How are the English different from us?

StonyIron · 06-09-2015 7:04pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

In fact the British invested in providing railways to the most rural areas of Ireland, as they did in Scotland, only for the Irish to rip them out. I think the excuses you've list above were successfully by Irish politicians to distract attention from Irish mismanagement failures in first few years of the state, but that excuse was long past it's sell by date years ago, never mind 2015. Most disappointingly, I've also found the difference to exist outside the public sector. Ireland has the same access to resources as Scotland or any Scandinavian country had, but they have made so much more of their countries.

The British also did not invest in Irish rural railways, they were actually run largely by private companies who had to raise money privately and make them work as businesses.

The victorians didn't believe in spending state money on infrastructure. Everything paid for itself, quite literally.

Canals were run by private companies, railways, roads were operated as turn pikes etc etc.

That's also the main reason that they didn't exactly come to the rescue in a famine. The prevailing philosophy at the time was pretty uncaring, very cold, market economics.

The railways were closed because they weren't economically viable. A lot of enthusiasts don't like that, but that's the reality of it. There wasn't the population to support them and road transport made a hell of a lot more sense in a country with small, scattered populations.

There was a railway boom in the 19th century which wasn't unlike the "dot com" boom of the early 2000s. A lot of railways were built that made very little economic sense. Investors piled in and unfortunately due to changes in technology (cars, trucks), rapidly declining population due to emigration and urbanisation, they just stopped making sense and people lost a lot of money. Some were nationalised, some weren't.

In Scotland in 2015, the rail network's not exactly massive either and doesn't serve most rural areas.

Also, the motorway network doesn't extend much beyond Glasgow and Edinburgh area where as in Ireland there is actually now quite an extensive motorway network for a country this size.

----

Also, despite the economic turbulence of the last few years, Ireland isn't actually in particularly bad shape at the moment. It's still one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, despite the economic crash, which was just a more intense version of the same crash that happened in the US and the UK, Spain and Iceland which was all down to cowboy finance in *all* of those countries.

Lord Riverside · 06-09-2015 7:19pm

StonyIron wrote: »

The argument you're making is more like "Irish people are fundamentally flawed". People behave in different ways depending on the systems and structures that are in place.

No, my observation, and nothing more, based on years in living in both countries, is that the only difference, in my experience. That doesn't mean they are fundamentally flawed as you claim, some people actually prefer to be unplanned, unprepared, unorganised, and unsystematic, you'll learn that in life, and I have no idea why you then brought religion into this discussion, but while you're on the subject, whatever religious / anti religious fundamentalism was created in Ireland, was again created and perpetuated by Irish leaders and politicians, and still is, and not by the English. Some Irish people do seem obsessed with religion and anti religion, as your posts confirm. Perhaps the time would be better spent on concentrating in administrative and economic management, like successful countries do, rather than getting bothered what religion or non religion someone has ?

Lord Riverside · 06-09-2015 7:21pm

StonyIron wrote: »

The British also did not invest in Irish rural railways, they were actually run largely by private companies who had to raise money privately and make them work as businesses.

The victorians didn't believe in spending state money on infrastructure. Everything paid for itself, quite literally.

Canals were run by private companies, railways, roads were operated as turn pikes etc etc.

That's also the main reason that they didn't exactly come to the rescue in a famine. The prevailing philosophy at the time was pretty uncaring, very cold, market economics.

The railways were closed because they weren't economically viable. A lot of enthusiasts don't like that, but that's the reality of it. There wasn't the population to support them and road transport made a hell of a lot more sense in a country with small, scattered populations.

There was a railway boom in the 19th century which wasn't unlike the "dot com" boom of the early 2000s. A lot of railways were built that made very little economic sense. Investors piled in and unfortunately due to changes in technology (cars, trucks), rapidly declining population due to emigration and urbanisation, they just stopped making sense and people lost a lot of money. Some were nationalised, some weren't.

In Scotland in 2015, the rail network's not exactly massive either and doesn't serve most rural areas.

Also, the motorway network doesn't extend much beyond Glasgow and Edinburgh area where as in Ireland there is actually now quite an extensive motorway network for a country this size.

----

Also, despite the economic turbulence of the last few years, Ireland isn't actually in particularly bad shape at the moment. It's still one of the wealthiest countries in Europe, despite the economic crash, which was just a more intense version of the same crash that happened in the US and the UK, Spain and Iceland which was all down to cowboy finance in *all* of those countries.

And yet Scotland, which exactly the same disadvantages and advantages as Ireland had, is now one of the most economically successful regions in the British Isles.

StonyIron · 06-09-2015 7:26pm

I brought religion into it for two reasons.

1) It caused a brain drain here in the mid 20th century by driving a lot of our best and most qualified abroad. It had created an incredibly oppressive country which continued to be the case until very recently. Ireland had become the EU equivalent of the US bible belt in many respects until then.

2) The religious/heavily conservative control of schooling here has tended to create a situation where in the past there was absolutely no focus subjects that are necessary for running a country.

Subjects that get people to think for themselves and think about how a country or an organisation is run are absolutely essential.

Things like civics, learning how the democratic systems work is essential. You're giving people tools to access power and ensure accountability.

We've also had a long history of funnelling our brightest students towards traditionally prestigious jobs in medicine, law and finance/banking.

3) The way education / formation here has historically worked has been about breaking people down to ensure they don't question authority, unless they're in the elite schools which had access to power.

The idea that you should empower the masses through liberal, open, thought-provking education where people critique things is a relatively new concept in Irish 2nd level education.

That kind of thing is why we are only catching up with other Northern European countries in recent years.

StonyIron · 06-09-2015 7:26pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

And yet Scotland, which exactly the same disadvantages and advantages as Ireland had, is now one of the most economically successful regions in the British Isles.

Based on what metric?

The Republic of Ireland's also one of the most economically successful regions of these islands by most metrics, certainly in terms of economic activity, spending power, etc etc..

It's actually weathered the economic crisis rather well, all things considered.

Average weekly earning in Ireland is €697.52
Average weekly earning in Scotland is £508.30 (€691)

Unemployment rate there is lower, that hasn't always been the case in the last 15 years or so.

Scottish GDP per capita : $45,045 (including off shore oil)
Irish GDP per capita: $49,360 (has no off shore oil)

...

All I'm seeing in the stats is that both Scotland and Ireland are doing rather well at the moment.

Lord Riverside · 06-09-2015 7:41pm

StonyIron wrote: »

Based on what metric?

Average weekly earning in Ireland is €697.52
Average weekly earning in Scotland is £508.30 (€691)

Unemployment rate there is lower, that hasn't always been the case in the last 15 years or so.

Scottish GDP per capita : $45,045 (including off shore oil)
Irish GDP per capita: $49,360 (has no off shore oil)

Can you give me a source for these figures and a year by year comparison ?
Also aren't Scotland lucky they had no Bertie to sell off their old and gas rights for themselves.

StonyIron · 06-09-2015 7:54pm

CSO 2014
Scottish Government Quarterly Accounts 2014

Ireland's economic growth rates are also way higher at the moment.
It's currently the fastest growing economy in the EU with 5.2% (CSO and Eurostat) growth in 2014 and that's showing trends towards accelerating in 2015.

Ireland as yet hasn't produced any oil and our oil/gas legislation changed in 2014 with new Profit Resource Rent Tax on any oil that might exist in future wells.

Ireland charges up to 55% on these. The UK is as low as 35% btw.

We're not 'giving it away free' despite the rhetoric and the UK is hardly tax-centric / free from oil or banking / investment lobby influence.

The majority of Scotland's oil was spent paying down debts run up by the rest of Britain and on UK public expenditure. It's not "Scotland's oil" at present anyway.

The UK was largely rescued by discovery of oil having had to call in the IMF in 1976.

It's often forgotten the UK actually basically went bankrupt in the 1970s.

Lord Riverside · 06-09-2015 8:00pm

StonyIron wrote: »

CSO 2014
Scottish Government Quarterly Accounts 2014

Ireland's economic growth rates are also way higher at the moment.
It's currently the fastest growing economy in the EU with 5.2% (CSO and Eurostat) growth in 2014 and that's showing trends towards accelerating in 2015.

Ireland as yet hasn't produced any oil and our oil/gas legislation changed in 2014 with new Profit Resource Rent Tax on any oil that might exist in future wells.

Ireland charges up to 55% on these. The UK is as low as 35% btw.

We're not 'giving it away free' despite the rhetoric and the UK is hardly tax-centric / free from oil or banking / investment lobby influence.

I asked for a year on year comparison and links to the figures.
Bertie never gave anything away for free, you should know that.

StonyIron · 06-09-2015 8:01pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

I asked for a year on year comparison and links to the figures.
Bertie never gave anything away for free, you should know that.

I'm a new poster, I can't link anything as boards blocks URLs.

I have to wait 10 days and 50 posts (now passed).

Wanderer78 · 06-09-2015 8:02pm

StonyIron wrote: »

CSO 2014
Scottish Government Quarterly Accounts 2014

Ireland's economic growth rates are also way higher at the moment.
It's currently the fastest growing economy in the EU with 5.2% (CSO and Eurostat) growth in 2014 and that's showing trends towards accelerating in 2015.

always find these kind of stats odd even misleading. based on no stats or info whats so ever, i suspect irelands housing situation is getting worse. now call me mad, but maybe my gut feeling is correct. im also wondering, why are so many irish people now paying for health care insurance? why are people paying more taxes than possibly ever before? are we really doing that much better? i think im smelling a rat! ignore all thats stats folks and try your best to answer the above questions honestly. we ve been codded folks

Lord Riverside · 06-09-2015 8:04pm

StonyIron wrote: »

I'm a new poster, I can't link anything as boards blocks URLs.

I have to wait 10 days and 50 posts (now passed).

So no year on year comparison, and no sources. I see.
Better get up to speed if you expect to be paid by mount street. Lower or upper.

robp · 06-09-2015 8:54pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

So no year on year comparison, and no sources. I see.
Better get up to speed if you expect to be paid by mount street. Lower or upper.

Economic data is important but can be misleading. If you compare the wealth of the UK per a person its far below nearly ever US state. Its roughly on par with Alabama (presumably due to the huge number of US super rich). Although I think its safe to say that the quality of life is far better in the UK then Alabama and many poorer US states. One superior way to rank countries is to use the human development index as this accounts for education, equality and healthcare.

In this system Ireland is 11th at 0.899 while the UK is 14th at 0.892. People really overstate how poor Ireland is and was as a country today and historically. Take for example this economic data from the 1930s.

in 1938, annual income per person in Ireland was estimated $252, the ninth highest in Europe, behind the UK, Germany and the Scandinavians but ahead of such countries as France, Austria and Italy

http://www.theirishstory.com/2011/01/25/life-and-debt-%E2%80%93-a-short-history-of-public-spending-borrowing-and-debt-in-independent-ireland/#.VeyYpVMqzEZ

Mr.Nice Guy · 07-09-2015 7:32pm

How are we different? Well...

Politically...

We value a republican form of government; they are overwhelmingly pro-monarchist.

We are a constitutionally neutral country; they seem to be spoiling for a fight every couple of years.

We are clearly pro-EU by a comfortable majority and appear to be very outward-looking; they have a huge internal conflict between the pro-EU and anti-EU lobby (a recent poll showed a slim majority want to leave)

Culturally...

We have a distinctive form of music.

We have our own language.

We have our own sports.

Key historical figures....

When the BBC did their 100 Greatest Britons list, Oliver Cromwell made the top ten. He is reviled to this day in Ireland.

Churchill was ranked number one on the list; he is not exactly Mr. Popular in Ireland due to his role in sending the Black and Tans into Ireland.

And so on and so on.

We are different, but that doesn't mean we can't like each other, and I think it's nice that relations have gotten better in recent times.

Del.Monte · 07-09-2015 7:51pm

^^^^^ Sensible post alert.

tac foley · 08-09-2015 3:33pm

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

How are we different? Well...

Politically...

We value a republican form of government; they are overwhelmingly pro-monarchist. - The massive, if eventually beaten, vote for independence, runs strongly contary to this comment.

We are a constitutionally neutral country; they seem to be spoiling for a fight every couple of years. - With whom? Explanation needed here, please. Scotland, as part of the UK, has no independent remit to 'spoil for a fight'.

We are clearly pro-EU by a comfortable majority and appear to be very outward-looking; they have a huge internal conflict between the pro-EU and anti-EU lobby (a recent poll showed a slim majority want to leave)

Culturally...

We have a distinctive form of music. - So do the Scots.

We have our own language. - So do the Scots.

We have our own sports. - So do the Scots.

tac

robp · 08-09-2015 4:13pm

tac foley wrote: »

tac

I don't think the distinctness of Irish people from English people is in anyway dependent on how distinct English are from Scots.

tac foley · 08-09-2015 4:19pm

Agreed.

tac

Fratton Fred · 08-09-2015 4:42pm

I'm pretty sure the English have their own language, sport and music as well.

tac foley · 08-09-2015 4:48pm

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the English have their own language, sport and music as well.

tac

Peregrinus · 09-09-2015 1:53am

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the English have their own language . . .

Barely.

tac foley · 09-09-2015 10:31am

I have to agree. Modern English is a healthy stew of many other languages, including some Irish, of course. REAL English took a hit when the Normans arrived, but their French input was soon assimilated into the linguistic melting pot, as was Greek and Latin. Only the genuinely Germanic languages - German, Dutch for the most part - have retained the descriptive names of items and devices that have long been named by the Greeks and the Romans in modern English - Fernsprecher/Telefon/Telephone and so on...

BTW, how do you say 'helicopter', 'gas chromography' or 'hydro-electric' in Irish?

tac

Peregrinus · 09-09-2015 1:36pm

tac foley wrote: »

BTW, how do you say 'helicopter', 'gas chromography' or 'hydro-electric' in Irish?

tac

We use Greek and Latin borrowings, like English does.

Irish has rather fewer borrowings of this kind than English does, but they are concentrated on scientific and technical fields, and recent inventions. But even in these areas English often uses borrowings ("computer") where Irish uses an indigenous word ("riomhaire").

tac foley · 09-09-2015 3:09pm

My comment was in the nature of a rhetorical question, not a serious discourse into the ethnology of current language. Since I changed my Japanese desk-top and keyboard for a Western model, I've been able to use emoticons - perhaps you noted the one that used at the end of my post?

tac

Peregrinus · 09-09-2015 3:31pm

I'll accept linguistic borrowings, but I draw the line at emoticons!

dubhthach · 09-09-2015 5:45pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

We use Greek and Latin borrowings, like English does.

Irish has rather fewer borrowings of this kind than English does, but they are concentrated on scientific and technical fields, and recent inventions. But even in these areas English often uses borrowings ("computer") where Irish uses an indigenous word ("riomhaire").

I remember coming across someone saying that "riomhaire" was makey uppy word, pointed them at mid 18th century Irish dictionary that had the word in it (obviously meaning was same as "computer" had in 18th century english). That silenced that conversation!

brooke 2 · 09-09-2015 6:01pm

magicmushroom wrote: »

I'm not really sure of the reasons to be honest.

I like the way that here, the family stay with the body until burial, that is really nice and I would have liked to have that option for relatives of mine that have passed away at home.
On the other hand, when we cremated my dear Granddad last year who I was extremely close with and heartbroken by his death, I really needed that 2 weeks to come to terms with him being gone - having his funeral only a couple of days after this death would have been far too soon for me, I wouldn't have been ready to say goodbye. If that makes sense.

Irish funerals are far too speedy!

I was devastated when my mother died at how fast events occurred - she died on Tuesday morning, was brought to the church on Wednesday evening and was buried on Thursday. My head was spinning - I would have much preferred the English way of doing things.

Lord Riverside · 09-09-2015 7:35pm

dubhthach wrote: »

I remember coming across someone saying that "riomhaire" was makey uppy word, pointed them at mid 18th century Irish dictionary that had the word in it (obviously meaning was same as "computer" had in 18th century english). That silenced that conversation!

Out of interest, about 30% of English words come from Latin, another 30% from French, and about 25 % from German.

tac foley · 09-09-2015 8:18pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Out of interest, about 30% of English words come from Latin, another 30% from French, and about 25 % from German.

That doesn't leave much for the enormous amount of Greek in modern English, or for the HUGE amount of Norse, Danish, Old Scandinavian/Swedish and Friesian content either.

Your figures, Sir, are therefore somewhat suspect, unless you can point us at the source?

tac

Lord Riverside · 09-09-2015 8:39pm

tac foley wrote: »

That doesn't leave much for the enormous amount of Greek in modern English, or for the HUGE amount of Norse, Danish, Old Scandinavian/Swedish and Friesian content either.

Your figures, Sir, are therefore somewhat suspect, unless you can point us at the source?

tac

I'm afraid the only thing suspect is your allegations.
I can't link. Look up the wiki "Foreign language influences in English", and before anyone starts, about wiki, look up the footnote reference if you so wish, or post an alternative % and the source.

Ipso · 09-09-2015 8:50pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Out of interest, about 30% of English words come from Latin, another 30% from French, and about 25 % from German.

How could 25% of English words have come from German?

Celly Smunt · 09-09-2015 8:53pm

Ipso wrote: »

How could 25% of English words have come from German?

English is a Germanic language. German is a Germanic language. It's kind of like saying how could somebody's cousins come from Germany.

Ipso · 09-09-2015 9:06pm

Celly Smunt wrote: »

English is a Germanic language. German is a Germanic language. It's kind of like saying how could somebody's cousins come from Germany.

Yeah both are Germanic languages that derive from a Germanic common ancestor, so both languages would have words with shared origins not one with words coming directly from the other.

Lord Riverside · 09-09-2015 9:07pm

Ipso wrote: »

How could 25% of English words have come from German?

Have you never heard the Brits boasting about being "Anglo Saxons"
The Royal family are also of German origin. George V changed the name of his family branch from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, to "Windsor" in 1917.

Ipso · 09-09-2015 9:33pm

Lord Riverside wrote: »

Have you never heard the Brits boasting about being "Anglo Saxons"
The Royal family are also of German origin. George V changed the name of his family branch from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, to "Windsor" in 1917.

Yes, I know I'm being pedantic but a language having a Germanic origin is different than borrowing words from German (which is a modern language and most likey different than the language English derived from).
Ok, no more pedanting.

Dr.Nightdub · 10-09-2015 12:18am

tac foley wrote: »

IBTW, how do you say 'helicopter', 'gas chromography' or 'hydro-electric' in Irish?

Well the Irish for tape-recorder is "téip-heafadóin" (spelling may be dodgy). I know this because a school inspector in the 1970s took great pleasure in telling me and my mate who who were lugging such a machine into our primary school at the time. Needless to say, he didn't actually help us carry the damn thing.

Celly Smunt · 10-09-2015 12:50am

Ipso wrote: »

Yes, I know I'm being pedantic but a language having a Germanic origin is different than borrowing words from German (which is a modern language and most likey different than the language English derived from).
Ok, no more pedanting.

Well all languages were spoken before they were written, its only in the last 50-60 years that written language would be widely available to almost everybody.

Going back a bit now, when the Saxons came over to England they would have brought the German language with them (well a dialect from Saxony as German technically is not a language), couple that with a mixture of old English and you have modern English. Through spoken tongue the German language and the native English language spoken at the time change through accent, dictation and dialect creating what we know now as English.

Note that keeping the french and other latin influences out for simplicity.

tac foley · 10-09-2015 6:11pm

The Saxons were not the only ones to 'come over to England', a country name that did not exist at than time. Also coming over were the Danes, the Norwegians, the Jutes and the Friesians, as well as a few Swedes, ALL of whom left very marked inputs into the language. By the end of the eighth century almost half of the present-day England was occupied by these people, as can plainly be seen by the spread of place-names of Scandinavian ancestry from north to south, especially still in the North.

Every town or place ending in -ey, -by is Scandinavian in origin.

I agree that these languages are 'Germanic' , but to call them 'German' is a misnomer of huge proportions.

The Normans and their version [Fr] of French had HUGE influence [Fr] on the language [Fr] that became known as English. 99% of ALL words used in legal [Fr] and justice [Fr][ matters [Fr] are Norman French, as are cooked meats as opposed [Fr] to mobile [Fr] meat - Beef, Mutton, Pork all describe [Fr] ready-to-eat food. 'Drink' is Anglo-Saxon, but 'beverage' is Norman French. When you drive along a dual carriage-way, you are doing so in Latin, Norman French and Old English. When you engage [Fr] in archery [Norman-French], you do so with a bow [Norman French], but although your arrow has a name of unknown origin [Fr], the 'pile' or 'point', is French and the feathers [Old English/AS] are known as 'Fletchings' from French - 'Fleche'.

Even a cannon [French] has almost all its descriptive [Fr] terminology [Fr] in French, from the 'muzzle' to the 'trunnions' and the 'cascable', let alone the 'carriage' The 'touch-hole' [French and OE] takes the 'fuze' [French] and lighting it sets off the gun-powder [gonne - French, and poudre - French]'.

tac [Fr]

Celly Smunt · 10-09-2015 6:24pm

tac foley wrote: »

The Saxons were not the only ones to 'come over to England', a country name that did not exist at than time. Also coming over were the Danes, the Norwegians, the Jutes and the Friesians, as well as a few Swedes, ALL of whom left very marked inputs into the language. By the end of the eighth century almost half of the present-day England was occupied by these people, as can plainly be seen by the spread of place-names of Scandinavian ancestry from north to south, especially still in the North.

Every town or place ending in -ey, -by is Scandinavian in origin.

I agree that these languages are 'Germanic' , but to call them 'German' is a misnomer of huge proportions.

The Normans and their version [Fr] of French had HUGE influence [Fr] on the language [Fr] that became known as English. 99% of ALL words used in legal [Fr] and justice [Fr][ matters [Fr] are Norman French, as are cooked meats as opposed [Fr] to mobile [Fr] meat - Beef, Mutton, Pork all describe [Fr] ready-to-eat food. 'Drink' is Anglo-Saxon, but 'beverage' is Norman French. When you drive along a dual carriage-way, you are doing so in Latin, Norman French and Old English. When you engage [Fr] in archery [Norman-French], you do so with a bow [Norman French], but although your arrow has a name of unknown origin [Fr], the 'pile' or 'point', is French and the feathers [Old English/AS] are known as 'Fletchings' from French - 'Fleche'.

Even a cannon [French] has almost all its descriptive [Fr] terminology [Fr] in French, from the 'muzzle' to the 'trunnions' and the 'cascable', let alone the 'carriage' The 'touch-hole' [French and OE] takes the 'fuze' [French] and lighting it sets off the gun-powder [gonne - French, and poudre - French]'.

tac [Fr]

Exactly what I was trying to put across though shorter for simplicity sake..

German isn't a language, its a composition of hundreds of dialects, I didn't call it German.

dubhthach · 10-09-2015 8:34pm

English is a West Germanic language, it's closest relative among the West Germanic languges is Frisian, followed by Dutch and then more distantly German (High German consoant sound changes have shifted German away from rest).

Old Norse (ancestor of Danish, Swedish, Norwegian, Icelandic and Faorese) was a "North Germanic" language in comparison. The East Germanic branch is now extinct contained languages such as Gothic, Burgundian and Vandalic.

Leaving that aside all the Germanic languages share a common ancestor in form of Proto-Germanic which is usually dated quite late (post 500BC) mainly as it contained numerous loanwords from European Celtic languages (Gaulish etc.) that were borrowed before the sound changes evident in Grimm's law took place.

Lord Riverside · 10-09-2015 8:45pm

Ipso wrote: »

Yes, I know I'm being pedantic but a language having a Germanic origin is different than borrowing words from German (which is a modern language and most likey different than the language English derived from).
Ok, no more pedanting.

It's allright, you'll get it eventually I'm sure

tac foley · 11-09-2015 9:52am

Mae fy ngwraig, sydd yn Gymraeg, yn fy atgoffa bod y diddordeb presennol yn y cynnydd yn nifer y Saesneg yn sicr o basio i ffwrdd ar ryw adeg yn y dyfodol, ac yn cael eu disodli gan yr iaith naturiol Prydain, fel y siaredir gan y 'British' cyn dyfodiad y Rhufeiniaid.

tac

Fratton Fred · 11-09-2015 10:08am

tac foley wrote: »

Mae fy ngwraig, sydd yn Gymraeg, yn fy atgoffa bod y diddordeb presennol yn y cynnydd yn nifer y Saesneg yn sicr o basio i ffwrdd ar ryw adeg yn y dyfodol, ac yn cael eu disodli gan yr iaith naturiol Prydain, fel y siaredir gan y 'British' cyn dyfodiad y Rhufeiniaid.

tac

Is that a train station, or the sound of a cat being sick?

tac foley · 11-09-2015 10:11am

It's REAL British without any English in it.

Mrs tac says so.

tac

dubhthach · 11-09-2015 11:55am

Indeed well Proto-Brythonic (parent of Welsh, Breton and Cornish) is often called just "British" when talking about period 400-600AD, to contrast it with Anglo-Saxon.

What's evident is the Brythonic languages underwent influence from Latin during the period of Roman Britannia, part of reason for some of seperations from Goidelic (which obviously didn't). Of course some of key sound changes that distinct the two from each other (and from Proto-Celtic) only really happen in sub-Roman period.

tac foley · 11-09-2015 12:05pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Indeed well Proto-Brythonic (parent of Welsh, Breton and Cornish) is often called just "British" when talking about period 400-600AD, to contrast it with Anglo-Saxon.

What's evident is the Brythonic languages underwent influence from Latin during the period of Roman Britannia, part of reason for some of seperations from Goidelic (which obviously didn't). Of course some of key sound changes that distinct the two from each other (and from Proto-Celtic) only really happen in sub-Roman period.

'strue. Look at the Latin in present-day Welsh -

Ffenestr - window

Llyfr - book

Eglwys - church

Pont - bridge

Newydd - new

Many of the names of the months - Ianawr, Ffefraur, Mawrth, Ebrill, Mai, Aust and days of the week, too, Llun, Merchr, Sadwrn...

and thousands of others.....

See - http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/language_romans.shtml

tac

PS - apologies for thread-drift - I'll stop here.

dubhthach · 11-09-2015 1:57pm

Sure and likewise Irish contains many loanwords from Latin, many to do with christianity. One loanword that surprises most people is Clann

Planta (Latin) -> Plant (Old Welsh) -> Cland (Old Irish) -> Clann (Modern Irish) -> Clan (english)

the P -> C shift implies a very old borrowing probably before 600AD as Irish lack a P phoneme at the time. Celtic languages lost Indo-European /p/ -- later in some of them kw (Q) mutated to p, this happens in Brythonic and Gaulish, but not Goidelic. As a result "Archaic Irish" as written on Ogham stones has distinction between "Q" (kw) and "C", however in old Irish sound collapsed with /k/ (written as C in Irish), so it's technically true to say that Irish is no longer a "Q-Celtic" language

An example of another early borrowing from Latin is Cáisc (Easter) from Old Irish Cásc in turn derived from Latin Pascha, which ultimately derives all way back to Hebrew פֶּסַח ‎(pesaḥ)

dpe · 11-09-2015 2:44pm

Interesting thread, and as a Brit who's lived in Ireland for several years now, I've thought about it a lot. First of all I think class is a more significant area of common ground across lots of countries, so I'll put that out there right now; if you're middle class in the UK, and middle class in Ireland, the differences are superficial. Yes there's the funeral thing (weddings on the other hand are exactly the same), and the GAA is more significant difference than I first realised (I only really started to understand as my kids reached school age); and there's still some Catholic hangover (religion is a complete non-issue for the vast majority of nominally protestant Brits). Interestingly Irish should be a bigger difference than it is (I spent years living in Wales and Welsh is a much bigger part of daily life than Irish is for most people here), and I think that might end up being more important in another generation.

Finally the biggest thing you notice day-to-day? Rules. The English believe in rules, they stick to them (generally) and they expect to be held to them. In Irish life things are a bit more fluid, more of a guideline (to paraphrase Dara O'Briain). Example, if you lost your train ticket in the UK, you would expect to pay the fare and the penalty as the rules say; in Ireland, you'd be waved through. I've seen this kind of thing countless times; more of a respect for the individual rather than the system in Ireland (another example, the shop assistant who tells you to go to the rival store down the road because they have a better deal on). I think to a certain extent this is also why Ireland comes off as a bit friendlier than England; Ireland is a society that puts people first in general, and is all the better for it, although the dark side of that is that sometimes people have a poor understanding of the greater good.

tac foley · 11-09-2015 7:00pm

dpe wrote: »

I spent years living in Wales and Welsh is a much bigger part of daily life than Irish is for most people here.

The reason for that is simple, proportionally, far more people in Wales speak Welsh than Irish people speak Irish. My grandfather [my grandma's second husband] was not only Welsh, but did not learn to speak any English at all until he was around ten or eleven. His side of the family are still Welsh-first speakers, as are many in North Wales. My girlfriend way back then, who was Welsh, went to college in England, and of necessity spoke English there. But as I found out, the moment she crossed into Wales all her English was forgotten, which made for an interesting time, I can tell you. My Welsh improved dramatically in a very short period of time, and I've managed to keep up with it, more or less, with Welsh-speaking friends. I can't speak for Ireland these days, in any way, as I've never been to a part of the country where Irish was the prime method of communication, but I have to say that visiting Dublin over the years I've never heard a single word of it - and that's the capital city of a supposedly Irish-speaking nation.

tac

Lord Riverside · 11-09-2015 7:58pm

dpe wrote: »

(I spent years living in Wales and Welsh is a much bigger part of daily life than Irish is for most people here), and I think that might end up being more important in another generation.

That's because unlike the Irish, the welsh structured the teaching of welsh in schools correctly.
The pedagogy and curriculum for the teaching of Irish in Ireland is abysmal.
NI school children who opt to take Irish, get to take far less hours, yet can can speak and write it much better. Most people in the Republic who've gone through the Irish school system and who took languages are far better at French, German Spanish etc. with only 5 years, vs 13 or so years wasted in Irish classes in the Republic.

dubhthach · 11-09-2015 8:55pm

No the issue is simple Welsh didn't suffer a major calamity during the 19th century. There was more Welsh speakers in 1900 than in 1800, population of Welsh speakers kept growing, though obviously at slower percentage than total population growth. In comparison during the 20th century Welsh suffer major drop, only stablishing around 1991. Teaching of welsh school actually didn't really have an affect, after all 50% of population in 1901 were native Welsh speakers, they didn't need education system to speak the language.

In comparison Irish drop below 50% about 100 years prior around 1800, and as we know post 1850 population of Ireland was unique in western Europe in undergoing constant population decline for close on 100 years.

How are the English different from us?

Comments