The origins of this song are shrouded in mystery. Having evolved something in the late 16th Century, there are versions which are almost never played including verses "To Crush the Scots". As the national anthem for Great Britain, it's place is virtually unique having never been adopted and over a country that is actually made up for 4 others.
When Australia played Great Britain in the Rugby League last night, this song was sung, and I happened to make the comment that within four year that this will probably be replaced with "God Save The King".
In the USA this is perhaps better known as "America" with the first line of "My country, 'tis of thee", and when I saw England play Lichtenstein in a Euro 2004 qualifier, they played England's national anthem "Land of Hope and Glory" followed by "God Save The King" which serves as Lichtenstein's national anthem. Perhaps people in the crowd may have know this, but it was interesting to hear an English crowd singing the national anthem of another country.
In the German film "Titanic" of 1943, the song was used as a propaganda instrument, but in all honesty if you saw this film through the eyes of the English at the time, they would have thought that it was in fact a British film.
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
Showing posts with label report. Show all posts
November 05, 2006
October 31, 2006
Horse 653 - Nohackember
Mr B has come up with an interesting idea. Following on from the familiar Rocktober in which music is to be played at 11 or louder the month that follows is to be called Nohackember. The idea is that there is to be no hacking during the month of November. This however leaves me with a quandry based on the definition of hack.
Hack -
1.(verb) to cut, notch, slice, chop, or sever (something) with or as with heavy, irregular blows (often fol. by up or down).
2.(verb) to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle
This is pretty straightforward. The broad definition of the verb implies that during Nohackember, we aren't supposed to cut each other down. This sounds like a good idea but I'd like to see certain statutes of limitations on it.
What happens for instance if someone actually needs pulling down from their pedastal? If someone is doing something stupid then do they need hacking? Gentleness and kindness should be the key drivers here. I see a major exception that could be argued - does Nohackember include everyone in the world? Would I lose my right to cynicism in the name of humour?
How about on immutable issues such as what is right and wrong, perceived injusticies, having a whinge or on the subject of Man Utd? These things need hacking, no?
Hack -
1.(noun) a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts.
2.(noun) a writer who works on the staff of a publisher at a dull or routine task; someone who works as a literary drudge.
The other definition directly affects this column. I could be described as a hack very easily, though I've not seen any reward for my "quality" journalistic talent. If you want it, you can buy it. Golden Arches on the banners, Samsung on my tie, cash for comments, I'll do it to a degree. If someone wants to pay me $1,000,000 to write a puff piece on SUVs then I'll do it.
One thing you can't buy however is my integrity, I will remain the voice of reason. Statistics tell me that over 50 people a day pass through the doors to this little off-ramp on the information super-highway, and you know why? I might spout crap, but it's a different kind of crap En quatre couleurs.
So then, I fail under both conditions for Nohackember unless of course in typically Rolloesque fashion, I change the rules. Nohackember becomes... No hack; ember! In other words, give up merely cutting people down but raze them to the ground. It's a brand new age of illumination I tell you - well you cant actually be any more illuminated then being on fire can you? Or is that incinerated?
Hack -
1.(verb) to cut, notch, slice, chop, or sever (something) with or as with heavy, irregular blows (often fol. by up or down).
2.(verb) to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle
This is pretty straightforward. The broad definition of the verb implies that during Nohackember, we aren't supposed to cut each other down. This sounds like a good idea but I'd like to see certain statutes of limitations on it.
What happens for instance if someone actually needs pulling down from their pedastal? If someone is doing something stupid then do they need hacking? Gentleness and kindness should be the key drivers here. I see a major exception that could be argued - does Nohackember include everyone in the world? Would I lose my right to cynicism in the name of humour?
How about on immutable issues such as what is right and wrong, perceived injusticies, having a whinge or on the subject of Man Utd? These things need hacking, no?
Hack -
1.(noun) a person, as an artist or writer, who exploits, for money, his or her creative ability or training in the production of dull, unimaginative, and trite work; one who produces banal and mediocre work in the hope of gaining commercial success in the arts.
2.(noun) a writer who works on the staff of a publisher at a dull or routine task; someone who works as a literary drudge.
The other definition directly affects this column. I could be described as a hack very easily, though I've not seen any reward for my "quality" journalistic talent. If you want it, you can buy it. Golden Arches on the banners, Samsung on my tie, cash for comments, I'll do it to a degree. If someone wants to pay me $1,000,000 to write a puff piece on SUVs then I'll do it.
One thing you can't buy however is my integrity, I will remain the voice of reason. Statistics tell me that over 50 people a day pass through the doors to this little off-ramp on the information super-highway, and you know why? I might spout crap, but it's a different kind of crap En quatre couleurs.
So then, I fail under both conditions for Nohackember unless of course in typically Rolloesque fashion, I change the rules. Nohackember becomes... No hack; ember! In other words, give up merely cutting people down but raze them to the ground. It's a brand new age of illumination I tell you - well you cant actually be any more illuminated then being on fire can you? Or is that incinerated?
October 30, 2006
Horse 652 - A Thought
Here's a thought.
.
..
...
....
.....
......
.......
........
.........
..........
...........................................................................100% - done.
Today's thought is:
I rather like ginger snaps.
Yes, that'll do. I might think of something else later.
October 27, 2006
Horse 649 - We Still Don't Like Your Taxes
In 1775 the American Revolution was sparked over the imposition of a tax on foodstuffs and in particular tea, which was viewed as tyrannical and opressive. 231 years later another row has broken out over taxation, and in this case it's actually on British soil.
The U.S. Embassy in London owes more than £1,000,000 for the Vehicle Congestion Charge in London. City of London authorities say the charge on driving in the centre of the city is a road toll and diplomats have to pay it like anyone else. Washington says it is a tax and diplomats are exempt.
The U.S. Embassy has refused to pay the charge since July 2005. Several other embassies have also refused but London says the U.S. embassy is the worst offender by far. London's outspoken Mayor Ken Livingstone caused a flap earlier this year when he branded U.S. ambassador Robert Tuttle a "chiselling little crook" for refusing to pay.
Drivers who fail to pay the daily £8 charge by midnight the following day face a fine of up to £150.
"It is for the British authorities to decide what is a tax and what is not a tax in the UK," Livingstone said. "Both the UK government and the Greater London Authority consider the congestion charge a charge for a service: reduced congestion. The U.S. Embassy benefits from the reduction in congestion."
He said British diplomats in the United States paid American tolls and charges. "U.S. diplomats should respect British law and pay the congestion charge," he added. The U.S. Embassy has not made an official comment but has previously said its lawyers believe diplomats are exempt from the charge under treaty.
Politically is this different to say Iraq, in which the U.S. was exempt from international law?
The U.S. Embassy in London owes more than £1,000,000 for the Vehicle Congestion Charge in London. City of London authorities say the charge on driving in the centre of the city is a road toll and diplomats have to pay it like anyone else. Washington says it is a tax and diplomats are exempt.
The U.S. Embassy has refused to pay the charge since July 2005. Several other embassies have also refused but London says the U.S. embassy is the worst offender by far. London's outspoken Mayor Ken Livingstone caused a flap earlier this year when he branded U.S. ambassador Robert Tuttle a "chiselling little crook" for refusing to pay.
Drivers who fail to pay the daily £8 charge by midnight the following day face a fine of up to £150.
"It is for the British authorities to decide what is a tax and what is not a tax in the UK," Livingstone said. "Both the UK government and the Greater London Authority consider the congestion charge a charge for a service: reduced congestion. The U.S. Embassy benefits from the reduction in congestion."
He said British diplomats in the United States paid American tolls and charges. "U.S. diplomats should respect British law and pay the congestion charge," he added. The U.S. Embassy has not made an official comment but has previously said its lawyers believe diplomats are exempt from the charge under treaty.
Politically is this different to say Iraq, in which the U.S. was exempt from international law?
October 20, 2006
Horse 646 - Technically Speaking
I found that when I was in America, people commented on my accent being distinctly different. This is quite obvious, but the differences between the two broad classes actually have to do with construction of vowels and more specifically the glottal stop. This in fact somewhat strange as both are more or less decended from Irish variants - in the case of America this was because of emmigration and Australia it was more to do with transportation, so the formaer rather than then latter should have a "richer class" of speaker.
Dialect does have a great deal to contribute as well, with Australia picking up Cockney and Northern turns of phrase, reflecting the criminal element on which the country was started. At any rate the techincal differences are vast, and the following are the distinct causes I think.
In many areas the American "t", when not the initial consonant in a word, is pronounced closer to a "d", and in some cases can disappear altogether. Thus latter and butter sounds more like ladder and budder, and words like twenty and dentist can sound like twenny and Dennis. Why do Americans pronounce t as d? Perhaps because to pronounce the frequent "r"s at the end of words ending in "-er" it is easier to say "-der" than "-ter".
In Britain, "t" is generally pronounced like a "t", but there are areas the glottal stop is very well known. This is the sound in between the two vowels in uh-oh, or the initial consonant in honest. In these two examples, and others like them, the glottal stop occurs as much in America as in Britain. But the glottal stop that replaces the "t" in the Cockney and Glasgow dialects is much stronger; imagine bracing for a punch in the belly when you make the sound.
As an interesting side note, Americans sometimes replace the "d" in a British word with a "t", as if hypercorrecting "d" back into the more "correct" "t". I"ve heard "Wimbleton" on ESPN and FOX Sports, found that spelling in the Webster's which is the major American encyclopedia, and whilst looking, even found cases of "Wimpleton". This confusion is borne out by Americans trying to imitate a Cockney accent by putting a glottal stop in place of "d" instead of "t" , which sounds quite odd to an English person.
In Britain, the glottal stop occurs in informal speech in many areas, although with Estuary English, perhaps not informal anymore. The association of the glottal stop with lower classes or Cockneys typically also includes dropping of "h"s , and dropping the g in -ing words.
The other major difference that I was told about specifically with me was that I'll insert "l" and remove "r" from certain words. This lies in the almost unique aspect of Australian English that we have very sharp vowels but are a non-rhotic nation.
Rhotic speakers will pronounce the r in barn, park, cart, fart, whereas non-rhotic speakers won't, making no distinction between barn and (auto)bahn. Most of America is rhotic, with the notable exception of the Boston area and New York City. SE Britain is apparently the source of non-rhotic. England is non-rhotic, apart from the SW and some ever-diminishing northern areas. Scotland and Ireland are rhotic. In the movie The Princess Bride, the bishop (Peter Cook) over-emphasized the non-rhotic accent by loudly announcing "mawidge" (marriage), and Americans often joke about eastern New Englanders who "pahk the cah in Hahvahd yahd".
In Britain, the non-rhotic accent gives rise to linking "r"s, where an otherwise unpronounced "r", in "clear", is pronounced if followed by a vowel, "clear away". An intrusive "r" is an "r" added in such a situation where none actually exists, so "law and order" becomes "law ran order". In some cases, there is even hypercorrection, such as adding an "r" (Louisa - Louiser), especially when a non-rhotic person moves to a rhotic area. But if Clair hears the "r" she'll correct you.
In contrast, in the North and Scotland, r's roll stronger. Even d's can be r'd. I've been called a bluhreeiree (bloody idiot) a few times. Worse is the fact that Scottish and Geordie have stolen words from Gaelic; Scottish Gaelic is different to Irish Gaelic which futher fuels the confusion. The quaint term to refer to one's children as bairns falls hopelessly into incredulity if you happened to mention the great Scotsman Robbie Burns. Inadvertanly Scots and Geordies may actually be speaking about his children, and if "bairns" are in the "burns unit" in "burnside" you'll have a right old mess.
So then, where does this leave me? Well thankfully thanks to McTelevision and the great and powerful Beeb, Australians in general have no problem in understanding Americans or Brits. Conversely because of the way that Australian sounds are constructed, they can in fact pick up everyone else's accents easily with either coaching or by immersion. Americans on the other hand always sound odd when affecting any British accent, except for Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones, but that's due to very strict & formal coaching.
Dialect does have a great deal to contribute as well, with Australia picking up Cockney and Northern turns of phrase, reflecting the criminal element on which the country was started. At any rate the techincal differences are vast, and the following are the distinct causes I think.
In many areas the American "t", when not the initial consonant in a word, is pronounced closer to a "d", and in some cases can disappear altogether. Thus latter and butter sounds more like ladder and budder, and words like twenty and dentist can sound like twenny and Dennis. Why do Americans pronounce t as d? Perhaps because to pronounce the frequent "r"s at the end of words ending in "-er" it is easier to say "-der" than "-ter".
In Britain, "t" is generally pronounced like a "t", but there are areas the glottal stop is very well known. This is the sound in between the two vowels in uh-oh, or the initial consonant in honest. In these two examples, and others like them, the glottal stop occurs as much in America as in Britain. But the glottal stop that replaces the "t" in the Cockney and Glasgow dialects is much stronger; imagine bracing for a punch in the belly when you make the sound.
As an interesting side note, Americans sometimes replace the "d" in a British word with a "t", as if hypercorrecting "d" back into the more "correct" "t". I"ve heard "Wimbleton" on ESPN and FOX Sports, found that spelling in the Webster's which is the major American encyclopedia, and whilst looking, even found cases of "Wimpleton". This confusion is borne out by Americans trying to imitate a Cockney accent by putting a glottal stop in place of "d" instead of "t" , which sounds quite odd to an English person.
In Britain, the glottal stop occurs in informal speech in many areas, although with Estuary English, perhaps not informal anymore. The association of the glottal stop with lower classes or Cockneys typically also includes dropping of "h"s , and dropping the g in -ing words.
The other major difference that I was told about specifically with me was that I'll insert "l" and remove "r" from certain words. This lies in the almost unique aspect of Australian English that we have very sharp vowels but are a non-rhotic nation.
Rhotic speakers will pronounce the r in barn, park, cart, fart, whereas non-rhotic speakers won't, making no distinction between barn and (auto)bahn. Most of America is rhotic, with the notable exception of the Boston area and New York City. SE Britain is apparently the source of non-rhotic. England is non-rhotic, apart from the SW and some ever-diminishing northern areas. Scotland and Ireland are rhotic. In the movie The Princess Bride, the bishop (Peter Cook) over-emphasized the non-rhotic accent by loudly announcing "mawidge" (marriage), and Americans often joke about eastern New Englanders who "pahk the cah in Hahvahd yahd".
In Britain, the non-rhotic accent gives rise to linking "r"s, where an otherwise unpronounced "r", in "clear", is pronounced if followed by a vowel, "clear away". An intrusive "r" is an "r" added in such a situation where none actually exists, so "law and order" becomes "law ran order". In some cases, there is even hypercorrection, such as adding an "r" (Louisa - Louiser), especially when a non-rhotic person moves to a rhotic area. But if Clair hears the "r" she'll correct you.
In contrast, in the North and Scotland, r's roll stronger. Even d's can be r'd. I've been called a bluhreeiree (bloody idiot) a few times. Worse is the fact that Scottish and Geordie have stolen words from Gaelic; Scottish Gaelic is different to Irish Gaelic which futher fuels the confusion. The quaint term to refer to one's children as bairns falls hopelessly into incredulity if you happened to mention the great Scotsman Robbie Burns. Inadvertanly Scots and Geordies may actually be speaking about his children, and if "bairns" are in the "burns unit" in "burnside" you'll have a right old mess.
So then, where does this leave me? Well thankfully thanks to McTelevision and the great and powerful Beeb, Australians in general have no problem in understanding Americans or Brits. Conversely because of the way that Australian sounds are constructed, they can in fact pick up everyone else's accents easily with either coaching or by immersion. Americans on the other hand always sound odd when affecting any British accent, except for Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones, but that's due to very strict & formal coaching.
September 18, 2006
Horse 631 - 3rd & A
Sometimes upon entering a foreign land I'm filled with a sense of adventure and an almost foreboding sense of the unknown, like some vast cloud and a gap of knowledge has become blatantly apparant. Somehow when I entered the US, things were pretty well much the same, as though the country had been familiar despite never setting foot here before.
This is no more so obvious than with the people I meet. I'm sure they all find me to be rather different considering I speak with what must sound like a foreign tongue and I'm told reliably by Katja that people might think I'm weird (as if that we're a problem because let's face it, even in my own country this is still the case) but even then I don't feel particularly like an outsider; to be honest I think it might be a case of curiosity on their part.
With the email transmissions flying back and forth between Katja and myself for quite sometime, I in no way feel anywhere else like home. If this week I was supposed to be somewhere then this is it. It's not hard to feel loved, not when you have one as precious right next to you.
The Lord himself as the author and perfector of both our lives and our travellings has every day pre-written before even a single one has come to be. I'm becoming painfully aware that although I might be a repository of a hoarde of useless information, and indeed know quite a lot about how the world operates, in reality I like Issac Newton "have stood on the shoulders of giants" and "don't know 1% of 1% of anything" .
Some things however are truth cast in iron. (eye-on? aye-ron?) Awe hang it.
Time has been corrected to be correct as at here, which is both ahead and yesterday.
This is no more so obvious than with the people I meet. I'm sure they all find me to be rather different considering I speak with what must sound like a foreign tongue and I'm told reliably by Katja that people might think I'm weird (as if that we're a problem because let's face it, even in my own country this is still the case) but even then I don't feel particularly like an outsider; to be honest I think it might be a case of curiosity on their part.
With the email transmissions flying back and forth between Katja and myself for quite sometime, I in no way feel anywhere else like home. If this week I was supposed to be somewhere then this is it. It's not hard to feel loved, not when you have one as precious right next to you.
The Lord himself as the author and perfector of both our lives and our travellings has every day pre-written before even a single one has come to be. I'm becoming painfully aware that although I might be a repository of a hoarde of useless information, and indeed know quite a lot about how the world operates, in reality I like Issac Newton "have stood on the shoulders of giants" and "don't know 1% of 1% of anything" .
Some things however are truth cast in iron. (eye-on? aye-ron?) Awe hang it.
Time has been corrected to be correct as at here, which is both ahead and yesterday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)