is a dialect of English. If the Angles and Saxons had
>> been unsuccessful against your ancestors, you wouldn't be speaking it
>> at all: it wouldn't exist.
>
>No it is *not* a dialect of English - you could as easily say that
>English is a dialect of *it*, since they developed side by side
>from the same roots.
>
Nonsense! English arrived in Great Britain around 400 AD. It was first
written down about 650 AD. Of course it had been evolving: all living
languages do. Somewhere in this period the Angles took it into
Lothian. It has been there ever since, evolving certainly, but only as
a junior dialect to the dialects 'down south' which it copied as best
it could. (Something about political and economic superiority ...)
However differences did persist -- normally archaisms in pronunciation
and vocabulary. In about 1707, the southerners declared a union with
the people of the north (whether they really liked it or not). From
this time forward until at least 1900, there was a concerted effort to
have all the educated inhabitants of the union speak and read the same
language. It was largely successful. OTOH, meanwhile no one really
cared what the peasants and crofters spoke and they generally could
not read. (BTW, not even the peasants and crofters cared unless they
wanted to rise 'above their station. Then they learned their best
approximation of "The King's English'.) Some time in the mid-twentieth
century, some twits decided that these very various peasant and
crofter dialects should be classed as a language in its own right.
They have been searching for a name for it ever since. Meanwhile the
sober educated people still attempt their best approximation of The
King's English, for economic reasons. Politicians as usual keep
checking the wind: they like votes and if it is peasants and crofters,
so be it.
PS: Also since 1700, the inhabitants of Scotland have been leaving in
droves for better climates, both physical and economic. Once it stops
being cute, they drop their local linguistic peculiarities.
HTH
the softrat
"LotR: You've seen the epic. Now experience the Whole Story!"
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"You give 100% in the first half of the game, and if that isn't
enough, in the second half you give what's left." -- Yogi Berra
Henriette
> > I happened (if coincidence it is...) to read an ad today in which
> > young doctors who spoke either "English or Scottish", were invited to
> > come and work in GB. I don't know what they mean by Scottish, if they
> > don't mean Gaelic.
>
> This
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language
>
> and for more detail
>
> http://www.scots-online.org/
Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive like
-ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g. small
Raaf= Raafje).
I would like to take sides in the beginning flamewar on whether or not
Scottish is a language, but I am not yet wholy convinced either way,
and I don't know enough about it myself.
Henriette
Yuk Tang
news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
> Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
> some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
> back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive
> like -ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g.
> small Raaf= Raafje).
-y or -ie. Hence Johnny, Gary, Ronnie, etc.
> I would like to take sides in the beginning flamewar on whether or
> not Scottish is a language, but I am not yet wholy convinced
> either way, and I don't know enough about it myself.
Glaswegian is a dialect in and of itself. Eg. try working out what
Kenny Dalglish is saying.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Een Wilde Ier
> "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message news:<hixTb.4547$pt.42...@news-text.cableinet.net>...
>
>>"Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com...
>
>
>>>I happened (if coincidence it is...) to read an ad today in which
>>>young doctors who spoke either "English or Scottish", were invited to
>>>come and work in GB. I don't know what they mean by Scottish, if they
>>>don't mean Gaelic.
>>
>>This
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language
>>
>>and for more detail
>>
>>http://www.scots-online.org/
>
>
> Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
> some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
> back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive like
> -ie, does it?
"Lil'", I suppose...
> In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g. small
> Raaf= Raafje).
Oh, I *see*!
> I would like to take sides in the beginning flamewar on whether or not
> Scottish is a language, but I am not yet wholy convinced either way,
> and I don't know enough about it myself.
The very best qualifications to *take* part in an AFT flamewar, my dear
Henriette! ;-)
Henriette
> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
> news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
> >
> > Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
> > some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
> > back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive
> > like -ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g.
> > small Raaf= Raafje).
>
> -y or -ie. Hence Johnny, Gary, Ronnie, etc.
>
make them cuddly. But not in nouns, do they? Whereas the Scots
sometimes do (the aforementioned laddie). We Dutch do it all the time,
although a man is not supposed to use it overmuch. As they (men)are
not supposed to use certain words. Interesting phenomenon.
Henriette
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
> > English does not a have a diminutive like -ie, does it?
>
> "Lil'", I suppose...
Yes, but I mean putting some letters behind a noun to indicate it is
small and/or cute: raaf-raafje (raven), huis-huisje (house),
David-Davidje etc.
>
> > I would like to take sides in the beginning flamewar on whether or not
> > Scottish is a language, but I am not yet wholy convinced either way,
> > and I don't know enough about it myself.
>
> The very best qualifications to *take* part in an AFT flamewar, my dear
> Henriette! ;-)
LOL, thank you for enlightening me! But then I face other problems.
Maybe you can give a sort course:
How do I choose which side I take? Because like I said, I don't know
enough about the subject myself, nor do I have a particular preference
for any outcome. And is it important in a flamewar to start many new
threads with subject headers like: Jette Goldie, when will you face
the truth! or Softrat refuses to face facts! Or are the subject
headers supposed to be rather insulting?
Henriette
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote:
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Xns94856DDB868BD...@130.133.1.4>...
> > held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
> > news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
> > >
> > > Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
> > > some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
> > > back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive
> > > like -ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g.
> > > small Raaf= Raafje).
> >
> > -y or -ie. Hence Johnny, Gary, Ronnie, etc.
> >
> Ofcourse, thank you. I forgot the English do use Y or IE in names to
> make them cuddly. But not in nouns, do they? Whereas the Scots
connie buffy muffy peggy patty susie laurie joanie ronny rennie jackie
annie lizzie minnie and milly and molly and may micky nicky poo
nancy (betty jo bialowski) mommy daddy auntie sonny joey mikey rosie
tammy governorsknee matty markie johnny lukey petey paulie
Yuk Tang
news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns94856DDB868BD...@130.133.1.4>...
>> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
>> news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
>> >
>> > Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I
>> > recognised some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs:
>> > "Will ye no come back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a
>> > have a diminutive like -ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot
>> > (but then -je. E.g. small Raaf= Raafje).
>>
>> -y or -ie. Hence Johnny, Gary, Ronnie, etc.
>>
> Ofcourse, thank you. I forgot the English do use Y or IE in names
> to make them cuddly. But not in nouns, do they? Whereas the Scots
> sometimes do (the aforementioned laddie). We Dutch do it all the
> time, although a man is not supposed to use it overmuch. As they
> (men)are not supposed to use certain words. Interesting
> phenomenon.
Wind in the Willow: Ratty, Mole(y), etc. Mate is used to describe a
friend, matey is the ironic form applied to a disliked person as a
belittlement, just as the familiar form (tu, du) is deemed impolite on
the mainland unless used properly.
Oop north, they still use the old familiar terms like thou, thine and
thy (instead of the formal you, yours and your), although their
degenerate tongues make them all sound like tha'. The Welsh seem to
have a fondness for ls, while the west and southwest raid the other
parts of the country for spare rs they can use. I understand the
Irrrrish have a flourrrrishing marrrket in that letterrr.
--
Cheers, ymt.
Een Wilde Ier
> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
> news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
>
>>Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:<Xns94856DDB868BD...@130.133.1.4>...
>>
>>>held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
>>>news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
>>>
>>>>Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I
>>>>recognised some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs:
>>>>"Will ye no come back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a
>>>>have a diminutive like -ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot
>>>>(but then -je. E.g. small Raaf= Raafje).
>>>
>>>-y or -ie. Hence Johnny, Gary, Ronnie, etc.
>>>
>>
>>Ofcourse, thank you. I forgot the English do use Y or IE in names
>>to make them cuddly. But not in nouns, do they? Whereas the Scots
>>sometimes do (the aforementioned laddie). We Dutch do it all the
>>time, although a man is not supposed to use it overmuch. As they
>>(men)are not supposed to use certain words. Interesting
>>phenomenon.
>
>
> Wind in the Willow:
Willow, Willow, Willow!
I almost forgot - second-but-last-episode of 'Buffy' starts in two
minutes on the TV...
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
>
> Willow, Willow, Willow!
>
> I almost forgot - second-but-last-episode of 'Buffy' starts in two
> minutes on the TV...
ah yes
the saturday repeats just started at dawns new high school last week
was tara the name of frogs house in wind in the willows
Een Wilde Ier
> Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bvrn78$108154$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>Henriette wrote:
>
>
>>>English does not a have a diminutive like -ie, does it?
>>
>>"Lil'", I suppose...
>
>
> Yes, but I mean putting some letters behind a noun to indicate it is
> small and/or cute: raaf-raafje (raven), huis-huisje (house),
> David-Davidje etc.
In rural parts of Ireland it is still common to find the son given the
diminuitive: Séan Óg (Young Séan), Séan Bheag (little Séan) etcetc.
>>>I would like to take sides in the beginning flamewar on whether or not
>>>Scottish is a language, but I am not yet wholy convinced either way,
>>>and I don't know enough about it myself.
>>
>>The very best qualifications to *take* part in an AFT flamewar, my dear
>>Henriette! ;-)
>
>
> LOL, thank you for enlightening me! But then I face other problems.
> Maybe you can give a sort course:
> How do I choose which side I take?
Do you really think that the SIDES matter? ;-)
> Because like I said, I don't know
> enough about the subject myself, nor do I have a particular preference
> for any outcome.
Dearest H., as I have said, that is the best basis on which to start one
- purely for entertainment value.
> And is it important in a flamewar to start many new
> threads with subject headers like: Jette Goldie, when will you face
> the truth! or Softrat refuses to face facts! Or are the subject
> headers supposed to be rather insulting?
Opinion is sharply divided on the subject. Some like to include personal
messages in the headers, yet I find them unprofessional and even a
little... tacky.
But, first things first: we must find a suitable _nom de guerre_ for
you. Something with an operatic flavour, p'rhaps?
Pete Gray
>held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
>news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
>> Yuk Tang <jim.l...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:<Xns94856DDB868BD...@130.133.1.4>...
>>> held...@hotmail.com (Henriette) wrote in
>>> news:be50318e.04020...@posting.google.com:
>>> >
>>> > Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I
>>> > recognised some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs:
>>> > "Will ye no come back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a
>>> > have a diminutive like -ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot
>>> > (but then -je. E.g. small Raaf= Raafje).
>>>
>>> -y or -ie. Hence Johnny, Gary, Ronnie, etc.
>>>
>> Ofcourse, thank you. I forgot the English do use Y or IE in names
>> to make them cuddly. But not in nouns, do they? Whereas the Scots
>> sometimes do (the aforementioned laddie). We Dutch do it all the
>> time, although a man is not supposed to use it overmuch. As they
>> (men)are not supposed to use certain words. Interesting
>> phenomenon.
>
>Wind in the Willow: Ratty, Mole(y), etc. Mate is used to describe a
>friend, matey is the ironic form applied to a disliked person as a
>belittlement, just as the familiar form (tu, du) is deemed impolite on
>the mainland unless used properly.
>
Well, Ratty and Moley are also names in the context of WitW, but how
about 'doggie', 'pussy', 'housey housey', goalie, 'horsey, horsey,
don't you stop...', mummy, daddy, auntie, granny, etc.
>Oop north, they still use the old familiar terms like thou, thine and
>thy (instead of the formal you, yours and your), although their
>degenerate tongues make them all sound like tha'. The Welsh seem to
Nah. I grew up in an industrial town in the north west of England,
and, aside from very old people, these forms were no longer used
(except for comic effect).
--
Pete Gray
while ($cat!="home"){$mice=="play";}
Henriette
> > Ofcourse, thank you. I forgot the English do use Y or IE in names
> > to make them cuddly. But not in nouns, do they? (snip)
> Wind in the Willow: Ratty, Mole(y), etc. Mate is used to describe a
> friend, matey is the ironic form applied to a disliked person as a
> belittlement, just as the familiar form (tu, du) is deemed impolite on
> the mainland unless used properly.
I love Wind in the Willow and even the cartoon. ( I mean the film
based on it).
As for the diminutive, thank you and the others who contributed to
this subject. I am convinced now that in English -y and -ey is used
more often than I thought, but whatever any of you say, a small house
is in English still a small house and not a housey. In Dutch a small
house (=huis)is a "huisje" or "een klein huis" (a small house). The
French also say, like the English, only "une petite maison" and the
Germans say like we either "häuschen" oder " ein kleines Haus".
Cheers.
>
> Oop north, they still use the old familiar terms like thou, thine and
> thy (instead of the formal you, yours and your), although their
> degenerate tongues make them all sound like tha'.
Pouring some oil on the fire are we?
Henriette
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
>
> > Raaf= Raafje).
>
> Oh, I *see*!
>
Henriette
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but I mean putting some letters behind a noun to indicate it is
> > small and/or cute: raaf-raafje (raven), huis-huisje (house),
> > David-Davidje etc.
>
> In rural parts of Ireland it is still common to find the son given the
> diminuitive: Séan Óg (Young Séan), Séan Bheag (little Séan) etcetc.
And when Séan Bheag gets a son, will the son be called Séan Bheag and
the father
Séan Big?
>
(snip short course on the essentials of starting and sustaining a
flamewar)
> But, first things first: we must find a suitable _nom de guerre_ for
> you. Something with an operatic flavour, p'rhaps?
Although I was recently awarded a nice title by Morgoth's Curse ("Lady
of the Golden Words")I must ofcourse also have a _nom de guerre_. With
an operatic flavour, that would be quite suitable, and then it would
have to be Brünhilde. The most valiant lady in the history of opera,
fighting and jumping from rock to rock while singing a lot of high
C's. What do you think? And when and how does one start?
Henriette
Een Wilde Ier
> Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bvucca$10ckkm$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>Henriette wrote:
>>
>>>Yes, but I mean putting some letters behind a noun to indicate it is
>>>small and/or cute: raaf-raafje (raven), huis-huisje (house),
>>>David-Davidje etc.
>>
>>In rural parts of Ireland it is still common to find the son given the
>>diminuitive: Séan Óg (Young Séan), Séan Bheag (little Séan) etcetc.
>
>
> And when Séan Bheag gets a son, will the son be called Séan Bheag and
> the father
> Séan Big?
Oh no - the father is still Séan Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
The son gains the distinguishing addition to the first name.
Of course, this is dying out as children (and their elders!) become more
and more exposed to 'American' English through pop-culture :-\
> (snip short course on the essentials of starting and sustaining a
> flamewar)
>
>
>>But, first things first: we must find a suitable _nom de guerre_ for
>>you. Something with an operatic flavour, p'rhaps?
>
>
> Although I was recently awarded a nice title by Morgoth's Curse ("Lady
> of the Golden Words")I must ofcourse also have a _nom de guerre_. With
> an operatic flavour, that would be quite suitable, and then it would
> have to be Brünhilde. The most valiant lady in the history of opera,
> fighting and jumping from rock to rock while singing a lot of high
> C's. What do you think?
I think Michael O'Neill has gone into hiding behind the couch!
> And when and how does one start?
With deliberately taking someone Completely Out Of Context.
I'll see how you get on with that, then we'll move on to Setting Up
Straw Men.
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
> > And when Séan Bheag gets a son, will the son be called Séan Bheag and
> > the father Séan Big?
>
> Oh no - the father is still Séan Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
Séan *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
> The son gains the distinguishing addition to the first name.
But I mean: what if the father is called Séan Bheag, but he is no
longer small? What distinction do they make if they want to call the
baby Sean as well?
>
> Of course, this is dying out as children (and their elders!) become more
> and more exposed to 'American' English through pop-culture :-\
And movies and the internet. Same here.
(snip)
> > have to be Brünhilde. The most valiant lady in the history of opera,
> > fighting and jumping from rock to rock while singing a lot of high
> > C's. What do you think?
>
> I think Michael O'Neill has gone into hiding behind the couch!
Then we must take the Baron and their straw men there also, so they
can have a *good* and *fruitful* "exchange of ideas".
>
> > And when and how does one start?
>
> With deliberately taking someone Completely Out Of Context.
>
> I'll see how you get on with that, then we'll move on to Setting Up
> Straw Men.
LOL!! Thanks for the support. I do not find it easy, but I'd like to
give it a try. I'll make a beginning one day when I'm in a somewhat
bad mood. I hope you don't mind if I start practising with *your*
posts.
Brünhilde
Jette Goldie
> Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > Henriette wrote:
>
> > > And when Séan Bheag gets a son, will the son be called Séan Bheag and
> > > the father Séan Big?
> >
> > Oh no - the father is still Séan Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
>
> Séan *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
>
> > The son gains the distinguishing addition to the first name.
>
> But I mean: what if the father is called Séan Bheag, but he is no
> longer small? What distinction do they make if they want to call the
> baby Sean as well?
> >
>
Ah by that time the baby becomes Little Sean , the son Sean
and the father (now grandfather) is known to all as "old Sean"
<g> (or Big Sean)
What? you thought names were static throughout life?
Though I still get called Number One at home - being first
born and eldest, Dad is no longer "Young Geordie" even
though his father and grandfather were also George.
Jette Goldie
> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 11:35:28 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> >news:aq8p10thf2p88jlf0...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:58:50 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> >> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Personally I'm bi-lingual - I speak English as a second
> >> >language - my first is Scots ( but not Gaelic)
> >>
> >> I hate to break this to you, but if it aint Pictish and it aint
> >> Gaelic, then it is a dialect of English. If the Angles and Saxons had
> >> been unsuccessful against your ancestors, you wouldn't be speaking it
> >> at all: it wouldn't exist.
> >
> >No it is *not* a dialect of English - you could as easily say that
> >English is a dialect of *it*, since they developed side by side
> >from the same roots.
> >
> Nonsense! English arrived in Great Britain around 400 AD. It was first
> written down about 650 AD. Of course it had been evolving: all living
> languages do. Somewhere in this period the Angles took it into
> Lothian. It has been there ever since, evolving certainly, but only as
> a junior dialect to the dialects 'down south' which it copied as best
> it could. (Something about political and economic superiority ...)
Indeed, Angles *did* colonise the Lothians - obviously not
too many of them, as MacBeth imported some Normans
to fully utilise the rich farmlands (this was before the
Norman conquest of our southern neighbours) - but
those Angles did *NOT* live in England, so their language
when it evolved, did not evolve into *English* - there was
also a lot of "cross-border contamination" - many words
common in Scotland are also common in areas of Northern
England (many of whom never really acknowledged that they
are *English* either <g>). There was also a lot of influences
from the other ethic groups in the country that we now
call "Scotland", which makes "Scots English" quite a different
language from "English English". Had we maintained our
complete independance there would be no question of
whether Scots is a *dialect* of English, any more than
we talk about Dutch as a dialect of German. (actually
a speaker of Braid Scots can understand a fair bit of
Flemmish - as demonstrated by my kid sisters on our
first family trip to Belgium <g>) An *English* speaker
would be quite lost - the common roots of English and
Flemmish are too distant.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
INTERACTION - the 63rd Worldcon
"A European Worldcon in Glasgow"
http://interaction.worldcon.org.uk/
Peter H
>>
>>
>Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
>some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
>back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive like
>-ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g. small
>Raaf= Raafje).
>
Modern English is strewn with diminuitives - some fondly, some in derision.
Pete H
--
Freedom is participation in power.
Cicero
Een Wilde Ier
> "Henriette" <held...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:be50318e.0402...@posting.google.com...
>
>>Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>>Henriette wrote:
>>
>>>>the father S?an Big?
>>>
>>>Oh no - the father is still S?an Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
>>
>>S?an *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
>>
>>
>>>The son gains the distinguishing addition to the first name.
>>
>>longer small? What distinction do they make if they want to call the
>>baby Sean as well?
>>
>
> Ah by that time the baby becomes Little Sean , the son Sean
> and the father (now grandfather) is known to all as "old Sean"
> <g> (or Big Sean)
Exactly!
> What? you thought names were static throughout life?
>
> Though I still get called Number One at home - being first
> born and eldest, Dad is no longer "Young Geordie" even
> though his father and grandfather were also George.
Een Wilde Ier
> Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>
>>Henriette wrote:
>
>
>>>And when Séan Bheag gets a son, will the son be called Séan Bheag and
>>>the father Séan Big?
>>
>>Oh no - the father is still Séan Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
>
>
> Séan *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
No, just Séan Byrne.
I was also making a related point (which I should have explained) that
as in Scotland and Wales, the clan-descended surnames mean that many
people have to have other additional identifiers (such as where they
live, or the colour of their hair 'Red Séan', etc.)
>>The son gains the distinguishing addition to the first name.
>
>
> But I mean: what if the father is called Séan Bheag, but he is no
> longer small? What distinction do they make if they want to call the
> baby Sean as well?
Oh, as Jette says: these names will change over time (parents pass on,
unfortunately).
>>Of course, this is dying out as children (and their elders!) become more
>>and more exposed to 'American' English through pop-culture :-\
>
>
> And movies and the internet. Same here.
> (snip)
Well, the Internet isn't so bad. In fact, I'd say that it's perfectly
suited to supporting native culture against conformity, in that it
lowers the barriers (in these days, crass commerical value) to publish.
>>>have to be Brünhilde. The most valiant lady in the history of opera,
>>>fighting and jumping from rock to rock while singing a lot of high
>>>C's. What do you think?
>>
>>I think Michael O'Neill has gone into hiding behind the couch!
>
>
> Then we must take the Baron and their straw men there also, so they
> can have a *good* and *fruitful* "exchange of ideas".
Just remember to hide the kitchen-knives first...
>>>And when and how does one start?
>>
>>With deliberately taking someone Completely Out Of Context.
>>
>>I'll see how you get on with that, then we'll move on to Setting Up
>>Straw Men.
>
>
> LOL!! Thanks for the support. I do not find it easy, but I'd like to
> give it a try. I'll make a beginning one day when I'm in a somewhat
> bad mood. I hope you don't mind if I start practising with *your*
> posts.
Fire away, Missy!
TT Arvind
> Henriette wrote:
> > Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> >>
> > Séan *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
> No, just Séan Byrne.
And when does he become Séan Béan?
--
Meneldil
I'm not here for dialogue; I'm here to tell you how it is.
TT Arvind
> but those Angles did *NOT* live in England, so their language
> when it evolved, did not evolve into *English*
This is interesting. I'd expect that those Angles, too, would have
called their language Englisc and their country Engla land. At what
stage do you think they would they have stopped doing that? What would
Dunbar and Henryson, for example, have called the language they used?
I'm not familiar with Scottish literature of the 17th century - did the
authors attempt to approximate to some sort of "standard English", did
they use a lot of words from their own dialects, or was there a
different "standard Scottish" then?
> language from "English English". Had we maintained our
> complete independance there would be no question of
> whether Scots is a *dialect* of English, any more than
> we talk about Dutch as a dialect of German.
This reminds me of comrade Raven's comment that a language is a dialect
with an army. It's certainly true of a good many European "languages",
IMHO. In India, we tend to the other extreme - spoken tongues which have
been mutually unintelligible for the better part of 1500 years are often
still considered the same language.
--
Meneldil
How come wrong numbers are never busy?
Christopher Kreuzer
> žus cwęš Jette Goldie:
>
>> but those Angles did *NOT* live in England, so their language
>> when it evolved, did not evolve into *English*
>
> This is interesting. I'd expect that those Angles, too, would have
> called their language Englisc and their country Engla land. At what
> stage do you think they would they have stopped doing that? What
> would Dunbar and Henryson, for example, have called the language they
> used?
I guess you'd have to look at the etymology of the word Scotland, as
opposed to the etymology of the word England. You probably also have to
carefully define the geographical region it refers to at different
points in history. Might as well do the same for Wales and Ireland while
we are at it. And Britain as well...
And of course the 'native' equivalents to these words.
One reason why I like to call myself British, is because that word has a
longer history, dating back to Roman times. Though maybe not, as I'm
sure I'll be told...
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
Een Wilde Ier
> TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>?us cw?? Jette Goldie:
>>
>>
>>>but those Angles did *NOT* live in England, so their language
>>>when it evolved, did not evolve into *English*
>>
>>This is interesting. I'd expect that those Angles, too, would have
>>called their language Englisc and their country Engla land. At what
>>stage do you think they would they have stopped doing that? What
>>would Dunbar and Henryson, for example, have called the language they
>>used?
>
>
> I guess you'd have to look at the etymology of the word Scotland,
Derived from Scotii, Latin for "the Irish".
> as
> opposed to the etymology of the word England. You probably also have to
> carefully define the geographical region it refers to at different
> points in history. Might as well do the same for Wales and Ireland
The geographical region that "Ireland" refers is, and always has been,
this:
http://www.aoifeonline.com/map/ireland_map.htm
(you will also notice that Ulster has nine counties, not six ;-)
> while
> we are at it. And Britain as well...
"Britain" (actually Great Britain, as opposed to Brittany) is pretty
well-defined.
> And of course the 'native' equivalents to these words.
>
> One reason why I like to call myself British, is because that word has a
> longer history, dating back to Roman times. Though maybe not, as I'm
> sure I'll be told...
Well, it it applied originally to a branch of Celts who inhabited the
south of Britain. Their modern descendants are the Welsh and the
Cornish... (and of course the Bretons)
Een Wilde Ier
> ?us cw?? Een Wilde Ier:
>
>>Henriette wrote:
>>
>>>Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>>
>>>
>>>S?an *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
>>
>>No, just S?an Byrne.
>
>
> And when does he become S?an B?an?
?
Christopher Kreuzer
> Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>> I guess you'd have to look at the etymology of the word Scotland,
>
> Derived from Scotii, Latin for "the Irish".
And did the Romans use that term, or was it a later use of the name by
post-Roman civilizations using the Latin language? I thought the Romans
called Ireland Hibernia. And was Irish an old name for all Celts
(Ireland and Scotland), or specifically applied to people in the area
now called Scotland, or was it applied to the area now called Scotland
because Irish people lived there? I've found references to the Irish
kingdom of Scotland, and I'm getting very confused! The Romans used the
name Caledonia for a region approximating to modern Scotland, didn't
they?
>> as
>> opposed to the etymology of the word England. You probably also have
>> to carefully define the geographical region it refers to at different
>> points in history. Might as well do the same for Wales and Ireland
>
> The geographical region that "Ireland" refers is, and always has been,
> this:
>
> http://www.aoifeonline.com/map/ireland_map.htm
Well, yes. I said Ireland, not anything else. If I'd meant Northern
Ireland or EIRE, I'd have said that instead. Do you know anything about
the origin of the English name for the island of Ireland? When was the
first use of the word Ireland? I'd also be interested in the Irish names
for Ireland and Irish. Things like Aoife, EIRE, and Gaelic. I know
someone called Aoife, and it seems to be pronounced ee-fee, would that
be right?
>> while
>> we are at it. And Britain as well...
>
> "Britain" (actually Great Britain, as opposed to Brittany) is pretty
> well-defined.
So do you know the history of the usage of the word? As opposed to its
use today? When was it first used again after its use in Roman times to
denote the province of Britannia? Did it ever fall into total disuse,
and how did its meaning change over time?
>> And of course the 'native' equivalents to these words.
>>
>> One reason why I like to call myself British, is because that word
>> has a longer history, dating back to Roman times. Though maybe not,
>> as I'm sure I'll be told...
>
> Well, it it applied originally to a branch of Celts who inhabited the
> south of Britain. Their modern descendants are the Welsh and the
> Cornish... (and of course the Bretons)
So the Welsh are British after all? Or maybe just Welsh Britons.
:-)
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> þus cwæð Een Wilde Ier:
> > Henriette wrote:
> > > Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >>
> > >>Oh no - the father is still Séan Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
> > > Séan *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
> > No, just Séan Byrne.
>
> And when does he become Séan Béan?
after visiting the doctors in switzerland
and getting his plumbing rearranged
Een Wilde Ier
> Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Christopher Kreuzer wrote:
>
>
>>>I guess you'd have to look at the etymology of the word Scotland,
>>
>>Derived from Scotii, Latin for "the Irish".
>
>
> And did the Romans use that term, or was it a later use of the name by
> post-Roman civilizations using the Latin language? I thought the Romans
> called Ireland Hibernia.
Yes. I think there may have been a Greek term for it, as well.
> And was Irish an old name for all Celts
> (Ireland and Scotland), or specifically applied to people in the area
> now called Scotland, or was it applied to the area now called Scotland
> because Irish people lived there?
"Irish" (the "mere Irishe", in Elizabethan times) is the English term
for us.
I believe (from memory) that the highlanders were always called "Gaels"
in English (a corruption of the self-description - Gaeilge - of our
branch of the Celtic tree, which according to legend came to these
shores from Spain, and survives today in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle
of Man).
> I've found references to the Irish
> kingdom of Scotland, and I'm getting very confused!
There was a small kingdom which spanned from the north-eastern coast
into western Scotland for a time, called Dal Riada. I think it was the
McDonnells...
> The Romans used the
> name Caledonia for a region approximating to modern Scotland, didn't
> they?
LOL. For proper instruction on Caledonia, ask a Scot!
>>>as
>>>opposed to the etymology of the word England. You probably also have
>>>to carefully define the geographical region it refers to at different
>>>points in history. Might as well do the same for Wales and Ireland
>>
>>The geographical region that "Ireland" refers is, and always has been,
>>this:
>>
>>http://www.aoifeonline.com/map/ireland_map.htm
>
>
> Well, yes. I said Ireland, not anything else. If I'd meant Northern
> Ireland or EIRE, I'd have said that instead. Do you know anything about
> the origin of the English name for the island of Ireland?
Oh, it's a corruption deriving from "Éire", one of the titles of the
island (the others were Banba and Fodhla; together they were in Gaelic
mythology three sisters).
> When was the
> first use of the word Ireland? I'd also be interested in the Irish names
> for Ireland and Irish.
As I have always understood it: Éire (for the physical island itself)
and Éirinnigh (for the people). Éireann refers to the nation of Ireland
(the people & the land), a crude approximation in English for the concept.
> Things like Aoife, EIRE, and Gaelic. I know
> someone called Aoife, and it seems to be pronounced ee-fee, would that
> be right?
EE-fa.
>>>while
>>>we are at it. And Britain as well...
>>
>>"Britain" (actually Great Britain, as opposed to Brittany) is pretty
>>well-defined.
>
>
> So do you know the history of the usage of the word? As opposed to its
> use today? When was it first used again after its use in Roman times to
> denote the province of Britannia? Did it ever fall into total disuse,
> and how did its meaning change over time?
I honestly don't know the details. I can guess that it became
appropriated in the same way that the USA is known as "America".
>>>And of course the 'native' equivalents to these words.
>>>
>>>One reason why I like to call myself British, is because that word
>>>has a longer history, dating back to Roman times. Though maybe not,
>>>as I'm sure I'll be told...
>>
>>Well, it it applied originally to a branch of Celts who inhabited the
>>south of Britain. Their modern descendants are the Welsh and the
>>Cornish... (and of course the Bretons)
>
>
> So the Welsh are British after all? Or maybe just Welsh Britons.
Or the true Brits, unlike that bunch of German and French furriners to
their east? ;-)
Henriette
> Henriette wrote:
> > Then we must take the Baron and their straw men there also, so they
> > can have a *good* and *fruitful* "exchange of ideas".
>
> Just remember to hide the kitchen-knives first...
>
Do we have to?
Brünhilde
Jette Goldie
>
> Or the true Brits, unlike that bunch of German and French furriners to
> their east? ;-)
>
LOL - that's the way that certain Historians use the word - "British"
refers specifically to the *not-Anglish/Normans*.
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Jette Goldie
"TT Arvind" <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a904becc...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> þus cwæð Een Wilde Ier:
> > Henriette wrote:
> > > Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<c012ve$10olr9$1...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > >>
> > >>Oh no - the father is still Séan Byrne from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
> > > Séan *Bheag* from Tomnavogue (or whatever).
> > No, just Séan Byrne.
>
> And when does he become Séan Béan?
When he comes from Sheffield?
;-)
Raven
news:c05pmk$12svpj$2...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de...
> TT Arvind wrote:
> > And when does he become Séan Béan?
> ?
One síneadh fada fewer and you would have understood the pun (Tamil
specialty, by Meneldil's admission) as the greykitten did. :-)
Crú.
cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> "Een Wilde Ier" <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > >
> > > So the Welsh are British after all? Or maybe just Welsh Britons.
> >
> > Or the true Brits, unlike that bunch of German and French furriners to
> > their east? ;-)
> >
>
> LOL - that's the way that certain Historians use the word - "British"
> refers specifically to the *not-Anglish/Normans*.
britain is latin
i thought they call themselves brython
Christopher Kreuzer
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> britain is latin
> i thought they call themselves brython
So which came first? Did the Romans latinize the name brython?
Alan Edgey
> žus cwęš Jette Goldie:
>
> > but those Angles did *NOT* live in England, so their language
> > when it evolved, did not evolve into *English*
>
> This is interesting. I'd expect that those Angles, too, would have
> called their language Englisc and their country Engla land. At what
> stage do you think they would they have stopped doing that? What would
> Dunbar and Henryson, for example, have called the language they used?
>
> I'm not familiar with Scottish literature of the 17th century - did the
> authors attempt to approximate to some sort of "standard English", did
> they use a lot of words from their own dialects, or was there a
> different "standard Scottish" then?
>
> > language from "English English". Had we maintained our
> > complete independance there would be no question of
> > whether Scots is a *dialect* of English, any more than
> > we talk about Dutch as a dialect of German.
Bit of history of Scots at
http://www.scots-online.org/grammar/whits.htm
Was originally called Englis in Scotland but they started calling it
Scottis (Scots) because they felt it to be different to the language
in England.
Alan
Jeen Broekstra
> Henriette wrote:
>
> >Thank you for the links, it made interesting reading. I recognised
> >some words and sentences from Scottish folksongs: "Will ye no come
> >back again", "laddie", etc. English does not a have a diminutive like
> >-ie, does it? In Dutch we use them a lot (but then -je. E.g. small
> >Raaf= Raafje).
>
> Modern English is strewn with diminuitives - some fondly, some
> in derision.
That seems to be the main difference then. In Dutch, diminutives
like "-je" simply mean "little", and it's an everyday thing to
use. It _can_ have the same connotations you mention, but most
often it does not.
Jeen
--
Jeen Broekstra http://www.cs.vu.nl/~jbroeks/
If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.
Henriette
> TT Arvind wrote:
> >
> > And when does he become S?an B?an?
>
> ?
Well, I actually *did* get this "pun", because Jette and myself were
just discussing Séan Bean. He plays Boromir in (whispers)The Films,
but I understand you pretend not to have seen them :-)
Henriette
Jette Goldie
"Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fJzVb.10162$vr1.92...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Originally the Romans called the land they could see across
the water from Gaul (France) "Alba", meaning "white" because
this was the colour of the cliffs that were visible. (according to
my Latin and Classics master anyway)
Morgoth's Curse
(PaperStreet) wrote:
>I thank you for finishing my search into this topic. It seems like a
>very time-consuming waste, to which, the end result is nothing more
>than turning into a self-centered, prideful, stuck up, British twit.
>Who can recite a bunch of meaningless facts to either: a crowd of
>other arrogant fools who will constantly correct you on your
>ridiculous mix-up between the Brandybucks and the WibbleWobbles; or a
>crowd of people who will just look at you sadly, and say… that poor
>man… he has wasted so much of his life learning this… I should at
>least smile and nod. Either way, I'm sure I don't envy you.
One can only wonder if this sort of individual would have ever
discovered the works of works of J.R.R. Tolkien had it not been for
Peter Jackson.
Thank you, Peter. Words cannot convey our profound appreciation.
Morgoth's Curse
Peter H
>On 23 Jan 2004 23:36:25 -0800, PaperS...@boomerbible.com
>(PaperStreet) wrote:
>
>
>
>>I thank you for finishing my search into this topic. It seems like a
>>very time-consuming waste, to which, the end result is nothing more
>>than turning into a self-centered, prideful, stuck up, British twit.
>>Who can recite a bunch of meaningless facts to either: a crowd of
>>other arrogant fools who will constantly correct you on your
>>ridiculous mix-up between the Brandybucks and the WibbleWobbles; or a
>>crowd of people who will just look at you sadly, and say& that poor
>>man& he has wasted so much of his life learning this& I should at
>>least smile and nod. Either way, I'm sure I don't envy you.
>>
>>
>
>One can only wonder if this sort of individual would have ever
>discovered the works of works of J.R.R. Tolkien had it not been for
>Peter Jackson.
>
>Thank you, Peter. Words cannot convey our profound appreciation.
>
>Morgoth's Curse
>
>
You wish me/us to understand you understood the previously quoted
"stuff"? Seems from a different planet - nay, mayhap universe.
Pete H
--
A person is free only in
the freedom of other persons.
W. Berry
Een Wilde Ier
> "Een Wilde Ier" <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>>>So the Welsh are British after all? Or maybe just Welsh Britons.
>>
>>Or the true Brits, unlike that bunch of German and French furriners to
>>their east? ;-)
>>
>
>
> LOL - that's the way that certain Historians use the word - "British"
> refers specifically to the *not-Anglish/Normans*.
And why not? The English loathing for the French and the Germans has a
whiff of a family feud behind it ;-)
Een Wilde Ier
> Raven wrote:
>
>> "Een Wilde Ier" <theu...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:c05pmk$12svpj$2...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>> TT Arvind wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> And when does he become S?an B?an?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> One s?neadh fada fewer and you would have understood the pun (Tamil
>> specialty, by Meneldil's admission) as the greykitten did. :-)
>>
>> Cr?.
Well, my excuse is that *someone's* newsreader isn't handing fada's
correctly, and it ain't mine... ;-)
Een Wilde Ier
Een Wilde Ier wrote:
> cassandras morgan mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>
>> In article <xwxVb.10031$Od.91...@news-text.cableinet.net>, "Jette
>> Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Een Wilde Ier" <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>> So the Welsh are British after all? Or maybe just Welsh Britons.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or the true Brits, unlike that bunch of German and French furriners to
>>>> their east? ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> LOL - that's the way that certain Historians use the word - "British"
>>> refers specifically to the *not-Anglish/Normans*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> britain is latin
>> i thought they call themselves brython
<shrug>
Een Wilde Ier
> Henriette wrote:
>
>> Een Wilde Ier <theu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c05pmk$12svpj$2...@ID-121201.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>>
>>> TT Arvind wrote:
>>>
>>>> And when does he become S?an B?an?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, I actually *did* get this "pun", because Jette and myself were
>> just discussing Séan Bean.
Well, "someone's" newsreader isn't playing nice with fadas, and it's not
*my* one... :-)
>> He plays Boromir in (whispers)The Films,
>> but I understand you pretend not to have seen them :-)
What films?
Flame of the West
> This reminds me of comrade Raven's comment that a language is a dialect
> with an army.
Ooo, good one! I'd missed that one.
-- FotW
Reality is for those who cannot cope with Middle-earth.
TT Arvind
> Well, "someone's" newsreader isn't playing nice with fadas, and it's not
> *my* one... :-)
Actually, Mozilla's Mail/News has done funny things to accented
characters for a while (finally fixed in the 1.4 branch of Seamonkey, but
not in the last Thunderbird release I tested), so it could well be your
newsreader.
--
Meneldil
Inoculatte: To take coffee intravenously when you are running late.
Henriette
> Peter H wrote:
> > Modern English is strewn with diminuitives - some fondly, some
> > in derision.
>
> That seems to be the main difference then. In Dutch, diminutives
> like "-je" simply mean "little", and it's an everyday thing to
> use. It _can_ have the same connotations you mention, but most
> often it does not.
>
Jeen, don't have yourself intimidated in saying "that seems to be the
main difference then"! You know both languages, so you can compare the
amount of usage of diminuitives in both languages.
Henriette
Henriette
>
> > Henriette wrote:
> >>> TT Arvind wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> And when does he become S?an B?an?
(snip)
> Well, "someone's" newsreader isn't playing nice with fadas, and it's not
> *my* one... :-)
It's not playing with fadas, it's a *pun*.
>
> >> He plays Boromir in (whispers)The Films,
> >> but I understand you pretend not to have seen them :-)
> What films?
LOL.
Henriette
Jette Goldie
"Flame of the West" <jsol...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:29ddc11e.04021...@posting.google.com...
> TT Arvind <ttar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<MPG.1a9050635...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
>
> > This reminds me of comrade Raven's comment that a language is a dialect
> > with an army.
>
> Ooo, good one! I'd missed that one.
>
It's a quote from somewhere else - I've seen it in a book
somewhere (book on Scots language actually).
But it is a good quote :-)
Raven
news:vRIWb.2608$jo5.25...@news-text.cableinet.net...
[A language is a dialect with an army and a navy]
> It's a quote from somewhere else - I've seen it in a book
> somewhere (book on Scots language actually).
I have also seen it elsewhere. But actually I don't remember whether I
coined it independently from the other bloke, based on an older quote about
religion and cult. At least the formula "An X is a Y with an army and a
navy" is not of my own devising.
I saw "A language is a dialect with an army and a navy" on a web page
about constructed languages. I don't remember the URL, but it is linked to
from the Ardalambion web site.
Corbie.
Öjevind Lång
news:XuQVb.348$sw1.3...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> "Christopher Kreuzer" <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
[snip]
> > So which came first? Did the Romans latinize the name brython?
>
> Originally the Romans called the land they could see across
> the water from Gaul (France) "Alba", meaning "white" because
> this was the colour of the cliffs that were visible. (according to
> my Latin and Classics master anyway)
And from that, the poetical name Allbion for Britain was constructed.
Öjevind