Subject:
|
Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.pirates
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 Jan 2000 10:13:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2239 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote in
> Tony Priestman wrote:
> > Hee hee! Glad to see you're using the Brickish version of the word,
rather than the colonial 'Brikish' :-)
> Why wouldn't I? I'm a Bricki...er, British historian, not prone to
Colonial degeneralities (oooh, a neologism, ™ me, oh yeah). Ardour,
candour, endeavour, and/our...hmm, that last one sounds a bit funny, but the
others are aboot right.
Now, see, its conversations like this that lead to the American War of
Independence ;-)
And if I recall correctly, in the not too distant future (1850s) we're going
to discover gold over here, and the empire is going to make a great deal of
money out of us. Then there's the sheep and the grain to consider. are you
sure you want us throwing up the barricades just yet?
I've gone with the k instead of ck on the basis that since the words are
going to be read, a close visual similarity would be helpful. Its a
trade-off obviously, but rest assured it is not an accident, nor just a
colonial contraction.
British
Brikish
Brickish
Britannic
Brikannic
Brickannic
Great Britain
Great Brikain
Great Brickain
Consistency has a value also, and since the idea was indeed Tony's in the
first place, whatever happens there will have a persuasive value.
So, what do you all reckon?
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving over the next month or so (to
new and larger accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
| On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at 10:13:06 (...) Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either, and can see advantages in either spelling. I can see where you're coming from completely, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
| (...) Why wouldn't I? I'm a Bricki...er, British historian, not prone to Colonial degeneralities (oooh, a neologism, ™ me, oh yeah). Ardour, candour, endeavour, and/our...hmm, that last one sounds a bit funny, but the others are aboot (1) right. (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
99 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
