rising v. uprising
ma...@berdyczow.com
Can anyone verify if "rising" is, indeed, BrE, while "uprising" is AmE, as
has been suggested to me? The question refers to the meaning of the word as
in "an insurrection; a popular rising against authority or for some common
purpose", as defined by OE dictionary. Incidentally, the dictionary doesn't
mention the Am / Br discrepancy, although the sources for "rising" go back
to c. 1420, v. 1587 for "uprising", which obviously prove nothing about Br v
Am usage.
And the question asked was in relation to the book by N. Davies, "Rising
'44: The Battle for Warsaw".
I'm somewhat sceptical about the claim that "rising" is British English,
because I seem to hear / see "uprising "in the British media fairly often,
while rising sounds quite rare.
Regards,
Marek
Roger
BOTH 'rising' and 'uprising' are used in British English, but my gut
feeling is
that 'uprising' is more coming in contemporary British English than
'rising'.
I also think that both have positive connotations
and, typically, would be used in connection with a rebellion with
which the writer
is sympathetic or at least not hostile.
Roger
London, UK
Don Phillipson
news:x9mdneL0laaO4qHR...@brightview.co.uk...
> Can anyone verify if "rising" is, indeed, BrE, while "uprising" is AmE, as
> has been suggested to me? . . .
> I'm somewhat sceptical about the claim that "rising" is British English,
> because I seem to hear / see "uprising "in the British media fairly often,
> while rising sounds quite rare.
Google may help you, but will be skewed towards contemporary
usage rather than historical usage. Rising = rebellion was
formerly common and normal, e.g. people talked about the
Jacobite Rising (1745), the Boxer Rising (1900) etc. But
usage evolves as people propose new words for contemporary
reasons. (Nobody talked 50 years ago about "freedom fighters,"
nobody talked 20 years ago about "the insurgency" etc.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
"Insurgency" and "insurgents" were used 40 years ago, and since, in
relation to the activities of the IRA (Irish Republican Army) in
Northern Ireland and Britain. The terms were not generally used in news
reporting but were used in more academic contexts, both civilian and
military, and were met outside those contexts from time to time.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
ma...@berdyczow.com
even BBC refer to the "Warsaw uprising", "Prague uprising", the 1956
(Hungarian) uprising, although this one usually seems to be referred to as a
"revolution"
And, obviously, er... Basra uprising
Regards,
Marek
Stan Brown
> Can anyone verify if "rising" is, indeed, BrE, while "uprising" is AmE, as
> has been suggested to me? The question refers to the meaning of the word as
> in "an insurrection; a popular rising against authority or for some common
> purpose", as defined by OE dictionary
I would probably understand "rising" in that way, but I wouldn't use
it in that way. I'd be likely to use a more descriptive term than
"uprising", though: riot, revolt, etc.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...
Robert Bannister
"Rising" makes me think of 19th century Ireland or 18th century
Jacobeans. It still makes perfect sense in a modern context, but just
isn't used.
--
Rob Bannister
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:13:57 +0800:
Or 20th century Ireland. 1916 saw The Rising, not Uprising.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Peter Moylan
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone verify if "rising" is, indeed, BrE, while "uprising" is AmE,
It would on whether you gave a context. In my (AusE) experience "rising"
is rare but "uprising" is a well-known word.
> as has been suggested to me? The question refers to the meaning of the
> word as in "an insurrection; a popular rising against authority or for
> some common purpose", as defined by OE dictionary. Incidentally, the
> dictionary doesn't mention the Am / Br discrepancy, although the sources
> for "rising" go back to c. 1420, v. 1587 for "uprising", which obviously
> prove nothing about Br v Am usage.
> And the question asked was in relation to the book by N. Davies, "Rising
> '44: The Battle for Warsaw".
> I'm somewhat sceptical about the claim that "rising" is British English,
> because I seem to hear / see "uprising "in the British media fairly
> often, while rising sounds quite rare.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marek
>
--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.
ma...@berdyczow.com
news:tc2dnWFbp9lmL6DR...@westnet.com.au...
> ma...@berdyczow.com wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Can anyone verify if "rising" is, indeed, BrE, while "uprising" is AmE,
>
> It would on whether you gave a context. In my (AusE) experience "rising"
> is rare but "uprising" is a well-known word.
the context is a book by a British author, Norman Davies, "Rising '44: The
Battle for Warsaw". As I inquired with his publishers about the title, I was
informed that "Rising" is BrEn and "uprising" AmE, which would fit the bill,
were it not that I see "uprising" very often in British media, and the
responses so far have generally confirmed that "uprising" is used
frequently, but haven't confirmed / denied it's an American English term. I
wish I could ask the author direct, but he's insulated from such issues by
his publishers, and the dictionaries I have at hand haven't mentioned Br v
Am as a reason for this rising / uprising usage.
by the way, it's not a big deal for me, just curiosity really.
Regards,
Marek
Robert Bannister
My mistake: I tend to include everything before 1918 in the previous
century if I'm not very careful.
--
Rob Bannister
Stan Brown
> My mistake: I tend to include everything before 1918 in the previous
> century if I'm not very careful.
That makes sense to me. The nineteenth century was much longer than
the others: it started with the French Revolution and ended with
World War I.
Robert Bannister
> On Thu, 15 Jul 2010 09:05:55 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> My mistake: I tend to include everything before 1918 in the previous
>> century if I'm not very careful.
>
> That makes sense to me. The nineteenth century was much longer than
> the others: it started with the French Revolution and ended with
> World War I.
>
>
>
Ah. I'm afraid we have to differ there. My nineteenth century begins in
1815 with the Congress of Vienna (a phrase that sounds slightly naughty
to me).
--
Rob Bannister
Stan Brown
I was originally going to say something like that. There's a certain
appeal since the nineteenth century would then be almost exactly 100
years long. But I think the French Revolution was the beginning of
the nineteenth century rather than the end of the eighteenth. It was
a radical break from the eighteenth century, so much so that with the
best will in the world the Congress of Vienna couldn't restore it.
Why would you put the French Revolution in the eighteenth century?
James Hogg
There's a park in Vienna with an open-air restaurant where the tables
are reserved for guests. A notice says: "No sitting without consummation."
--
James
CDB
> Stan Brown wrote:
>
>>> My mistake: I tend to include everything before 1918 in the
>>> previous century if I'm not very careful.
>>
>> That makes sense to me. The nineteenth century was much longer
>> than the others: it started with the French Revolution and ended
>> with World War I.
>>
> Ah. I'm afraid we have to differ there. My nineteenth century
> begins in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna (a phrase that sounds
> slightly naughty to me).
>
CDB
Joe Fineman
> There's a park in Vienna with an open-air restaurant where the
> tables are reserved for guests. A notice says: "No sitting without
> consummation."
In English?
I heard, many years ago, of a newspaper reporter who enlivened the
society column by reporting that the marriage was consummated on the
courthouse steps.
--
--- Joe Fineman jo...@verizon.net
||: We have torn ourselves away from nature as a man tears :||
||: himself away from a crowd. :||
franzi
the very embodiment of Viennese congress.
--
franzi
Robert Bannister
Because the rest of the world still seemed so very 1700s at least until
Napoleon came along, and then I've only got to read Hornblower to put me
back in 18th century mode.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
Well observed.
--
Rob Bannister
Robert Bannister
I really did laugh out loud. That's woken me up.
--
Rob Bannister
Stan Brown
I lump Napoleon in with the French Revolution. Sure, he didn't
participate in the storming of the Bastille, but his rise to power
started shortly afterward and was meteoric. At least when he was
still just one of the generals of the Republic, he and his men were
very much an embodiment of the Revolution. If you like, we can say
that the Nineteenth Century started in 1792 or 1793 rather than 1789,
but I 1789 is more Memorable, as the authors of /1066 and All That/
would say.
franzi
--
happy franzi
Robert Bannister
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 07:44:53 +0800, Robert Bannister wrote:
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>> Why would you put the French Revolution in the eighteenth century?
>>>
>> Because the rest of the world still seemed so very 1700s at least until
>> Napoleon came along, and then I've only got to read Hornblower to put me
>> back in 18th century mode.
>
> I lump Napoleon in with the French Revolution. Sure, he didn't
> participate in the storming of the Bastille, but his rise to power
> started shortly afterward and was meteoric. At least when he was
> still just one of the generals of the Republic, he and his men were
> very much an embodiment of the Revolution. If you like, we can say
> that the Nineteenth Century started in 1792 or 1793 rather than 1789,
> but I 1789 is more Memorable, as the authors of /1066 and All That/
> would say.
>
I'll agree with that - it's the only way I can work out when the Great
Paris Exhibition was.
--
Rob Bannister
ladp...@gmail.com
Don Phillipson
news:b94cbad3-01c6-409e...@googlegroups.com...
> I just read in The Guardian about the 100 anniversary of Irish Easter
Specially recommended:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-canadas-little-known-role-in-creating-modern-ireland
(although Glavin gets a couple of minor details wrong, e.g. identifying
the Ascendancy with Ulster Scots and saying Eire was constitutionally
"fettered" as late as WW2.)
Linguistic note: there are remarkable differences of both speech
and social ambiance between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
Political note: the distinctive peculiarity of Irish nationalism is
"splittism."
Half a dozen times in the last two years, agreements were negotiated at
significant cost (sometimes in blood): and every time 5 or 10 per cent
remain unreconciled dissidents, and form their own organization to
"carry on the struggle."
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
<e9...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
><ladp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:b94cbad3-01c6-409e...@googlegroups.com...
>
>> I just read in The Guardian about the 100 anniversary of Irish Easter
>> Rising where very well-known irish writers were talking about it . . .
>
>Specially recommended:
>http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/terry-glavin-canadas-little-known-role-in-creating-modern-ireland
>(although Glavin gets a couple of minor details wrong, e.g. identifying
>the Ascendancy with Ulster Scots and saying Eire was constitutionally
>"fettered" as late as WW2.)
>
>Linguistic note: there are remarkable differences of both speech
>and social ambiance between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
>
>Political note: the distinctive peculiarity of Irish nationalism is
>"splittism."
in Ireland the first item on the agenda for the first meeting is "The
Split".
>Half a dozen times in the last two years, agreements were negotiated at
>significant cost (sometimes in blood): and every time 5 or 10 per cent
>remain unreconciled dissidents, and form their own organization to
>"carry on the struggle."
--
Don Phillipson
news:nd93mt$613$1...@news.albasani.net...
> Half a dozen times in the last two years, agreements were negotiated at
That should be "the last 200 years." Pray excuse the brain fart. (This is
why style books recommend spelling one to nine and putting all
higher numbers in figures.)
ianh...@gmail.com
As verbs the difference between uprising and rising is that uprising is while rising is .
Can't people explain things better?
David Kleinecke
But the matter can only be settled, if it can be settled at all, by a
corpus study. That is, how do people use the words?
My guess is that they are effectively synonyms. That bothers people
so they do an endogesis and read something back into the words until
they imagine they have achieved a differentiation.
Words (phrases) don't have meanings. They have usages.
Cheryl
rising and an uprising. I've always heard that a rebellion is an
uprising/rising/insurrection that fails, while a revolution is one that
succeeds.
This probably has something to do with the fact that the winners write
the history books.
--
Cheryl
Robert Bannister
not in this sense.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Tony Cooper
for example.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
At the rising of the moon
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tony Cooper
<pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:
>On 2016-Dec-05 10:49, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 06:28:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
>> <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
>
>>> My only feeling is that "a rising" is not used very often, or at least
>>> not in this sense.
>>
>> You've not read much Irish history, then. The one in April of 1916,
>> for example.
>
> For the pikes must be together
> At the rising of the moon
Robert Bannister
Scottish Jacobites. In context, it's readily comprehensible, but I still
don't think it's everyday English elsewhen or elsewhere. I'm happy to be
wrong: it may well have been common in the 19th century.
Robert Bannister
Dingbat
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone verify if "rising" is, indeed, BrE, while "uprising" is AmE, as
> has been suggested to me?
An 'uprising at the rising of the moon' would make sense to Americans:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rising_of_the_Moon
> The question refers to the meaning of the word as
> in "an insurrection; a popular rising against authority or for some common
> purpose", as defined by OE dictionary. Incidentally, the dictionary doesn't
> mention the Am / Br discrepancy, although the sources for "rising" go back
> to c. 1420, v. 1587 for "uprising", which obviously prove nothing about Br v
> Am usage.
> And the question asked was in relation to the book by N. Davies, "Rising
> '44: The Battle for Warsaw".
> I'm somewhat sceptical about the claim that "rising" is British English,
> because I seem to hear / see "uprising "in the British media fairly often,
> while rising sounds quite rare.
>
> Regards,
> Marek
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
http://www.visitdublin.com/ireland-2016-commemoration-guide
Throughout 2016, a centenary celebration will take place to
commemorate what can easily be regarded as the most pivotal moment
in Irish history. The Easter Rising of 1916 paved the way towards
Irish independence and the restructuring of the nation, while
liberating its people and reviving cultural and national identity.
It’s an incredibly important moment for the people of Ireland to
share, and if you’re lucky enough to be joining them during the
festivities, you’re in for an unforgettable experience. A series of
events will commemorate the people and buildings that set the stage
for Easter Week 1916, and here’s just a small taster of what to
expect in the weeks surrounding the centenary celebrations.
Janet
says...
> Subject: Re: rising v. uprising
> From: Robert Bannister <rob...@clubtelco.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
> On 5/12/16 7:49 am, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Dec 2016 06:28:11 +0800, Robert Bannister
> > <rob...@clubtelco.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/12/16 4:14 am, Cheryl wrote:
> >>> On 2016-12-04 4:33 PM, ianh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> According to http://wikidiff.com/: As nouns the difference between
> >>>> uprising and rising is that uprising is a popular revolt that attempts
> >>>> to overthrow a government or its policies; an insurgency or
> >>>> insurrection while rising is rebellion.
> >>>> As verbs the difference between uprising and rising is that uprising
> >>>> is while rising is .
> >>>>
> >>>> Can't people explain things better?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I wouldn't have thought that there was much if any difference between a
> >>> rising and an uprising. I've always heard that a rebellion is an
> >>> uprising/rising/insurrection that fails, while a revolution is one that
> >>> succeeds.
> >>>
> >>> This probably has something to do with the fact that the winners write
> >>> the history books.
> >>>
> >>
> >> My only feeling is that "a rising" is not used very often, or at least
> >> not in this sense.
> >
> > You've not read much Irish history, then. The one in April of 1916,
> > for example.
> >
>
> I think it was mainly (only?) used by the Irish and possibly by the
> Scottish Jacobites.
for the Irish and Scottish events.
In context, it's readily comprehensible, but I still
> don't think it's everyday English elsewhen or elsewhere. I'm happy to be
> wrong: it may well have been common in the 19th century.
Janet
Robert Bannister
least twice a week, I don't often talk about those events. Perhaps
everyone's been watching Outlander.