Live data from Hacker News

When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

theatlantic.com

81–90 of 108 posts

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#81
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so interesting to consider the deep, Norman French character of the British Monarchy. From the immense impact of French on English vocabulary, to the French mottos of the British Crown ("Dieu et Mon Droit") and the Order of the Garter...to the fact that British monarchs claimed themselves kings of Frances FOR CENTURIES: https://www.wikiwand.com/simple/English_claims_to_the_French...

It's even more recent than the norman french from a 1000 years ago. The standard english accent ( King's English ) was intentionally "effeminized" to mimic the french language in the 1800s ( when french was viewed as lingua franca and "cultured"). It's one of the reasons why Standard American accent and Standard British accent diverged. The standard american accent was the way the brits used to speak.

The claim behind this is fairly narrowly specific. Namely the distinction in pronunciation between "pass", "bath", "laugh" is sometimes attributed to French influence, since French also saw a lengthening of some sounds before at least -s. The s has since been removed, and the length distinction is weak in metropolitan France. Some example words and earlier English borrowings are castle — château, paste — pâte.

It is unlikely to be correct. The environments, though related, are non-identical. The vowel systems were radically different - English had some long vowels and some short vowels. French had only one length. English actually had a bit of a whole in its vowel system at that location - long vowel and short vowels everywhere except for the area round "trap", "Goth", when there were two short vowels and, recently, no long vowels (since "name" had moved forwards and kept moving forwards till it was caught into the vortex of merging sounds that created the modern pronunciation of words like day, they, weigh, break - once all pronounced differently).

At the exact same time, English was witnessing various other changes. The vowel in "Goth" was low at the time, and lengthened too. The vowel in "water", "what" (lengthend and) retracted. The vowel in "bar" failed to change when the vowel in "bat" moved forwards. Some of the changes were motivated at filling the hole introduced by the merger of "name" with "rain".

Indeed, this means it actually happened _prior_ to the American split, since these changes are present in America too. And it is, partially, represented in American English ("father" if taken narrowly, or the fact that many Americans who distinguish "cot" and "caught" say "caugh", "long", "dog" as "cawff", "lawng", "dawg" — and indeed, if you believe one credible hypothesis, the fact that so many Americans have merged "cot" and "caught" because there was too much variation between those sounds).

In both America and English, there was options. America ended up standardising on lengthened Goth, shortened path. England, to the extent that it standardised, did so on shortened Goth, lengthened path. But these happened at around the same time from roots planted prior to the linguistic separation of the two countries.

So you can see it seems the English change was wholly internally motivated. The only possible exception is that another major source of the broad a - in words like "dance" and and "enchanted" - was indeed an attempt to mimic the French nasal vowels. Ever since these words were adopted in the middle ages, some people had said them as "daunce" and "enchaunted" and "laundry" and "haunted" and "aunt" and some people had said them as a "dance" and "enchanted" and "landry" and "hanted" and "ant". In those days, "au" was pronunced like in German - maybe how you say "how". And you can see that the spellings don't have any particular preference in coming from one pronunciation scheme or the other. The standard English accent derives from the pronunciations that did not always feed the spelling, and the standard American accent derives from pronunciations that di not always feed the spelling. The only reason it's slightly obscure is that the sound spelt "au" sometimes became "ah" and sometimes became the modern English "aw" sound. In "calm", it became "ah". In "walk", it became "aw". So the standard British choice was "daunce", "enchaunted", spelt as "dance", "enchanted", and pronounced with the variant of "calm". The only bit of copying the French came centuries before the American colonies.

The true history of the Early Modern English low vowels remains to be written. But that's as fair a summary of it as you'll find on the social medias.

The Americans deliberately copied the French meaning of "billion", and then the French, seeing the Americans were using it, threw it away and stole the British meaning of "billion". The British held onto their tradition for a while, but they have no strong desire to align with the French, so it was really only a matter of time till, in the last generations, they adopted the American meaning.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#82
post #75

Had this happened, it makes you wonder if this UK-France union would have similar issues to what is experienced in Quebec, Canada and to the non-French speaking Canada.

Curious to understand more about this. Can you point me to some material/links if it's okay please?

A good place to start is probably Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_sovereignty_movement

I would caution, however, that there aren't any big issues on a day to day basis. It is more of a simmering undercurrent of separatist sentiment that waxes and wanes with time.

Edit: one might compare it to the "problems" experienced by Scotland within the UK.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#83
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably the most multi-racial and integrated country in the world. After all, the favourite British dish is curry.

The UK population is ~87% white. The US is at 77%. As to relative degrees of integration, I don't know how you'd measure it, but the UK has its own serious struggles on that front.

Yeah, but no city I've ever been to has matched London for diversity. It truly feels like the world embedded in one city. I love it dearly.

Rural Wales has always seemed a bit racially non-diverse with the resulting odd views that come from that.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#84
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "Standard American accent" is just vaguely midwestern, and it's not how the British used to speak. There is some support for it being closer than some modern British accents, e.g., they are both rhotic.

By “standard American accent” I think he meant Southern accent.

He meant what he said, thinking about the accent you get on contemporary tv and in today's cinema. He's wrong, but the view that American English is a better guide to Early Modern English pronunciation than British pronunciation is widespread.

I think there's many holes in the theory, based on a much-too-simple view, but there probably had been some enlightenment to be derived from the theory up till about seventy years ago (I don't mean the old American stage accent - the mid-Atlantic accent - I mean the normal American accent on the street). If you started with RP and then added standard AmE to that, you probably would have felt you made lots of progress to your understanding of EMnE - Americans retain lots of r's and their "a" had probably a more conservative distribution in some sense. Their accent is more strongly influenced by non-rhotic English than rhotic parts of Britain, though.

Nowadays, their "o" has innovated and "a" has innovated in many respects too. Americans have kept reducing distinctions before r, so that they say "shirly" instead of "surely" and no distinction is made between long and short vowels before /r/. The length distinction has weakened further, so that the claim often seen "English doesn't have long-short vowels, but tense-lax vowels", though not accurate, is less unfair now than it would have been a century ago. The rounded vowels have caught up with, and in many cases overtaken, the drift forward started earlier in England. (I'm pretty sure America is planning to outdo Greek with the number of sounds that merge as /i/.)

No language stands still, especially not in a highly mobile empire. Colonial lag applies to the periphery, but America is now surely the centre of English development.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#85
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is hilarious. Are you really suggesting that our favourite dish is evidence of successful multi-racialism and integration? Come to Yorkshire. Integrated is the last word I'd use to describe Bradford, Huddersfield, Dewsbury...

I was born in Halifax, and my brother lives there. Seems OK to me. But I speak from the perspective of someone that lives in London, in Wood Green, and you could not get anywhere more diverse and yet integrated.

Halifax is 87% white though. Much higher than Bradford and Huddersfield. I specifically mentioned Yorkshire (being not London) as I suspected you were thinking of London. At 12% of your population it’s not representative of the U.K (though neither is Yorkshire of course)

I wonder what the demographic of Skirtcoat Green are compared to the western part of the town. It’s my impression that the small Asian communities live in certain parts and there is not much of a mix.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#86
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's…

Have a look at British rule in India. You will understand the full horrors of colonialism.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#87
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, "How William The Bastard became William The Conqueror"

A more interesting transformation is William of Orange leading "the Dutch invasion of Great Britain" vs "The Glorious Revolution" as we now call it.

Well I mean, it's some invasion when it starts because Parliament sends you a letter saying "Hey come invade us, and we'll give you the crown". I mean, who's in charge? Is a country just its prince?

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#88

Had this happened, it makes you wonder if this UK-France union would have similar issues to what is experienced in Quebec, Canada and to the non-French speaking Canada.

Well, with the rUK at 48 million and France at 42 million, I guess they would have been much more equal. Probably England and France would have had about the same number of seats in Parliament. It probably would eased the Quebec situation quite a bit. But once they wanted to go their separate ways, I think it would have happened fairly smoothly.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#89
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, yes, we probably should; both are implausible.

Macron admitted in 2018 that the French would probably have voted to leave the EU in a UK-style referendum. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/21/emmanuel-macro...

Most people who become national leaders are not as foolish as Cameron. And a lot has changed since then. And without a ditch to separate them from their fellows across the way, it's likely that any attempt to Frexit would result in the EU being destroyed and then recreated. People live in the border zones - they're not just distant marches.

Re: When Britain and France Almost Merged into One Country (2017)

#90
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1066? Lucky for us that Britain and France didn't get along or the US War of Independence would not have succeeded.

Sincere question here - was it really that lucky? Other colonies that didn't separate seem to have a similar (occasionally even higher) standard of living than the US. Were a lot of really good things caused by the independence of the US? Just off hand, it seems like slavery likely would have ended much sooner and the rise of fascism in Europe could have been greatly abated with a non-independent US. Of course, it's…

Britain was only as eager to renounce slavery because they had no colonies that profited from it after American independence. Also, the rise of fascism in Europe was abated pretty effectively with an independent US anyway.
Post reply on HN