Forum: Author Hangout

Surely the adjective is "sunken"

That makes a lot more sense in the quoted example.

"the sunk ship is at the bottom of the sea" does my head in.
"the sunken ship is at the bottom of the sea" works for me.

If we are talking about the Queen's English, by definition the Queen of England speaks correctly the Queens English.

I can live with that but correctly those speaking TO her will use the third person "If Your Majesty wishes ....." (though I understand that after the first sentence of the day she gives permission to be addressed normally)

Spanish (Castilian) is spoken with a lisp because an early Castilian monarch had one and that was the way he pronounced the language.

But is the language normally used in South American/Central countries wrong or is it correct for those countries? Is what Obama speaks bad English? No, he speaks American

France has a national academy. There is a chance what they speak is correct French. Although sometimes they vote about words like le weekend.

The Immortals and schools might try but everyone uses "illegal" words - le weekend is not approved of by the Academie Française

For further historical hilarity regarding "The King's(or Queen's) English" is that there were allegedly periods where the Monarchy of England didn't speak English, considering it the language of peasants. They used French or Latin instead in order to demonstrate their not being some mere commoner.

Not sure about the "Language of peasants"; they were born in France spoke oïl and taught that to their brats etc. µµ
Latin was the language of the church.

You omit the Hanoverians who spoke German. To go further, the one time queen of Sweden, a silk merchant's daughter from Marseilles, couldn't be bothered to learn Swedish, disliked the country so she spent most of her time in Paris. I don't know if her husband, a marshal from Pau, France and Emperor of Sweden ever learned the language

.

That was likely a big part of it. Although other factors are things like the 100 years war. Where some of it was about the English Crown also being the "rightful" crown of France, and holding a French speaking court would help in that.

As to Latin (and Greek) being the "language of the church" they also were the languages of antiquity for western Europe. As such knowledge of such languages demonstrated likely knowledge and education in such matters as philosophy and mathematics, among other things... Items the peasants would be unlikely to know anything about.

Which then brings us back to the interest in France, as it was the then Cultural Center of Europe for academic and religious thought(often holding control of who was Pope as well). Which in turn made French the (then) "modern" defacto language of the well educated, which again in England would translate into "If you only speak English(or local dialect thereof), you must be a peasant, as any person of means would at least bother to learn French."

That was likely a big part of it. Although other factors are things like the 100 years war. Where some of it was about the English Crown also being the "rightful" crown of France, and holding a French speaking court would help in that.

No, the English Crown never had the right to the French crown; they claimed rights to land in France. The French argument (which you will hear at Bayeux) is that Harold Godwinson and his predecessor were vassals to Duke William of Normandy. Harold got a bit above himself and refused to honour William so William took him down a step. By agreement with the French king William held sway over huge areas of what is now France from the channel down to the Pyrenees. In those days with the huge distances and the difficulties in travel the King appointed Consuls to administer the areas of France and they had virtually plenipotentiary rights. From time to time they did rebel and were put down by the king and, on one occasion, the Duke of Leicester. Over the years those areas threw off the control of William's successors.
My knowledge of English history is abysmal; the 100 years war the French talk about was with Spain and was eventually the subject of a treaty which required the marriage between the Infante and the French king at St Jean de Luz.
On top of that they did not speak French as we know it; "French" was created in the 1600s (but became effective in the 1800s) by amalgamating the patois of just four areas, all in the area of the Ile de France (ie Paris). Everywhere had (and still has) its own patois with, I think, four groupings - Breton, still used in that area, oïl,µµ (Latin derivatives) in what is now the northern half of France and Occitan (very different Latin derivatives closer to Spanish) in the southern half of France, parts of Italy and of Spain and Basque - an ancient tongue unconnected with any other language.

µµ One of the patois, Jerrois, is still used in Jersey - I can just about understand written it but it is very different to modern-day French

"If you only speak English(or local dialect thereof), you must be a peasant, as any person of means would at least bother to learn French."

By 1076 95% of Britain was under the control of the Normans and the Saxons were reduced to the role of vassals or effectively slaves. They wouldn't get any education whilst their masters still spoke their old language.

One thing puzzles me and perhaps someone here knows the answer. William and his followers were Vikings from Denmark and southern Sweden; in the two hundred or so years they were in Normandy why did they give up their original language?

The early Georges, from Hanover, spoke German. If they spoke English it was with a heavy accent.

For further historical hilarity regarding "The King's(or Queen's) English" is that there were allegedly periods where the Monarchy of England didn't speak English, considering it the language of peasants. They used French or Latin instead in order to demonstrate their not being some mere commoner.

The English monarchs spoke French (Actually Norman) for the first few generations after the Norman conquest (along with the rest of the new aristocracy, who mostly came in with William), before that they mostly spoke Anglo-Saxon. Then for about three generations (Georges I, II, and III) in the 18th century they spoke German, after the Hanoverian, and then the Saxe-Coburgs (changed their name to Windsor at the beginning of WWI) took the crown.

@sejintenej

By 1076 95% of Britain was under the control of the Normans and the Saxons were reduced to the role of vassals or effectively slaves. They wouldn't get any education whilst their masters still spoke their old language.

Britten, which includes Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall, or England?

I am pretty sure Scotts-Irish is mostly Scotts (English). Irish speak Gaelic. That might not have been true in the 1700s or 1800s where they had to speak English to talk to their landlords, but I am pretty sure rednecks don't speak any form of Gaelic.

The Scotts may have spoken Gaelic as well, but they were thoroughly influenced by English speakers by the time they moved to America and a Scottish accent is not a Gaelic one.

The Scotts-Irish were protestant Scotts from "lowland" (hills) portion of Scottland who initially settled in Northern Ireland, before pulling up stakes again and heading for a region we now call Appalachia.

Which incidentally leads into two terms still in use today. The protestant Scotts rebelled at one point(while in Scotland) in support of someone else for king, and the symbol indicating their support for the rebellion was to wear a red bandana around their neck, hence "redneck."

Going back to these guys coming from the hills of the Scottish lowlands..... Well, meet the hillbilly, and the region their rather ah "distinctive" music, aka "hillbilly music" came from, which is the precursor to what we now call Country.

England not being significantly distinguishable from the U.S. for academic purposes, as the language is nearly the same.

Blasphemy.

I am an American, but I work for a company headquartered in the UK.

Not_a_ID is either neither British nor American or has never had to communicate across the pond.

I was in the U.S. Navy. I worked with higher level people who were employed by BAE, and know my share of Brits, Aussies, and others who have been over there.

Yes there are PLENTY of local dialects over there that are barely intelligible to an American(although fellow Brits may have issues as well), but the same thing can be said about regions in the U.S. in particular parts of the deep south.

Somebody speaking something reasonably close to the Queens English will generally only have only minor issues speaking with an American from a reasonably mainstream dialectic grouping. It's only when you start pairing obscure and bizarre local American dialect with obscure and bizarre local British dialect that things fall apart.

Yes, there are word choice differences which can be baffling for the unprepared but most of those are generally straightforward enough once you're aware that the issue exists. Now slang is another matter entirely.

Somebody speaking something reasonably close to the Queens English will generally only have only minor issues speaking with an American from a reasonably mainstream dialectic grouping. It's only when you start pairing obscure and bizarre local American dialect with obscure and bizarre local British dialect that things fall apart.

Exactly right. I worked with Americans, my wife worked in the UK HQ of a big American company and we had no real problems.

One big problem - Americans can't use the car wash. Lady (well, I wonder knowing who she worked for later in the US) took her company car into the car wash and wrote it off! totalled, busted......

Well if you need to bring up automobiles...

Either the US or the senior member of the English speaking nations drive on the "wrong" side of the road. If Grammar is like Road Rules, its not a surprise US Grammar and British Grammar cause collisions.

I understand that more countries drive on the left than on the right.
My only guess is that the majority of people are right handed and have better control of their right hand. Thus when you let go of the wheel to move the shift / gear lever you retain better steering control with your right hand. (Of course who expects politicians to be logical?)

I understand that more countries drive on the left than on the right.

Did you know that cars in the US drove on the left before they drove on the right? The history and the reasons why are interesting.

My understanding is that the right seating and left travelling changed in the US and Europe with the advent of very large bullock drawn wagons (6 and 8 bullocks) travelling on thoroughfares. The drivers sat on the rear left bullock to be able to use his right arm for whipping. To be able to see effectively, especially behind them, they began to use the right side of the thoroughfare, and because they were so large they forced a change of behaviour to right travelling for all smaller vehicles. In the US, early cars had right side driver seating, and left side travelling was common in towns and cities. This soon changed to left side driver seating as the major manufacturers adopted right side travelling. Regulation of the driving side came sporadically until it was nationally agreed.

My understanding is that the right seating and left travelling changed in the US and Europe with the advent of very large bullock drawn wagons

The US term would be ox when used as a draft animal or steer if it's a meat animal.

While many settlers headed west used ox teams, stagecoaches and (my understanding) most commercial freight used draft horses such as Clydesdales rather than ox teams

The US term would be ox

Which is a pretty good indicator that I don't hail from the US.

stagecoaches and (my understanding) most commercial freight used draft horses ...

Indeed, and stagecoaches and buckboards and the such like were almost exclusively right seat driven. Most early cars, even US made cars, just followed the coach standard, with the right seating of the driver, especially when there was an external brake lever involved.

My understanding is that the right seating and left travelling changed in the US and Europe with the advent of very large bullock drawn wagons (6 and 8 bullocks) travelling on thoroughfares. The drivers sat on the rear left bullock to be able to use his right arm for whipping.

If you have the opportunity of seeing the "Changing of the Colours" in London on TV on the Queen's official birthday you will see that the grooms ride the left hand horses and hold their crop over the right hand horses. I suppose being right handed might help - no "sinisters" needed

Did you know that cars in the US drove on the left before they drove on the right? The history and the reasons why are interesting.

I didn't know that but I remember when Sweden changed from the left to the right.

Interestingly (to me) road design regulations in the UK demand that roads can be changed from left to right simply by moving signs and paint. Thus on and off ramps, junctions etc. must be designed accordingly.

That's why circular staircases in castles have the wide side on the right when going down. To give the defender of the castle room to swing his sword with his right hand.

an circular staircase by necessity must have wedge shaped steps and the widest part must be on the outer diameter. This is a simple physical necessity. What you describe might be a reason why castles use circular rather than square (with landings) staircases, but it can't have anything to do with where the wide pare of the step is in a circular staircase as that is dictated by the basic geometry of the staircase.

but it can't have anything to do with where the wide pare of the step is in a circular staircase as that is dictated by the basic geometry of the staircase.

Clockwise v Anti-clockwise would determine which side the wide side of the step would be.

Clockwise the wide side would be on the left when ascending. Anticlockwise it would be on the right side when ascending.

EDIT- fixed typo.

Anti-clockwise. Why would anyone be against wise clocks?

This is (potentially) research for stories.

One way stairs? The only ones I've ever seen were called escalators. :)

Have you ever seen a circular escalator?

Me neither.

My point being that there is no such thing as a one-way staircase. Others pointed out that all invaders needed to do was assault the staircase that gave them an advantage if both types existed.

You are correct. But there is such a thing as a stairway where a force fighting a defensive action are likely to be moving in one direction or the other but not both. Such as an armoury or barracks.

Have you ever seen a circular escalator?

Haven't been out much recently? They are becoming common now. See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFKqpZpvX8I

I wouldn't know about common, but it would appear that they exist, which is more than I would have thought.

I wouldn't know about common

They are not common yet, but are becoming more so. The first spiral/helical design was patented in 1889. The first functioning unit was installed in 1906 but never saw public use. Units in public use have been installed by Mitsubishi since the mid-1980s. The first unit was installed in the US (San Francisco) in 1989. So there are lots about really.

I've been on one on NYC. Not a real spiral, 180 or 270 degree turn between levels.

If it literally scared the shit out of some, it would no longer be see-thru.

That could depend on what kind of clothing they were wearing. At the least, I could see the clothing vendor doing some extra business selling underwear.

A high pressure hose would clean up any accidents some might have, just have to remember to put out the 'slippery floor' sign.

Is this an elevating conversation? Or is it a case of escalation?

Osculate (and make up) don't escalate. Oscillate, Collate, find firm ground to take a stand. Words are fun, even if sometimes I am not sure what they mean, or how they are spelled.

One way stairs? The only ones I've ever seen were called escalators. :)

The stairs aren't one way, but which direction they spiral was designed to give greatest advantage to the castle's defenders.

(Of course, by the time the defenders are fighting in the stairways the castle is mostly lost already.)

And the castle builders know and use that when building. Stairs that go up into the inner castle go clockwise, but those that go down into inner parts of the castle go anti-clockwise in most castles.

Apparently, they never figured out that you can go both ways on any staircase. If they build a castle with stairs going both ways around all the invaders have to to is go up the stairs that give them the advantage.

Clockwise v Anti-clockwise would determine which side the wide side of the step would be.

And that is part of the basic geometry of the staircase.

I recall hearing another basis for the whole driving on the left thing had to do with jousting way back when. ;)

When you see them in the lists they always ride with the fence (between them) on their left, ie they ride / rode on the right

When you see them in the lists they always ride with the fence (between them) on their left, ie they ride / rode on the right

The jousting rod was carried in the right hand, the shield in the left.
So for the shield to be of much use, the opposing rider had to be on the left.

The explanation I heard about driving on the left or right side of the road relates to the fact that left handers were considered the spawn of Satan; normal people used their right hand.

So when it came to coaches, wagons & the like the driver would sit on the right hand side so that would give him a place to store his whip when not in use. Easy to grab & use with the right hand as required, and put back when no longer needed. And as many brakes were hand operated, and normal people used their right hands and that's the side they generally sat on (for using the whip) that was the side the brake lever was mounted.

Most roads/tracks were just a single lane so when a couple of coaches had to pass each other they would generally move to the left this would allow them to use the whip if necessary without it getting caught up in overhanging branches.

As traffic increased and the roads became more than just a single lane traffic generally would keep to the left, allowing the use of whips without them getting caught up in trees.

Also in towns & cities the edges of the road would have buildings, many with signage, some of which would stick out in to the street.

Driving on the left would once again allow the use of a whip without it getting caught up in signs & the like.

The change to driving on the right side of the road was most likely just due to wanting to be different. It's the new world, why be the same as the old one?

By that time most major roads would have tress cleared back from the edge, and many towns and cities had long since developed foot paths for pedestrian traffic, so signage no longer impinged upon the road itself so the side of the road to use was a matter of convention, not convenience as it was before.

People were operating carts and wagons while seated on the right for centuries before whips were commonly used by most cart and wagon drivers.

I suspect the whip predates the cart or wagon by a long period of time.

I'm sure the ability to use weaponry would be a significant factor, as would be controlling the animals.
Like many things, there's unlikely to be a single causative factor, but the result of several factors (some more relevant than others) that lead to the positioning of the driver and the side of the road used.