www.ditl.org

You got caught up in Mikey's mistake, and one of my pet irritations - referring to this country as "England". England hasn't been an independent state since the Act of Union, 1707. There's certainly been trade, including with the CSA, but it was done by the UK, not England.

Captain Seafort wrote:You got caught up in Mikey's mistake, and one of my pet irritations - referring to this country as "England". England hasn't been an independent state since the Act of Union, 1707. There's certainly been trade, including with the CSA, but it was done by the UK, not England.

And you, Seafort, knw damn well that "England" is common vernacular for the UK as well as the particular member nation east of Wales and south of Scotland. You yourself have referred to my nation as "America" when, in fact, there is no country of that name.

Mikey wrote:And you, Seafort, knw damn well that "England" is common vernacular for the UK as well as the particular member nation east of Wales and south of Scotland.

So?

You yourself have referred to my nation as "America" when, in fact, there is no country of that name.

On a few occasions I probably have. You will note, however, that I make every effort to refer to it as the US.

Captain Seafort wrote:So?

So... why would you bother correcting a term that you know is meant in the correct context, and just bears the difference of being idiomatic? If you refer to my state as "Jersey," I wouldn't assume that you don't know the difference between the place once known as Caesarea and the state in which I reside, nor would I ascribe some ludicrous notion of malice toward such usage. Wouldn't you think it odd if every time someone used the term "America" to refer to my country, I asked them which continent do they mean, North or South?

Mikey wrote:Wouldn't you think it odd if every time someone used the term "America" to refer to my country, I asked them which continent do they mean, North or South?

Not particularly, but that might be me. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if a Canadian complained about getting lumped in with you. In the case in question, consider yourself lucky that it was just me registering a mild complaint at my bit of of the country being used as shorthand for the whole thing - if you'd accused some bolshy Jock of being English then there would have been fireworks.

Captain Seafort wrote:some bolshy Jock

#1 - I would never use vernacular like that when referring to someone's ancestry which is very specific geographically. In fact, I doubt I would even use something even as generic as the name of a country.

#2 - Over here, "jock" refers to an athlete, and is usually a derogatory term with the added context of "someone who has developed their physical skills and let their intellect atrophy." In this sense, do you mean "Northern Irishman," "Scot," or "Welshman?"

On a few occasions I probably have. You will note, however, that I make every effort to refer to it as the US.

Technically, US is incorrect as well. There's an A after it, which is key to denoting the location of the world we are in.

Doesn't matter much to me though. I just call it "dirt I live on".

My people called it "maize".





...No wait, that's corn. I think we pretty much called it "dirt we live on" as well.

My people call it "the dirt we took from the people who lived here first".

Mikey wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:some bolshy Jock

#2 - Over here, "jock" refers to an athlete, and is usually a derogatory term with the added context of "someone who has developed their physical skills and let their intellect atrophy." In this sense, do you mean "Northern Irishman," "Scot," or "Welshman?"

Jock is common derogative slang from the English for a Scotsman.

Deepcrush wrote:My people call it "the dirt we took from the people who lived here first".

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:My people call it "the dirt we took from the people who lived here first".

At least I was nice about it...

Reliant121 wrote:Jock is common derogative slang from the English for a Scotsman.

Really? A people who couldn't find a dentist if they tried have the need to insult someone for being bigger then them?

stitch626 wrote:Technically, US is incorrect as well.

It's good enough - there are plenty of documents around referring to "these United States".

Captain Seafort wrote:

stitch626 wrote:Technically, US is incorrect as well.

It's good enough - there are plenty of documents around referring to "these United States".

Of course they would, they are internal documents.

If I live in Boston, I and I'm over in Cape Cod, I don't need to tell someone who lives in Massachusetts that I live in Boston, Mass. Its unnecessary. However, speaking to someone outside the US, I may need to be specific (even to the point of country, depending on geo knowledge).


Now, if you found a documanet outside saying "those United States", my argument would be completely moot. And it would be kinda funny.