I have a question for any of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, or Manx here:
Do you get upset when you’re referred to as Inguoren?
[quote=“mod lang”]I have a question for any of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, or Manx here:
Do you get upset when you’re referred to as Inguoren?[/quote]
No, but I never fail to point out the error, although its done in good humour. Anyway, isn’t Yingguo the translation for Britain in general? I thought England was something like “Ying Ge Lan.”
[quote=“mod lang”]I have a question for any of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, or Manx here:
Do you get upset when you’re referred to as Inguoren?[/quote]That is nowadays means Britain, but it’s an interesting choice of transliteration. Yinggelan seems to be only used when it absolutely must be ‘England’ and the term was only invented after they discovered the cockup (they still haven’t discovered the difference between Holland and the Netherlands though) And how many people here know the difference ? Good job they are just as forgiving when they are called Chinese 
There’s a difference?
[quote=“sandman”][quote=“mod lang”]I have a question for any of the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, or Manx here:
Do you get upset when you’re referred to as Inguoren?[/quote]
No, but I never fail to point out the error, although its done in good humour. Anyway, isn’t Yingguo the translation for Britain in general? I thought England was something like “Ying Ge Lan.”[/quote]
That’s right Sandman.
Actually enough English people themselves inadvertantly annoy Scottish people by calling the whole of Britain ‘England’ and everybody who lives there ‘English’ that it’s easy to forgive others for having picked up the same mistake.
I don’t know whether there is an alternative in the form of a transliteration of ‘Britain’.
By the way, could Sandman or anyone else tell me the exact geographical definition of ‘Britain’. I think that it is a geographical name rather than the political one; ‘The UK’ (The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), which is why I prefer to describe myself as ‘British’ (rather than a UK citizen, which would be rather clumsy anyway).
I know that Great Britain is the big bit, but does ‘Britain’ alone have a strict definition, or does usage vary?
I know I’m probably opening up a can of worms here, but isn’t Scotland, or at least the Scottish culture we know today, basically a quite recent invention of the late 18th/early 19th century? I’ve read before that Scots didn’t take towards wearing kilts until the early 1800s, and that most of their national mythology comes from the novels of Sir Walter Scott.
This is going to be fun…
Don’t really know enough about it. I think kilts were pretty traditional. I have asked my relatives whether any underwear such as long woollen pants would have been worn back in the really really old days, to stop the thistles getting up and doing damage, but they said probably not.
Scotland has two languages of its own, or one and a strong dialect, depending on which linguistic view you take.
While there are many shared characteristics with England and also with the whole of Britain, there are also some important cultural differences. As I haven’t ever lived in Scotland I can’t really put my finger on them, but they’re definitely there.
For me, the whole political thing is a bit of a red herring. People should have whatever political system and centre of government serves them best. I have heard that Scotland is to some extent ‘subsidised’ by the British government in London, I don’t know whether that’s true or not. My father’s family happen to be loyalists or royalists or whatever one might call them, but that doesn’t make them in any way less proud of their Scottishness. I can also understand advocates of Scottish independence. I have no view on whether independence or union is or would be better.
Back to culture; yes I’ve heard that about Queen Victoria, John Brown, Walter Scott etc. I know the Victorians were pretty keen on all things Scottish. I think to some extent any country’s specific individual cultural manifestations are sometimes ‘played up’ a bit for political purposes, but Scottish culture does definitely exist.
I think part of it is also about preservation. In some ways Scottish culture is a bit more traditional than English, at least southern English. Some aspects of traditional culture from cooking to dancing have been preserved better and are still alive and kicking.
Finally, if one sips a decent Scotch in a reasonable setting, the warm glow that ensues will cause feelings of magnaminity to arise, pushing to the back shelf worries about the exact origins of particular aspects of Scottish culture.
P.S. I’m sure most people are familiar with that old (undoubtedly fictitious) joke:
Queen Victoria asks John Brown;
“What is worn under the kilt?”
to which he replies;
“Nothing’s worn, ma’am, everything’s in perfect working order.”
Europeans as a whole didn’t have much sense of ‘nation’ until relatively recently, the idea started around the 15th century. Until then, and much later feudal, local or clan loyalties were much more important. As for the kilts, I think today’s kilts are fairly modern, but they do have predeccessors.
Brian
Barely on topic:
For English teachers, can any of your students do the rolled Scottish ‘r’ sound? I mean the full one that can go on for as long as you’ve got breath?
In a class, if I’m lucky, maybe one student can do it. The rest of the class will be amazed at that student’s linguistic (!) prowess.
I get upset with that question all the time. “Me? A fucking red coat?”
hsheeeesh.
Chou
[quote=“chodofu”]I get upset with that question all the time. “Me? A fucking red coat?”
hsheeeesh.
Chou[/quote]
Speaking of red coats, I’ve heard that many Anglo-Canadians not only do not hide their descent from cowardly Loyalists who fled in the middle of the night, but are actually proud (!) of the fact that their ancestors chose to swear allegiance to a medieval monarchy rather than a modern republic. Is this true?! That of all the peoples in the Commonwealth, the Queen has more patriotic support in Canada than even in England?
Kilts and the tartan were worn by the clans from at least the 11th Century, although not what we call the kilt today, which is more properly called the philabeg. Following the '15 and '45 risings, the (fucking) English disbanded the clans and forbade on pain of death the wearing of the plaid. This continued up until Victoria and Albert decided that tartan was hip and that it was quaint for the Scots to dress up and play at being hielanders for them.
The true kilt is simply an eight-yard length of plaid gathered at the waist with a broad belt and the rest carried over the shoulder, a la Braveheart.
Scots have two languages – the Gaelic and lallans (lowland Scots, similar to English). Within this broad frame, there are various dialects with their own distinct idioms and vocabularies, from the Doric in the northeast (my tongue) to whatever the hell they speak down south of the Tweed.
To throw on some fuel to the fire.
I have heard the modern scottish kilt was introduced by the english and the colour allocated to each clan. I had a ‘republican’ Scottish friend who used to blow up about it regularly. The truth is probably somewhere in between like Sandman says. It certainly looks over the top.
Wearing no underwear, well I think underwear is a modern invention so nobody used to wear underwear right? Just like Morris dancing in England, I mean I don’t people did Morris dancing when they went to the village dance 300 years ago.
I think there should be more reference to the fact that Scot’s Gaelic is part of the broader Gaelic family which is found in Ireland and the dead languages of Cornwall and Bretagne. It’s so close to native Irish I can understand a fair whack of it when it is spoken.
As for what Brian said below I would agree there was not really an idea of a nation per se. However there were certainly people who would have considered themselves broadly Scottish or Irish further back in time because those countries have a very long history, were isolated and
had an archaic population (if you do genetic studies you will see the oldest remnant populations in Europe are Basque, Irish , Scottish etc).
If you read about St. Patrick he certainly ireland as a kind of country. Although of course there used to be what could broadly be described as a country called DalRiada which extended across most of Ireland and Scotland. Interestingly the Welsh language seems to be quite different than Scottish Gaelic or Irish.
Holland is a province and Netherlands is a country :?: [/quote]
There’s a difference? [/quote]Yes
[quote=“Elvis”]Holland is a province and Netherlands is a country :?: [/quote]2 Provinces, North Holland (where Amsterdam is) and South Holland (Where Rotterdam the The Hague are) There are 10 other provinces in the Netherlands of roughly equal sizes, So only about 1/6th of the Netherlands is in Holland. But the other bits don’t get too upset if you call it Holland.
So there.
the welsh are unrelated to the gaelic-speaking scots/irish ancestors who invaded/migrated to britain after the welsh ancestors were living there already. Wales is not their ‘true’ homeland, but the result of being pushed into less productive/developed lands by the newcomers. much like it would happen to the invaders themselves later.
to add more fuel, one of the goddesses in the celtic pantheon, De Danaan or something, was argued to be a fugitve princess from the near east (when the phoenicians or the Sea Peoples I forget which were rampaging). the princess was said to be semitic. (either this is some professor’s argument or a cult’s ramblings or both, i also forget)
And the food sucks.*
And before anyone starts slagging me, think about it. How many Dutch restaurants have you seen outside of the Netherlands? Believe me, there’s a reason.
And the food sucks.*
And before anyone starts slagging me, think about it. How many Dutch restaurants have you seen outside of the Netherlands? Believe me, there’s a reason.[/quote]
But their attitude toward marijuana more than makes up for it. (Wait, I just remembered – they eat chocolate sprinkle sandwiches. Now, why hasn’t that caught on?)
And the food sucks.*
And before anyone starts slagging me, think about it. How many Dutch restaurants have you seen outside of the Netherlands? Believe me, there’s a reason.[/quote]
kinda like this?