The UK culturally approriating USA culture

ttaskmaster said:
And the Saxons were a Germanic people - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_peoples
Click to expand...

I know. We have to remember that English people were mostly from the Saxon lands too. Before we (Saxon's) came to these shores mostly celtic derived languages were spoken. Also Latin was in use from the Roman invasions.

The Saxon language that we brought here eventually became Old English. The Saxon language that remained in what is now Germany became Old Saxon, and developed in to Low German, and then eventually to the German we hear today.

When I learned some basic Saxon, forgot most of it now lol, it was easy to recognise both English and German words.
 
Last edited:
11 pages on and i'm still amused that people lose their **** over usage of another perfectly appropriate word simply because it's from America, yet we don't get 11-page threads about the outright retardedness on the internet of using dank/rocking/thicc etc etc and any other countless examples of trying to be cool by butchering a language by using totally inappropriate or misspelled words. FFS, eg - lift/elevator. it lifts things. it elevates things. what's the problem? it's just because you're racist against Americans, right?
 
wolfie138 said:
11 pages on and i'm still amused that people lose their **** over usage of another perfectly appropriate word simply because it's from America, yet we don't get 11-page threads about the outright retardedness on the internet of using dank/rocking/thicc etc etc and any other countless examples of trying to be cool by butchering a language by using totally inappropriate or misspelled words. FFS, eg - lift/elevator. it lifts things. it elevates things. what's the problem? it's just because you're racist against Americans, right?
Click to expand...


I think that's because there's no debate there.


That thread woupd jist be "everyone agreeing thier idiots"
 
CHokKA said:
How can "I could care less" possibly be a stronger depth of feeling on a subject that you're not interested in? If anything, it conveys a sense that you actually do care about the subject and could care a little less if you tried.

"I couldn't care less" means you don't care at all. "I could care less" doesn't make sense in this context.

I have no idea how people come up with stuff like this and use it in daily life. It makes you sound foolish. It's like "bought" vs "brought". How people get to "brought" as a form of "bought" is beyond me. Nevermind...
Click to expand...

Once more unto the breach dear friends, or close the wall up with our English misconceptions, or misinterpretations.
I cannot agree more with you CHokKA, that in its written, and then read form, I could care less means, that if I tried, I could care a little less about something.
I’m saying, that in its articulated, or enunciated form, “I could care less”, particularly when uttered vehemently, conveys a stronger depth of feeling (to me), of what the speaker feels about the subject, he doesn’t want to acknowledge it at all.
I totally recognise your grammar as correct though, as always.
 
Jean-F said:
Once more unto the breach dear friends, or close the wall up with our English misconceptions, or misinterpretations.
I cannot agree more with you CHokKA, that in its written, and then read form, I could care less means, that if I tried, I could care a little less about something.
I’m saying, that in its articulated, or enunciated form, “I could care less”, particularly when uttered vehemently, conveys a stronger depth of feeling (to me), of what the speaker feels about the subject, he doesn’t want to acknowledge it at all.
I totally recognise your grammar as correct though, as always.
Click to expand...
Well then you need to improve your conveyance receiving ability :p
 
Jean-F said:
Once more unto the breach dear friends, or close the wall up with our English misconceptions, or misinterpretations.
I cannot agree more with you CHokKA, that in its written, and then read form, I could care less means, that if I tried, I could care a little less about something.
I’m saying, that in its articulated, or enunciated form, “I could care less”, particularly when uttered vehemently, conveys a stronger depth of feeling (to me), of what the speaker feels about the subject, he doesn’t want to acknowledge it at all.
I totally recognise your grammar as correct though, as always.
Click to expand...
That makes no sense.

You're suggesting someone who 'could' care less about something cares less that someone who doesn't care at all?
 
Jean-F said:
Once more unto the breach dear friends, or close the wall up with our English misconceptions, or misinterpretations.
I cannot agree more with you CHokKA, that in its written, and then read form, I could care less means, that if I tried, I could care a little less about something.
I’m saying, that in its articulated, or enunciated form, “I could care less”, particularly when uttered vehemently, conveys a stronger depth of feeling (to me), of what the speaker feels about the subject, he doesn’t want to acknowledge it at all.
I totally recognise your grammar as correct though, as always.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning for using something knowingly incorrectly hurts my brain to be honest. I just don't get why someone would choose to say something incorrectly when they know it to be just that. Are you trying to be cool or something by going against the grain?

It's not a question of grammar. The phrase is incorrect and no matter how vehemently you utter "I could care less", you could shout it, it still doesn't have the meaning you're trying to convey. Utterly baffling to be honest...
 
Americans are culturally appropriating us by speaking English.

Also they took our political satire way to far and voted for a meme to be president.
 
One thing I don't like these days is how much American news we get on our TV.

I was having a nice relax the other day and switched to the radio listings and noticed the radio 4 drama starting. The information said something like "Aliens are about to invade the world. Most of the leaders were making preparations, apart from Trump who called it fake news".

The media are not only talking about Trump 24/7 but they are forcing it on people in every walk of life. I can understand some people might have their preferences but keep that to political hour.
 
BowdonUK said:
One thing I don't like these days is how much American news we get on our TV.

I was having a nice relax the other day and switched to the radio listings and noticed the radio 4 drama starting. The information said something like "Aliens are about to invade the world. Most of the leaders were making preparations, apart from Trump who called it fake news".

The media are not only talking about Trump 24/7 but they are forcing it on people in every walk of life. I can understand some people might have their preferences but keep that to political hour.
Click to expand...

Surely you are not suggesting the BBC have some sort of bias? Never, I cannot believe this ;)
 
BowdonUK said:
One thing I don't like these days is how much American news we get on our TV.

I was having a nice relax the other day and switched to the radio listings and noticed the radio 4 drama starting. The information said something like "Aliens are about to invade the world. Most of the leaders were making preparations, apart from Trump who called it fake news".

The media are not only talking about Trump 24/7 but they are forcing it on people in every walk of life. I can understand some people might have their preferences but keep that to political hour.
Click to expand...

i assume you've had a thought to yourself before posting this, and decided that the BBC have other articles and news that they think the readers would prefer to read based on the statistics that they are forever analysing, but thought, screw it, let's go with a story on america as we want that in the news rather than a story our users want to read? in no way have they over the last x amount of years noticed a preference for american news from their readers so just giving them what they want? can't be possible.
 
Fairly sure the answer is no said:
i assume you've had a thought to yourself before posting this, and decided that the BBC have other articles and news that they think the readers would prefer to read based on the statistics that they are forever analysing, but thought, screw it, let's go with a story on america as we want that in the news rather than a story our users want to read? in no way have they over the last x amount of years noticed a preference for american news from their readers so just giving them what they want? can't be possible.
Click to expand...

Interestingly if you have ever visited the US they are the opposite of 'British' news in that its nearly all national news, whereas our news seems to be mostly international.
 
BowdonUK said:
Interestingly if you have ever visited the US they are the opposite of 'British' news in that its nearly all national news, whereas our news seems to be mostly international.
Click to expand...

Just a wild stab here, but there’s a fair chance that a lot more things of national interest probably occur within the 3.8 million square miles that make up the U.S. than the admittedly major events that happen outside it.
Conversely, I guess that there are more interesting things happening every day outside the 93.5 thousand square miles of U.K. than occur inside it, ergo, our TV news will have more foreign stories.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom