need some translation help from the Brits on here

[superbot]

There are many different accents within Britain. Mine is a Colin Firth sort of English accent I suppose. There are countless accent variations from within Scotland, Wales, Ireland and England. So 'British' accent refers to all of these.

How can four distinct accents come together as ONE 'British Accent?'....

 

[Jason]

An interesting source for "British" accents:

English Language, English Slang and English Dialect Books, Plus quizzes on Thomas Hardy, Sherlock Holmes, Jane Austen and more from ABSON BOOKS, London

The SE England "Home Counties" English is what a lot of Americans think of as "British". It has links with London/Cockney, with "Estuary" English and with posh English - quite a mix.

 

[ManofThunder]

How can four distinct accents come together as ONE 'British Accent?'....

To be British means you are from Britain and one of the four countries within it. When we say 'British accent' we are just referring to the collective name for all the accents within Britain. When we say 'American accent' for example we are broadly describing all American accents. A man from Texas sounds different to a man from California. You could say "I have a Texan accent." It is just as true though for that man to say "I have an American accent." So, with a British accent I could have an English, Welsh, Scottish or Irish accent and any variation within them. Each country has its own set of accents. The Liverpool accent from England sounds different to the London accent from England. Northern Irish and Southern Irish sounds different too. The list goes on.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

To be British means you are from Britain and one of the four countries within it. When we say 'British accent' we are just referring to the collective name for all the accents within Britain.

Normally only Unionists or even more likely Loyalists in Northern Ireland call themselves British, strictly speaking something is British if it comes from the island of Britain, meaning from Scotland, Wales and England. Obviously Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but the distinction in the name is meaningful. :wink:

 

[ManofThunder]

Normally only Unionists or even more likely Loyalists in Northern Ireland call themselves British, strictly speaking something is British if it comes from the island of Britain, meaning from Scotland, Wales and England. Obviously Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but the distinction in the name is meaningful. :wink:

Yes, ok. You caught me out. I knew I would have to get something in that block of text wrong. I considered going into greater detail about Ireland but thought I may get away with it. I would have gotten away with it too! If it weren't for you meddling Irish. :biggrin1:

 

[Pompeynate]

Although the whole of Ireland is part of the 'British Isles' :wink:

 

[ManofThunder]

Although the whole of Ireland is part of the 'British Isles' :wink:

That's what I like to call, 'strike-back'. :wink:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Although the whole of Ireland is part of the 'British Isles' :wink:

Hmmmm controversial :wink: The Irish government hasn't used or recognised that term in a very long time, it's Embassy in the UK discourages the term, and joint documents of the UK and Irish government use the term "these islands".

In fact the term British Isles is quickly going out of favour among a number of authorities. I think eventually the term will become a historic designation only, and will probably refer to a period in the history of both island groups.

Currently the term remains fairly popular in the UK, but the UK is such a nostalgic country, it took me some time when I first moved here to get over the sentimental attachments which most British people have without even realising it, to terms and terminology which are pretty anachronistic.

 

[Pompeynate]

Hmmmm controversial :wink: The Irish government hasn't used or recognised that term in a very long time, it's Embassy in the UK discourages the term, and joint documents of the UK and Irish government use the term "these islands".

In fact the term British Isles is quickly going out of favour among a number of authorities. I think eventually the term will become a historic designation only, and will probably refer to a period in the history of both island groups.

Currently the term remains fairly popular in the UK, but the UK is such a nostalgic country, it took me some time when I first moved here to get over the sentimental attachments which most British people have without even realising it, to terms and terminology which are pretty anachronistic.

Well the Irish may not like it & refer to our collection of Islands as something else, but they are still part of the British Isles in a geographic sense, that cannot be changed...

It's a bit like me saying I don't like the UK being part of Europe & never refer to myself as being European, I still am if I like it or not... :wink:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Well the Irish may not like it & refer to our collection of Islands as something else, but they are still part of the British Isles in a geographic sense, that cannot be changed...

It's a bit like me saying I don't like the UK being part of Europe & never refer to myself as being European, I still am if I like it or not... :wink:

Geographical terms change, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were referred to as central Europe for centuries, then all of a sudden the Iron Curtain came down and they became commonly referred to as eastern Europe, and now they're gradually being referred to as central Europe again.

The term Balkan has been used to describe a variety of different collections of states, sometimes only the states of the former Yugoslavia, sometimes also Greece, and sometimes even Romania, Bulgaria and Thracian Turkey. Depending on the historical context in question people have used the term Balkan to describe states which aren't (like Romania and Bulgaria) even on the Balkan peninsula.


Parts of south east Asia used to be referred to as Indochina or Indochine, they certainly aren't these days.


I think the term "British Isles" will go the same way. :smile:

 

[Drifterwood]

As a Celtin Nation type person, I like the term British Isles. It is pre Roman, pre Saxon, pre Viking (inc Dublin), pre Norman.

 

[mellisa1983]

Translated to Jersey Shore:

Yo, I'm fuckin lookin for your fuckin place, all dayz long, I thought I fucked sumtin up. I wanna get fuckin wasted and pass out.

and some jerkoff in fuckin London stole my umbrella whilze I was waiting to take a fuckin piss.

I about to fuckin lose it, yo, I'm happy too, that chick is fuckin cool, you think she'd suck my dick?

that's freakin hilarious!!! jersey as dialect!!LOL

 

[mellisa1983]

and 2 all who replied, thanx 4 the explaination, the book is actually a comic strip in America called "Get Fuzzy", and the lines were from a british cat named Manx Mac McManx, your translations made it much funnier now!!

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

As a Celtin Nation type person, I like the term British Isles. It is pre Roman, pre Saxon, pre Viking (inc Dublin), pre Norman.

We'll the earliest uses of the term come from lazy Hellenistic and Roman geographers who'd only heard of the British Isles second hand, and their are traces even in some of these earliest writers of the original nomenclature, which was something like Iwerna (or later Hibernia) for Ireland, and Albion for the island of Britain, and Mona for the isel of Man.

Whether or not these early geographers were recording indigenous nomenclature when they wrote of island inhabited by Britons, these British Isles, is entirely unclear. No one is sure what the people of these islands called them before the Romans came, and no one is sure there was even a collective name for them at all.

Considering the controversies which exist these days in the study of peoples who were once all designated Celts, such as whether the Britons and the Gauls were really of the same people or not or whether only parts of these peoples shared common ethnicity and culture, and are the Britons the same people as those who lived in Ireland and Wales prior to the coming of the Romans and the later population shifts which happened during the Saxon migration period or not, I think to presume that everyone in these islands should see themselves as living in islands which were once Britonic (or Brythonic as 19th century Celticists misnamed them), and therefore that these are British isles in a proto-historic sense is a bit of a stretch.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

and 2 all who replied, thanx 4 the explaination, the book is actually a comic strip in America called "Get Fuzzy", and the lines were from a british cat named Manx Mac McManx, your translations made it much funnier now!!

Glad we could help Mellisa, sorry we hijacked your thread.

 

[ManofThunder]

Geographical terms change, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were referred to as central Europe for centuries, then all of a sudden the Iron Curtain came down and they became commonly referred to as eastern Europe, and now they're gradually being referred to as central Europe again.

The term Balkan has been used to describe a variety of different collections of states, sometimes only the states of the former Yugoslavia, sometimes also Greece, and sometimes even Romania, Bulgaria and Thracian Turkey. Depending on the historical context in question people have used the term Balkan to describe states which aren't (like Romania and Bulgaria) even on the Balkan peninsula.


Parts of south east Asia used to be referred to as Indochina or Indochine, they certainly aren't these days.


I think the term "British Isles" will go the same way. :smile:

As Tardis said, sorry for hijacking the thread Mellisa. :smile:

Perhaps I am old fashioned, a traditionalist, an imperialist and maybe too stubborn but I would feel saddened if we changed the name personally. I understand that times change but would it not be simpler to call the group of islands the 'British Isles' and leave it at that? A name can't hurt anyone surely. I know that there is an argument to be made for changing the name and then keeping that but what is the point? If territories change hands then of course names may need to be changed but otherwise I don't see the point.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

As Tardis said, sorry for hijacking the thread Mellisa. :smile:

Perhaps I am old fashioned, a traditionalist, an imperialist and maybe too stubborn but I would feel saddened if we changed the name personally. I understand that times change but would it not be simpler to call the group of islands the 'British Isles' and leave it at that? A name can't hurt anyone surely. I know that there is an argument to be made for changing the name and then keeping that but what is the point? If territories change hands then of course names may need to be changed but otherwise I don't see the point.

Seriously MOT, I agree with you, this little Island is losing most of its history, its culture etc, I hate the fact it's Little America!, although I like Americans, we are british and don't always want to be in the pocket of our American cousins. Keep it British, keep the Name.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

As Tardis said, sorry for hijacking the thread Mellisa. :smile:

Perhaps I am old fashioned, a traditionalist, an imperialist and maybe too stubborn but I would feel saddened if we changed the name personally. I understand that times change but would it not be simpler to call the group of islands the 'British Isles' and leave it at that? A name can't hurt anyone surely. I know that there is an argument to be made for changing the name and then keeping that but what is the point? If territories change hands then of course names may need to be changed but otherwise I don't see the point.

Well no one expects that the island of Britain and those islands directly dependent upon it would call themselves anything other than what they want to call themselves.


I think the problem with names like these is that they're only legitimate if everyone agrees to their use. It's really not popular here to call Ireland part of the British Isles, so I think it's fair that Ireland not be included in the name.

I'm sure there are plenty of French people who were sad to see the end of the term Indochine, but the vast majority of the people who lived in the parts of south east Asia which had once been part of the French empire were not happy with the name so we no longer call it that.


I should probably point out that in this case territory has changed hands, 80 odd years ago Ireland became independent from Britain, and even before that the island of Ireland was viewed as being a distinct political unit within the UK, the old name for the UK was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which stressed the technically separate nature of Ireland within the Union.

So while Northern Ireland remains within the UK it isn't technically British, it's just the part of Ireland which remains within the Union.

I think given that Ireland was never really considered British (by which I mean a separate political unit to the island of Britain) even when the whole island was very much a part of the United Kingdom and within the empire, and considering that most of the island is now independent, and the rest of it is semi-autonomous the old nomenclature, "the British Isles" is becoming more and more anachronistic.

I understand why people still use the term, I even understand the sentimental attachment. But I think names should be used to describe people and countries when those names are mutually agreeable to all concerned, and when they have some relatively reasonable use.

 

[ManofThunder]

Well no one expects that the island of Britain and those islands directly dependent upon it would call themselves anything other than what they want to call themselves.


I think the problem with names like these is that they're only legitimate if everyone agrees to their use. It's really not popular here to call Ireland part of the British Isles, so I think it's fair that Ireland not be included in the name.

I'm sure there are plenty of French people who were sad to see the end of the term Indochine, but the vast majority of the people who lived in the parts of south east Asia which had once been part of the French empire were not happy with the name so we no longer call it that.


I should probably point out that in this case territory has changed hands, 80 odd years ago Ireland became independent from Britain, and even before that the island of Ireland was viewed as being a distinct political unit within the UK, the old name for the UK was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which stressed the technically separate nature of Ireland within the Union.

So while Northern Ireland remains within the UK it isn't technically British, it's just the part of Ireland which remains within the Union.

I think given that Ireland was never really considered British (by which I mean a separate political unit to the island of Britain) even when the whole island was very much a part of the United Kingdom and within the empire, and considering that most of the island is now independent, and the rest of it is semi-autonomous the old nomenclature, "the British Isles" is becoming more and more anachronistic.

I understand why people still use the term, I even understand the sentimental attachment. But I think names should be used to describe people and countries when those names are mutually agreeable to all concerned, and when they have some relatively reasonable use.

You make good and valid points hilaire. Ireland is seperate technically and politically. I acknowledge this and have no problem with Ireland remaining seperate if it wishes to be. I believe though that on the whole, as Tardis mentioned, we should try to preserve our heritage. For example, if my last name is Jones, it is because that was my fathers name and so on. If I however want to change my name to Smith then that is fine. It is not the place of anyone to force their beliefs and wishes onto another, I respect that. I keep using the 'British Isles' as an example, but let me use Ireland for a moment. If I, as an Englishmen wanted to call Ireland, 'Zork', I imagine that would sound crazy to you. My fear when it comes to changing these names is that we lose something of our history, good and bad. If there is a whole-hearted cultural revolution however, it is beyond anyones control.

When the Romans invaded Britain, after a short time everyone became Romano-British, seeing that both cultures had their good and bad points. The Romans respected the local worship of the 'river spirit' etcetera but put a stop to human sacrifices which was, of course, the correct decision. The Romans then referred to their new found territory as 'Britannia'. That was an overall positive intergration. My point is that despite all that change and intergration, history and culture was preserved on both sides. If that happened again, it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing at all, but to change the name against the will of the inhabitants, would be. In these modern times, it would only take a handful of idiotic politicians and a Hitler-esque propaganda peddler to erase history and attempt to wipe the slate clean. To conclude, if there is a good reason for it, then fine. Otherwise, leave things alone.

 

[helgaleena]

and 2 all who replied, thanx 4 the explaination, the book is actually a comic strip in America called "Get Fuzzy", and the lines were from a british cat named Manx Mac McManx, your translations made it much funnier now!!

And of course he'd be a Manx. :tongue: Well at least I am chuffed to be somebody's china now.

Though once I tried to tell somebody non-nautical he was a gob, not a yob...

Live and learn!