Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 02:17:09 GMT From: amesnospamrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew Stephenson) Subject: Re: AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHGG -nt
In article <rao0m0h4h9mqgcb2mo3ka8jmn2uqv59r1knospamcom> nothingherenospamcom "Retro Bob" writes: > On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:03:19 GMT, amesnospamrak.demon.co.uk (Andrew > Stephenson) wrote: > > >Speaking as a stereotypical English Brit <g>, I'd say what really > >gets people on these Isles heated is to neglect their nationality > >in a stereotypical way. I happen to be English, so "English" or > >"Brit" covers me. But Scots, Welsh, Irish, Manxmen and so forth > >righly boil when they find themselves lazily tagged as "English". > >"Brit" (or "British") is safest, with "UK" available for if that > >serves -- eg, "I'm from the UK." > > Interesting. A few months back a "Brit" here chewed out someone for > using "Brit". So, I went with the flow. Is there a difference of > opinion on this ? Well, anything's possible, I suppose. Where I live, nobody gets aerated about being called a "Brit". It's even seen (AFAIK) as a chummy sort of appellation. But, like any word, say it the wrong way and the meaning can flip. I used to work at a UK factory which made telephone equipment (eg exchanges). On one old wiring diagram I found the codes for wire colours included 'N' and was told it meant "niger" (one 'g'): in other words, the Latin for "black". When that usage was current, it was racially neutral; but time changed that. So 'N' as a code for wires long ago became 'BK'. -- Andrew Stephenson
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
