Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HOLYMOLY

Royal baby

92 posts in this topic

Since 1284 there have been 23 x Princes of Wales,who were also Princes of Cornwall.

 

German names? .... check

French names?  ..... check

English names? ..... check

Greek names? ......  check

Current Prince meeting one or more of these criteria? ...     check

Heir Presumptive meeting one or more of these criteria? ... check

New baby meeting one or more of these criteria? ...             check

 

How many have had celtic names?

Sweet #### none.

That's because they have absolutely nothing to do with the Celts other than to rule over them. 

 

They've also never had an Ethelred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iz it?

Yes.  We were taught this in school that American English is more traditional in keeping the Z for some things, especially ize endings rather than ise.  The ise endings and other uses of s instead of z are relatively modern in language terms, i.e. after 1900.  Both are technically correct in modern spelling but we have standardised on ise where the Americans have standardized on ize.  Some words are now fully ise in both language variants when it used to be ize, for example the word enterprize was in use until the late 1700s, e.g. HMS Enterprize, but has slowly changed into enterprise.

 

Our English teacher did say that she wished we still had Shakespearean rules on English where you could spell as you saw fit as long as people could understand what you were writing.  Well ahead of her time, imagine the head implosions of all the grammar and spelling pedants if that were the case!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  We were taught this in school that American English is more traditional in keeping the Z for some things, especially ize endings rather than ise.  The ise endings and other uses of s instead of z are relatively modern in language terms, i.e. after 1900.  Both are technically correct in modern spelling but we have standardised on ise where the Americans have standardized on ize.  Some words are now fully ise in both language variants when it used to be ize, for example the word enterprize was in use until the late 1700s, e.g. HMS Enterprize, but has slowly changed into enterprise.

 

Our English teacher did say that she wished we still had Shakespearean rules on English where you could spell as you saw fit as long as people could understand what you were writing.  Well ahead of her time, imagine the head implosions of all the grammar and spelling pedants if that were the case!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our English teacher did say that she wished we still had Shakespearean rules on English where you could spell as you saw fit as long as people could understand what you were writing.  Well ahead of her time, imagine the head implosions of all the grammar and spelling pedants if that were the case!

The trouble is that if you spell according to your own rules, people almost certainly won't be able to understand what you mean.

 

I had a very good English teacher at school who, after we objected collectively about pedantic grammatical rules, set us an interesting exercise. He wrote a sentence on the blackboard and then pointed out that the sentence could have as many as 25 different meanings, depending on how it was punctuated.

 

He offered a carrot by promising that the pupil who could uncover the largest number of meanings would be exempt from doing the next English homework.

 

I remember it well, because I won the competition.

 

Anything to avoid doing homework!

 

But since then I've been fairly sceptical about people who suggest we shouldn't be worried about abandoning grammatical rules in writing English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that if you spell according to your own rules, people almost certainly won't be able to understand what you mean.

 

I had a very good English teacher at school who, after we objected collectively about pedantic grammatical rules, set us an interesting exercise. He wrote a sentence on the blackboard and then pointed out that the sentence could have as many as 25 different meanings, depending on how it was punctuated.

 

He offered a carrot by promising that the pupil who could uncover the largest number of meanings would be exempt from doing the next English homework.

 

I remember it well, because I won the competition.

 

Anything to avoid doing homework!

 

But since then I've been fairly sceptical about people who suggest we shouldn't be worried about abandoning grammatical rules in writing English.

For me, there's a difference between grammar and spelling.  Does it matter if I misspell a word as long as it's readable and not generally capable of having another meaning?  Grammar is important as that's what makes sentences readable despite spelling errors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The trouble is that if you spell according to your own rules, people almost certainly won't be able to understand what you mean.

 

I had a very good English teacher at school who, after we objected collectively about pedantic grammatical rules, set us an interesting exercise. He wrote a sentence on the blackboard and then pointed out that the sentence could have as many as 25 different meanings, depending on how it was punctuated.

 

He offered a carrot by promising that the pupil who could uncover the largest number of meanings would be exempt from doing the next English homework.

 

I remember it well, because I won the competition.

 

Anything to avoid doing homework!

 

But since then I've been fairly sceptical about people who suggest we shouldn't be worried about abandoning grammatical rules in writing English.

I thought the bit in bold was the sentence with 25 different meanings!

 

:sclerosis:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there's a difference between grammar and spelling.  Does it matter if I misspell a word as long as it's readable and not generally capable of having another meaning?  Grammar is important as that's what makes sentences readable despite spelling errors.

Spelling evolves over time. Who is to say whether some common words will be spelled (or spelt) differently in 50 years' time?

 

But the spelling of some groups of words with very different meanings could be quite similar, apart from the odd letter.

 

The writer may think the meaning is clear, but the reader might not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spelling evolves over time. Who is to say whether some common words will be spelled (or spelt) differently in 50 years' time?

 

But the spelling of some groups of words with very different meanings could be quite similar, apart from the odd letter.

 

The writer may think the meaning is clear, but the reader might not.

The original version of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

 

The version tidied up for modern English

Both versions quite readable by me, despite the original dating from 390 years ago, as long as I concentrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.  We were taught this in school that American English is more traditional in keeping the Z for some things, especially ize endings rather than ise.  The ise endings and other uses of s instead of z are relatively modern in language terms, i.e. after 1900.  Both are technically correct in modern spelling but we have standardised on ise where the Americans have standardized on ize.  Some words are now fully ise in both language variants when it used to be ize, for example the word enterprize was in use until the late 1700s, e.g. HMS Enterprize, but has slowly changed into enterprise.

 

Our English teacher did say that she wished we still had Shakespearean rules on English where you could spell as you saw fit as long as people could understand what you were writing.  Well ahead of her time, imagine the head implosions of all the grammar and spelling pedants if that were the case!

 

Thank you for that, quite interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since 1284 there have been 23 x Princes of Wales,who were also Princes of Cornwall.

 

German names? .... check

French names?  ..... check

English names? ..... check

Greek names? ......  check

Current Prince meeting one or more of these criteria? ...     check

Heir Presumptive meeting one or more of these criteria? ... check

New baby meeting one or more of these criteria? ...             check

 

How many have had celtic names?

Sweet #### none.

 

Arthur is as Celtic as any name you're likely to find, and the current Prince of Wales is called Arthur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King Arthur may well have been a slav, left behind when the Romans left and organiser of Celtic resistance to the Saxons.

 

The name Arthur is easier to link to Roman and Slavic text than to Welsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The name Arthur is easier to link to Roman and Slavic text than to Welsh.

 

Apart from the fact that the earliest reference is in Welsh referring to Welsh soldiers you're absolutely right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched several documentaries on the Arthurian legend. The consensus seems to be that the name "Arthur" only emerged after the Roman occupation and that the cross-UK locations of his association would mitigate against him being a Welsh chieftain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've watched several documentaries on the Arthurian legend. The consensus seems to be that the name "Arthur" only emerged after the Roman occupation and that the cross-UK locations of his association would mitigate against him being a Welsh chieftain.

 

I've read the original source material in old Welsh.

 

So, nur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd better get on to BBC Wales and Wikipedia then.

 

British derivation of either a Roman name or a linguistic play on 'like a bear' or similar.  Check.

Earliest literary references come from Welsh literature.  Check.

Likelihood of being a Brythonic leader or warrior dating from the late 5th or early 6th century.  Check.

 

Which bits do I need to change?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read the original source material in old Welsh.

 

So, nur.

 

 

I took that to mean that you contend that the name Arthur was in Welsh text of pre-Roman provenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took that to mean that you contend that the name Arthur was in Welsh text of pre-Roman provenance.

 

Ah, My apologies.  "Old Welsh" in this instance (being all university-dullard about it) means 'in the Welsh language as it existed before Middle Welsh and Modern Welsh'.  That covers (from memory) anything written down from the 9th century to the 13th - and a lot of that written material is significantly older than the date at which it was written. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god, we're not actually agreeing about something are we?

;)  :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My god, we're not actually agreeing about something are we?

;)  :biggrin:

 

I think the part we're disagreeing on is that your conclusion of that is that it doesn't make Arthur definitely Celtic - I think it does.  We also disagree about whether he was Welsh.

 

Welsh as a term isn't useful for the period of history in question but any 'British' native fighting back at that time - especially one whose name was adopted by Celtic people in what is now Scotland and Wales would almost certainly have been Brythonic.  And as there was no Wales at that time but the country now called Wales has a direct link with the Brythonic kingdoms of the Old North I'd say that for simplicity it is right to call Arthur, mystical or otherwise, Welsh in origin.

 

Now, please say something about Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smashing chaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Welsh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Smashing chaps.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Welsh.

The Welsh Muslims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King Arthur may well have been a slav, left behind when the Romans left and organiser of Celtic resistance to the Saxons.

 

The name Arthur is easier to link to Roman and Slavic text than to Welsh.

Yes, but how far do you have to go back before something is genuine Welsh (or 'Celtic'), and which other cultural influences cannot be included? After all Celtic culture was introduced to these shores from elsewhere, wasn't it?

I mean, the new baby's name of Alexander is inclusive enough for me, representing, as it does, past Scottish monarchs. As with Constantine, another name of Scottish royalty, I can't claim it as being Scottish originally, but at least we have partial ownership!!! :)

And I'm sure George is one of ours too, somewhere along the line!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have you read and heard the phrase Arthur  ... King of the Britons? I have, dozens and dozens of times.

 

How many times have you read and heard the phrase Arthur  ... King of the Welsh? I never have.

 

I think if you asked a hundred Europeans where the name Arthur originated, they would say 'England.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017