PDA

View Full Version : French Revolution



silverstar
09 Jan 08,, 15:44
The Bastille was stormed in summer of 1789 and perhaps
that event was the first signal that the days of the
French Monarchy and aristocratic rule were numbered.


The French King had supported the revolutionaries in America
with finance and arms.
The French were taking quiet satisfaction in seeing those
upstart colonists putting the British nose out of joint.


Perhaps the French did nt realise that those revolutionary ideas
would soon cross the Atlantic and threaten their own society.

That the very same King who had given aid and comfort to the rebels would one day climb the scaffold to face the guillotine and the humiliation of a public execution.

(Perhaps the British took quiet satisfaction at seeing that ? )

clackers
14 Jan 08,, 14:05
It was complicated for the British, Silverstar.

It's true the French had financed the American Revolution (according to Bicheno's Rebels and Redcoats, a lump sum of four million livres in January 1777, equal to the average yearly income of 42,000 families, and two million livres annually after that), supplied the standard musket of the Continental Army, and made defeat of Lord Cornwallis possible with the only French victory over the Royal Navy since 1690. Most of the troops at Yorktown were Frogs, too ... not just the one comic relief character you see in Mel Gibson's The Patriot! :)

This had cost so much the French economy was in fact suffering, and the people were ripe for rebellion.

So the British naturally had no fondness for the royal Bourbon family, and initially stayed out of warring with the new Assembly.

But when the Assembly actually executed Louis XVI, they got alarmed ... it's dangerous for monarchies when one of their own, even an enemy, is killed by commoners ... their own population might violently review the idea that some people are born to rule, others are born to be ruled.

Britain ended up joining a coalition of monarchies in 1793 and didn't stop fighting and financing until 1815 ...

glyn
14 Jan 08,, 20:13
It was complicated for the British, Silverstar.

It's true the French had financed the American Revolution (according to Bicheno's Rebels and Redcoats, a lump sum of four million livres in January 1777, equal to the average yearly income of 42,000 families, and two million livres annually after that), supplied the standard musket of the Continental Army, and made defeat of Lord Cornwallis possible with the only French victory over the Royal Navy since 1690. Most of the troops at Yorktown were Frogs, too ... not just the one comic relief character you see in Mel Gibson's The Patriot! :)

This had cost so much the French economy was in fact suffering, and the people were ripe for rebellion.

So the British naturally had no fondness for the royal Bourbon family, and initially stayed out of warring with the new Assembly.

But when the Assembly actually executed Louis XVI, they got alarmed ... it's dangerous for monarchies when one of their own, even an enemy, is killed by commoners ... their own population might violently review the idea that some people are born to rule, others are born to be ruled.

Britain ended up joining a coalition of monarchies in 1793 and didn't stop fighting and financing until 1815 ...

No wonder the name Albion is prefixed with the word perfidious!

cato
14 Jan 08,, 22:24
Silverstar,
The late Enlightenment ideals that drove the Americans were not universialy embraced by the French. The ideals of liberty, freedom of speech, assembly, property, reasonable commerce found root most often in the nobility and upper classes, Lafyette being but one example of many(Simon Schama's "citizen nobility"). It was "anger and hunger" that motivated the revolution, from the bottom up.

After the Crown's credit collapsed, a number of remedies were attempted such as free-trade of grain and the dissolution of the guilds, the removal of venal offices, and noble (tax exemption)priviledge. None of these worked, each managed to alianate a segment of the population, and the hard winter and subsequent dearth of 1787-88 exacerbated the problem. While funding the American Revolution certainly put serious strains on the French treasury, from what I understand the continued expenditure on an expensive foreign policy (attempting to follow up the American's victory and Suffren's successes in the Indian Ocean) really removed any wiggle room the Crown may have had in terms of floating new loans in Amsterdam and Zurich. However, Louis's fate was ultimately his own, proving that "absolutism without conviction" is truly hazardous to a monarch's health. In the end the French Revolution had more in common with the Russian than American one.

Cato

silverstar
15 Jan 08,, 01:28
you can t help thinking there were hidden forces manipulating
things, and that these secret forces brought on the French Revolution
and stirred up the populace.
There were bread riots and the price of food was rising
but there were also reports of grain shipments being hijacked and the grain set on fire, so there were saboteurs at work.

But is there something in the water of Paris that makes the
Parisians so fond of rioting ?
There were anti monarchy riots in 1830
There were the riots of 1848
There was the Paris Commune in 1871 in which 40,000 plus died
as the French army took back control of the city from the Communards.
Even as late as 1968 Paris came to a standstill with rioting
but nothing as serious as the past.

Then in 2005 the paris riots (mainly in the suburbs ) with hundreds of cars and buses torched.

The words Paris and Revolution somehow seem to go together.

dave lukins
15 Jan 08,, 12:07
At the end of the day it is the French beating up the French. Some of the Leaders even met Mme Guillotine at the hands of the people they were "helping". It was a period when nobody was safe. You could be killed for not wearing the Citizens badge in your headress, or for wearing a Green coat!!:eek: Like you said it must be something in the water, maybe the should change the name of the Seine to the InSeine:))

silverstar
12 Feb 09,, 15:43
gotta say though that the French Rev really woke up a sleeping
giant, the French had a huge population back then
and were under attack by the Prussians , allied with the old
imperial powers, and yet they somehow overcame internal and external opposition and their armies had victory after victory in austria spain italy germany prussia etc
Napoleon brought about a new world order and put his relatives on the thrones of many european countries.

The invasion of Russia was a bridge too far... it was madness
if he had decided instead to consolodate his power and dominance of
Europe things might have ended up very differently...
we might all be speaking French !

pate
13 Feb 09,, 05:45
I speak a bit of French... A friend of mine said they had a eupheism for the Guilluotine, something like 'a voir la petite fenetre' or something, roughly translated as 'looking out the little window' the window being the place they put your head before lopping it off...

He also said, that for a little while, there was some justice... If there was somebody that truly deserved it, they were quietly hustled away and disposed of by the neighborhood... I got the impression that he felt it turned sour when it ceased to be individuals settling scores and became a government settling scores, then a government finding scape-goats and ultimately a government quelling opposition... Sort of ironic that it started out with a people quietly killing the symbols of what was viewed as a corrupt monarchy and descended into a corrupt democracy loudly disposing of its proclaimed 'enemies' and ultimately an Emporer (sp) cementing his hold on the people...

What sort of French would we all be speaking if Napoleon hadn't taken over, (wasn't L'academie Francais established in his time?) weren't the local dialects of Normandy and the Langedoc among others stamped out in a rather draconian fashion in favor of the Parisian french dialect? I may be wrong of course...

clackers
13 Feb 09,, 06:09
gotta say though that the French Rev really woke up a sleeping
giant, the French had a huge population back then
and were under attack by the Prussians , allied with the old
imperial powers, and yet they somehow overcame internal and external opposition and their armies had victory after victory in austria spain italy germany prussia etc
Napoleon brought about a new world order and put his relatives on the thrones of many european countries.

Well, it's a pretty complicated issue, Silverstar ... you can treat Napoleon one of two ways ... as a practical implementer of the principles of the Revolution, realizing that for stability you had to fit in with the existing royalties of Europe and recognize that the Church still had attractions for much of the Frog working class ... or as traitor to its principles, becoming Emperor and accommodating the Pope ...


The invasion of Russia was a bridge too far... it was madness if he had decided instead to consolodate his power and dominance of Europe things might have ended up very differently...
we might all be speaking French !

The war with Russia was an unwanted one, Silverstar ... Napoleon desired peace with Russia, but Alexander certainly didn't want peace with Revolutionary France ... a story repeated several times over with Britain, Prussia and Austria ...

Strompy
13 Feb 09,, 11:49
Well, it's a pretty complicated issue, Silverstar ... you can treat Napoleon one of two ways ... as a practical implementer of the principles of the Revolution, realizing that for stability you had to fit in with the existing royalties of Europe and recognize that the Church still had attractions for much of the Frog working class ... or as traitor to its principles, becoming Emperor and accommodating the Pope ...



The war with Russia was an unwanted one, Silverstar ... Napoleon desired peace with Russia, but Alexander certainly didn't want peace with Revolutionary France ... a story repeated several times over with Britain, Prussia and Austria ...


Alexander couldn't give a stuff about 'Revolutionary France'. Anyways, France was a dictatorship after 18 Brumaire. No, Napoleon invaded Russia to enforce the continental blockade, i.e. he invaded Russia to defeat Britain. Russia flaunted the blockade because trade with Britain was vital to Russia's economy.

Strompy
13 Feb 09,, 11:59
The Bastille was stormed in summer of 1789 and perhaps
that event was the first signal that the days of the
French Monarchy and aristocratic rule were numbered.


The French King had supported the revolutionaries in America
with finance and arms.
The French were taking quiet satisfaction in seeing those
upstart colonists putting the British nose out of joint.


Perhaps the French did nt realise that those revolutionary ideas
would soon cross the Atlantic and threaten their own society.

That the very same King who had given aid and comfort to the rebels would one day climb the scaffold to face the guillotine and the humiliation of a public execution.

(Perhaps the British took quiet satisfaction at seeing that ? )

The British supported the initial aims of the revolution(Britain had gone through a similar period of enlightenment in the 17th century. Glorious Revolution, 1689 Bill of Rights, etc, etc,.). The idea of a French constitutional monarchy was quite popular in Britain. It was only once that the mass murder started that opinions began to change.

Yeah, Tis kinda of ironic that French support for the Americans put the final nail in the French economy which in turn led to the revolution in France.

clackers
14 Feb 09,, 01:26
What sort of French would we all be speaking if Napoleon hadn't taken over, (wasn't L'academie Francais established in his time?) weren't the local dialects of Normandy and the Langedoc among others stamped out in a rather draconian fashion in favor of the Parisian french dialect? I may be wrong of course...

French (presumably the Parisian variety) was the ... er ... lingua franca ... of diplomacy long before Napoleon, Pate. John Quincy Adams was an excellent speaker.

In fact, European nobles like Czar Alexander spoke better French than the Corsican Ogre!

clackers
14 Feb 09,, 01:44
No, Napoleon invaded Russia to enforce the continental blockade, i.e. he invaded Russia to defeat Britain. Russia flaunted the blockade because trade with Britain was vital to Russia's economy.

As late as January 1812, Napoleon wrote to his brother saying he hadn't lost hope of a peaceful settlement. But this was wishful thinking. The single biggest reason for war breaking out was his support for a Polish state, which the Russians were never going to accept.

As Zamoyski writes in Moscow 1812, a memorandum was written explaining:

"France wanted Russia's friendship and needed her as an ally in her struggle against Britain, which was the one remaining obstacle to a general peace. She did not want to fight Russia as there was nothing she wanted to take from her. Also, she had more pressing business in Spain, which required Napoleon's personal attention"

But the Little Corporal believed the moment he went to Spain to take command of the Peninsular War, his 'ally' Alexander would turn on him as the Austrians had done in 1809, and invade the Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

pate
14 Feb 09,, 06:08
French (presumably the Parisian variety) was the ... er ... lingua franca ... of diplomacy long before Napoleon, Pate. John Quincy Adams was an excellent speaker.

In fact, European nobles like Czar Alexander spoke better French than the Corsican Ogre!


French was at one time considered the language of science as well. Anyhow since you have fallen into my trap I have a few links for you: (sorry about using wikipedia, but it does give a brief overview that can get one started digging deeper)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occitan_language


History
Further information: Occitan literature
Occitan was the vehicle for the influential poetry of the medieval troubadours. With the gradual imposition of French royal power over its territory, Occitan declined in status from the 14th century on. By the Edict of Villers-Cotterets (1539) it was decreed that the langue d'oïl (Northern French) should be used for all French administration. Occitan's greatest decline was during the French Revolution, during which diversity of language was considered a threat. The literary renaissance of late 19th century (which included a Nobel Prize for Frédéric Mistral) was attenuated by the First World War, where Occitan speakers spent extended periods of time alongside French-speaking comrades.



Quite an interesting article if you care to read it. I spent some time in south of France in my teens, and here in Missouri I worked at a French restaurant owned by a Provencal native, le chef de cuisine a Parisian, and myself (a Midwesterner by birth; transplant by family with deep roots in the bayou) as the sous chef... Anyhow, native speakers of Occitan tend to clam up and speak 'normal' French if you wander by and they are speaking their native language, at least that's how it was when I was there... They seem a bit embarrassed, I was told by the owner of the restaurant that it was a legacy from the French Revolution, and also told by the family I stayed with in S. France basically the same thing...



Overview of the L'acadamie Francais (I was wrong about Napolean instituting it, kudos to you):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise


Opposing regional languages
The Académie française interfered in June 2008 in the French Parliament discussions about regional languages (Basque, Breton, Catalan, and Corsican), when it protested against constitutional protection for them.



I see they are still at it...




A bit about the Norman dialect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_language


Geographical distribution
Norman is spoken in mainland Normandy in France where it has no official status, but is classed as a regional language.

-----

The last native speakers of Auregnais, the Norman language of Alderney, died during the 20th century, although some rememberers still exist. The dialect of Herm also lapsed, at an unknown date.



Ah, but then that wasn't REAL French was it?



Here's one that makes it all even more confusing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proven%C3%A7al_(dialect)


...In the English-speaking world, "Provençal" is often used to refer to all dialects of Occitan, but it actually refers specifically to the dialect spoken in Provence...

My head is beginning to spin, but I'm almost there, hold on!



This last one is about a place far from the Continent, but south of the town where my grandfather grew up (I think, maybe we just have family up thataway...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provencal,_Louisiana

No idea what type of French if any they speak there...



And lastly I give you Cajun: (according to the wiki-entry I qualify as a minority!!! Wow, and I thought I was American...):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun


Ethnic group of national origin
The Cajuns retain a unique dialect of the French language and numerous other cultural traits that distinguish them as an ethnic group. Cajuns were officially recognized by the U.S. government as a national ethnic group in 1980 per a discrimination lawsuit filed in federal district court. Presided over by Judge Edwin Hunter, the case, known as Roach v. Dresser Industries Valve and Instrument Division (494 F.Supp. 215, D.C. La., 1980), hinged on the issue of the Cajuns' ethnicity. Significantly, Judge Hunter held in his ruling that:

“ We conclude that plaintiff is protected by Title VII's ban on national origin discrimination. The Louisiana Acadian (Cajun) is alive and well. He is 'up front' and 'main stream.' He is not asking for any special treatment. By affording coverage under the 'national origin' clause of Title VII he is afforded no special privilege. He is given only the same protection as those with English, Spanish, French, Iranian, Portuguese, Mexican, Italian, Irish, et al., ancestors.


Wow, I just learned something too... How can I exploit this??



Anyhow, my main point was that the French Revolution did much to stamp out the vibrancy of the French Language, you don't normally learn this stuff in a 'normal' French class with a 'normal' French teacher... Needless to say, my French est horrible, mais je bien comprends... sort of...

The one thing the L'acadamie Francais does is attempt to ossify the language in the 18th siecle, at the cost of stamping out most of the regional 'French' that can still be found within its borders, ie the non-Parisian French... At least that's how I see it. The French Revolution was an awful parody of the American Revolution...

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to rant or whatever!;)

clackers
14 Feb 09,, 13:01
Anyhow, my main point was that the French Revolution did much to stamp out the vibrancy of the French Language, you don't normally learn this stuff in a 'normal' French class with a 'normal' French teacher... Needless to say, my French est horrible, mais je bien comprends... sort of...

The one thing the L'acadamie Francais does is attempt to ossify the language in the 18th siecle, at the cost of stamping out most of the regional 'French' that can still be found within its borders, ie the non-Parisian French...

But that in itself was a feature of 'modernizing' the society, Pate ... a tendency to adopt a common language throughout a country, usually the dialect of the dominant province, state or kingdom.

You don't need a formal Academy to make that happen. Just look at the countries that don't have one.

Italy's got the same issue (culturally, Venetians have had almost as close a connection to Vienna as Rome).

High German is dominant, to the point that as I understand it, Berlin is a pocket of it surrounded by Low German speakers.

English (including the sort spoken in the triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London) has won out over the centuries at the expense of the 'Gaelic' languages of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, etc.

But recent years have been encouraging. Globalization has its limits. Not everyone wants the world to end up speaking just English or Mandarin. The EU in particular wants to do what it can to preserve what is distinctive about the sort of subcultures you've talked about.

It won't be easy, but perhaps Catalan, Norman, Breton, and the other varieties you've mentioned can co-exist with the official language in some form in the future. The louder and prouder they are (ie in Canada, Quebec French vs English), the better their chances.

PS As for your French cooking, Pate, I remember reading Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential, where he writes about the difference between a dish prepared by a chef and one by us, the general public. I laughed when he put it down to the amount of butter used!

Steezy
14 Feb 09,, 18:03
But when the Assembly actually executed Louis XVI, they got alarmed ... it's dangerous for monarchies when one of their own, even an enemy, is killed by commoners ... their own population might violently review the idea that some people are born to rule, others are born to be ruled.

Britain ended up joining a coalition of monarchies in 1793 and didn't stop fighting and financing until 1815 ...

Yeah I never understood this part. Britain did the same thing to Charles I after the Civil War but as far as I know nobody made a big deal out of that one. Yet it was the restoration that somehow managed to overdo so much of the gains made in the Civil War that the country almost reverted back to absolute Monarchy it seems. How the hell those royal interbreeded Euro elite buggers managed to do that to this place I'll never know

Blackleaf
15 Feb 09,, 18:19
English (including the sort spoken in the triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London) has won out over the centuries at the expense of the 'Gaelic' languages of Ireland, Wales, Cornwall, etc.!

Cornish and Welsh are not Gaelic languges. They are Brythonic languages, belonging to the same family as Cumbric (spoken in the north of England), Breton and probably Pictish.

Blackleaf
15 Feb 09,, 18:32
Yeah I never understood this part. Britain did the same thing to Charles I after the Civil War but as far as I know nobody made a big deal out of that one. Yet it was the restoration that somehow managed to overdo so much of the gains made in the Civil War that the country almost reverted back to absolute Monarchy it seems. How the hell those royal interbreeded Euro elite buggers managed to do that to this place I'll never know

Britain never reverted back to an Absolute Monarchy.

Oliver Cromwell did NOT want to make Britain a republic, but somehow made Britain into one. However, Britain was a dictatorship during the years it was a republic (1649-1660), with the ruling Puritans banning things such as Christmas, acting, and playing football on Sundays. This bad experience is probably one reason why republicanism is not such a big movement in Britain today.

The monarchy was restored, with much celebration amongst the people, in 1660 when Charles II came to the Throne.

In 1685, Charles II died without an heir and his brother, James II, became King. James proved to be as tyrannical as his father Charles I (he was also Catholic in an overwhelmingly Protestant nation, which made him even more unpopular), and in 1689 parliament removed him from power and asked Mary II (James’ daughter) and her husband William of Orange to become King and Queen. It was at this point that Britain became a constitutional monarchy, as parliament insisted that almost all executive power, including powers over taxation, be given to parliament, leaving the monarch as a figurehead.

The final step in Britain’s move to becoming a full constitutional monarchy took place in 1721, under George I, when a single parliamentarian (Robert Walpole) became head of government in the office of First Lord of the Treasury, which later became known as “Prime Minister”.

In the 1740s, a group of mainly Scotsmen (the Jacobites) led by a wife-beating alcoholic from Italy named Bonnie Prince Charlie, tried to throw the ruling monarch (George II) off the British Throne and put Bonnie Prince Charlie on it instead. However, Bonnie Prince Charlie and the Jacobites believed in the undemocratic Divine Right of Kings (the power to rule absolutely without parliament), and wanted to rule as an Absolute Monarch, and this was a dangerous way of thinking considering the events of 100 years earlier. Thankfully, the Jacobites only managed to get as far south as Derby during their invasion of England and the Absolute Monarchy-supporting Scots were eventually defeated by British forces at Culloden in 1746.

It is a common misconception amongst Americans that George III (king during the American Revolution) was an absolute monarch – this is not the case. George III had about the same amount of power as the current monarch, although he did state his opinion more often.

Today, there is almost no call in Britain for a republic. A survey conducted by Time magazine around 2006 found that just 9% of Britons are in favour of the country becoming a republic.

clackers
15 Feb 09,, 23:04
Cornish and Welsh are not Gaelic languges. They are Brythonic languages, belonging to the same family as Cumbric (spoken in the north of England), Breton and probably Pictish.

Yes, you're quite right, Blackleaf ... in trying to come up with a simple category, I should have used 'Celtic', not 'Gaelic' ...

Kernow
16 Feb 09,, 00:24
Cornish and Welsh are not Gaelic languges. They are Brythonic languages, belonging to the same family as Cumbric (spoken in the north of England), Breton and probably Pictish.

Goidelic led to the formation of the three Gaelic languages spoken in Ireland, Man and later Scotland. Brythonic gave rise to TWO British Isles languages, Welsh and Cornish, as well as surviving on the Continent in the form of Breton, spoken in Brittany. ;)

Blackleaf
18 Feb 09,, 17:03
Goidelic led to the formation of the three Gaelic languages spoken in Ireland, Man and later Scotland. Brythonic gave rise to TWO British Isles languages, Welsh and Cornish, as well as surviving on the Continent in the form of Breton, spoken in Brittany. ;)

Brythonic also gave rise to the now extinct British Isles languages of Cumbric and Pictish.

The word "Brythonic" was derived by a Welshman, Sir John Rhys, from the Welsh word "Brython" meaning "Briton."

Some of these languages can be difficult to learn, and all the Brythonic languages have a thing known as "consonant mutation".

Just look at Welsh (spoken by 611,000 people as a native language in Wales and 133,000 as a native language in England).

The first consonant in words (usually nouns) in Welsh usually changes depending on grammatical context or when preceded by certain words.

Welsh has three mutations: the soft mutation, the nasal mutation, and the aspirate mutation, and most nouns beginning with the letters p, t, c, b ,d, g, m, ll or rh usually go through mutations. The type of mutation depends on the letter that the word begins with, and all words beginning with the same letter follow the same pattern. And sometimes these cause the words to change so differently.

If a noun begins with a letter c, the mutation is: g (soft), ngh (nasal), and ch (aspirate).

So, in Welsh, "carreg" means "stone". But "the stone" is "y garreg", "my stone" is "fy ngharreg" and "her stone" is "ei charreg."

For nouns begining with a letter g you just delete the initial letter for soft mutation, and as ng for aspirate mutation.

So "garden" is "gardd." "The garden" is "yr ardd."

But if a word begins with a letter t then the mutation follows a completely different pattern.

Welsh also has two grammatical genders: feminine and masculine.

So if you want to learn Welsh (or other Brythonic languages), then don't. Because it's quite difficult.

clackers
19 Feb 09,, 03:11
So if you want to learn Welsh (or other Brythonic languages), then don't. Because it's quite difficult.

No danger of me doing that, Blackleaf ... but if you want to be a policeman or nurse or work in the post office in Wales, aren't people required to have some level of ability in it?

ArmchairGeneral
19 Feb 09,, 17:54
PS As for your French cooking, Pate, I remember reading Anthony Bourdain's Kitchen Confidential, where he writes about the difference between a dish prepared by a chef and one by us, the general public. I laughed when he put it down to the amount of butter used!

Now that is a man after my own heart. Or at least, my stomach.

ArmchairGeneral
19 Feb 09,, 18:00
Brythonic also gave rise to the now extinct British Isles languages of Cumbric and Pictish.

The word "Brythonic" was derived by a Welshman, Sir John Rhys, from the Welsh word "Brython" meaning "Briton."

Some of these languages can be difficult to learn, and all the Brythonic languages have a thing known as "consonant mutation".

Just look at Welsh (spoken by 611,000 people as a native language in Wales and 133,000 as a native language in England).

The first consonant in words (usually nouns) in Welsh usually changes depending on grammatical context or when preceded by certain words.

Welsh has three mutations: the soft mutation, the nasal mutation, and the aspirate mutation, and most nouns beginning with the letters p, t, c, b ,d, g, m, ll or rh usually go through mutations. The type of mutation depends on the letter that the word begins with, and all words beginning with the same letter follow the same pattern. And sometimes these cause the words to change so differently.

If a noun begins with a letter c, the mutation is: g (soft), ngh (nasal), and ch (aspirate).

So, in Welsh, "carreg" means "stone". But "the stone" is "y garreg", "my stone" is "fy ngharreg" and "her stone" is "ei charreg."

For nouns begining with a letter g you just delete the initial letter for soft mutation, and as ng for aspirate mutation.

So "garden" is "gardd." "The garden" is "yr ardd."

But if a word begins with a letter t then the mutation follows a completely different pattern.

Welsh also has two grammatical genders: feminine and masculine.

So if you want to learn Welsh (or other Brythonic languages), then don't. Because it's quite difficult.

Fascinating. Doesn't sound any more difficult than Greek, though. Or English, for that matter, from what I hear.

pate
20 Feb 09,, 03:16
Clackers, Bourdain engages in hyperbole in Kitchen Confidential... He also claims to have worked at a fine restaurant where they took the table butter (the butter you used to butter your bread) left after the guest departed and melted it, strained it and used it to prepare food... A funny story to be sure... He also claimed to have worked in some famous restaurant in the WTC before it was destroyed (along with all of its employment records)...

I found his book enjoyable, sort of an insider's wish list where the chef was the hero... I've never worked in an establishment where left-overs were recycled back out to the customer... Take his stories with a grain of salt... And I urge you to try to make meringue with even a hint of butter in it (or any fat of any kind for that matter)...

Butter is actually more healthy for you than margarine... Don't get me wrong; butter is like garlic, you really can't seem to use too much of it... Mmm... Garlic-butter...

Kernow
20 Feb 09,, 03:37
Brythonic also gave rise to the now extinct British Isles languages of Cumbric and Pictish.

The word "Brythonic" was derived by a Welshman, Sir John Rhys, from the Welsh word "Brython" meaning "Briton."

Some of these languages can be difficult to learn, and all the Brythonic languages have a thing known as "consonant mutation".

Just look at Welsh (spoken by 611,000 people as a native language in Wales and 133,000 as a native language in England).

The first consonant in words (usually nouns) in Welsh usually changes depending on grammatical context or when preceded by certain words.

Welsh has three mutations: the soft mutation, the nasal mutation, and the aspirate mutation, and most nouns beginning with the letters p, t, c, b ,d, g, m, ll or rh usually go through mutations. The type of mutation depends on the letter that the word begins with, and all words beginning with the same letter follow the same pattern. And sometimes these cause the words to change so differently.

If a noun begins with a letter c, the mutation is: g (soft), ngh (nasal), and ch (aspirate).

So, in Welsh, "carreg" means "stone". But "the stone" is "y garreg", "my stone" is "fy ngharreg" and "her stone" is "ei charreg."

For nouns begining with a letter g you just delete the initial letter for soft mutation, and as ng for aspirate mutation.

So "garden" is "gardd." "The garden" is "yr ardd."

But if a word begins with a letter t then the mutation follows a completely different pattern.

Welsh also has two grammatical genders: feminine and masculine.

So if you want to learn Welsh (or other Brythonic languages), then don't. Because it's quite difficult.

I like this, it really winds you up doesn't it? :)

Cumbric was the Brythonic Celtic language, sometimes considered to be a dialect of Welsh!!!!!!!! :), spoken in the Hen Ogledd ("Old North") in what is now northern England and southern Lowland Scotland, the area anciently referred to as Cumbria. It may also have been spoken as far south as the Yorkshire Dales.

It is debated whether Cumbric should be considered a separate language or a dialect of Welsh!!!!!!!!!:). :rolleyes:

Kernow
20 Feb 09,, 03:54
Cumbric doesn't resemble Kernivek at all:
1 = Onen, 2 = Few, 3 = Try, 4 = Peswar, 5 = Pymp, 6 = Whegh, 7 = Sayth, 8 = Eth, 9 = Naw and 10 = Dek.

ArmchairGeneral
20 Feb 09,, 05:00
Don't get me wrong; butter is like garlic, you really can't seem to use too much of it... Mmm... Garlic-butter...

Please, stop...no more...:drool: :frown:

GraniteForge
20 Feb 09,, 07:32
I believe that France's crucial strategic errors were made during the War of the Austrian Succession in the 1740s.

First was their failure to restore Gibralter to their ally's (Spain) control. The second was their agreeing to the treaty provision that swapped Louisburg for Madras. Essentially, France decided to pin their future on Canada -- which they always had trouble defending -- rather than India, where they were (at the time) successfully contesting control with England.

These two errors ensured that England's star would rise, while France would fall further and further behind.

pate
21 Feb 09,, 06:08
...and southern Lowland Scotland, the area anciently referred to as Cumbria...

Now hold on, the Gaulic *(sic) spoken in Scotland cannot be compared to the Gaulic spoken in Wales. You've taken the French (Gaul) connection way too far there... Especially when you refer to "SOuthern Scotland" I suppose you refer to "Lowland Scot" I am much further removed from my Nova Scotia heritage, than I am from my Acadian heritage, but not enough to take umbrage, I also claim heritage from Clan MacFarland (McFarlane, etc) the defenders of the Scottish *(ergh SCOTS) Crown.

Heh. All this talk has gotten my dander up. The Cajun in me screams for all his cultural history stuff, but I just want to get into a brannigan... It goes back further than the French Revolution, the Gauls, or Gaels, whatever (and I am retarded, nothing in history will back me up on this) but there was an entire culture that the Romans systematically stamped out, and the French, Britishs, whoever continued it by language and custom. That drove people away from centralized government to the far edges of the world. I think today we are faced with the descendants (which I think of myself as, and hope I have some 'blood' to back it up with) of that push, there is nowhere elso to run to. There is no place left that isn't under the thrall of centralized government... Argh, I'm drunk. Mods delete at will........

clackers
21 Feb 09,, 08:13
I found his book enjoyable, sort of an insider's wish list where the chef was the hero

I'm afraid that like Gordon Ramsay I treat him as an entertainer rather than a serious chef, Pate! :)



Butter is actually more healthy for you than margarine...

Ah, you chefs, instead of doing the socially responsible thing by recommending we substitute olive or canola oil, or avoid butter based dishes altogether, you say that sort of thing! ;)

ArmchairGeneral
21 Feb 09,, 18:57
Mental health is far more important than physical health. And butter is vital to mental health. :tongue:

pate
28 Feb 09,, 06:06
I'm afraid that like Gordon Ramsay I treat him as an entertainer rather than a serious chef, Pate! :)




Ah, you chefs, instead of doing the socially responsible thing by recommending we substitute olive or canola oil, or avoid butter based dishes altogether, you say that sort of thing! ;)

Is Gordon Ramsay the asshat that has that Hell's Kitchen show? 'Cuz if he is, yeah, he's an entertainer, I don't think any even a lowly cook would put up with that guy. I'm sure he pitched that show to whatever network carries it after he got tired of trying to run a kitchen all by himself. As fake as Emeril Aggassi (however you spell that New York fake-cajun's name...)

On that note, chefs by nature are not socially responsible animals, if they were they'd be waiters or waitresses... Think about it; Fois gras (or gros), we take a goose, force feed it to death, then chop out its liver and cook it in butter, and drizzle a little healthy fruit reduction or something on top, and then feed it to our innocent victimes, er, guests... Muahaha!!:))