#20111
03/05/2001 3:46 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,439 |
It appears these upper class "parvenus" have never heard of Noblesse oblige.
wow
|
|
|
#20112
03/05/2001 9:00 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>parvenus
Definitely U. No arrivistes were they and they had read the works of the Mitfords.
|
|
|
#20113
03/05/2001 10:46 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Dear jmh: It has been quite a while since I have seen the name Mitford in print, and my encyclopedia does not mention them. Tell me, is it just the rhyme that make me remember only something about "dim witty" Mitford?
|
|
|
#20114
03/06/2001 9:14 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Tell me, is it just the rhyme that make me remember only something about "dim witty" Mitford? I don't recognise the rhyme but I think that Nancy was definitely witty and some of the other Mitfords were definitely dim. Do you know which Mitford it refers too? I've added some information about the Mitfords in another thread as we may like to talk more generally about class and language. http://wordsmith.org/board/showthreaded.pl?Cat=&Board=miscellany&Number=18975
|
|
|
#20115
03/06/2001 9:27 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I've been thinking about this. Is there a British accent?
I think the accents are so regional, Hebredian Scots would be very far removed from City Banker English.
When we travel abroad would we be recognised as British first or as Scottish, Welsh or English? Or just by elimination ie not from the USA, not from Australia, not from New Zealand etc.
|
|
|
#20116
03/06/2001 9:44 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,204 |
In my youth, a "British Accent" was that used by BBC announcers - anything else was a regional accent. But I don't think one could argue that case any more, as you say, Jo. I was going to say that it doesn't matter so much in the UK, and that it is only people "abroad" who might wonder about a "British" accent. But in fact, the more multi-cultural this island becomes, the more one is aware of "foreign" accents being used.
For me, the question is, When does somebodies accent, which they gained in their country of origin, or from parents from off-island, become a "British Regional" accent? For instance, I don't think of the accent of people from the Indian sub-continent or the Carribean as "foreign" but as "regional" (or perhaps as "cultural") But mt Jugoslavian neighbours, who had lived in England for nearly thirty years, definitely had a "foreign" accent.
|
|
|
#20117
03/06/2001 10:19 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>When does somebodies accent, which they gained in their country of origin, or from parents from off-island, become a "British Regional" accent? For instance, I don't think of the accent of people from the Indian sub-continent or the Carribean as "foreign" but as "regional" (or perhaps as "cultural") But mt Jugoslavian neighbours, who had lived in England for nearly thirty years, definitely had a "foreign" accent.
I noticed earlier that someone mentioned Jamaican. I was going to say that the first words that my daughter heard when she was born in a London hospital was "doesn't she look like her daddy" said in warm, musical London-Jamaican accent by the midwife.
I think sounding "foreign" has more to do with words that are slightly mis-pronounced in the way that someone would if their first language is not English. Several of my friends have parents who moved here from Poland and their parents still sound "foreign".
There are now a number of people whose parents were born in India or Pakistan and who have very defined Northern English or Scottish accents. A good example is seen in the film "East is East". I'm still slightly thrown by this (yet know that I shouldn't be) as most of my friends with families from the Indian Subcontinent have (rather posh) Southern English accents. I suppose that this is part of the problem with racism. A person with Polish parents has a Lancashire accent and no-one can tell where they came from.
|
|
|
#20118
03/06/2001 1:42 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,773 |
Speaking for myself and those I know in the Great Lakes area of the US, upon hearing a British accent, I will immediately classify it as Irish, Scottish, Welsh, or English. If the accent is "English," I will subclassify it if the accent is one of the better known ones, such as cockney or Liverpudlian. And, if the accent is that speaking-through-clenched-teeth accent of the upper crust, I might subconsciously ascribe class to the speaker. One thing I've learned in recent years is that the class distinctions in Britain are much more prominent than they are around here, and I get the idea that the accent says a lot more about one's station in life in Britain than it does in Michigan.
The single biggest distinction I can think of regarding speech patterns in this area is the use of the double negative. When middle and upper class Michiganians hear, "I ain't got no ...," the status of the speaker is immediately fixed.
|
|
|
#20119
03/06/2001 2:33 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man, with a respectable fortune, finds coitus fun.  It need not be mentioned, since it is taken for granted in his case (and more and more so in the case of women too), but it may be worth while, from time to time, reminding ourselves of why we so often make the beast with two backs, violating our so-closely-guarded personal space and lack of desire of intimate personal contact: we wouldn't want our children to think we're ashamed of this activity, surely? Jackie says: I agree that there is a time and a place for crude language and behavior, and that most group settings, including work, is not one of them. In my opinion, this demonstrates one or more of the following: the speaker doesn't know any better, which is really sad; is demonstrating a lack of consideration for others, as though they are thinking, "My words offend you? Too bad for you, sucker!"; the speaker believes/hopes this usage will demonstrate the allegation that they are something they really aren't--similar to the effect young teens are trying to give by smoking.In deconstructionist mode (oh, go on, indulge my pretensions, please) I thought I'd treat this text as an example. The use of the phrase 'crude language' instantly alerts the close reader to the idea that lurking behind the denotative patina of words is a strong connotation of judgement. The words are crude why? Here one is compelled to take a contextual stance. They are surely neither less euphonious than other words, they are often far more onomatopoeic, and their spelling is neither more nor less Byzantine than that of words with far greater respectability in the English language. Are they, perhaps, then sacrilegious words? Are any gods, or religions, being referred to when the act of coitus is described in four-letter form (a word of ancient and respectable provenance, as far as we can tell)? Again, this is unlikely - there are few if any gods whose names, in English, are rendered as the acronym of 'for unlawful carnal knowledge'. Vide our discussion regarding the pleasures of the flesh (above) it seems unlikely that this word refers to anything shameful either. So whence the crudity? The answer must lie purely in social context. The word is a shibboleth - a marker of distinction between one group and another. If one uses the word one is either in a very peculiar circumstance (of great stress or inebriation) or one comes from a group whose use of the word signifies some failing of mind in them (misogyny, lack of education, lack of aesthetic sensitivity, lack of social skills - you take your pick, mix'n'match). In such a context, given the liberal nature of political correctness today (respect all cultures, do not discriminate against those with different practices and beliefs from your own, etc) can we justify the superiority of attitude inherent in the practice of describing a word as ''rude'' or bad mannered? Surely such judgements always redound upon the judge - as one who may not have expanded the compass of his or her tolerance sufficiently to accept differential speech practices of other groups? This could, from being a purely linguistic analysis, expand to become one concerning the entire issue of liberalism, tolerance, political correctness and the like, but for this Board, perhaps thus far and no further should suffice. cheer the sunshine (in defence of f ucking) warrior
|
|
|
#20120
03/06/2001 2:59 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
My sweet shanks, you said: can we justify the superiority of attitude inherent in the practice of describing a word as ''rude'' or bad mannered? Surely such judgements always redound upon the judge - as one who may not have expanded the compass of his or her tolerance sufficiently to accept differential speech practices of other groups?
This could, from being a purely linguistic analysis, expand to become one concerning the entire issue of liberalism, tolerance, political correctness and the like, but for this Board, perhaps thus far and no further should suffice.My dear sir, I don't believe that I said that that I don't accept the "differential speech practices of other groups". I meant only to indicate that I do not like them, a very different thing indeed. There are many things in my life that I accept while not liking them. If possible, I remove myself from the environs of such. Perhaps I failed to make my main point adequately. I believe that the primary consideration for what is "crude" or not should be based on consideration for others' sensibilities. If I take offense at the floweriest of speeches, it then becomes crude. And if having consideration for others makes me "superior" to those who don't, why then, I must say that I think the adjective is justified. A large helping of Dixie raspberries to you, sir!
|
|
|
#20121
03/06/2001 3:26 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Oh dear... the sweet taste of Dixie raspberries!  [grin] My dear As a personal issue, of course, I feel you have every right to have and hold an opinion, even, if you wish to take it so far, to remove yourself from situations in which your taste is dissed. But one must presume, therefore, that even in the lush Southern orchards of various berries, this is distinct from making a moral judgement about such people? And therefore this is not a political issue for you? Yours, in panting anticipation the sunshine (common as muck - but "I washed my hands before I come I did") warrior
|
|
|
#20122
03/06/2001 4:25 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>The answer must lie purely in social context. The word is a shibboleth - a marker of distinction between one group and another. If one uses the word one is either in a very peculiar circumstance (of great stress or inebriation) or one comes from a group whose use of the word signifies some failing of mind in them (misogyny, lack of education, lack of aesthetic sensitivity, lack of social skills - you take your pick, mix'n'match).
Perhaps it is deep in our psyche that warning signals are set up by different types of behaviour. If someone behaves in an agressive way then we decide between fight and flight. Is it some kind of throwback that some of us have such a strong, almost physical, reaction to someone using a word in a non-agressive, even when it has virtually no contextual meaning?
When people use the word as merely an intensifier, instead of "very" as in "we had a f-in' good time" all they are saying to the world is "look at me, I'm breaking the rules"? In some places there is a strong reaction to that, in others, it is barely noticed.
I get a strong impression from the people who have posted that there is big difference in sensitivity to such language between the USA and Britain/New Zealand/Australia, especially amongst younger people. I'm still left wondering why.
|
|
|
#20123
03/06/2001 5:02 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
shanks, you're making me blush! And for no just cause! I know exactly what you are up to, sir! Will you ever be corriged??? You said, this is distinct from making a moral judgement about such people? And therefore this is not a political issue for you?Dam' straight. Who am I to tell other people how to act? Nobody, that's who! But I can choose what I want to be around.
|
|
|
#20124
03/06/2001 5:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Although I reject the theological beliefs of my Puritan ancestors totally, I am only partially divorced from their strong prohibitions against obscenities. To me they are simply extremely bad taste in mixed company, and tiresome even in males only groups. They add absolutely nothing to any discussion, and mostly indicate inability to use acceptable language effectively. I am guilty of obscenities all too often, and am not proud of it.Moderation in all things is still my motto.
|
|
|
#20125
03/06/2001 6:07 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,156 |
I get a strong impression from the people who have posted that there is big difference in sensitivity to such language between the USA and Britain/New Zealand/Australia, especially amongst younger people. I'm still left wondering why.
I think "younger people" will grow out of it. I certainly swore a blue streak in high school. I used to like to point out the irony that I'd learned to swear in Catholic school. But then I just sort of stopped, and now I don't swear much, unless I'm extremely steamed. People seem to view others who swear a lot in everyday conversation as somewhat childish, or showing a lack of command of language to convey feelings. It also shows (as someone else mentioned) a lack of respect for others' sensibilities. So I guess I just kind of stopped, not wanting to be viewed by my mostly older friends as (1) childish, (2) inept with language, and (3) insensitive.
|
|
|
#20126
03/07/2001 10:38 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,004 |
Jackie O'Hara suggests:
"But I can choose what I want to be around. And anyway, tomorrow is another day! Humph." (And in the background, Loo'ville is silhouetted against the burning skies of Atlanta, as she tosses her windblown auburn hair {do we care that it may be a wig} to show her contempt for that nasty Sherman - really, he can't be a gentleman if he has to win his battles using twice as many men as the poor brave Southerners - Lafitte, Butler, Lee et al.)
Frankly, m'dear, since you have brought up the topic, you have exercised your indubitable right to free speech in explaining your contempt for this verbal register (characterised by you as crude, or mayhap vulgar, 'swearing', rude, childish and the like) - and in doing so have you not therefore made it acceptable for those of opposing opinions (personal though they may be - just like yours) to exemplify their contrariwise attitudes by deliberately saying "I don't give a {gliding coitus, airborne sexual intercourse, soaring carnal knowledge, oh, go on then, we'll use the wussy euphemism} Dutch edam?"
Less convolutedly - could it be construed as offensive to 'innocent' users of such phrases that you might choose to animadvert about it in public - particularly if you brand them childish, know-nothings, rudesbys and so on?
And as an aside, an ass is a thing that Jesus rides in triumph, not a swear word. What you're thinking of is the derivation from Chaucer's wonderful ers (vide "The Miller's Tale", concerning Alisoun's actions in response to Absolon's nocturnal wooing), and, as any good Anglic person knows, is spelled, and pronounced, A-R-S-E. A word of impeccable pedigree, and so much more robust than the Bowdlerian derriere or just plain nauseating: patootiie, behind, bottom etc. If it's good enough for Chaucer and Shakespeare, it's good enough for me.
Yours in ineffably delicious tension in anticipation of your retaliatory effusions...
the sunshine warrior
|
|
|
#20127
03/07/2001 4:10 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858 |
Careful, Shanks, how you posture,lest you get what Nicholas got.
|
|
|
#20128
03/07/2001 6:18 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
>When middle and upper class Michiganians hear, "I ain't got no ...," the status of the speaker is immediately fixed.
I suspect that you don;t have to be middle or upper class Michiganian to assess the class or lack thereof of such a speaker :)
TEd
|
|
|
#20129
03/08/2001 7:52 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,146 |
And as an aside, an ass is a thing that Jesus rides in triumph, not a swear word. What you're thinking of is the derivation from Chaucer's wonderful ers (vide "The Miller's Tale", concerning Alisoun's actions in response to Absolon's nocturnal wooing), and, as any good Anglic person knows, is spelled, and pronounced, A-R-S-E.
So ... triumph means an arse on an ass in Britain, an ass on a donkey in the States and [note the Mandarin-like smile :-)] an ass on an ass in New Zealand. Sounds about right, really!
The idiot also known as Capfka ...
|
|
|
|
|
