Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don’t worry Tom you’ll be safe in Colchester. T" From the French, maybe. Not from the Romans though  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles " Nothing.. and that country is Scotland | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland " Last I checked we’re on the same island | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island " They are north of Hadrian's wall | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island They are north of Hadrian's wall" Hadrian’s wall is entirely in England. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island They are north of Hadrian's wall Hadrian’s wall is entirely in England. " Before 1066, the whole island was one nation, 900 something a combined Viking Irish army was seated on the west coast of Scotland to produce a single kind of peaceful nation from lands end to John o groats | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island They are north of Hadrian's wall Hadrian’s wall is entirely in England. Before 1066, the whole island was one nation, 900 something a combined Viking Irish army was seated on the west coast of Scotland to produce a single kind of peaceful nation from lands end to John o groats " England wasn’t a concept in Alfred the great’s time - Wessex, Mercia and all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island They are north of Hadrian's wall Hadrian’s wall is entirely in England. Before 1066, the whole island was one nation, 900 something a combined Viking Irish army was seated on the west coast of Scotland to produce a single kind of peaceful nation from lands end to John o groats " Huh? What nation was that? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island They are north of Hadrian's wall Hadrian’s wall is entirely in England. " Doesn't stop Scotland being north of it then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Last I checked we’re on the same island They are north of Hadrian's wall Hadrian’s wall is entirely in England. Doesn't stop Scotland being north of it then!" Still on the British island. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Changing of the guard? Is that the guard that guards the Royals...who are as English as Bratwurst and Moussaka?"   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I didn't know France had an army." They are usually surrendering that is why  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hadrian's wall is the traditional border between Scotland and England and was built by the Romans and named after the Emporer Hadrian. When the Romans left, materials from the wall were up for grabs by locals to make cottages and their own walls to manage livestock. The wall has been pillaged and rebuilt and may not be in its original place. It will have been moved over time but was the border between civilisation in the South and Scottish savages " I am sure you would not say ‘no’ to Nicola Sturgeon in fishnets though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some interesting and wrong history/geography on here. The Entente Cordiale was fashioned by King Edward VII from his visit to France in 1903. The French fought bravely in World War One and were undermined in World War Two by people posing as patriots. Seems very familiar to me. The British Isles has never been one nation. " Very well said about the French in WW1. French losses 1.4 million Wounded over double that figure. I think at Verdun alone, the French lost around 400.000 men. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hadrian's wall is the traditional border between Scotland and England and was built by the Romans and named after the Emporer Hadrian. When the Romans left, materials from the wall were up for grabs by locals to make cottages and their own walls to manage livestock. The wall has been pillaged and rebuilt and may not be in its original place. It will have been moved over time but was the border between civilisation in the South and Scottish savages I am sure you would not say ‘no’ to Nicola Sturgeon in fishnets though " Now there’s a thought that I’d never had before | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I can see it now, there will be our smart lads with their red tunics and woolly hats and a bunch of Frenchies with stripy t shirts and berries with strings of onions hanging round their necks. "If they’re going to wear traditional attire, the least we could do is dress as Morris Men and have a bit of a boogie | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Don’t worry Tom you’ll be safe in Colchester. T From the French, maybe. Not from the Romans though "What did the Romans ever do for us then eh? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Tom cannot believe this report and it's no April prank. Reports that the French troops will take part in the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. Apparently it's to do with something called Entente Cordiale which was the foundation of a joint venture to build the Concorde civilian jet which flew at very fast speeds. What in Napoleans name is going on here guys? It's all over the news" Apparently it's to do with something called Entente Cordiale which was the foundation of a joint venture to build the Concorde civilian jet which flew at very fast speeds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are gonna really lose their shit when they remember England's growth from shitty inconsequential backwater to shitty, bastard, but nonetheless impressive global superpower was kick-started by becoming, uhm, basically, French in 1066. It was all over ye newf." Erm... the Normans were not Franks. They were of Viking descent (Norse- Norse man - Norman) given lands by the Franks as payment for fighting as mercenaries. This was Normandy, and was for many years after 1066, part of England. William (the bastard) of Normandy had a legitimate claim to the English thrown, as did Alfred. A situation not resolved after Canute the Great passed away decades earlier. As such the "English" (which was a country in name only, made up as it was of multicultural peoples of Christian and pagan from numerous tribal groupings), didn't become French. There was a battle between pagan norse and Christian anglo-saxon for control of both the anglo-saxon and former danelaw lands at Stamford Bridge. The Anglo-Saxons won. Immediately afterward there was a battle between the Anglo-Saxon Christians and the Vatican backed Norman Catholic Christians for control of the lands. The Vatican won. Interestingly the Vatican had also encouraged the Viking army to attack in the north in force weeks earlier. As such, the real history of the era is that of the Vatican's conquest of the British Isles which had, under Canute the Great, been free from Rome's rule, and instead was part of the heathen/pagan empire of Canute. On another point, the period of becoming a global superpower really started with Henry VIII and subsequently Elizabeth I, who both rejected and fought against Vatican power. Our rise to superpower growing further under the Republican Commonwealth of England years, and fully flourishing with the Glorious Revolution of William of Orange, the enactment of the 1689 Bill of Rights, and its empowerment of the people through the rejection of the concept of a king's "Devine Right" to rule, and therefore of Papal Sovereignty. Whilst true atrocities occured under the empire, what marks it out as different is that it was never a centrally organised imperial plan, but instead that result of individual business effort. Nor did it seek to irradicate indigenous culture. But instead sought trade. If there is one thing it did do as a centralised plan, it was the elimination of the [word not allowed] trade (in himan beings). Unfortunately today, most don't understand British- English history, nor our millennia old battle for freedom and independence from the forces of European domination ie the Vatican. An institution that oversaw genocide across the Anericas and Africa. Genocide in the Palestine. The rise of imperialist powers across Europe from Phillip of Spain, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolinni, Franco, Salazar etc. To many still fall for what the Roman historian Tacitus called the comforts of bath houses and fine banquets, which they mistakenly call "civilization", when they are in fact just the tools of our own ens!@vement [owned human]. I'd rather live free in "bastard" England, than be a wealthy [word not allowed] owned human in the neo-christiandom of the Vatican's European empire. Sorry... I meant European Union. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland " Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are gonna really lose their shit when they remember England's growth from shitty inconsequential backwater to shitty, bastard, but nonetheless impressive global superpower was kick-started by becoming, uhm, basically, French in 1066. It was all over ye newf. Erm... the Normans were not Franks. They were of Viking descent (Norse- Norse man - Norman) given lands by the Franks as payment for fighting as mercenaries. This was Normandy, and was for many years after 1066, part of England. William (the bastard) of Normandy had a legitimate claim to the English thrown, as did Alfred. A situation not resolved after Canute the Great passed away decades earlier. As such the "English" (which was a country in name only, made up as it was of multicultural peoples of Christian and pagan from numerous tribal groupings), didn't become French. There was a battle between pagan norse and Christian anglo-saxon for control of both the anglo-saxon and former danelaw lands at Stamford Bridge. The Anglo-Saxons won. Immediately afterward there was a battle between the Anglo-Saxon Christians and the Vatican backed Norman Catholic Christians for control of the lands. The Vatican won. Interestingly the Vatican had also encouraged the Viking army to attack in the north in force weeks earlier. As such, the real history of the era is that of the Vatican's conquest of the British Isles which had, under Canute the Great, been free from Rome's rule, and instead was part of the heathen/pagan empire of Canute. On another point, the period of becoming a global superpower really started with Henry VIII and subsequently Elizabeth I, who both rejected and fought against Vatican power. Our rise to superpower growing further under the Republican Commonwealth of England years, and fully flourishing with the Glorious Revolution of William of Orange, the enactment of the 1689 Bill of Rights, and its empowerment of the people through the rejection of the concept of a king's "Devine Right" to rule, and therefore of Papal Sovereignty. Whilst true atrocities occured under the empire, what marks it out as different is that it was never a centrally organised imperial plan, but instead that result of individual business effort. Nor did it seek to irradicate indigenous culture. But instead sought trade. If there is one thing it did do as a centralised plan, it was the elimination of the [word not allowed] trade (in himan beings). Unfortunately today, most don't understand British- English history, nor our millennia old battle for freedom and independence from the forces of European domination ie the Vatican. An institution that oversaw genocide across the Anericas and Africa. Genocide in the Palestine. The rise of imperialist powers across Europe from Phillip of Spain, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolinni, Franco, Salazar etc. To many still fall for what the Roman historian Tacitus called the comforts of bath houses and fine banquets, which they mistakenly call "civilization", when they are in fact just the tools of our own ens!@vement [owned human]. I'd rather live free in "bastard" England, than be a wealthy [word not allowed] owned human in the neo-christiandom of the Vatican's European empire. Sorry... I meant European Union." Just when you think a thread can’t get any madder, someone appears saying “hold my beer” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. " They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain " Exactly. It's like the Caribbean Island's lot's of individual countries but fall under the Caribbean Island's. Not that the British isles are anywhere near like the Caribbean,man ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Erm... the Normans were not Franks. They were of Viking descent (Norse- Norse man - Norman) given lands by the Franks as payment for fighting as mercenaries. ." I wonder what Betty had to say about that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are gonna really lose their shit when they remember England's growth from shitty inconsequential backwater to shitty, bastard, but nonetheless impressive global superpower was kick-started by becoming, uhm, basically, French in 1066. It was all over ye newf. Erm... the Normans were not Franks. They were of Viking descent (Norse- Norse man - Norman) given lands by the Franks as payment for fighting as mercenaries. This was Normandy, and was for many years after 1066, part of England. William (the bastard) of Normandy had a legitimate claim to the English thrown, as did Alfred. A situation not resolved after Canute the Great passed away decades earlier. As such the "English" (which was a country in name only, made up as it was of multicultural peoples of Christian and pagan from numerous tribal groupings), didn't become French. There was a battle between pagan norse and Christian anglo-saxon for control of both the anglo-saxon and former danelaw lands at Stamford Bridge. The Anglo-Saxons won. Immediately afterward there was a battle between the Anglo-Saxon Christians and the Vatican backed Norman Catholic Christians for control of the lands. The Vatican won. Interestingly the Vatican had also encouraged the Viking army to attack in the north in force weeks earlier. As such, the real history of the era is that of the Vatican's conquest of the British Isles which had, under Canute the Great, been free from Rome's rule, and instead was part of the heathen/pagan empire of Canute. On another point, the period of becoming a global superpower really started with Henry VIII and subsequently Elizabeth I, who both rejected and fought against Vatican power. Our rise to superpower growing further under the Republican Commonwealth of England years, and fully flourishing with the Glorious Revolution of William of Orange, the enactment of the 1689 Bill of Rights, and its empowerment of the people through the rejection of the concept of a king's "Devine Right" to rule, and therefore of Papal Sovereignty. Whilst true atrocities occured under the empire, what marks it out as different is that it was never a centrally organised imperial plan, but instead that result of individual business effort. Nor did it seek to irradicate indigenous culture. But instead sought trade. If there is one thing it did do as a centralised plan, it was the elimination of the [word not allowed] trade (in himan beings). Unfortunately today, most don't understand British- English history, nor our millennia old battle for freedom and independence from the forces of European domination ie the Vatican. An institution that oversaw genocide across the Anericas and Africa. Genocide in the Palestine. The rise of imperialist powers across Europe from Phillip of Spain, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolinni, Franco, Salazar etc. To many still fall for what the Roman historian Tacitus called the comforts of bath houses and fine banquets, which they mistakenly call "civilization", when they are in fact just the tools of our own ens!@vement [owned human]. I'd rather live free in "bastard" England, than be a wealthy [word not allowed] owned human in the neo-christiandom of the Vatican's European empire. Sorry... I meant European Union." Yes yes I know all that but the English were Danes/Germanic and the Celts aren't native either so it's all a bit silly and Britain wasn't a thing until (first bit) Union of Crowns 1600s and (big bit) Acts of Union 1700s and it's not England it's Britain but Britain is a construct that about half of Scots are none too pleased about etc...and Balfour Declaration was also very silly and so on... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People are gonna really lose their shit when they remember England's growth from shitty inconsequential backwater to shitty, bastard, but nonetheless impressive global superpower was kick-started by becoming, uhm, basically, French in 1066. It was all over ye newf. Erm... the Normans were not Franks. They were of Viking descent (Norse- Norse man - Norman) given lands by the Franks as payment for fighting as mercenaries. This was Normandy, and was for many years after 1066, part of England. William (the bastard) of Normandy had a legitimate claim to the English thrown, as did Alfred. A situation not resolved after Canute the Great passed away decades earlier. As such the "English" (which was a country in name only, made up as it was of multicultural peoples of Christian and pagan from numerous tribal groupings), didn't become French. There was a battle between pagan norse and Christian anglo-saxon for control of both the anglo-saxon and former danelaw lands at Stamford Bridge. The Anglo-Saxons won. Immediately afterward there was a battle between the Anglo-Saxon Christians and the Vatican backed Norman Catholic Christians for control of the lands. The Vatican won. Interestingly the Vatican had also encouraged the Viking army to attack in the north in force weeks earlier. As such, the real history of the era is that of the Vatican's conquest of the British Isles which had, under Canute the Great, been free from Rome's rule, and instead was part of the heathen/pagan empire of Canute. On another point, the period of becoming a global superpower really started with Henry VIII and subsequently Elizabeth I, who both rejected and fought against Vatican power. Our rise to superpower growing further under the Republican Commonwealth of England years, and fully flourishing with the Glorious Revolution of William of Orange, the enactment of the 1689 Bill of Rights, and its empowerment of the people through the rejection of the concept of a king's "Devine Right" to rule, and therefore of Papal Sovereignty. Whilst true atrocities occured under the empire, what marks it out as different is that it was never a centrally organised imperial plan, but instead that result of individual business effort. Nor did it seek to irradicate indigenous culture. But instead sought trade. If there is one thing it did do as a centralised plan, it was the elimination of the [word not allowed] trade (in himan beings). Unfortunately today, most don't understand British- English history, nor our millennia old battle for freedom and independence from the forces of European domination ie the Vatican. An institution that oversaw genocide across the Anericas and Africa. Genocide in the Palestine. The rise of imperialist powers across Europe from Phillip of Spain, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolinni, Franco, Salazar etc. To many still fall for what the Roman historian Tacitus called the comforts of bath houses and fine banquets, which they mistakenly call "civilization", when they are in fact just the tools of our own ens!@vement [owned human]. I'd rather live free in "bastard" England, than be a wealthy [word not allowed] owned human in the neo-christiandom of the Vatican's European empire. Sorry... I meant European Union. Yes yes I know all that but the English were Danes/Germanic and the Celts aren't native either so it's all a bit silly and Britain wasn't a thing until (first bit) Union of Crowns 1600s and (big bit) Acts of Union 1700s and it's not England it's Britain but Britain is a construct that about half of Scots are none too pleased about etc...and Balfour Declaration was also very silly and so on..." But you missed the best bit about not living under "neo-Christendom"...wait until they find out about the Church of England...gonna blow some minds! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain " See I know a few Irish lads that would get angry at the "British" in that title. They are Irish, from Ireland, to many us Brits are still the enemy that occupy part of thier country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain See I know a few Irish lads that would get angry at the "British" in that title. They are Irish, from Ireland, to many us Brits are still the enemy that occupy part of thier country. " They'd be wrong. The British Isles is just the geographical name for group the islands, including the island of Ireland... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain See I know a few Irish lads that would get angry at the "British" in that title. They are Irish, from Ireland, to many us Brits are still the enemy that occupy part of thier country. They'd be wrong. The British Isles is just the geographical name for group the islands, including the island of Ireland..." Thing is, they wouldn't be wrong. Because the etymology of those things is around 2,000 years old, whereas I believe the Irish have an older etymology for the names of the islands in a language closer to modern Irish than Latin is to modern English. So it sort of depends on a whole load of other stuff...which is always power/political in where it goes to. So we start bringing in Nietzsche and Foucault and a fair few others too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain See I know a few Irish lads that would get angry at the "British" in that title. They are Irish, from Ireland, to many us Brits are still the enemy that occupy part of thier country. They'd be wrong. The British Isles is just the geographical name for group the islands, including the island of Ireland... Thing is, they wouldn't be wrong. Because the etymology of those things is around 2,000 years old, whereas I believe the Irish have an older etymology for the names of the islands in a language closer to modern Irish than Latin is to modern English. So it sort of depends on a whole load of other stuff...which is always power/political in where it goes to. So we start bringing in Nietzsche and Foucault and a fair few others too." Ok, I stand corrected. They'd be wrong in modern and most widely recognised usage. I never know how far back you're supposed to go with this sort of stuff... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain See I know a few Irish lads that would get angry at the "British" in that title. They are Irish, from Ireland, to many us Brits are still the enemy that occupy part of thier country. They'd be wrong. The British Isles is just the geographical name for group the islands, including the island of Ireland... Thing is, they wouldn't be wrong. Because the etymology of those things is around 2,000 years old, whereas I believe the Irish have an older etymology for the names of the islands in a language closer to modern Irish than Latin is to modern English. So it sort of depends on a whole load of other stuff...which is always power/political in where it goes to. So we start bringing in Nietzsche and Foucault and a fair few others too. Ok, I stand corrected. They'd be wrong in modern and most widely recognised usage. I never know how far back you're supposed to go with this sort of stuff..." Me neither, but I think newts and vampires are involved somehow  . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hadrian's wall is the traditional border between Scotland and England and was built by the Romans and named after the Emporer Hadrian. When the Romans left, materials from the wall were up for grabs by locals to make cottages and their own walls to manage livestock. The wall has been pillaged and rebuilt and may not be in its original place. It will have been moved over time but was the border between civilisation in the South and Scottish savages I am sure you would not say ‘no’ to Nicola Sturgeon in fishnets though " Tom did lie the portrait of her in bondage gear to be fair | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What's wrong with building a stronger relationship with the closest country to us who are not part of the British isles Nothing.. and that country is Scotland Ireland, and don't say they are part if the British Isles, a lot of Irish would be offended by that. They are part of the British Isles - but they are not part of Great Britain See I know a few Irish lads that would get angry at the "British" in that title. They are Irish, from Ireland, to many us Brits are still the enemy that occupy part of thier country. They'd be wrong. The British Isles is just the geographical name for group the islands, including the island of Ireland... Thing is, they wouldn't be wrong. Because the etymology of those things is around 2,000 years old, whereas I believe the Irish have an older etymology for the names of the islands in a language closer to modern Irish than Latin is to modern English. So it sort of depends on a whole load of other stuff...which is always power/political in where it goes to. So we start bringing in Nietzsche and Foucault and a fair few others too. Ok, I stand corrected. They'd be wrong in modern and most widely recognised usage. I never know how far back you're supposed to go with this sort of stuff... Me neither, but I think newts and vampires are involved somehow ."Bloody newts. But I think the they normally prefer the ancient Greek nomenclature. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I thought cordiale was a kind of drink" It’s French for dilute | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I didn't know France had an army. They are usually surrendering that is why "Yet they have won more battles than any other modern nation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
