quote:

there are many who post to this board who do not know the difference between Great Britain, the British Isles, the British islands and the United Kingdom.

How did we go from Angelino taxonomy to geography?

Richard, you posted your reply twice, so I deleted one of them.

quote:

there are many who post to this board who do not know the difference between Great Britain, the British Isles, the British islands and the United Kingdom.

I do! But that's because of discussions we've had on this board. To be fair, I imagine the same is true of the British knowledge of the U.S.'s geography.

there are many who post to this board who do not know the difference between

... a bilabial click and voiceless alveolar lateral fricative ... more's the pity, too ..

there are many who post to this board who do not know the difference between

...an ischial tuberosity and an open ischial apophysis...and, as above, more's the pity.

quote:

I do! But that's because of discussions we've had on this board. To be fair, I imagine the same is true of the British knowledge of the U.S.'s geography.

Well, you should do - since I have several times posted about the difference - although the differences aren't simply geographical - they are also geo-political.

I know the difference between the United States, North America and the Americas; I can't speak for the other British contributors.

I suggest that there is a difference between an in-depth knowledge of specialist terms such as those used by linguists and nurses and a knowledge of the world's geography. The latter should be reasonably common knowledge as it affects many people; the former are both the preserve of specialists.

quote:

the former are both the preserve of specialists

Really? I use bilabial fricatives all the time.

know the difference between the United States, North America and the Americas; I can't speak for the other British contributors.

Yes, but you do not seem to be aware that some of your compatriot's disagree with your geo-politcal definitions of the terms British Islands and British Isles.

But it's the British Islands (that's the geographical name for the whole archipelago). The term "British Isles" means a specific political entity.

According to the Britannica and Wikipedia articles I linked to above you have them reversed. There's also this article on the dispute of the term British Isles.

I suggest that there is a difference between an in-depth knowledge of specialist terms such as those used by linguists and nurses and a knowledge of the world's geography. The latter should be reasonably common knowledge as it affects many people; the former are both the preserve of specialists.

Yeah, it's a lot like beer having sod all to do with words. (It's annoying, but that's life). What I was getting at is we all have our respective bailiwicks and bêtes noirs. It's just that when I read somebody on this board describing the sound that many speakers in the States make, when pronouncing an intervocalic t as a d rather than as an alveolar flap, I just have to roll my eyes like Kalleh's favorite little emoticon. neveu was not suggesting that the Welsh are English, he was suggesting that many Angeleños (i.e., citizens of the city of Los Angeles) would be hard put to distinguish them.

[Insert a interlabial lingual affricate here.]

quote:

Yes, but you do not seem to be aware that some of your compatriot's disagree with your geo-politcal definitions of the terms British Islands and British Isles.

I am sure there is disagreement. I am quoting the terms as generally accepted by the travel industry in the UK. But some people (the Irish in particular) are opposed to the expression "British islands for the name of the archipelago because, in their eyes, it means that Britain has some "control" over Ireland.

I don't personally agree with argument since, if this logic were to be applied to North America, then the Mexicans and Canadians wouldn't accept the term since that might imply some control by "The Americans".

Unless and until some other name is agreed (and there is much ongoing discussion) I reckon the name "British islands" is a good one of long pedigree.

I can't comment on your assertion that I have the meanings of the names reversed according to Britannica and Wikipedia as I can't spot the links. I am speaking from memory and could be wrong - but I don't think I am.

The links: (1) Wikipedia, (2) Britannica, and (3) another one hosted by a British legal translator, Margaret Marks who lives in Germany, and has the delightful blog Transblawg. Another one on the Herriot-Watt University website. It is a Scottish university in Edinburgh.

The Americans

Many Mexicans and Canadians are likewise chagrined when others refer to citizens of the USA as Americans.

quote:

Many Mexicans and Canadians are likewise chagrined when others refer to citizens of the USA as Americans.

And many Texans, Alabamans and Virginians resent being called Yanks, as Yankee refers only to residents of New England. Some blame poor geographical education but I put it down to synecdoche.

Neither the Wikipedia nor the Britannica seem to make a distinction between the British Isles and the British islands (or islands of Britain). I didn't have time to read through the entire Parliamentary Act, which was the third link.

First complete sentence in the Wikipedia article:

quote:

This article describes the archipelago in north-Western Europe. For those areas of the archipelago with constitutional links to the British monarchy, see British Islands.

British Islands is defined on page 7 of the Act, halfway down the page.

The Act certainly talks about The British Islands but doesn't refer to the islands of Britain (or the British islands [lower case i]). I have always understood that the British Isles (or Islands - but usually abbreviated to Isles (upper case I)) means just what the Act says (and thus excludes Northern Ireland) but the islands of Britain includes all the islands of the archipelago.

I must take a look at my own references to try to check whether there is a difference between the British Islands and the islands of Britain - which I had always understood there was.

Oh, I see. You were not making a distinction between British Isles and British Islands, as I thought from reading your post, but between the capitalization of isles/islands and Isles/Islands respectively. Also, there's seems to be some difference between British Isles and isles of Britain. Very subtle distinction. Thank you. I give up.

quote:

It's just that when I read somebody on this board describing the sound that many speakers in the States make, when pronouncing an intervocalic t as a d rather than as an alveolar flap, I just have to roll my eyes like Kalleh's favorite little emoticon.

I suspect you roll your eyes at my pronunciation posts then. This is a word and language board, and I should do a better job of using the correct vernacular. I just don't know where to begin in learning it.

I know I should use that emoticon less...in fact all emoticons. I will try.

Richard, it certainly isn't odd that people on this board, or anywhere, get those terms mixed up since there seems to be much debate and disagreement about them. While I am not sure I agree with neveu that Alabamans, Texans and Virginians don't like being called Americans, I can tell you, from experience, that many in Mexico and Canada don't like it. As we've discussed here before, the word Americans tends to be used for citizens from the U.S. because we don't have another good term for that, though the Mexicans and Canadians do.

quote:

I suggest that there is a difference between an in-depth knowledge of specialist terms such as those used by linguists and nurses and a knowledge of the world's geography.

Well, of course. I like, z, was trying to make a point. On the other hand, my example isn't only a "nursing" example, but a medical/nursing/pathophysiologic/anatomy/orthopedic/etc. example, and it is word related. I submit to all of you that we all know words and language in a different way and that's what makes this board interesting. My contribution here is very different from yours or z's or neveu's or many others. While I might not know an alveolar flap or the British Isles as well as I should, I am able to contribute my knowledge in other areas. They might not be areas of everyone's interest, but that's what makes for a diverse board.

quote:

Richard, it certainly isn't odd that people on this board, or anywhere, get those terms mixed up since there seems to be much debate and disagreement about them.

More than even I realised.

Probably more important than the difference between the British Isles (or Islands) - a political distinction - and the islands of Britain - a geographical distinction, is the differences between Great Britain, the United Kingdom and the various countries that make up each.

I'm a day late and a dollar short here, with my antiquated vacation equipment. Luckily, the ModelT laptop (& its Neolithic connection) face Cape Cod Bay, so I can gaze out on the water while waiting for the results of pushing "enter."

Am enjoying learning more about the geographical & political terminology for that archipelago near Scandinavia which shall for the moment remain nameless.

Just to stir the pot a bit: while trying to confirm some history a geneology buff mentioned to me (a half-brother who is heavily into our mutual Scottish forbears), I learned to my surprise that Ireland-- before the geographical entity we call Scotland yet had a name-- was known as Scotia! Filling in the blanks, I gather this was Latin nomenclature, from the era when Roman officials ruled what was called Briton, and sometimes Albinia, from headquarters at Londinia.

One of my dh's family names is Scotti-- a name which proliferates in the Piemontese, the area where invaders typically arrived from elsewhere & often settled. I like to tease him that we are thus distantly related. However, as far as I can determine, the word "scuoti" or "scoti"-- interestingly, like the word pict-- loosely translated as "bandit" or "barbarian"-- refers to the eerie blue animal-pictures which the primitives in the north tatooed onto their bodies. Can't find any support for the idea that tribes from up there made it all the way to Italy, tho maybe some came along for the ride with the Goths in 390AD.

Pictus originally meant 'painted' in Latin, but as you type, bethree5, it soon came to be synonymous with Scotus '(Irish) pirate'. The Scottish Lowlands seems to have been inhabited by Brythonic-speaking enclaves. For example, Dumbarton 'fort of the Britons' is from a language much more closely related to Welsh, Breton, and Cornish than to the three Goidelic languages (Scottish, Manx, or Irish).

The older theories of Celtic invasions of the British archipelago have given one to newer ones, based partially on genetic and newer archaeological evidence. You might want to see if your local library has copies of books such as: The Celts: A Short Introduction, The Ancient Celts, or Iron Age Britain, all three by Barry Cunliffe, Atlantic Celts by Simon James, or Celts: Origins, Myths, Inventions by John Collis.

The Roman province of Britannia, consisted of primarily what is today England (up to Hadrian's Wall) and Wales, though some parts remained outside of Roman control, which ran roughly from the first to the fifth centuries CE. The two major islands, Albion (i.e., Scotland, Wales, and England) and Hibernia (i.e., the republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland), are recorded by earlier historians and geographers. The Romans sent troops into both what are today Ireland and Scotland, but with little success. Many people think that Hadrian's Wall was built only to keep out hordes of barbarians, but it was also partially built to insure the collection of taxes on goods being imported and exported to and from the Roman province of Britannia.

One interesting fact about the Celtic-speaking tribes in Britannia and Gallia (basically today's Belgium and France), as well as Northern Italy, is the occurrence of similar or identical tribal names in more than one locale.

Londinium (Roman London) was definitely an important economic city, owing a lot to the maritime trade via the Thames. But there were some colonia (towns with large Roman army presences, both active legionaries and veteran ones): Lindum Colonia (later Lincoln) and Eburacum (later York, where Constantine was proclaimed emperor). Isca Augusta, sometimes called Isca Silurum, (now Caerleon-on-Usk, near Newport / Casnewydd, Wales) was also an important town because of the legion stationed there. Geoffrey of Monmouth choose it as Arthur's capital in his Historia regum Britanniæ ('history of the kings of Britain') the great pseudo-historical source for much of the Arthurian legend.

[Addendum: Towards the end of the second century CE, Severus divided Britannia into two provinces: Britannia Superior (Upper Britannia) with its capital in Londinium and Britannia Inferior (Lower Britannia) with its capital in Eburacum. About 100 years later, in the third century CE, Diolcetian divided the diocese of Britannia into four provinces: Britannia Prima (First Britannia) with its capital at Corinium Dobunnorum (today's Cirencester) and Maxima Caesariensis (Greatest (province) of the Caesars) with its capital at Londinium; and, Britannia Secunda (Second Britannia) with its capital at Eburacum and Flavia Caesariensis (Flavian (province) of the Caesars) with its capital city Lindum Colonia (Lincoln).]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: zmježd,

This is fascinating stuff, zmj. Thanks for the informative entry & the recommended resources. I will be pursuing those books when I get back home.