By contrast, the French are trying vainly to "protect" their language and the Germans seem intent on refusing any foreign words. The German for television is Fernsehapparat - literally a far-seeing apparatus. Same meaning as television, but they just had to say it in their own language - something that would be utterly alien to Brits.

Americans love rules and order. I liken it to the designed grid system in their cities, quite unlike the chaotic historic street patterns of most European cities. A culture with little modern history has a chance to start from scratch and be logical.

So an American will happily say "in back of" - a phrase that virtually no UK English speaker would ever use. Their argument is that we say "in front of", so we must be able to say "in back of".

That also explains why their pronunciation is so literal and phonetic. If "school" has a hard K sound, then so should "schedule". And "lieutenant" has to be "lootenant". They can't talk about Paris; it has to be "Paris, France". Any word can have "isation" bolted onto it, leading to some quite horrendous coinages (to our ears at least).

The problem comes when an international group has a discussion around definitions. I find that the Americans, French and Germans are more inclined to precision than the British. We are happy with ambiguity and different points of view - they are usually very uncomfortable with this. They want precision and rules.

So I actually have quite a lot of sympathy with the people who were arguing with me. I guess that if I were born on the other side of the pond, I too would argue for rules and precise definitions, because that is the way that I would have been brought up.

And I think this also explains the lack of understanding that arises in arguments about definitions. The different sides of the argument don't realise that they are divided by culture and sub-conscious programming.

I left this field behind after University in 1985 when I started a career in central and then local Government, so it is entirely possible that linguistic theory has moved on or changed since then.

As theories go, it seems to work pretty well most of the time. I worked as a spell in international law and it was quite evident that different nations had different tendencies towards language. I recall having quite an amicable discussion with an American diplomat who had also come to this point of view.

But as with all linguistics, we have to be careful not to overgeneralise. That is why I am careful to talk about tendencies and "usually" and not to use absolute terms like "always". Linguistics is a very imprecise science with plenty of exceptions.

If you have observations to the contrary, I'd love to discuss them.

I highly doubt the reasons for differences in acccepting words of other languages has anything to do with invasions of the last few hundred years.

It's similar to the Calvin-hype in the Netherlands previous year; the suggestion was that we were culturally oh-so-special due to the influence of Calvin. Failing to notice hardly anyone even remembered who the guy was and the fact that he did not have anything to do with most of the influences ascribed to him in the media.

I think it is similar with contemporary history, people forget. Everything that happened before their grandparents were born is heaped together as 'long ago' and generally forgotten failing to see relevance. The current generation barely has any connection with the first world war and the next generation will not have one with the second world war.

Changes due to such historic instances might occur but they shall be flattened and become rather irrelevant with regards to a general moral code.

Of course, aside of the above, the Whole of Europe has been at war with each other for hundreds of years so it is no that England is all that exceptional.

On the other hand I would search for the reason more in the direction of Why and How alternative words get into languages.

To take the example of the television, it is obviously derived from far-seeing with the stems respectively in Greek and Latin. Why? I am in no way a student of history so my first guesses are as good as anyone's, but maybe science was at a higher level generally than in other countries so it [science] might have had a bigger impact when it had just made an apparent break-through and gave it it's name. Or maybe the television first became popular in the higher social classes which could have easily been decimated and/or fallen into disregard in other European countries following the French revolution effectively, chopping off the nobles, becoming people's-countries with vastly different set of social standings. Who knows, I am only theorizing.

Or to look from a widely different point of view, English simply is the current lingua franca, and thus maybe the current Englishman is more used to the knowledge lots of other countries speak English as well(e.g. the old British colonies) and are more used to incorporating words into the language. Maybe, due to similar reasons, the French and German are more proud about their languages, as it is mainly spoken there, and thus have more fear and loathing for foreign influences. Who knows.

The point is that UK English has a very high proportion of words imported from other languages. Take something as simple as food - the word "pig" comes from anglo-saxon, but the word "pork" comes from Norman French. It's the same with "cow" and "beef", "deer" and "venison" and many many other examples.

The reason? After the invasion of 1066, Norman French was the court language of Britain, co-existing with the anglo-saxon spoken by the underclasses. So the anglo-saxons had the job of looking after the animals, but the richer French got to eat the meat...

It's the same with words like house, shed and hut - lower class dwellings all with an anglo-saxon root. By contrast, words like mansion, parliament, legislation, government came from the french. As a general rule, most of our words of power or luxury come from the Norman french invasion of 1066 and most of our more humble words come from earlier languages, especially celtic, anglo-saxon and old norse.

My own surname is Reeve - a norman french job description. And there's a bundle of invasion history tied up in that name. After 1066, William distributed the counties of England to the french knights who had helped him to invade. But these nobles needed help in ruling the local populace. So they appointed reeves to collect taxes, lay down the law, put people in prison and so on. Hence the legend of Robin Hood fighting against the sheriff of Nottingham. A "sheriff" was derived from the term "shire reeve". Part of the legend was that Robin Hood was an ordinary anglo-saxon rebelling against the norman french overlords.

And of course anglo-saxon was itself an invasion language to displace the previous celtic.

It also works in reverse. UK English readily adopts words from countries that we invade or colonise. So we talk about living in a bungalow with a verandah and wearing pyjamas - all words from the British occupation of Inda.

Television is an example of UK English feels more at home with an imported foreign word than with a literal explanation. The word is a relatively modern coinage from the Greek "tele" meaning from afar and the latin "vision", meaning to see. It's a mongrel word, with a bit of two ancient languages fused together.

So why didn't the inventors call it something like the far seeing device? Why did we feel we had to give it a pseudo-legitimacy by reaching back to greek and latin? Because that's just how UK English works. By contrast, German has no problems with calling it for what it is.

I am not saying that any one language is right or wrong - just that they have developed in different ways.

I don't think cultural differences between Britain and America can be pinned on language. There's more linguistic variety in Britain and Ireland than between the US and the rest. And there are too many other possible causes: education, popular culture, even the sense a person has about what sort of national/legal/economic entity they live in.

Speaking from the other side of the Irish sea, I find it curious that anyone should think of Britain as having been frequently invaded. Most of continental Europe has changed hands far more often. And, while the Irish have invaded on occasion (they grabbed the Lleyn peninsula in Wales about 1500 years ago, for example) most of the traffic has been in the other direction.

<dak> is right. Conflating perceived national stereotypes with linguistic tropes is not a good idea. I did one of those language/literature degrees too, by the way, but I've tried to keep up with some of the linguistics.

The 'telephone'-type words aren't a good example. Their coinage reflects the high prestige of classical Greek and Latin in certain countries at the time of invention. This could easily have included German, but there were other factors, such as the relative ease with which compound nouns are formed in German.

I could go on and on and on ... but for now I'm happy to see a linguistic eruption here ...

Hear, hear! Always a pleasure to talk to you.

I am not saying that cultural differences between Britain and America can be pinned solely on language. Differences in language are a manifestation of wider cultural differences. I don't recall saying anything else, but apols if I have. Wasn't my intention.

I am also trying very hard to keep racial stereotypes out of this. And I'm trying to avoid being judgmental. The German language tends to develop compound nouns far more readily than English - that much is obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of either language. It's not a good thing or a bad thing, just the way the two languages operate.

English imports more foreign terms than most other languages. That much is also pretty obvious with anyone with eyes to look and ears to hear. I'm not saying it is right or wrong - just a fact of life.

As to why this should happen, we are in the realm of conjecture. The argument put forward by my lecturers was that Britain's history has been a factor in its readiness to accept foreign words. From Celtic to Anglo-Saxon to Romano-British to Norman French/ anglo-saxon to Chaucerian middle english to modern english, our language has constantly shifted and changed. And there can be little doubt that invasion and change of power has had an influence in that process, although of course there have been many other influences. I have also heard the theory that seafaring nations tend to have more foreign terms, which also seems plausible.

As to the number of invasions, we have Roman, Viking, Norman French, Rock and roll, television, the internet and (apparently) Maori :-).

In the recent "sacrifice" debate (!?), <Accdrag> argued that there could be only one definition of the term because it was given in a work which he/she declared was the seminal work on sacrifices. You and I don't agree with this argument. Language is far too flexible and fluid and anyway, who is to say that one book is more authoritative than another?

But I can see why <Accdrag> and others reached for that particular argument. Some nations put more store in rules and logic than others when it comes to definitions of words. Try telling an American that it should be pronounced "leftenant".

Maybe its naive to defend someone who was so rude to me, but I always try to see and respect the other person's point of view.

And what I was looking for was a way out which kept everyone friendly and brought them closer to agreement. Deliberate trolling aside, I think that there was not as much difference between each others' position as there seemed to be.

A little vignette. A few days ago, <patzer2> listed a number of tactical themes involved in a puzzle. I posted to add another: "zwischenzug". He replied "correcting" what I had written to "in between move". At the risk of more racial steretypes, this seems to me to exemplify three different national approaches to language. The original German invention of "zwischenzug" was a typical literal compound noun. Me (a Brit), adopting it was typical of the UK English approach to foreign terms. And <patzer2> "correcting" me, was again fairly understandable in the context of the american tendency towards rule-based language.

But if we are going to cite "invasions" as a vehicle of vocabulary dissemination - and I have no doubt that this is realistic, as far as that goes - wouldn't it make more sense to look to the British history, not as the <invaded>, but as the <invader>?! Not only because the British Empire tended to do a lot more of the latter than the former, but also because it makes a difference in the "willingness factor" of the populace to accept and incorporate the foreign vocabulary in question.

Historically, many subjugated peoples were forced to accept the language, terminology, renaming of their landmarks and cities, etc., by the conquerors - but this was, not too surprisingly, resented - and the original terms were often restored with a relish when independence was regained.

Absolutely! UK English also adopts terms from countries we have invaded or colonised - eg the very large number of words we have adopted from India.

We also adopt words from other cultures without a fight. There is no problem adopting zugwang, zwischenzug, fatwah, jihad, etc.

You are right about subjugated people restoring language and landmarks when the invaders leave. I think that Norman French stayed in the English language because the French never left. Instead, the two languages (court french and anglo-saxon) just gradually merged into each other over time. It was only around the time of Chaucer that there was a single language which was just about recognisable as modern english.

I am definitely not trying to make a politic point about the British as imperialistic invaders or put-upon invaded. Just that UK English adopts foreign terms more readily than most other languages, and that our turbulent past has something to do with it.

I wasn't convinced by this when I read it - but your observations were actually backed up by a study of the "uncertainty avoidance index" that I had looked at earlier today (http://www.clearlycultural.com/geer...) which, as far as I understand itm measures something like the willingness to accept <ambiguity and different points of view>. Here, UK scores lower (=higher tolerance for ambiguity) than US, Germany, and France.

I must admit that I was thinking more about ambiguity and precision in language rather than generally. But it could well apply to other activities as well.

But here's a thought. If a country's occupants have a high tolerance for ambiguity, should that country adopt more restrictive laws or less restrictive?

You could argue it either way. A high tolerance country could adopt high tolerance laws - ie less restrictive. Alternatively a high tolerance country could decide that it needs more laws to keep its dangerously unruly inhabitants in check.

For example, the current UK Government wanted to tackle racial and sexual discrimination. It decided to do this through legislation such as the Disability Discrimination Act and setting up the Equalities Commission. The problem with this approach is that legislation and quangos are a fairly low tolerance approach. Some people can rebel when forced to do something. An alternative high tolerance approach would have been to tackle problems through information and culture change.

So perhaps Governments and their populace don't always have a consistent approach to their levels of tolerance to ambiguity?

But what does the numbers mean? There does not seem to be a theory or hypothesis let alone can anything really be concluded; a good chance this 'avoidance of uncertainty' has nothing to do with tolerance and laws etc. Even if there would be a statistical relationship it could, for instance, be that in some countries people have got a higher feeling of self-control which makes them feel they can control situations [so they will not have to avoid uncertainty] while on the other hand not needing a lot of rules for they generally think they will get out of it anyway.

On the topic of acceptance of new 'foreign' words [I initially wrote worlds there...] there could be a big factor of anxiety of 'the language' changing. Now, I can only speak about Dutch here but I know the majority of the people think the language deteriorates; 1337-speak, generally bad spelling and the usage of English words for concepts that have perfectly normal Dutch equivalents. I am also aware this was said a hundred years ago and I am equally positive it will still be so in fifty years.

People just can not deal very well with change and see their own language as some static artifact which should be saved from the cruel uncaring outside world instead of a fluid idea. I assume, due to this dogma, all changes are dangerous <especially> when a few languages grow ever more important and others might be driven to extinction. I suppose (theory) a big factor in the acceptance of new words therefore is the observed danger for one's language. It would also mean that, for instance, Spanish speakers and Mandarin Chinese will be more open for new words than, for instance, Swedes.

I'm not wholly convinced by this, btw. The linguistic effect is real enough, as a sort of camouflage: if the English 'oppressors' noticed it at all, they assumed it was just Irish eccentricity. But I'm unsure about the bits that derive from Fanon and Colonialism Theory: I don't think Ireland actually was a colony in the classic sense.

But I'm not sure *anything* was what it was supposed to be 'in the classic sense'. I respect YouRang's aspiration to define terms more clearly: but many words are so contentious, ambiguous and loaded with emotion that definitions may be impossible.

Milton wrote about 'laughter holding both his sides'. If we can personalize abstractions in this way, I'd like to do the same by creating a picture of Oppression stimulating Metaphor.

In practice, the 'fone' words tend to win out in everyday use, with the artificial constructions - fernsprecher et al - only seen in government publications. With some exceptions, notably German.

The reasons include ease of communication internationally - with a device designed for precisely that end, it makes sense to have a common word. And the sounds - phonemes - in 'fone' are available in most languages, which also helps. Thirdly, there's a sort of embarrassment factor involved in talking about 'far-speakers' when everyone knows you mean 'telephone'. Maybe Germans (at the time) were harder to embarrass.

One of the things I loved about my English degree was the poetry that never quite made perfect sense. Did Hamlet really see the ghost of his father or did he just imagine it? Why was William Carlos Williams so obsessed with plums, the red number five and the red wheel barrow, glazed with rain water, besides the white chickens?

In this context, ambiguity fires the imagination. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds could be a coded reference to LSD, or a child's painting, or your mind could spin off into a myriad of different possibilities.

Precision kills poetry as it leaves no room for the reader to add their own thoughts. Doubt and uncertainty are good - sometimes you don't want to turn to the last page to find out that the butler did it. I have no idea whether Dekker was a replicant and frankly I would rather not know.

And then I became a civil servant and learned the dark arts of deliberate ambiguity. We were taught to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but no-one said that we had to tell the whole truth. The perfect answer to a parliamentary question was short, 100% truthful and didn't tell the recipient anything they didn't already know. I became adept at writing letters and speeches that sounded good but said precisely nothing.

In a way, that's why I like the distinction between a true sacrifice and a sham sacrifice. A true sacrifice is incalculable, a risk based on intuition and emotion - a metaphor for life where every action we take is fraught with unknown risks (and possible benefits). It's a young Bobby Fischer giving up his queen in the game of the century against Byrne.

By contrast, a variation that can be calculated to forced mate is a mathematical equation. It's 1.15 metres or 35 degrees. A + B = C. Sure you might chuck some wood along the way, but there's no risk, no metaphor in it, no soul, no humanity.

So yes, there is a difference between a real sacrifice and a sham sacrifice, in the same way that there is a difference between metaphor and precision and between emotional intelligence and programme management.

Haha, that is a great observation. I think the correct way to write helicopter would be <without> the umlaut, since hübsch means cute.

Taken to extremes, you could talk about 'sacrificing' your King safety in return for your opponent's Queen - which sounds a bit like thumping his fist with your chin. But that's a hallmark of ambiguity: it looks silly if reductio ad absurdum is applied.

<Non Material Squeeze - A different squeeze strategy that works against opponents' idle cards rather than the typical squeezes against their guard cards. However, the Non-Material Squeeze still frustrates the opponents' transportation and eliminates tactics such as a throw in play.>

http://bridgehands.com/N/Non-Materi...